The Implosion World paper

[FactCheck]

"The visual records show that in both Towers, structures were shattered well above the crash zones before they moved downward into structures below the crash zones."

I don't understand what he is trying to say here. Even when I watched his video it seemed to only further support Blanchard.

Sometimes Hoffman comes up with some really bad stuff. Although this isn't half as bad as trying to explain bowed columns by "Refracted Light".

Check it out.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#bowed

Hell, I debunked that a long time ago...

Other conspiracy theorists say it's an optical illusion created by heat. But it would be impossible for this illusion (Heat/Light refraction) to happen only to one side of the building even when that side of the building cooled. Light refraction changes with the position of the person looking at it. So no two cameras would have shown the same degree of bowing. Here conspiracy theorists seem to want it both ways: they want to say light refracted due to the heat, yet they also say the fires were almost out toward the end when the bow was greatest. They need to have it both ways but they can't.

This illusion also happens to be where the collapse started.

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/light/rayOptics/refraction/refraction1.html

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

 

[Dave Rogers]

I did some calculations here:

http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=112423&mesg_id=113003

It seems that refraction from hot air could account for no more than about one tenth on an inch of apparent bowing of the exterior walls of the WTC towers. Observed deflections were up to three feet plus or minus 6 inches.

Looks reasonable to me - three and a half orders of magnitude wrong is fairly typical for the truth movement. I just wondered if any truther had actually tried to put some numbers to this theory. Maybe they did, then decided not to publish them.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hell, I debunked that a long time ago...

Other conspiracy theorists say it's an optical illusion created by heat. But it would be impossible for this illusion (Heat/Light refraction) to happen only to one side of the building even when that side of the building cooled. Light refraction changes with the position of the person looking at it. So no two cameras would have shown the same degree of bowing. Here conspiracy theorists seem to want it both ways: they want to say light refracted due to the heat, yet they also say the fires were almost out toward the end when the bow was greatest. They need to have it both ways but they can't.

This illusion also happens to be where the collapse started.

(URLs snipped due to junior poster status)

Wait, wait... there's a CT that I missed. Some fantasist honestly tried to explain the bowing by claiming it's an optical illusion??

What the (*deleted for the sake of the children*) kind of explanation is that??!! You have an optical illusion describing an event witnessed by hundreds, if not thousands of people on site in person, which was incorrectly reported ahead of time by the British Broadcasting Corporation, caused by either holograms or military aircraft with the passengers of the flights used as alibi hidden away somewhere while their relatives are left to think of them as dead, in the middle of a fatal and terrible collapse of a building brought about by the installation of explosives of which residue was only identified by one person and detonated in a way to appear "exactly like controlled demolition" to some people and "not like standard demolition" to others like Hoffman all planned ahead of time by shadowy conspirators in some Bohemian Grove in a ceremony witnessed only by Alex Jones and his camera man all for the sake of having an excuse to declare a war on a country not implicated in the attacks all for the sake of control of oil and having an excuse to pass extra wiretapping and surveillance laws?

WHEN THE HELL DOES OCCAM'S RAZOR KICK IN FOR THESE PEOPLE???!!!!!!!