So eloquently put Profanz. This issue has been discussed endlessly in these forums but I guess its worth starting a whole new discussion on them, since people reading this will have forgotten the other 122 threads in this forum that have discussed explosives or they may not be aware of the papers and articles on this issue that try and comprehensively evaluate both sides of the argument.
I cannot agree with Trutherslie that exploding perfume bottles brought down the twin towers. Our evidence is much stronger than that:
He didn't say that. HE says that in fire, bottles can burst, making an explosive noise.
1. We have the evidence from the firemen that mentioned explosions. Unfortunately they are too afraid of authority or of being ridiculed by their fellow firemen to support our petition.
There is no firemen that describes a noise consistent with man-made demolition. None. Zip. Nada. "Consistent " would be loudness, timing and brisance. None.
2. We even have a few firemen who mentioned flashes, but unfortunately there were no photographs of these flashes. So they presumably occured deep in the building since most of the windows were filmed and photographed.
Here are some flash explosions of the type that likely happened at WTC. Man-made demolition had nothing to do with them.
Con Edison power transformer explosion.
Transformer explosion - not as visually dramatic but you can hear the gunshot-like burts.
3. Then there is the missing sound of the explosions. But I like your idea that the explosions were deep in the building. I guess the drywall kept in the noise.
The 1993 bombing, 1,000 pounds of TNT, wasn't large enough to do any structural damage yet it was heard all over the 24 acre plaza and adjoing streets and up and down both towers.
The truck bomb was parked in the parking lot which was 6 floors deep. That beats you "sheetrock" fantasy.
4. But what about that big explosion at the start of the collapse.
What "big explosion at the start of the collapse" ? Please show us all the video that captured the sound of this explosion.
I particularly like our slide that says "Does this look like a gravitational collapse"? Well of course it looks like an almighty explosion to me. Its not that difficult to believe that a very large and quiet explosive device survived the impact and also survived the fires before it was detonated. So we were either very lucky that the explosives were located at the impact level or you need to put some credibilty in the radio controlled plane theory. It would have been really obvious and embarrassing if the plane hit the tower lower down and the collapse started 20 floors above.
5. And then we have all these squibs. Flashless explosions during the collapse sequence.
Compressed air blowing smoke out of windows. A real blasting charge would blow all the windows out of the side of the building.
This might even be a new form of explosives developed by the military. But what strange patterns they laid them in... and how did the explosives just blow out a single window in some cases and a whole wall in others. I guess it was just to throw us of the scent.
Pointless conjecture.
With all this evidence its not surprising that it takes a visionary like Richard Gage to see how these are all connected.
Your honor, the prosecurtion has presented no evidence in support of the claims.
