reply to post by RFBurns
I would like to see some hard evidence out of the massive investiagions and studies done that clearly, without a doubt, prove, not just
speculate or postulate, but PROVE there were bombs, missiles, holographs, or all this other far fledged stores are true.
Would you mind specifying what hard evidence would constitute proof of the presence of bombs or of the explosions of bombs at the WTC on 9/11?
We in the public have watched a lot of the broadcast footage from the news media which went out on the day. There are numerous accounts of people
hearing explosions. There were statements about the discovery of "secondary devices", suspicions of firemen regarding bombs planted in the building,
etc. There is an account of an explosion in the lower levels of one of the towers, prior to the impact of the airplane above.
Most members of the public conclude from this that there is a very high probability
that bombs were planted in the building.
From time to time someone (hailing from the state of Missouri, I presume, "Me ya gotta show.") comes along demanding "hard" proof. You have to
keep in mind that the Bush administration didn't want an investigation of 9/11 at all.
The investigation they eventually did conduct was
widely regarded as a sham and a shambles.
The only "hard proof" I can think of that would satisfy a classic "Doubting Thomas" type that there were bombs in the building would be the
capture, intact, of a bomb from the building. There were references to secondary devices and a secondary device may well have been located, but good
luck ever getting to see it on display.
The day after 9/11, people who referred to bombs, secondary devices and explosions, in the media and in supervisory positions in the fire department
suddenly dummied up and never mentioned those things again.
It's obvious (to me) what was going on. You will never get your hard proof out of the current administration or likely out of the next one. Until
then you will have to use your intelligence, evaluate the evidence we do have and think like a member of a jury. The phrase "preponderance of
evidence" becomes important.
Hard evidence of the kind you are referring to would take an investigation of the kind we haven't had yet from the US Government.
[edit on 26-12-2008 by ipsedixit]