New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."
His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."
Fire is the much healthier option to go with, which he quickly found out.
He spoke the truth at first. As a demo expert, he knew it was a CD. He also noted a few of the telltale signs of a CD,
So ten days later, he says fire is "certainly" the cause of collapse?
His retraction was done in fear, under duress. A suicidal mistake that must be corrected. And so he changed his story to fit.
If he just said other causes than CD are possible, at least he'd make sense. But to say it's "certainly" fire, before any investigation has started, is so obviously contrived to fit in with the official 9/11 'script'.
He doesn't give reasons why fire is the cause but he is certain it was fire anyway.