Here's one thing I find problematic. I consider it an anomaly. We have been given a few different "official" reports, as the official explanation has changed over time. For a while, they were promoting the "floor joists slipped off their angle clips (resulting in colapse)" theory. Now, they appear to be promoting the "floor joists pulled on the angle clips and bowed the perimeter walls inward (resulting in colapse)" theory. Obviously, they couldn't continue to promote the theory about the joists slipping off the angle clips because, as I've said before, that would result in the core being left standing. So they abandoned that one and came up with the tugging and bowing theory.

Here's the problem with these two theories having both been promoted by the government. With the first theory, they were saying that the weak spot was the angle clips. That's why they were able to make the assertion that the towers could have fallen that way.

Now, with the new theory, they are saying that the angle clips were not weak at all, but that they were so strong, and they held the floor joists in place so securely, the walls bowed inward because of it.

They seem to be trying to have it both ways with those angle clips. Probably because they made up the whole "angle clips being the week point" thing out of thin air without ever even trying to find out whether they were week or strong. I guess it sounded good at the time.