But it still doesn't fit the story for many reasons. For one, you folks have always concluded that explosions demonstrated the fact that they were used. So much for that.
I noticed that you switched to using the word "bombs" which brings up another point about explosions. A WWII bomb or similar, is meant to be both a concussive device and a shrapnel thrower, if you will. But modern explosive charges used in demos are shaped charges. The explosion sound is quite different. Sort of muffled. Because the idea of shaped charges (even thermite ones) is to focus the "explosion" in one single direction (or the reaction, in the case of thermite).
I'm not even certain as to exactly why you folks are so focused on thermite? What difference would it have made if regular charges were used, for example? They would have been far more powerful.
I doubt whatever caused the explosions were explosive devices. I also doubt that layman (myself included) could have actually identified the muffled sound of a shaped charge exploding especially amidst all of the chaos. Like I said, even buckling metal makes quite a pop. Not only that, but it fits logically. One would assume buckling metal in the moment before collapse, yes?
The other thing is that the technology for thermite devices was not up to the task at that time. You and Liberty could have read all about it, but didn't. As a matter of fact, we are just now getting there. I believe that there is now a prototype, but it is not widely available in the field, as it were, as yet.
Again, one could have already read these things. But according to you folks, I am supposed to post bullet-point refutations while you don't even need to read my stuff.
How does that work in the art of debate?
Last edited by scrogdog; 10-11-2012 at 11:55 AM.
"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell