They also CANNOT explain why it's clearly seen when the first building falls, that the top above the impact zone falls to the side, and DOES NOT freefall straight down.....Nor can they explain why massive amounts of debris fell OVER trade 7, and took out over a third of the buliding. That would not have happened in a controlled demolition, or freefall.9/11 conspiracy theory, requires idiots, fools and morons to make and uneducated fearful people to perpetrate.
The basic argument made by the theories is that explosives were ladened in the skyscrapers. Yet no one can explain how those extensive explosives that would require construction work on the pillars were seen by NO ONE.
No one can explain how those explosives survived the impact of the jets, the ensuing fire and collapsing floors and still managed to go off.
If the argument is that explosives were in the basement area and not the high rise, how come the survivors reported debris FALLING on them, not falling into the basement?
In WTC 7 no one can explain how the supposed explosives survived HOURS of intense fire and still managed to not only not go off early but still be supposedly controlled by an external source.
One of the arguments is that free fall could not have been obtained by the collapsing buildings. Which would imply that explosives were at the base of the buildings. Not in the high rises. Yet there is absolutely no evidence that the bottom collapsed BEFORE the upper floors crushed them.
Why fly planes into the buildings at all if one is going to use explosives? 93 proved that properly placed explosives could do the trick, why get 19 Arabs to hijack aircraft and fly them into the buildings? Just use the same trick as in 93, claim explosive loaded vehicles brought the buildings down? Easier, believable and if our Government somehow conned 19 Arabs into doing their dirty work with the planes how hard would it have been to convince them to use vehicles?