For Those Who Don't Believe Explosives Were Used in the WTC Collapses:

[spooked911]

What would it take to convince you otherwise?

In fact, I was unconvinced whether there were explosives used in the WTC collapses, until I read Webster Tarpley's new book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA", and then I have switched over to the controlled demolition camp.

Against demolition we have:
1) the pancake collapse model-- an unproven theory
2) the belief that there couldn't have been more layers to the 9/11 conspiracy

For demolition we have:
1) the fact that the WTC was bombed in '93
2) the extreme speed at which the towers fell-- not consistent with pancake model
3) both towers collapsed same exact way though damage to each was very different
4) eye-witness reports of explosives on 9/11, including from firemen
5) the Fire Dept suppressing discussion of bombs in the WTC on 9/11 by firemen
6) Giuliani and the government clearly hindered any investigation into the collapse-- quickly cleared away the material before it could be analyzed. Giuliani didn't even want tourists taking photos at the WTC site.
7) Silverstein-- the owner of the WTC complex wanting to unload the buildings
8) reports of molten steel at the base of the WTC collapse
9) empty office space in the WTC where bombs could have been planted
10) a worker at the WTC who says power was shut off in the WTC the weekend before the attacks for laying cables
11) finally, this Madrid skyscraper where it burned for 24 hours-- 12 times as long as the WTC, but only suffered a partial collapse of a few floors.

So, absent someone turning them self in saying they planted explosives in the WTC, which is unlikely of course-- what WOULD convince you there were explosives used to bring down the WTC towers?