I apologize for the length of the following.
I have not had time toi make a concise version.
Hope you can bear with me....

My objections to the CD of 1 and 2 theory arise in two areas.

First, I object to the interpretation of the visual evidence of the collapses of the towers.
I believe people just aren’t looking right or that in some cases they just aren’t looking period.
I remember a reply I got earlier from someone whose name has been mentioned enough now : “ are you telling us we’re not seeing what we’re seeing ? ‘ “ I replied :” I’m saying that what you are perceiving is not what’s really happening “.

The list of characteristics that came about via Hoffman, Griffin and now Cage has been a
‘ how to interpret what you see ‘ guide for many 911 truthers. The supreme irony to me is that DRG points to the unique way in which the towers came down, listing a number of observable characteristics, as evidence that CD was at play, but that at the same time, there is no evidence available of any building that ever came down in that way before or since. In other words, they can only compare the collapses to footage of buildings that came down by CD, in ways that are completely different ! ( Again : I’m not talking about WTC 7 here. )
I can, for now at least, only conclude that the unique, top down destruction of the towers looks like it had everything to do with the strike / fire damage. That’s what I see. I don’t see beams being violently ejected sideways. I don’t believe ( parts of ) the towers could ever topple or fall over sideways whilst maintaining their structural integrity. They were never built to do that. I don’t see the towers coming down at freefall speed, and they simply do not.
In fact, the freefall idea is pivotal to the CD hypothesis, because it would prove there is no resistance below, etc. To me the huge plumes of debris , combined with simple time measurements, can lead to only one conclusion : there was resistance.
Otherwise the huge noise produced by the collapses would be caused mostly by explosives.
Is that what that sound is ? I don’t think so.

My reply below to Cattlerustler called ‘ as promised ‘ ( voted down by the usual suspects) outlines some of the problems I encounter with the DRG list. Did you read that
( long ) post ? I would be very interested in your observations.

‘ GROUP X ‘

The second kind of objection I have concerns the scenario of CD, in terms of who planned what, how and why ; a strikingly unpopular topic among the people here, by the way. Not meaning to be cynical or disrespectful to anyone, I feel someone in the 911 truth group should have done more work on this. My suspicion is that that no one has, because when you reason along on it, it’s hard to keep it probable, or even possible.
On a gut reaction level, I find the whole idea itself unbelievable. I realize that’s hardly scientific, so, suspending my disbelief as much as possible, I try to think through the scenario as it could have occurred, and I have trouble making it plausible.

How could the scenario go ? You may disagree with me, of course, and I would welcome your views.

Scenario-wise, I would have to imagine that in addition to ‘ the hijackers ‘ ( either really Muslim fundamentalist terrorists or some kind of US black ops agents, or some hybrid form of the two ), there is a Group X , made up of some alliance of black ops / renegade government faction and ‘ Larry Silverstein ‘ -type interests. What drives this motley crew together ? Why would they help each other ? Why would they need each other ? Their plan would be to either use a terrorist attack that they know will be happening as a cover for their real agenda, which is the destruction of the towers for the purposes of....solving an expensive asbestos problem ? Scamming the insurance ?
All while killing thousands of innocent men and women in the process ? How greedy can a person get ? Effectively triggering a 4 year recession ? Doing severe harm to the economy ? ...Hhhmmmm...

Or was the downing of the towers about completing the illusion of shock and horror, because, somehow, just the sight of the plane impacts and fires and poor people jumping to their deaths and others being burned alive and suffocating wasn’t effective enough ? If the attacks were a false flag operation, the total destruction of the Twin Towers would not have been necessary to create a scare effect on the US people of unprecedented proportions. So to me, that rules CD out as a motive for the so-called ‘ renegade CIA / NSA /false flag faction ‘

So who in ‘ Group X ‘ would need the collapses so bad ?
In the hope that the towers would be hit by the planes, they’d have to wire two of the largest buildings in the world with a huge number of explosives / incendiaries, with the people still inside, so that the buildings would be brought down fully, not just hit by planes. However, and this cannot be overstated, this complicated CD process must be carried out so as to make sure it didn’t look like controlled demolition, because the idea is to make it appear that the terrorist attack caused the collapses. Why ? If they wanted to blame terrorists for what they wanted to do, namely bring down the towers, why not do a repeat of 1993, ( this time successful ) and bring them down at night with minimal casualties ? Seems to me it would be possible to set up a ‘ terrorist ‘ patsy for that.

If the terrorists didn’t need the buildings to come fully down to achieve their goals, then by the same token, neither would the false flag / black ops people. So the only group with a vested interest in full demolition is....who ? Larry Silverstein ? N Y Port Authority ?
Would these people kill thousands to make more money ? Does anyone else share my sense of disbelief here ?

Please note I don’t rule out the possibility that 9 / 11 was a false flag operation just because I don’t believe in CD. It’s still possible that Atta and cronies were handled in such a way that in reality, their actions were used by others with a secret agenda to achieve very different goals. Also, I remain very puzzled by WTC 7, by the molten metal under the rubble, to name but a few things that I feel need to be answered. .

