Thanks B25. When I have extra time, I'll dive more into the article, but from what I've read so far in the article and not having read any part of the 9/11 commissions findings, I have one question to the author of the article, which is, if a bomb was the cause of the blasts which brought down the twin towers, how was it the bomb blasts were able to create a recognizable shape that seems to have been cut into the building in a shape of a plane at the point of impact side of the buildings, AND, how was it that the fireballs came out of the building on the opposite side of where the impact of the aircraft, which according to the author, it was not the aircraft that hit the buildings, but the blast was a result of bombs.
If we believe the author, surely the fireball would have been on the same side of the building as he claims the holes in the building were not made by the aircraft flying into it but instead made by a bomb. To me it doesn't add up, but I will read the whole article when I have more time.
Just one more thing to think about. The planes did not destroy the steel beams which caused the buildings to collapse. It was the fire at high temperatures which caused the steel to buckle that cause the buildings to collapse. Once the steel beams buckled the weight of the building above the point of impacts just crushed the floors beneath it one floor at a time imploding within.