This part deals with a cut & paste post dealing with his claim of either:
- Visual Analysis is only needed
- It looked like an explosion
The following pictures are the ones that he posts, in reality they are in varying states of appearance (for some reason he thinks that the Myspace forum is pure BB code, even though it supports HTML):
As you can see from these pictures he is claiming "the collapse of the WTC looks like an explosion, look at this picture along with these explosions and you will see that the collapse of the towers were, in fact, an explosion."
Unfortunately when you look at reality this does not seem to be the case.
Do you remember this picture from the last post on this subject?
This picture was created because of this very series of claims.
Also take a look at this after reading this post.
What we are seeing here is a problem in the thinking of Christophera. Photos can be a reliable way of ensuring that an event can be remembered very clearly.
However they do have limitations. The photo captures an event at a specific period of time, in the case of 9/11 the collapse of the towers.
Because of this you will get pictures that when static look like something that they aren't. The reality of the incident may be completely different to the photo in question, or may be a part of a bigger picture.
Unlike, a posed photo, photos of 9/11 are more like taking photos of a birthday party. Each photo tells a small part of a bigger story.
Amanzafar has an excellent set of photos from 9/11. (Although it is somewhat sad to note that there are CTists out there who use them as "evidence" for their claims.)
The collapse of the towers is one of those events where it looked like an explosion but it wasn't.
Take a look at these pyroclastic flows:
These photos are of various eruptions. The USGS one is from Mt. St. Helens (US), the one below it is from St. Augustine (Alaska, US), the one to the top right is from somewhere while the bottom right is from Mayon Volcano in the Philippines.
Compare these pictures to the quarry blasts, or the picture of the tower. They do look kind of similar don't they?
Logically we can say that based on the picture the tower looked like an explosion, in the same way we can say that these pictures of pyroclastic flows look like explosions if we didn't know what a pyroclastic flow is.
It is grossly incorrect to claim that "only visual analysis is needed" or draw the conclusion that "the towers looked like an explosion therefore they were blown up".
The "Mt. St. Helens was an inside job" photo uses the same logic as Christophera used, since the pyroclastic flow looked like an explosion it must mean that explosives were used and only the government could have done it.
It is quite clear that the Mt. St. Helens picture makes an absurd claim, but it is no more absurd then the one Christophera makes.