Comment: "First of all, the video is

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: A number of things you are missing (see in situ)

"First of all, the video is

"First of all, the video is in conflict with itself. First they say it was a controlled demolition. Then they say it was thermite. Then again they say it was explosives. Thermite is not an explosive, so which is it?"

What? You want Ketchup AND Mustard on your sandwich? I'm afraid that's just not possible.

"Aluminum + steel = thermite"

If only the planes contained flour. Because that, combined with the heat of the fire and the water from the building sprinklers would have produced birthday cake everywhere and a much less tragic outcome.

"the buildings in NY, are they earthquake proof like in CA?"

Was there an earthquake? The buildings didn't even budge when struck.

"Two fully fueled jet liners crashed in the area... that's why the buildings came down! DUHHHHHHHHH"

Except that all that fuel clearly blew up almost instantly, and fire alone couldn't possibly have brought them down. But your "DUHHH" is persuading me to question 1700 architects and engineers. How can one argue with "DUHHH?"