
posted by tezzajw
Your proposition: If explosives were present and hurled 4 ton sections, then they must have been large.
Your proof: No large explosions were observed.
posted by Pilgrum
You're taking a roundabout route to arrive somewhere close to what I was saying in terms of the OP's 'Evidence of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections' - there really is nothing to support that. We have good evidence of 'hurling' and that's about it, the rest is conjecture.
There *could* have been things exploding in there - it commonly happens in large fires after all but if the building was in a sufficiently weakened state to succumb to explosions weak enough to essentially escape detection (externally) we have to remain open to the possibility it could also have failed without them.
DEMOLITION -

Then what are these 'things' which are merely conjecture? What 'things', which you claim are no large explosions observed and which are loud enough to be heard clearly far across the river miles away BEFORE the tower demolition, could these be?
What happened here? Did the 9-11 perpetrators and coverup artists neglect to CENSOR the sound out of this video?
At 9 seconds, a huge explosion heard from across the river, another at 13 seconds, and at 19 seconds, and more during the collapse. The antenna starts to drop at 16 seconds as the core structure is shattered.
What is that huge explosion at 9 seconds pseudoskeptics and defenders of the status quo?
DEMOLITION -

[edit on 11/3/08 by SPreston]



- - - 



