So far we have at least two very strong clear points.
1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.
2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.
Pick one.
We have shown evidence to back up our point, you however just posted a video made to explain how the planes penetrated the building, made on software specifically designed to explain why the planes went through the building.
This is not the way the scientific method works, making a pre determined conclusion then making models to suit the pre determined conclusion is not scientific.
Occams Razor anyone?
Hint, if your model has to break the laws of physics to work we can be quite sure the people who made the model don't respect occams razor.
No you've shown nothing so far, I've repeatedly asked for evidence, all I get nothing remotely relevant from you and I get easily disproven assertions from BHS.
Let's list a few of the more glaring errors of fact made so far by BHS, who claims "this ls my wheelhouse" and has done a decades worth of research on the topic.
First. he claimed that carbon and steel at 1000C doesn't glow. Sorry BHS you are flat wrong it does.
Second. he claimed that jet fuel burns cold, sorry BHS it burns at 980 C, he claimed 500 which is total BS.
Third. he claimed that the fire was almost out when the building collapsed, this is despite evidence that it was still burning 3 months later, he changed his claim to say that wasn't what he said but some fireman claimed.
Fourth he claimed that the plane hitting WTC1 didn't leave a mark, easily disproven.
Fifth he claimed that jet fuel was so volatile that it would all vapourize before even entering the building, he tried to back up his claim by saying he had extensive experience with fuels of all types, but then backtracked completely when I told him Jet fuel was mostly just kerosense and not really volatile at all, he also claimed that nitroglycerin was used as a fuel in funny cars, when I corrected him that it was nitromethane, he repeated the claim and then back tracked by saying it was his phone autocorrrect that did it. Yep.
He claimed that the fires never got hot enough to weaken steel, and that thermal modelling ( which he erroneously called thermal image modelling ) he had done showed temperatures didn't get above 500, and that none of the debris could be over a few hundred, He swapped course again after i showed him a picture of glowing hot steel being pulled from the debris.
... I could go on but I suggest if this is an example of the best argument for demolition, then someone is yanking your chain big time.
Oh, and repeated requests for the evidence of explosives BHS claims to have discovered in the dust have been ignored, that tells me all I need to know.
But to answer your two points
1. There's no compelling evidence that the buildings collapsed from demolition, quite the reverse there's overwhelming evidence that the fire caused the collapse.
2. The notion that a 175,000 kg aircraft travelling at 590 mph would vapourize on the outside of the building is not supported by any facts or evidence, quite the opposite.
Duty calls, we will pick this up later, meantime DisputeOne please try to catch up and add something to the discussion, instead of butting in with disconnected false comments,
Poll