Okay, Bill, I read the article. It's interesting. It proposes a fairly plausible sounding theory of, as Peace says, one possibility of what might have happened, but certainly not the only possibility. It does not in any way explain what can plainly be seen in a number of videos of the buildings collapsing...concentrated, very localized jets of smoke and debris bursting horizontally out of previously undamaged floors considerably below the point of the collapsing sections above, sometimes WAY below them....well ahead of the collapse wave. Those powerful, very surgical looking lateral bursts of smoke and debris suggest to me...secondary explosions, such as are typically seen in many controlled demolitions of buildings...explosions intended to take out key structural points and permit the demolition to proceed in a rapid and symmetrical manner. Your article makes no mention of what I can plainly see with my own eyes in live film taken on that day. Funny that they don't, I think! It gives no recognition to many firefighters, police, reporters, and many civilian witnesses on that day who testified (and can be heard doing so on live news reports on 911) to both seeing and hearing numerous large secondary explosions in parts of the buildings far from the area hit by the planes (even in the basement, for heaven's sake). Were they all too stupid to be reliable or were they all lying on behalf of a vast civilian conspiracy to implicate the government? I don't think so. It also gives no explanation of why or how Building 7 collapsed neatly into its footprint, just like a controlled demolition, despite the fact that it had not suffered major structural damage or extensive fires, while buildings 5 & 6 did suffer major structural damage and extensive fires, yet did not collapse. They were both "pulled" in officially sanctioned control demolitions months later. You can see that on film too. The means is there to bring a modern steel frame building down in seconds, and you can see it...both unofficially (on 911) and officially months later (on buildings 5 & 6).

Go ahead and get mad because I don't think your theory is the only good one out there and the only one worth respecting. I don't care if you get mad about it. We all get mad about one thing or another that somebody else says on this forum.

Just think how mad you'd be if you were there on that day and SAW or HEARD something to make you think that there were bombs planted in the building, and you lost loved ones there...and NO ONE in the media will give you the time of day about it now.

That's mad, Bill. You could get a lot madder than you are now, believe me.

And I'm not saying I know...I'm just saying you don't know either. We are both dependent on second or third hand information from this witness or that witness...this expert or that expert...this article or that article.   We don't know, Bill. We theorize as best we can, based on second and thirdhand information from people who may well have some ax to grind that you or I don't know about either.