Agreed about the story telling aspect.HonestlyNow wrote:I'll tell you what I've concluded. I've concluded that the images and moving images (videos) are all for the sake of telling a story...."
Even an altered piece of evidence is still evidence. In other words.... if one were to make a video of someone dropping a billiard ball from a height of 15 feet through air at sea level and then add a soundtrack of John Denver singing Rocky Mountain High along perhaps with an animation of Mickey Mouse dancing on the billiard ball as it descended it wouldn't negate in any way the evidentiary value of the observed rate of descent at which the billiard ball was seen to fall when it comes to difinitively concluding what condition existed beneath it as it did. So, even though the video would clearly be a fake in the sense that Mickey Mouse was not really dancing to Rocky Mountain High on the billiard ball as it descended, it's still rock solid evidence in the sense that the observed rate of acceleration of the obviously genuine billiard ball seen being dropped from a height of 15 feet through air at sea level in the video (with or without Mickey Mouse dancing to Rocky Mountain High) fully corresponds to the empirically expected behaviour of a free falling object under the exceptionless condition required for that rate of descent to be observed.HonestlyNow wrote:....and not actual evidence of an event.
Again, I agree with the obvious story telling aspect of the whole thing, but disagree that the mechanism of the observed emprically verifiable behaviour of the "props", particularly WTC7, is "not actual evidence of an event" or that what actually happened is "unknown" or can't be known.... it's very well known.HonestlyNow wrote:If the moving images (videos) are simply story-telling props, what actually happened is unknown to me.
I know that WTC7 free fell because....HonestlyNow wrote:How do you know that WTC7 free fell?
....independent researchers (perhaps most notably David Chandler) have observed and repeatedly empirically verified that a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit occurred during its destruction.
....the NIST (albeit reluctantly) confirmed that a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit occurred during its destruction.
....nowhere in the meantime (almost 15 years) has any empirically verifiable refutation of or objection to the aforementioned long standing scientific consensus that to date continues to exist between the NIST and independent researchers has been offered by any reputable academic institution, government agency, reputable independent academic or other independent researcher that would tend to dissolve or even weaken it (open to correction of course if anyone would care to post a link).
So to sum up.... in view of the above outlined well known ongoing broad scientific consensus that continues to exist that empirically concludes that the upper part of the building verifiably underwent a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration as a single unit, and pending the emergence of some more plausible empirically verifiable observation the analysis and conclusion of which would tend to supercede the currently accepted conclusion, or the emergence of some sort of evidence showing manipulation of the video either digitally or by speeding it up or slowing it down to imitate the period in question....
....I know (in the empirically verifiable sense of the word) it free fell.