It is far from clear that an explanation without explosives is possible at all, much less more credible than with an explosion - which we have seen cause building collapses thousands of times.Hannibal wrote:They are not on equal footing IF (a big IF) a story minus the demolition charges IS just as credible. Exactly the reason I've asked if there is any positive evidence for demolition on offer; if there is not, then it just becomes a counting game...how many experts line up on each side of the issue. As I said, I don't have an opinion on this issue yet....I've not read nearly enough. But unless a critical mass of expert opinion develops around the explanatory necessity of DA BOMB, we will be picking gnat shit out of pepper until the stars burn out.
If you read just a part of this, you will see my point:
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
It contains a lot of rhetoric, but from all I've read so far the general evidence and facts referenced are sourced and credible - most of them come from the NIST studies or from Thomas Eager himself - the MIT professor who supports the official story.
The problem is that the facts themselves don't get through the rhetorical mudslinging that Geebs was so kind to point out above.
edit: replaced 'all' with 'all I've read so far.' It was just an example for reference and I skimmed a few pages of it.