posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:10 PM
I think these youtubes bring good evidence...... so why do they have to slant things right from the start? The first one starts of with a written
overlay that states that firefighters and others reported "explosives". No, they didn't. They reported hearing "explosions". You may or
may not think this is mincing words, but I have to wonder why someone has to slant or spin the information if the crux of the information is factual?
Otherwise, one lateral spray of explosive debris I could easily discount. Three seems awfully suspicious to me, and I think it's good evidence of
shaped charges. I am, nor have I ever been, a demolitions expert. I have talked with an associates of mine who is, and I asked him to review
similar videos. To my surprise, he already had. He thought some looked "controlled", but also added that he's seen compression between floors
that looked hinky too.
I think you're on the right track. I wish people compiling the youtubes and other videos would leave their spin and hyperbole out of the things,
and let it speak for itself. It's really all too easy for the average person to pick up on an inconsistency and reject the whole.