In the course of a response to a list of conventional weapon questions I posted back in November, regular 911blogger Jones Clone 'Arabesque' makes a startling comment.
My responses are in bold.
-------------------------------
For one who presents himself as a great arbiter of truth and reason, your 'responses ' are a rag-tag jumble of patched - up half-truths and speculation. I cannot hope to challenge Dr Jenkins' virtuoso diplay of advanced physics. I could offer an analysis of a Bach fugue but that would not help much. Ultimately when faced with experts who disagree, it comes down to a beauty contest , by which I mean not looks - Greg is a pleasant-looking chap anyhow - but whether that person appears genuine or not . I do not doubt his or Judy Wood's integrity, so that leaves me with only my own observations from a non-scientific viewpoint and whether they match with what is being said. I cannot agree that the destruction of the Twin Towers was not anomalous , as he asserts.

Which brings me to your comments.

1. CD is normally bottom - led not top - down.

Answer: Controlled demolition is controlled. They can set the explosives off where and at what speed they want.

You know more about this than Danny Jowenko, then?
He is absolutely adamant that the Twin towers were not CD.

2. The size of the towers would have involved a lot of explosives, which would have had to be planted secretly.

Straw-man: This disproves that they were used?Bush