Originally posted by LeftBehind
IMHO those pictures show buildings collapsing in a much different fashion than the WTC.
Of course you would think this.
You are biased.
And so am I.
Let the viewer decide where he or she sees similarities, and differences. I should note, however, that without comparisons to known gravity-driven collapses, there is little point.
In those pictures there are initial huge blasts all throughout the building. I don't see those on WTC footage.
Yes; and I suppose it is further evidence against our case that you don't see a man throwing the switch, either. With all the resources at their disposal, our government would obviously decide to wire up the WTC just like all other demolitions and not try to hide obvious demo-traits, or make it look more natural. Why bother trying to hide something, when you are only trying to fool an entire nation? You certainly make a very sound point, here.
All those buildings collapsed from the bottom up. The two towers collapsed from the top down.
Seriously, dude, they can be freaking wired to go off in any order they're programmed to! How many times does this need to be stated before you will take notice of it? I'm not entirely convinced that you even care to know details like this. Further, the technology required to do these kinds of things isn't exactly cutting-edge.
I wonder what key points were needed to be bombed and who had the leases for those areas. Which point in the video do you think shows the initial blast that started the collapse?
I don't think any "initial blast" is conspicuous from the outside of the building, or at least from any known video. Nor would they necessarily have to be seen from the outside, and indeed, such a detonation would be just a little too obvious of an error when it would later come to the official story.
If the building wasn't completely lined with explosives, are the "squibs" proof of anything?
Wtf?
The squibs were, by the only approach that makes sense scientifically (until you show otherwise - as we all know explosives cause explosions, which is undoubtedly what those massive ejections were, but unfortunately for you, you cannot dream up evidence of magical air currents, etc., as these b.s. claims are impossible to have caused the squibs), explosive detonations coming from the buildings during collapse. In no part of that definition is there any significance given to how frequent these were or how many explosives must've been set up, and rightfully so. There is no correlation. Your argument here makes about as much sense as throwing out the theory of gravity because another planet is discovered!
I was under the impression that "squibs" were evidence towards having the entire building wired up. If we say that only key points were bombed, were the squibs caused by something else?
And so because one of the possibilities here is that only key areas were blown out, suddenly evidence and information we have regarding the squibs changes? Again, there is absolutely no correlation here and your arguments in general are becoming quite weak. I would ask how the frequency of the squibs relate in any way to the other characteristics, but I don't even want an answer. Just save me the trouble, as I'm sure you could pull something out of your behind so as to try to save yourself some dignity or whatever else it is that you post for here.
were used at the WTC on
9/11, based on different observed and recorded phenomena from that place and time. 
) and found that link to post, assuming it was an unalterated
reproduction. Interesting though, although I wouldn't call the statement at the end a "refutation"; more like a bit of a whine because Hoffman
didn't come straight out and say, "They blew the bloody thing up!". 
And to anyone who has followed Hoffman's work, their inference that he
is a disinfo agent is pure comedy. Hoffman, rightly so, presents the paper purely as an analysis of the energy sources and sinks. Speculation and
analyses of where the deficient energy came from is for another thesis. (Speaking of comedy, check the 2nd reply to the article: "My
husband can't satisfy me", frikkin hilarious.) 
