If not the "no plane" theory, then what theory? The "unusually strong plane theory"? The "simultaneous demolition with plane impact theory", or the "Previously weakened theory".Yes. You also think that the official account is a reasonable account of what happened that day; you thought that the facade was 'mostly glass'; you think that evidence garnered through torture is not physical evidence; you think that I 'spent many pages promoting the 'no-plane' theory. It's clear that you think a lot of things; it's also clear, and demonstrably so, that not all of your 'thoughts' are correct
What is your theory? Just the "looks odd, must be an inside job, theory"?
Yes, I misestimated the ratio of glass to girders. It made no difference to my actual point, and I retracted it immediately the error was pointed out.
Now you are claiming that the recorded events broke Newton's third law, I explain why it does not apply. So you should retract or defend your claim? No?