Wow. Excellent diversion... Are we to completely disregard that the architect of the WTC designed the building to withstand just such a blow, you think he didn't know what to expect?
I don't think. I KNOW AS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT that he didn't know what to expect. Where did he test his design? [Hint: It's not possible to] It follows that his design was AN ATTEMPT to allow for this, not a design which was tested and the deployed as a KNOWN counter to a given situation. We can only predict what we can test, and since we don't have a WTC crash test site, and the architect didn't have one--there is essentially NO KNOWN EXPECTATION for this type of an event. We know what, perhaps the FINAL state of a plane crash with a building looks like--but if you knew a lot about physics you'd know that mass and velocity have A shitload to say about what will happen during a collision. Its the difference between me hitting u with a switch under the power of my arm--and it moving at near the speed of light. In 1, you get a welt, in 2--you're cut in half before you even feel the pain.
Actually we do have some idea of what to expect since these are not the only buildings in history to be hit by a plane, but they are the only buildings so far recorded that have collapsed as a result of it.
No, we don't--not in the context you are attempting to place it. You're trying to make building mean something as simply as oxygen. Oxygen is oxygen, building isn't building. They aren't all the same thing. Plane isn't plane, either, for that matter.
Now, otherwise hard to explain (because of all the variable you delineated) phenomena witnessed there do have precedent, but are only unexplainable in the context of official findings.
Add in thermite plasma and the pools of molten metal lingering for weeks have precedent, and it's more likely than any other explanation.
Add in controlled demolition to the numerous explosions and the free fall nature of the buildings' collapse, and it's more likely than any other explanation.
Ugh, how not to be an asshole about this. Okay--what you just said was probably the worst chemical explanation I've ever heard in my life about any concept and in any context. That was the nicest I could say it. I typed easily 20 sentences here before I got it to something that nice.
If I didn't like you, my knee-jerk reply would be--what does that even MEAN?
And then there's the building that collapsed for no apparent reason
TV said "probably from the concussion of the planes hitting, or maybe the heat of the fire weakened that building and it collapsed, too much structural damage incurred when the other buildings collapsed"... bullshit... remember the BBC report about the collapse of building 7, given moments before it actually collapsed, while the reporter stood in front of a studio window that showed that very building still standing in the background.
Again, we don't know what to expect in this event. You think that I'm the distraction--I'm telling you that people who have been claiming to have proof about what happened are the distractors. The TRUTH is that WE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE what happened--not unless the people who planned and executed it tell us from the grave.
Here's the problem--if you don't know what to expect, you don't know whether to call something strange or not. This would be like making a new chemical and finding out it has a certain property by testing it one time and then saying "that's strange". In what context is it strange? You just did the FIRST ever test on this material--what were your expectations for it (of course chemistry does allow us to have some expectations for molecules--but that is because we do have discrete models of how we expect them to behave---In EXTREMELY STARK CONTRAST with a pair of jumbo jets hitting the world trade center, that has only happened just the 1 time).
Plenty of literature out there documenting this stuff... Bush crimes go back to funding the Nazi war machine, before George Sr ever even sat in his CIA post
And any of it which is reliable will not seek to make an definitive conclusion about it--because a good scientist knows their limitations, and I've just explained many of them to you here as it regards this event.
We do not have a REAL LIFE, PHYSICAL, model of what to expect from this event. Therefore we cannot make quality judgments as to what should've happened or what shouldn't have. As for thermite plasma argument, I refer you--once again-- to:
[Fuckshitasston number] both buildings (g,s,l) + 2 plane(g,s,l) --Retardedly Hot Fire-->
Who the fuck knows?
Answer: Not you, not anyone, ever.
Never ever ever.
I'll warn you--the next reply I have to make to defend this elementary scientific point, which follows very simply from the full body of scientific knowledge we've gained to this day as a species (and has been mimicked in every bit of science since day one), is going to get super disgustingly mathy.
By then it will be clear you've brought a knife to a thermonuclear war as it regards the end of the "9/11 conspiracy"
There just isn't any solid evidence for ANY of it. All there is, at THE VERY VERY BEST, is conjecture--and even that is on shaky ground.
Don't be duped by a bunch of people who couldn't even compute the cross product of a vector who are desperate to make this tragedy, in any way, fit into a scheme whereby our government (or GB) was behind it.
They don't have proof. I have given you a SOLID, INDISPUTABLE, SCIENTIFIC reasoning--with examples and evidence to my claim--and it passes the most important test in science. Is it simple? Yes, it is.
This is like If I gave you this equation.
x^3 + y^2 + z^3 + d^4 + 5g^8 = 115467
x=3
Find integers which correspond to y, z, d, and g.
You can't do it. I haven't given you enough information. That's what SCIENCE VERY CLEARLY SAYS about this event. Now guys like the MIT engineers who did the report make some ASSUMPTIONS so that they can get SOME analysis out of it--but it is NOT NOT NOT a complete analysis, and every scientist on that team will tell you that flatly to your face.
Science is less about what we know, and wayyyy more about what we don't. Please don't be duped into thinking that pseudo-science is the same as science. It's not, it just looks like it.
Pseudo-science:Science , Mormonism:Christianity.
