What are you suggesting, then? It sounds like speculation, which can easily lead to conspiracy theories. What do you think the NIST report implies? What would have caused the south tower to deflect one foot horizontally below the impact? You must have an idea. What is it?
You’re going to have to come up with a lot more specifics before you get intelligent people to give your ideas the time of day.
Are you one of those intelligent people?
You seem to have a problem with science. I took for granted that you understood the significance of the deflection.
The plane hit the south tower at 550 mph with a mass of about 150 tons. The formula for momentum is mass times velocity. So that much momentum had to be imparted to the building. The conservation of momentum means the building had to move. How much and how fast would depend on the mass and the stiffness of the building.
The NIST report has a graph of the deflection and oscillation of the south tower but the camera only photographed up to the 70th floor and the plane impacted at the 81st. So 11 storeys below where the plane impacted, the momentum of the plane caused the building to deflect 12 inches. That is an empirical “scientific” fact. (unless the NIST is lying) Extrapolation indicates the building moved about 15 inches at the level where the plane hit. But that is only my extrapolation and I have never seen anyone else bring up the subject. So what are those “intelligent people” doing?
But the Purdue simulation, which they claim is “scientific”, does not even simulate the building 11 storeys below the impact point on the north tower. The have their 20 storey stub of a building immovable 6 storeys below their simulated impact. So their “scientific” simulation has a problem. What happened to the momentum? Did all of the energy go into structural damage? If so that would mean their simulation reported too much damage.
All you do is throw around the words “conspiracy” and “speculation” and “intelligent” but do not demonstrate that you comprehend the “scientific” aspects of the 9/11 incidents for yourself. You treat science like a religion and the people you designate as scientific like priesthood. Science is about UNDERSTAND THINGS and not just by experts who do not demand and publicise relevant data. How many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on each and every level of the towers? If you can’t understand the relevance of that then how can you evaluate if anything is “scientific” about any paper or article on 9/11?