Correct, minor variances in those factors have nothing to do with how THIS happened.
Minor ?
Your entire claim is based on the pictures you show, chris. The ones you call "raw" evidence, though you admitted they are not raw.
You keep coming back to those pictures. They are the only ones that support your theory, even to you. So when you say that a structure you claimed was concrete for 200 pages could be dust, after all, what does that say ? Is that "minor" ?
Your OP is all about free fall rates and pulverisation. You then claim that free fall is unimportant, twice at least, and then use a picture that clearly shows un-pulverised concrete. Your excuse that it doesn't come from the WTC towers is ludicrous, because those pieces aren't labeled. You think this is "minor" ?
You said nothing could convince you. NOTHING. Even if presented with irrefutable evidence, you'd still talk about concrete. This means reasonable debate with you is impossible. Am I to believe this is "minor" ?
You said plane speed wasn't important, but when whining about the towers falling in the wrong order you talk about WTC1 beign "hit hardest", meaning the plane hit it faster and in a more damaging way, so now speed is important ? That's anoter "minor" point ?
And doesn't my post summarise your position, chris ? If not, could you do it in a better way ? What's wrong about my description ? And if it's accurate, do you think such a theory makes sense ? If not, how is that "minor" ?