.

It's a lot to read, I know.

I'm working on a shorter version.

thanks for the effort

THE LIST
I believe not enough attention is paid to the way in which the towers were designed and built.
It determines how they stood for many years and also how they were destroyed in 2001.
Everyone here is familiar with the list of characteristics DRG mentions that are meant to indicate that the towers’ collapse is such that only CD could have caused it. I believe Jim Hoffman and DRG and recently others like Cage, are interpreting the video and photo evidence incorrectly. This I feel is caused by their failure to take into account the way in which the towers were constructed, and as a consequence, the way in which they came down. What happened for me, as I looked again and again at the familiar collapse footage and stills taken from many different angles, with the list in hand so to speak, is that I began to realise that what is clearly visible in that material in fact does not fit the list very well at all.

The list, now heavily back in use by the architects, illustrates clearly how the collapses are perceived by DRG, Cage et. al.. The wording reflects a certain way of thinking about the towers as structures that leaves some crucial factors out. I will come to those.
In general, the towers are always referred to as ‘ steel frame buildings ‘, inferring that they posessed great internal strength. That’s why they speak of the towers or parts of the towers ‘ toppling over ‘ under certain conditions. The example Steven Jones cites of the top section falling straight to the ground vs. the top section falling through the remaining bottom section, is another illustration of that thinking : the bottom part would provide massive resistance, so it would not be possible for the top to fall through at such ‘ near freefall ‘ speeds. Something must be making that resistance go away instantly, and that something would have to be explosive charges, set off in sequence etc etc.

The reasoning here is : the freefall speed proves there is no resistance below, therefore explosives must be destroying the tower floor by floor very rapidly and in sequence. The masses of falling material and dust clouds are also explained by explosives, because what else could be causing them when there is no resistance ? In other words : Freefall proves no resistance proves CD.
I look at it quite differently : freefall does not occur precisely because there is ( dust-generating ) resistance. It takes around 18 seconds for the last piece of WTC 1 to hit the ground, ( not counting the 55 storey-high piece of central core that survives temporarily,tellingly ). Only falling perimeter columns make it to freefall speed : they hit the ground while the standing bottom part is still many storeys high.

THREE ELEMENTS
I understand the perspective and the disbelief of Hoffman, DRG, Jones and Cage, because I see what is lacking from their understanding of the towers as structures. What is lacking is a good concept of the interplay between the three main elements of which the towers were made : the core columns, the perimeter columns and the floors. The main point is, although made of steel, these elements and the way the were connected to form the towers, was nothing like a steel frame or steel grid found in many other highrise buildings.

The three elements all had very different functions and are used in very different ways.
They were implemented in the way they were to achieve maximum height ( equals max number of floors ) plus maximum open, column-less floor space. To achieve that, the more classic steel grid design was for the first time abandoned in favour of a revolutionary shift of the columns, usually evenly spaced for optimal load bearing, towards both the centre of the building and the outside perimeter, leaving large uninterrupted open office space. The central core was most solidly and ruggedly constructed, like a steel grid building in fact, but supporting an actual building with a footprint much larger than its own. The perimeter columns were assembled in stacks of three ( or thereabouts ) , with spandrels providing cross support. They provided additional vertical support and load bearing, plus torsioned resistance to lateral wind forces. ( This is a very much simplified version of the function and construction of the columns, but for the purposes of this argument, please bear with me ).

Now comes element number three : the floors. Large pans of steel, supported at their underside by steel trusses, filled with a 4 inch layer of concrete. The floors were designed and assembled to perform , among other things , two functions : bear the load of the tenants and their office equipment etc. plus, and this is the important part : enable the perimeter and core columns to do their work by fixing them in place relative to each other. The columns are strong enough to support their own weight plus the floors, but don’t fall down only if they are fixed in place one directly above the other, following a straight vertical line. A 1400 ft tall column made up of 110 sections will have no hope of lasting unless relative lateral forces are kept to a strict minimum. That was the all-important function of the floors, without which the columns simply could not stand, inspite of their often referred-to massive strength. The floors themselves had no real structural role in keeping the building up other than to handle the relatively small lateral force of fixing the central columns to the perimeter columns, floor by floor. That’s why the connections of the floors to the columns were designed to perform that function. The floors hung on both sides on brackets strong enough to bear their own static ( non-moving ) load plus office equipment and people, and strong enough to help keep the columns in their vertical alignment, so the columns could do the job they were designed to, i.e. hold up each other and 110 floors with open office space. Obviously, there were redundancies built in, though none prepared the buildings for what happenened on 9 11 2001.

