>>518917940
>yes they do
They literally cannot cause an earthquake.
> see >>518916388
You saw seismic activity but it was not an earthquake. You're mixing definitions.
> I didn't there was no P or S wave, just a surface wave, as if a massive weight was removed from the ground, say by being turned to dust.
This is your weakest argument. Something that could vaporize that much material that quickly in the microwave frequencies would have been measurable by a lot more equipment.
Like I said, you're intellectually lazy. I'm not denying that what you're saying could be true. For it to be true you're missing the biggest part which is where the fuck all that energy came from, why wasn't that noticed.
> no, no it's not.
> the entire remnants of the plane could be fit inside a van (because it was transported there in a van).
You're talking about debris. I'm saying if you launched a pointy tube (the fuselage) through the middle of an open floor in skyscraper that you're not going to have much resistance from the drywall, timber, or glass. The speed exceeds any surface or sheer strength of those materials.
A pointy cylinder could make it through, without issue, which is what you see. The explosion would cause the fasteners (the bolts) of anything in that plane to melt and it would be disassembled. You could not reliably identify between construction material or a plane considering it was 3 buildings that collapsed.
>>518917982
>>518918429
You have no idea how video compression works, do you? Go do some research on how video codecs work and why artifacts are so common in older videos. Especially the ones that were compressed so they could be sent over MMS messaging in that era.
Intellectually lazy.
But seriously, actually learn about how video compression creates these exact problems because it's trying to compress changes to keyframes (unique frames) and "diffs" which carry regions of the keyframe with a "velocity."
You know how youtube sucks with confetti?