Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That statement is patently false. Maybe in your mind and in your opinion there's enough pieces to rule out explosives, but the reality is that is completely false and inaccurate.
You are right, the statement is patently false, so let me rephrase it:
There are enough pieces for anyone that maters (experts on the subect) to rule out thermite or explosives.
This indeed does not include anonymous people on internet fora that have next no expertise or knowledge on the subject. They are indeed often missing a couple of essential pieces.
Evidence doesn't consist of only the physical kind. Evidence also consists of audio/video recordings and witness testimony. We don't need the physical pieces of explosives to prove there were explosives. There are enough videos and witness testimony to prove explosives were used at the WTC.
This is patently false. Explosions in no way mean explosives were used. You have been told this before, and you choose to ignore this essential piece of information. That is why you come to this faulty conclusion.
Quick example: Building in delft that collapsed due to fire. An explosion so big occurred that windows of surrounding buildings broke. According to your flawed line of reasoning, explosives were used. Do you really believe this? Or do you choose to use the fallacy "special pleading?
Numerous witness saw flashes with popping sounds on the lower floors of the towers while the buildings were collapsing up above. Numerous witnesses saw, heard, and felt explosions. Numerous witnesses heard timed booms as both towers collapsed.
You can hear explosions in video from almost two miles away. And you can see some of those explosions in the form of isolated ejections:
Anyone can sit in their armchair all day long and attempt to explain those isolated ejections away as mere puffs of air from floors compressing together. But anyone who knows how the floors were constructed will immediately know that it's not possible for something like that to happen.
However, I can show image after image of isolated ejections from controlled demolitions all day long. One can hypothesize on what the isolated ejections are caused by, but when explosions and flashes are present, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated at the WTC, just as isolated ejections are from explosives being detonated in controlled demolitions.
So, no, there aren't anywhere near enough pieces to rule out explosives. In fact, every single piece of evidence indicates that explosives are the only explanation.
All this is based on your flawed line of reasoning so is worthless.