>>1871727I do. Frankly what you're saying isn't even the most damning thing, this is:
https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUAThe jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel significantly.
My point is and has been that people did not have a sane mental point of reference. They hadn't thought about what would happen if 747 went into two of the largest skyscrapers in the world. By they I mean the general public.
All they had for reference was prior events which made the skyscrapers look strong and capable.
So when it happened there wasn't even necessarily the thoughts about the building falling. If you watch the archived news you'll see their reaction when it falls -- maybe they were just refusing to acknowledge reality before but either way you can hear the situation's changed state in their voice.
The idea of something like the twin towers falling from ONE QUICK ATTACK -- see suicide bombs or car bombs -- was not realistic or very sane in the 90s. People probably figured it possible if they had time and control of the tower, or access to all it's area, but nobody thought it likely terrorists could get the time, control, or access necessary.
Part of why 9/11 was such a major event is it caught people off guard. Regardless of conspiracy theories airplane security in general was far more lax before -- it wasn't as massive a threat.
