posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:35 PM
In the pursuit of truth in the matter of 911, there is a lot of emotion. I understand that this, but i think you would have to be emotionally involved
to think there were no explosions & or bombs that day. The reason being is that it had already happened once, and there is no evidence a bomb did not
go off. I realize that this implies that we assume the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, but sometimes it just is. look around you,
where you sit. Did a bomb just go off? Grown ups who think rationally understand this.
Now, I admit, there could be some other kind of disaster that made it look like a bomb went off. Upon any kind of examination of the evidence,
the conclusion is readily drawn that there were indeed explosions that day that were not airplanes exploding. There are many witnesses and video
The problem I see with this scenario is that people automatically associate explosions with bombs. If you want to debunk "bombs" you debunk
explosions. If there are people who say that there were explosions, there are explosions caught on video, and evidence of explosions on video, and you
deny it, what can i say? theres no telling you. It reminds me of our good friend John Titor (aka Larry Haber). The 2008 olympics happened, and people
still believe his story.
We can (and have) prove(n) that there were explosions. to deny this is absurd. the debate amongst rational people is over. you may choose to debate if
the explosions were from planted charges or bombs or not and still be in the rational pool of thought.