You don't want proof, you reject any that's served up, if a witness tells his account of explosions, you dismiss them as Nutters, if academics discover thermite residue, you just simply say it's bullshit, if it's suggested that the huge structure underneath the collapse should offer resistance in the instance of collapse and eliminate any possibility of pancake collapse you claim their is some miraculous force from above overcoming the resistance of the supporting structure. None of what you have said makes any sense at all. You haven't offered a shred of proof for your case and yet you go around calling every one who disagrees dickhead's and tin foil hat wearers. Your raw emotion exposes someone who is afraid of the possibility that maybe he is wrong and his world-view needs to be questioned.
Like many others, including highly qualified academics have expressed scepticism with the official version of events, that doesn't make them whackjobs, if anything it makes them critical thinkers. I would argue only a whackjob would look at such an event and the resulting anomalies and just accept the official line that fire caused three buildings to collapse into their own footprint, when their has never been a precedent anywhere in the world before or since.
Like I said, I don't care either way, the official story is suspect and the one who comes across as a Nutter is you, why do you even care that others find the official story suspicious?
You are so full of shit that you can't see straight. I want proof, not some foil hat idiot bullshit, and I am capable to evaluate what is bullshit and what not. I present earlier two youtube videos to show you what is the difference between truth and the bullshit. No, comments about that, because you know I am right. What comes to your academics who discover this and that, did you know where the samples were? They were from homes, and they were picked up from the ground zero after cleaning of ruins. It means that the samples were not from the actual collapse, but somewhere between collapse and end of the cleaning. They use these cutting bar's for cutting massive steel structures, and try to quess what these uses for cutting:
There will be iron and aluminium oxides, like this:
That picture is from the academic study which you mentioned. What is odd about the picture? Look at the scale: 100µm, which means that those particles are more that 200µm wide. What is the difference between µ and nano? µ = 0,000 001, while nano is 0,000 000,001, so those particles are 200 000 times too big. This is just about same, than try to prove that there is mouses in the jungle by showing you an elephant.
