Most of that I would not argue with.
Just a few points, or areas I wonder if you could elaborate further on: -
The most detailed study of the WTC available is that carried out by NIST.
When NIST simulated the damage and fire situation most closely matching that observed on 9/11, it brought no collapse in their model.
It was only in the simulation which visibly exceeded the actual damage and fire situation that collapse occurred in their model.
The study itself therefore reveals that the damage and fire actually observed were in probability insufficient to bring the towers down.
The collapses might be in conformity with heat stress... but is that what caused the collapse initiation on 9/11? As theoretically possible as it may be, there is no existing evidence which confirms it.
It did not have to be this way.
If the official theory were correct, NIST could have found a range which did not exceed the damage and fire situation observed and still reproduced the collapse in their model.
They did not.
Could it possibly be that no such range existed?
It was never about profit.
Fact is that the towers had been insured for $1.5billion.
After Silverstein purchased the property 6 weeks prior 9/11 the coverage was increased to $3.55 billion.
Which is better considering the event that would follow?
Then does it not raise an eyebrow that the building owner who increased the insurance coverage above was an influential Jewish businessman, an associate of Benjamin '9/11 is good for Israel' Netanyahu? That the chairman of the NY Port Authority who oversaw this sale of the WTC was also an influential Jewish businessman? That the head of the NY Commission who privatised the WTC allowing this transfer to take place was yet again an influential Jewish businessman.
I'm not talking about small fry here, they were - Larry Silverstein, Lewis Eisenberg and Ronald Lauder.
Without their actions, that $1.5 billion insurance coverage would have still been in place on 9/11.
Did you know the Port Authority had been considering having the towers taken down since 1991 due to the asbestos regulation problem but the insurers refused to cover the costs? The Port Authority took it to court and lost the case leaving them lumbered with a double-digit billion dollar bill to come in the future - far more costly than the current rebuild project.
Oh they got lucky ramping up the insurance coverage and when terrorists soon after brought the towers down for them, don't you think?
What are the string of improbables anyway?