Obviously. For me: No evidence of explosives means no explosives. For you: "It doesn't look right" means "there must have been bombs!"
who tested for explosives? & when? Also the "doesn't look right" includes the feature of complete destruction of the twin towers & 7 pulverization of mass quantities of material, and reports of explosions on site. what more do you need?
The FBI in the weeks and months following the attack.. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/ten-years-after-the-fbi-since-9-11/by-the-numbers I need actual evidence of explosives: bautrauma, det cord, residue ...
The destruction was not 'complete' in the sense you imply. Remember: people in the stairways survived the collapse.
weeks & months after the attack, but nothing said about samples collected on the day, also you can have explosives without "det-cord".
The evidence of explosives wouldn't simply go away. How would you ignite the explosives without det-cord? Sources, please.
Radio control devices are one way to detonate the explosives without the need for stringing miles of det-cord also on the subject of looking for explosives, after the evidence had been all loaded into trucks & taken to a land fill, what mode of sample taking was used? did it rain between 9/11/2001 and whenever the samples were taken? Too many variables and it amounts to evidence spoliation.
Read the link I provided. The FBI took samples at the scene. Rain would not have washed away evidence of explosives, even if it rained. Radio controlled demolition without det cord ... In NYC? That's hilarious.
'Radio control' devices,in one of the most RF saturated cities on earth? And det cord is an explosive itself,so it's effects wouldn't just 'wash off.. It's safer for the demolitions people to use a 'nail board' to set off sequential explosives
There was a time when you could drive down any random residential street and key your CB radio and open up a bunch of garage doors. however technology has moved on, and things are much more sophisticated. how is it that any given cell phone can receive its calls, and only its calls in the most RF saturated city on earth?
You're stretching. You have no evidence, so you are pulling out wild speculation. This is why the TM stagnated years ago.
a cartoon as a rebuttal .... oh my .... is there any real evidence that radio control could not have been used as the means of sequential detonation? what do you have?
at your continiued ignorance...the very examples you gave is why RF detonators would not have been used
anyhow, given the observed result, that is the destruction of the towers & 7 in such a short time & in the manner that it did indeed happen, How could anybody conclude that it just happened like that without any sort of planning & preparation for the complete destruction of a building? Controlled Demolition & the actual result thereof, doesn't just happen it has to be set up. that means that somebody planned in advance for the towers & 7 to be destroyed in exactly the manner observed.
Oh there was planning and preparation......from the 19 hijackers And there was NOTHING controlled about the collapses,even building 7.
The "collapse" of all three buildings was clearly the work of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Just because you can't see it ....... oh well .....
I doubt demolition can be construed that way. Amazing how those interior VERTICAL steel columns simply yielded and disappeared without some form of assistance.
