On 15/09/2006, at 11:52 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Charlie,
You've turned the whole thing in it's head. Your asking me to
prove support for your position that the official story, du jour,
holds true.
No, I'm asking you for evidence to support your claim that it doesn't.
"The point we are all scratching our heads over is how they didn't
topple off to one side. None of these buildings {though WTC7 was a
shorter one} acted as any other building has. Ever."
That's what you said. Back it up with evidence of other buildings of
the same type acting differently, and I'll go "Hmm. Interesting" and
we have a conversation about why. As it is, you're making an
unsubstantiated assertion, and asking others to disprove it. No,
that's not how science works.
"Where's your examples that prove your assumptions?"
I don't have assumptions. I'm just reasonably happy that the
explanations I've heard fit the evidence I've seen. If you're
challenging those, then you provide evidence to support that. As I said:
"Good assertion. So let's see the evidence. Show us please a case
study of a building collapse *of this construction type* that has
toppled further than half its width in a progressive collapse. If you
can show us one that has acted another way, then we have a comparison
line."
I'm not dismissing you and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm
interested in your view. But I need you to back up your assertion
with a bit of evidence. It's a simple request.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
