The WTC Did Not Collapse on 9/11 (It turned to dust and THEN collapsed, big difference)
I am a person who is, in fact, claiming that WTC 3,4,5 and 6 did not collapse. Additionally, I continue to claim that WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse. To repeat, I say that none of the buildings collapsed.
This is my logic: "Collapse" means "fall downward and inward". I think we can agree on this definition. The buildings, in this sense, did not collapse, although the tiny pieces of the building did fall to the ground after they were created. Larger pieces also fell to the ground as they were dissolving. But to me, in my honest opinion, to say that the WTC buildings collapsed is ignoring something huge.
The Huge Thing:
The buildings turned almost completely into dust before they collapsed. When people make the claim that the buildings collapsed, I want to ask them, "What happened to the buildings right before they 'collapsed'?" because it seems to me that nobody seems to recognize that the building turned into dust before it started heading downward.
Even WTC 7. There are several pictures of WTC 7 fuming hard during the daytime after WTC 1 and 2 were gone. These fumes are steel being dissolved out of the building.
All of the WTC buildings were dissolved while standing, and then the dust fell to the ground. This is not a collapse, to me. This is kind of like saying JFK died from blood loss but not mentioning the fact that somebody shot him. Yeah, he died because of blood loss, but nobody doubts that the blood loss was caused by a bullet wound. Nobody claims JFK was knifed to death.
That is the current state of affairs in the 9/11 Truth biz. You have all these people claiming that JFK was knifed to death and that the Secret Service was behind it all. Well, the conclusion might be true. The Secret Service might have been behind it all. But to insist that JFK died from a knife wound just makes you sound stupid, and therefore nobody is likely to believe you even if you come to the correct conclusion.
The pernicious thing about thermite and "bombs in the building" theories is two-fold. One, they didn't happen and too much energy in the 9/11 Truth biz is being spent on defending thermite, investigating thermite, talking about thermite. It's a waste of time for all these people who might otherwise be investigating in other areas closer to the truth. The second thing is that when and if the public attention is EVER brought to the subject of a 9/11 investigation and people investigate thermite and find it to be incompatible with the facts, then we will have lost them forever.
If you all go forward with this thermite biz, we might lose the big game forever. So it's kind of important to me.
WTC 7 did not fall from debris. Diesel fuel cannot account for the destruction of WTC 7, which is why Kerrey might have had to retract it. Scientists were puzzled by the forensics of the steel because they didn't see damage that they could attach to any particular process in their working memory and professional experience. It's a juicy point. Scientists who study steel are puzzled. You should be wondering why these folks who regularly study steel are puzzled. It raises the bar on what could have destroyed the steel. The Harrit et al. article on "Active Thermitic Material" was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The only reason the authors keep harping about it being "peer-reviewed" is because a scandal came out where their publishing company Bentham journals (look it up) was caught accepting for publication a journal article written by a computer. Their strategy to combat this "outing" that the Harrit article was caught up in this scandal was the decision to constantly refer to this article as having been "peer reviewed."
The reason this is true is quite obvious. There have been many, many peer-reviewed articles on the subject of 9/11, and these folks don't run around crowing about the victory of getting a peer-reviewed article published. It's not a big deal. It's expected that articles are peer-reviewed, so it doesn't need to be said.