Reply #29: Of course explosives were possible.

[hack89]

the issue is to translate that possibility into a plausible theory. Much of the "proof" of explosives is simply the misinterpretation of phenomena that most engineers and scientist have no problem explaining in terms that do not require explosives or thermite. Examples would be the rubble pile fires, molten aluminum in the pile, venting from the building, the massive dust clouds due to PE, etc. You don't see many engineers scratching their heads and saying "that shouldn't have happened." Yet by trying to interpret each one of these "anomalies" through a CT prism results in a theory that gets more and more complex and more and more implausible. We all know that to use explosives to bring down the WTC would simply require 47 charges at the base of the core columns - we all know that the truth community does not advocate such a simple and basic possibility.

The fact is that no explosives is the simple case to make - it avoids the huge issue of trying to explain how the WTC were laced with a complex web of high explosives and thermite in massive amounts. It would be a huge logistic feat that no CTr has even attempted to explain.

I personally think that the truth community would have been much more successful in reaching the US public if they had simply said that the hijackers were CIA patsies that were aided by rouge elements in the US government. A simple case that avoids opening the door to theories like mini-nukes, space based energy weapons, holographic planes, etc.