didn't you just exhort us to not go by first impressions?it seems totally plausible from recent history and eyewitness accounts that they may have used bombs in addition to planes to attack the towers on 9/11.
it did not seem plausible to NIST
it did not seem plausible to the 9/11 commission who researched how the terrorists prepared
you, on the other hand, acknowledge that there were many indicators of impending collapse as WTC7 burned, and that the collapse would look the same no matter how column 79 lost strength, but still find it plausible that this involved a bomb
it doesn't seem plausible that the terrorists would use both aircraft and bombs; if they could bomb the buildings, why do the aircraft thing, which cost lots of money, time, effort, and lives?
and if it's not plausible that the terrorists would do both, we go to "government conspiracy", which is unprecedented and even less plausible.