You're not answering the point about how government could admit the satellite caught Navy vessels but "failed" to catch a missile launch with its high-tech equipment?
Handwaving. You have not shown that any such equipment was deployed as you say, although you were asked for a citation. You wrongly assume that Keyhole satellites can detect small missile launches.
Your layman's suppositions and assumptions are not a sufficient basis from which to judge validity. Nor is casting doubt on some other story sufficient to establish your claim as true.
The structure shaking was adequately witnessed by 3 separate people.
No. There are second-hand accounts of people who report that others felt a concussion -- which they most likely felt directly, not transmitted through or by structures. You have insisted that the structures in or on which they were positioned were what allegedly shook. You have attempted to extrapolate from these second-hand subjective accounts that a tremendous amount of energy was released (or, alternatively, that some sort of resonance occurred), and therefore that only a high-order ordnance detonation could have occurred.
Unfortunately you are unwilling to discuss the physical impossibility of such a scenario, such as would ordinarily have to occur in order to accept witness testimony on this point as literally valid. You are unwilling to discuss the problems with eyewitness testimony.
Two people is usually enough for a legal witnessing.
Legal witnessing precludes hearsay, which is all you have. None of your eyewitness testimony would be admissible in court because you have no statements from the actual witnesses: only accounts by others of statements they say they heard the witnesses recount.
So we can just dismiss the noise-making by deniers and therefore reasonably conclude...
Do not foist your conclusion. You are unable to answer the challenges to your assertions, so "we" will conclude nothing of the kind.
...that a fuel explosion cannot shake structures at 10 miles distance, so therefore we have sound scientific proof of a missile explosion as witnessed...
No. You're still just leaping to the desired conclusion from nothing more than a tenuous rejection of a straw man. You're not a scientist, so your lay opinion of what constitutes scientific proof is irrelevant.
It is stipulated that a fuel-air explosion could not shake a robust structure from a distance of 10 miles. But it is further proven that a missile warhead detonation could not do so either. You have utterly failed to comprehend that the same argument by which you purport to rule out a fuel-air deflagration also rules out a missile detonation.
A missile detonation does not explain "bridge shaking" either, so your missile claim is as easily dismissed by
your line of reasoning as is the fuel-air claim. You want your interpretation of the eyewitness testimony to trump everything else. Unfortunately in a real-world investigation it can do no such thing.
