A lot of the explanations and arguments in favour of the controlled demolition theory (CDT) is a bit heavy and requires a great amount of scientific reasoning, witch can lead to failure of the implications to really sink in and be integrated. I for one, finds it difficult to use the more scientific arguments in an improvised ad hoc discussion, because I just barely understands it when I get it explained myself. Therefore I find it very usefull and productive to find some laymans arguments, that even a child can understand and use.

To make a challange out of it, I will try with the most non-appealing case - WTC2.

Please watch one and a half minutes of this video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA#t=05m13s, while noting:

- collapse front ahead of falling top.
- explosion onset jumps one or two floors.
- most of debris absolutely NOT part of pile driver.
- subtle pause in top acceleration. Gaining momentum when blast sequence starts.(Could just be glitch in videoclips, though. Take it fore what it is.)

If the top of WTC2 should have participated in any kind of progressive collaps, then from where came the facade section seen in bottom right corner at 5:22 and 5:33 ? To me it can't be anything else than the top of WTC2 exploding in mid air (maybe we can settle with the debunkers on explosives in the top of WTC2 only, and call it a day).

The first smoke and dust when top is falling is not ejected as powerfull as when the blast sequence initiates. If we should believe the piledriver theory, the first impact ejections should be atleast as powerfull than the rest. After all, the pile driver theory rely on the initial acceleration from the more or less free fall the first floor or two (allthough I dont't believe the collapse should have ever initiated).

From the video clips it should be very clear, that there is NO sudden onset of collaps.
It starts slow, as you would expect. Otherwise all/most of the supporting columns should have snapped AND given way simultaneously. Not even the debunkers claims that, do they?

Some other obvious layman thoughts in an attept to disarm some of the debunkers desperation "joker cards".

Defenders of the official narrative mocks 911 sceptics concerning the CDT, arguing enourmous amount of explosives was needed witch would have been impossible to plant in the towers. But at the same time they claim fire and gravity alone could do the job. Now there is something to ponder about :).

Why is the CDT so unlikely because it seems difficult to place explosives unnoticed? It's a strange kind of reasoning, that just because YOU can't see it possible, the hypothesis is false. What a world we would live in if all scientists (or people in general for that matter) thought like that.

The fact that no serious/definitive whistle blowers have yet come forward seems to many debunkers to be proof of NO conspiracy. Someone would have talked, they say. That seems to me again as a strange kind of reasoning. When has anyone ever stopped an investigation, because no one has yet confessed?

Thanks to all contributers at 911blogger.com.
SwinG