0
0

[–] realmonster ago  (edited ago)

going by her logic we know that the "what" is there was a WTC and then there wasnt a WTC. so here were talking about the "how", but this method of thinking doesnt mean you ignore everything in the "why" category because youre going to have to come up with answer for that "why" and if you cant, you have to take a step back and consider the other "how"s. its especially relevant here because of how similar the event was to exactly what we were being told. at that point "why?" is a pretty important question.

ill admit that if we are ONLY looking at "how" then xyz future weapon is a possibility as much as controlled demolition and jet fuel totally being able to melt steel beams in a giant crucible. but, if the answer to "why" is just testing a new future weapon, one which would necessitate many industry revolutionizing technology breakthroughs then why would they be sitting on their asses with this tech for 20 goddamn years doing literally nothing with it.

that "why" doesnt make sense, you have to go back and look at the other options.

edit: i want to add that when mt st heckens erupted the top of the mountain wasnt plopped down in a field, it disintegrated, and that was earth made rock, not man made sticky confectioners sugar that gets stiff when it dries out