Interesting. He seems to be starting from a strong belief that A) the towers could not have collapsed (in the way observed) from impact and fire alone and B) Nanothermite was used.
He's also faced with a lack of evidence, which he's been forced to acknowledge.
So he settles on the "nanothermite rockets" theory - which is not really new, as it was discussed by Harrit years ago. But since he's reasonably rigorous he notes:
So then he settle deeper into what he calls the " Propelled Demolition Scenario"
It gets more involved:
He does not actually suggest rockets attached to the floor slabs (which you'd think is what would be needed) but instead theorizes:
The rigging of the building is discussed:
The "panels" theory is finessed to explain things like the "molten iron" (a glowing debris stream, probably just burning stuff) in one corner.
The conclusion summarizes:
Of course this entire theory is nonsense. It relies on the secret installation of 1,900 tons of magical panels, links with some equally magical ignition mechanism that, even if it worked perfectly, would do little more than move air around. Panels which can, in one corner of the build, slowly burn into a pool of molten iron, while when arranged inside the elevator shaft can then propel sections of the outside of the building UP into the air.
It's a fascinating exercise in confirmation bias. Does it need addressing? I'd almost say no. AE911 has hidden behind the hand-waving of "just asking questions" for many years. They haven't got behind an alternative hypothesis because there isn't one. Coste thanks "Jim Hoffman, David Cole, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and especially David Chandler" which suggests AE911 is somewhat behind this. Would it be a good thing if they were to actually start pushing a specific collapse mechanism? One that is so obviously ridiculous?
Then again, perhaps by addressing this, by engaging them on the topic, we could help them extend their own "debunker" mindset that they have already applied to thins like the Pentagon missile theory and the dustification theory.
If I were to address this paper, I think it would be best to start with their more fundamental misunderstandings - things that are false, and yet have become axiomatic for them. Thinks they feel refute the "official story" and hence remember the need for any rigor in their derived hypotheses. I think I'd start with:
Where would Coste be if it were demonstrated (and I think it has been, several times) that the "rooster tails" are actually NOT the result of an upward trajectory? Would the realization of his years-long mistake trigger the reexamination of other assumptions? Maybe.
Fascinating stuff (and in some ways a welcome distraction for the current virus news).