to answer your questions, you simply have to ask yourself "how would I have done it". if you don't have the imagination or knowledge to realise that computers control planes these days to exacting precision, then again, you are only looking for reasons to confirm your belief, rather than look at the evidence or pretending you don;t have that knowledge or imagination. demolitions can occur any way yo want them to occur, youtube "top down demolition", ordinary thermite can cut through structural steel beams, youtube "john cole 911 experiments". why would there be evidence of a demolition team, ask youself "how would I have done it", the answer is you would not wear "demolition team" labels on your uniform, sorry to be overly sarcastic but come on, 50,000 people were in those buildings, nobody knew what everybody was doing and you could access the columns from inside the elevator shafts, ask yourself how would you have done it, a reasonable person would say "rent floor space and shut the doors", even bin laden could have done that.
all these speculative questions have been waived a million times.
you are asking good questions, but what you are doing is asking the wrong side for proof before investigating. the only questions to answer is "is a new investigation warranted".
when your questions are anlaysed logically we find they are not questions, they are statements. you are stating "this is impossible", "that is impossible", in order to show those statements false, it is sufficient to show through speculation that it is possible which has been done. it is not required to know exactly how it was done in order to answer those questions. if you are stating something is impossible then the burden of proof is on you to prove something is impossible, otherwise you are just appealing to incredulity - a logical fallacy.
Show me where a floor was rented for rigging.
Show me the planes were rigged for remote control.
Show me that there were no records from door personnel showing traffic in and out of the buildings.
Controlled demolitions do not rely on thermite alone - they involve weakening the support members enough that the force of thermite is adequate to sever the remaining part.
Speculations without evidence are not adequate and discredit your position.
The objective of the hijackers was achieved without the twin towers falling - they would have been demolished anyway - why go to all the extra trouble of rigging them ?
I refuse to throw basic common sense out just because I have a suspicion that there was an element of Government collusion.
Edited by Br Cornelius, 13 June 2011 - 01:19 PM.