Search results

I'm pretty sure that's not how gravity works.

I don't claim that there are "uniformly falling floor plungers", that's your idea. The floors don't have to be falling uniformly (and we can see they're not) Nor do they have to form a perfect seal like a plunger in order to blast air out the sides. You wouldn't even need walls to seal around at...

Concrete breaks, rebar bends. A collapsing floor can be in one piece (attached by the rebar) without falling straight and level. Or it could break into pieces if the rebar breaks, or if the floors were built in sections. We don't know how the floors were falling, but we can see that it wasn't a...

Absolutely. Can you imagine that not happening? It seems incredible to me to suggest that you could drop the floor of a building onto the floor below and not blow out the windows. Rebar bends. A reinforced floor doesn't have to fall in one perfectly straight horizontal piece. In fact it would...

The sea-level horizon is always below the astronomical horizon, yes. And of course, if you define eye level as the horizon then the horizon will always be at eye level. But the higher you get, the more you will have to look down (relative to the astronomical horizon) for your eyeline to be at...

Watch again, paying attention to the timing of the collpase from different angles. The puffs from the windows are clearly after the roof has started falling downwards, indicating that the internal collapse has begun. The angle from 1:41 is the clearest at showing this. I don't know, maybe a...

Even the most cursory watch of the video shows that the floors didn't fall straight down in one piece, one by one, as you seem to imagine. It's so asymmetrical that the whole thing eventually topples over at an angle: Can you really not see how pieces of floors falling at different...

Why on earth would you expect a building collapsing to do so perfectly uniformly and symmetrically? I would have thought that a perfect sequence of explosions would be the hallmark of a controlled demolition, not a chaotic collapse due to fire. My question to them would be why, if this was a...

That doesn't follow. The height of the horizon above the straight line to the base of the object doesn't increase linearly with the distance to the horizon, because the sea surface is a curve.

Well, I would say that when you are standing at the sea looking out to the horizon, your eye naturally rests on the horizon, so your "eye level" is actually the "true horizon" direction on your diagram. If you are looking towards an object that is obscured by the horizon, then your brain might...

Just the visual impression - it looks like you are looking over a hill. I also agree that having visible waves helps, as the decreasing size of the waves into the distance helps to add a sense of depth and "three-dimensionality" to the sea. For this reason the best photos to show the effect are...

I still think it looks like a hump of water. The effect seems to be more pronounced in videos than in still photos, though.

So presumably this partially hidden column: is the one actually being removed here? It looks as if the cut on that column was lower than on the angle-cut one we are talking about, which fits the positioning. That one seems to have been cut more straight across, though.

Well, kind of. It depends on how you're defining "higher". We measure altitude relative to sea level, so in that sense the sea isn't higher than where he's standing. But if you draw a line from his eye to the base of the lighthouse, then yes, the sea is higher than that line. It's not exactly...

1) It can't, of course. People not familiar with image analysis often ascribe near magical properties to Photoshop. All that Photoshop can do is look at the properties of the digital image, which is a scan of the photographic film positive taken by the original camera. There's no hidden...

Yes, the bent bit of crossbeam at the upper right is the giveaway, and the fact that it still seems to be attached (or nearly so) at the base). It doesn't make any difference to the debunking, though, as the "before" image shows that it was attached to the column in question by the crossbeam...

Isn't that (the column falling to the ground) actually the column immediately to the right of the famous one? Not that it makes any difference as they were clearly still joined together shortly beforehand!

What does that prove? Unless the building fell absolutely symmetrically then the pressure build-up would not be the same on all four faces.

Explained in the very first post of this thread. In the 9/11 controlled demolition mythology, a core piece of "evidence" has been "squibs" - small ejections of debris that occurred several floors below the collapse of the exterior. The cause of these has long been obvious - the interior...

Quite a famous one, just sneaking in before 1995: the cover of the Oasis single Whatever, released in December 1994: The photograph was taken in Derbyshire by Michael Spencer Jones: The original plan was to shoot the sleeve in the vast open spaces of the Arizona desert. Noel had wanted a...