Your logic is as amazingly incompetent and false as your Latin.
Cui is the DATIVE form: to whom.
Here's some more Latin for you: non sequitur: it does not follow. You fail to grasp that if a perp wanted to cover your tracks, it's absurdly easy to throw in some small element of "it wouldn't have been in my interest" to throw off the trail. Jesus, you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
But your ignorance on this subject is so vast you aren't even aware that Lucky Larry Silverstein massively upped his terrorism insurance something like just half a year to a year before the event, AND iirc he insisted on separate coverages for each tower.
I mean, if you had the most elementary readings on this, we'd be able to discuss the team that went through the buildings floor by floor placing the charges in the name of "internet upgrades" with nobody else bizarrely allowed to be on the floors, and then we could discuss the peer-reviewed findings on nanothermites. But let's face it, you're lazy, you see the evidence that conforms to your preconception and say I'm done, AND you still actually call yourself a scientist after that.
Your structural engineering debunkings have themselves been debunked; I think a university team in the last year completely tore apart the NIST "report" on Building Seven.
See, the difference between you and me is, I actually read both sides, not just a presumed favored one, and I credit each separately on separate criteria before I score the whole so to speak.
Stick to your review panel and leave the history to the competent.
