We surely can agree to disagree in a civil manner and I indeed do live by my word that this is a free speech zone at the Daily Dose, I think plenty of people would confirm that as I have one in particular who tests that all the time.

I also took the time before responding to actually go read every word of that article you linked. I am not familiar with the author, Dave Thomas, nor had I read it before. Being that I am not studied in physics I can't cast doubt on any of his mathematical calculations with regard to the collapse either.

Here is one glaring thing that he did leave out and it is puzzling that while he cited plenty of things about the twin towers and building seven he failed to mention that building seven was being reported as haven already collapsed by a foreign news media reporter who was on camera and building seven was clearing showing standing in the background of the shot as she was saying it had already collapsed.

Surely I would think the Dave Thomas, with as much investigation as he had done in preparing that article would have known that the tape existed and would have addressed that as well.

I might also mention that the NIST Report admittedly did not test for explosives in the debris of the 911 disaster because they had no "reason to believe" that any explosives were involved since the was video of the planes hitting the towers. Yet several fire fighters are on tape and expressly acknowledge encountering explosions on the lower levels of the towers.

Up until 911 there was no where that a high rise steel and concrete building that had ever collapsed due to fire and there had been plenty of fires in such buildings.

I recall that a bank building in Philly burned for 17 hours before it could be extinguished and it did not collapse yet, these two buildings could burn so hot to melt the the massive steel beams in less than two hours is a little out of my comprehension zone. Since the contents of both building would be similar being office buildings.

Then that brings us to the BBC reporting building seven having collapsed while it is clearly standing in the background of Jane Stanley's live report. Here is a link to that video in case you never have seen[it}(

Also I might mention that the owner of the complex is on tape saying they made the decision to"pulled" building seven which means controlled demolition, yet the NIST report for building list the cause as structural failure due to fire. So it doesn't add up in my eyes.

Plus don't forget the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in PA. , never in the history of airplane crashes has a plane crashed that I know that some piece of debris could not be seen or even retrieved from the know crash locations. Yet not one body or bones were retrieved that I am aware of, the plane in PA had a lady and her daughter from Houston on it so I paid attention to the particular crash site hoping that the family would at least have the bodies returned for burial.
Dave Thomas didn't mention those sites and just concentrated on NY so I still am going to have to believe something is fishy, at least with the official reports.
Thanks for commenting and sharing that information but it hasn't moved me for reasons cited.