Comment: Then you'll have to explain why none of the other evidence

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The evidence is there. (see in situ)

fireant's picture

Then you'll have to explain why none of the other evidence

confirms controlled demolition. You have to have corroboration before claiming fact. Any investigator will tell you that. The evidence doesn't corroborate. The evidence strongly suggests collapse due to the airplane strikes. I can't help it. It does.
Looking at the collapse on video confirms, yes, there was a massive release of energy. Massive. There has never been anything to compare it with. Tremendous heat was caused by all the friction from churning and grinding. Look at the tops of the standing core. They are tapered showing incredible wear from the top down, as if they were sandblasted from the top.
Remember the premise of the thread Brimichl, is "impossible". My effort is to show that indeed it is possible. I'm not saying what did happen; only what is possible based upon the body of evidence. I'm not saying controlled demolition was not used. It could have been. But to rule out all other possibility is a fools errand, risking the real perps get away.

Undo what Wilson did