COLLAPSE
( This is another area that merits very careful description so here I hope to be accurate enough for the purposes of this reply ).
Proponents of the CD hypothesis always speak of ‘ how the towers / buildings fell ‘.
It is important to note here that these two towers came down in a way unlike anything ever seen in the world, then and now. Never before or since have you seen a building, large or small, end up in pieces on the ground in that way. The towers failed at the plane impact area and the ‘ top part ‘ , above the impact, fell down on the intact ‘ lower part ‘ . That’s the simplest way you can put it. Strangely, the towers remained firmly standing until the very last floor fell. They were being destroyed from the top down, floor by floor, down from the impact zone to the ground. So the towers didn’t ‘ fall ‘ in any way any tower has ever fallen.
I think that is the case because of the unique way these buldings were damaged, and because of the unique way in which they were designed and constructed. .

Once the destruction begins,( yes I’m not explaining initiation ) I see the tops falling onto / through the intact parts somewhere at the impact zone. But instead of pushing down the entire structure floor by floor, I notice in the billowing smoke, columns surviving the initial ‘ demolition wave ‘ rushing by. These all appear to be ( sections of ) perimeter columns, that can be seen to slowly fall outward, pivoting on what must be parts of the perimeter still standing directly below. The taller these falling stacks of column are, the further away from the footprint they land. They are not violently blown sideways by some explosive force : they fall slowly outward like long poles, some then breaking up as they tumble down, trailing dust in their wake.
Nowhere do I see pieces of floor still attached to the columns. They are all sheared clean off.
Where are the floors ? They are all far below, collapsing onto eachother at high downward speed, while the columns buckle and fall without the floors there fixing them to the central core. The central core is a steel grid structure itself, so survives longer than the perimeter columns, but ultimately falls.

Meanwhile the central core exhibits the same shearing off of the floors. WTC 2 had a massive amount of core columns still standing after the floors and perimeter columns had fallen away. There is video and photo evidence that shows it clearly : not a trace of the floors is visible, only central core columns. WTC 1’s central core partially survives the massive forces of destruction, because as with WTC 2, the floors moved downward with great speed, ripping off the floors below instantly. The floors are gone from view. They are never visible anywhere during the collapses. They are collapsing inside, before the columns fall away and down, seconds later. They end up slamming into the basement, compressed in layers ( see photo of ‘ meteorites ‘ ) compacted by huge downward pressure. Nowhere is there any part of floor still attached to a column.
This is supported by the video from below just as the collapse starts.
You can see the result of the floors falling ( dusty air being blown out, windows breaking simultaneously per floor ) while the perimeter columns are still intact 5 or 6 storeys up : the downward velocity is high enough for the floors to be ripped clean off their brackets / clips and be pushed down, hitting each new floor with a short sharp blow many, many times beyond their design limits.

What you can see falling down in the widening plume of dust is not the floors, but only columns, mostly perimeter. The central core columns are falling in or close to the footprint. Strikingly, both towers have sections of perimeter at ground level still standing ! The highest parts of those also reveal no part of any floor ( truss ) still attached. They are all sheared off, and some photos show the bent clips.

SOME FINALTHOUGHTS
The towers came down in a way that is consistent with the way they were built and with the specific functions each one of their three constituent structural elements had. Each element fell in its own way, and consistent with the way it functioned in the structural interplay of elements.
The floors fell on top of each other, while the columns still maintained their vertical position.. The clips / brackets holding the floors in place break off while the columns, central core as well as perimeter, remain standing until the tremendous vibrations and shocks of the destruction below produce just enough lateral movement for however many are still standing, to fall.

From my point of view, the symmetry of the collapse is now logical, and not strange as DRG claims. The socalled totality of destruction is equally logical once you see how the collapses occur consistent with the way the towers were built and what structural elements they contained.
As for explosiveness, I see nothing being blown forcefully sideways, as Hoffman and DRG claim.
I have explained why some perimeter columns ended up far away from the original footprint.
Nothing to do with explosives.

The fact that both towers were destroyed in the same way is to me a strong indication not that they were both wired with explosives and blown up, but that they were both designed and built in uniquely similar ways, failed in their own uniquely similar ways after both being damaged in uniquely similar ways.

When trying to contruct a plausible scenario for the CD hypothesis, involving the hijackers and
‘ Group X ‘ ,who are blowing the buildings up in such a way that it doesn’t look like CD but really is, I have serious trouble twisting any kind of believeble scenario around that storyline. I notice by the way that this is an area all proponents of CD avoid. I believe that is because it quickly becomes highly improbable. I notice, in all this time, none of the movements brightest minds have dared tread in that mire. Coincidence ?

Finally : all of this doesn’t mean I can explain exactly when the collapses started or
I can’t even say for sure that no thermate or explosives were used to initiate collapse, although I can argue a strong case purely on logical grounds. In addition, the stream of metal falling from the South Tower is in the wrong corner to initiate collapse. The thermate evidence seems circumstantial.
Where was even a trace of demolition equipment ( of which it is claimed there was a lot ) in the pile ?
( I am still however mystified by the molten metal under the buildings, and the extreme heat.
I have yet to see a good link between that heat , especially weeks afterwards, and CD. )

The videos and photos of the collapse simply do not show CD at work. All the ‘ telltale ‘ signs of CD supposedly visible in the videos are for me adequately explained by the reasoning outlined above.