"The clean cuts you mention, Ron, could have been caused by shaped charges."
They could have been - or they could have been caused simply by the building splintering apart.

"I'm suggesting that thermite was used, and shaped charges, as can be done in a professional building demolition."
Perhaps you have used thermite and have more experience, but my understanding from reading a number of sources is that thermite would create more a melting pattern.

"I don't think there were any materials in there that could have produced a hot enough fire to either melt steel beams or cause them to bend and collapse."
I, and many others, disagree. Aside from the jet fuel, there are other materials in the building that could have caused a hot enough fire that would have caused them to bend. You can read about it on the internet.

" If the impact of the aircraft was what was required to weaken the structures enough to cause a collapse, then what made building 7 fall down?"
The damage, which is clearly visible, from being hit by debris from the WTC and the fires that were caused - plus the way the building was constructed on top of a substation.

"Regarding the workers in the buildings: there were a lot of unoccupied areas in those buildings, whole floors that were vacant at different levels."
Check your source. The building had less than 20% that was unoccupied - and those sections were not necessarily entire floors.   It seems unlikely that they would have had enough access to the points required.

"There was also a lot of heavy work heard not long prior to 911 that was being done on some of those floors, heard by people working in the office floors below. What was that work? Nobody seems to know."
I would love to see the source of that information. I did some checking today - on a variety of sites both pro and con, and could not find this.   I too have heard that story, but I am suspecting there is more urban legend and "phone game" at work then reality. I would love to hear more, maybe this is the "clue". Don't rely on memory!!!


"The big highrise in Spain burned for 24 hours, very hot, very big raging fire right to the top of the building...its steel structure did not fail. The fire stopped when it simply had nothing combustible left to burn, and the building was still standing afterward."
Once again, the building in Spain had a very different construction, it was much smaller, and it was not subjected to the damage caused by the planes. You are comparing apples to oranges.

"You see, how people interpret all this is quite predictable. Those who think there was no controlled demolition interpret it all to support their position. Those who think, as I do, that there was a controlled demolition interpret it to support their position."
Then you are admitting that your position is biased.

Look, I will be the first to wave a white flag and admit I was wrong. Until ANY strong evidence can be produced, or a reasonable theory as to "why" is created, I have to rely on what I saw with my own eyes, what I've read through numerous sources, and what deduction and logic tell me. If ANYONE can put aside their bias and be subjective, I think you will draw the same conclusion.

Go ahead and say it - I have come to a conclusion and won't agree to anything else. You are wrong.   No one has produced any evidence on these sites or in that schlock film that makes credible sense.   

"You know, I go out of my way on this forum to be fair when I say things like that. I freely admit to my own fallibility. Who else here has the guts to do that?"
I congratulate you, but don't think you are the only one. I can point to a number of times when I have been wrong and freely admitted it here on Mudcat.