Kevin M. West

Duane, he linked to a specific page in the middle of that presentation, I told him why the claims beginning on that page are incorrect. Do you really want me to go through the entire presentation and do the same? Whenever I do that to something you post, you complain that I am picking apart every minor detail.

I'm not defending anything, I'm telling you why you are wrong. There's a difference.

Sorry Peter, I only got past 3 or 4 slides before I was rolling on the floor laughing. This guy doesn't even know the difference between stainless steel and structural steel. Stainless has chromium to inhibit corrosion. Structural steel usually has manganese to increase tensile strength. Little Chromium and abundant manganese is exactly what some who knew what the hell they are talking about would expect to find in structural steel.

The shadow only looks like it's to his left because it's on a slope, bending it downward in the image.

Right click the image, choose properties. Here's one from your photobucket account Duane. Note that there is absolutely no smoke visible coming from the roof of WTC6.

I've read Aulis, it's a bunch of garbage that would only fool someone who knows nothing about apollo, space flight, and photography. Hrmm, who does that remind me of?

It's amazing how desperately Jack is trying to cling to this wtc6 explosion story even after it's been torn to shreds. Even other CTs say it's bogus. But Jack will do anything to dismiss the evidence. Jack, notice how the street and the roof of the building near the bottom center of the image are similar brightness levels. Are they fake too, or could it just be that the sun is in the right position at 10am (southeast in the sky) to reflect off all of those flat, level surfaces in the direction of the camera (northwest of the WTC).

Must have been running low on testimonials, you included your own, and 2 of them from the same guy.

The astronaut was not sideways to the light source, he was facing it. Whit the light head-on, the shadow will not bend along with the leg.

I said AFTER WTC2 COLLAPSED, not after both towers. WTC2 collapsed, WTC6 roof fully intact. That damage to WTC6 didn't happen until WTC1 collapsed 84 minutes after than Jack claims it exploded. I rest my case.

No Duane, the only stupidity here is from the people who believe Jack's lies. You know as well as I do that there is NO video of any explosion or giant dust cloud from WTC6 at 9:04 because it NEVER HAPPENED. Every news station in the area (and several international) had LIVE video at 9:04, and there was no explosion recored. There were tens of thousands of eyewitnesses, and there is no testimony. Len has even proven that the dust cloud in question is above WTC5 not WTC6. And photos taken AFTER WTC2 COLLAPSED still show the roof of WTC6 intact.

NONE ... REALLY !!! ( Posted for Jack in reply to this type of denial nonsense ) Oh boy, do I win a prize?

The images in jack's study are from a few seconds AFTER the above image, after the debris hit the ground, the dust cloud started spreading horizontally, and it hit the inside corner of wtc5 and was funneled upwards. Jack: If you want to be taken seriously, keep notes of your sources when you use them for your 'studies'

I disagree with the 'most dramatic' part, that would have been if the towers fell the way truthers expect, by tipping over like a tree. It's not that 'inside job' is hard to accept, it's that all of the methods suggested don't make sense and none of the evidence supports any of the wild theories that truthers come up with.

Ah finally, the source of Jack's images.... an animated gif on a CT site. That explains the low quality, short duration, and Jack's unwillingness to show us his source.

Can you cite a single example of it being used by anyone outside of geology (other than CT's talking about WTC).

Indeed, and in an image I posted a few pages back, you can see that the cloud rising in Jack's image is mearly the highest point of the dust cloud rising in the whole area from the wtc2 collapse. Same scene, different angle. From the direction that Jack's picture was taken, the dust circled in blue would be hidden behind WFC3, while the dust circled in red would be hidden behind WTC7, leaving only Jack's supposed WTC6 explosion visible. If Jack would show the video he took his image from, I am willing to bet cash that it would show the collapse of WTC2 immediately before the frames he captured, and clear sky where WTC2 was immediately after the frames he captured. He cherrypicked those images, that is why he won't share the video. I'll go quite a bit further, I think Jack just cribbed the entire thing from someone else. Not his original work. He can't show you the video he took the still from because I don't believe he even took it from a video at all. I have all frames from the brief video clip. Your "belief" is irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Jack Your 'study' only shows 6 frames. That's less than 1/4 second of video. You claim that CNN actually broadcast a clip that was only 1/4 of a second?

Huh? I have read extensively about PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS of pulverized concrete (on the internet). They are caused by heat (pyro) from explosives which causes the concrete to become clastic (broken into fine particles). What is seen in photos of the WTC collapse are dustclouds typical of controlled demolition where explosives are used. Such dustclouds have a scientific name: PRYOCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS. A building falling WITHOUT explosives does not form such clouds, but falls IN RECOGNIZABLE PIECES. The HEAT of an explosive source turns EVERYTHING subjected to the explosive heat into pyroclastic particles. This observation has led experienced pros to say the towers were destroyed by explosives. Kerosene fires burn things, but do not turn things to dust. PYROCLASTIC is not a word I made up. It is used by scientists who have written about the WTC dustclouds. By all means give us your definition of pyroclastic. Jack I think you have a typo there, you said scientists when you meant conspiracy theorists. I know you didn't make up the word, you're just misusing it. A pyroclastic cloud is composed of pulverized ROCK (not concrete and drywall) and superheated gasses. If that dust cloud was pyroclastic, every person on the ground would have been cooked alive, every surrounding building would have been set ablaze, and there would have been no survivors in the stairwell of WTC2. In reality, that dust cloud was not hot, and was simply the result of the pulverization of drywall, glass, and concrete in the towers as they fell mixed with the huge volume of air displaced. The dust generated in a CD is not the result of explosives. In CD, they don't powder the building, they cut columns. The dust is generated by the gravitational collapse that ensues after the explosives remove the supports. Seriously, go talk to a demo expert, they don't just blow up buildings, their goal is to let gravity do most of the work.

Indeed, and in an image I posted a few pages back, you can see that the cloud rising in Jack's image is mearly the highest point of the dust cloud rising in the whole area from the wtc2 collapse. Same scene, different angle. From the direction that Jack's picture was taken, the dust circled in blue would be hidden behind WFC3, while the dust circled in red would be hidden behind WTC7, leaving only Jack's supposed WTC6 explosion visible. If Jack would show the video he took his image from, I am willing to bet cash that it would show the collapse of WTC2 immediately before the frames he captured, and clear sky where WTC2 was immediately after the frames he captured. He cherrypicked those images, that is why he won't share the video.

Also, add pyroclastic to the list of words Jack doesn't understand.

None? Really?

That last article has quite a few blatent lies in it. Here are a couple:

Maybe I should have been more clear for Duane. I wanted evidence of the massive explosion, not of the evacuation. Nobody is disputing that the surrounding buildings were evacuated. Duane, the very first paragraph you pasted: This does not support Jack's claims that it happened while the towers were both standing. Nor does an explosion 'in the lobby' come close to describing the giant bomb that Jack proposes vaporized a crater in the building. None of the crap you pasted offers any evidence of the claims that Jack is making, there is no eyewitness testimony, video, or photographic evidence of the destruction of wtc6 an hour before any of the buildings collapsed.

Why not? Do you think that building was designed to hold a couple thousand extra tons dropped onto the roof? Please provide some evidence of this made up claim.

I think it's more suggestive of a large mass falling on it from above and causing a collapse. In fact, you can still see that mass piled all over the building and in the bottom of that hole. Those toothpick looking beams covering the whole area weigh dozens of tons a piece.