Creative Speculation

Since truthers rarely correct each other, we can reasonably make assumptions that what truthers commonly claim represents most truthers.

So here is your opportunity: give a plausible explanation on how 9-11 went down. You don’t have to prove it. It just has to be plausible, and consistent with the facts. So far I’ve never seen that done.

Since any explosive that is capable of taking down the towers would create an extremely loud sound audible for many miles, explosive are automatically eliminated as a possibility. No explosive are audible during the collapse, let alone any explosive capable of taking down the towers.

Both towers collapsed from the location where the fires were naturally the most intense from the aircraft collision. So any device would have been destroyed, regardless if there were extended wires or not.

Why would the conspirators chose to strike the buildings at the locations that were most likely to ruin their demolition? How was their targeting so perfect, such that they struck both towers at the precise location were they would create the most intense fires at the locations of the buildings’ demolition devices? A common assertion of the truthers is that the hijackers couldn’t have hit the side of a very large building, but truthers have no problem with this perfect targeting.

There are countless more problems with truther claims.