Given that, the following quote doesn't make much sense if you believe that no explosives were present.
Here's the Fox News article.
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
If they expected it to fall, spending weeks/months planting explosives would have been 100% out of the question. No demolition team would operate within a building whose "foundation was already unstable" for even a moment, let alone the weeks/months required to outfit the building. There is absolutely no way.
A fact of reality - completely contradictory to the official story - yet there it is. And it has lots of company too. Remember when BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed before the event? Of course, nobody has provided a remotely reasonable explanation for that, at least not while juggling all the other inconsistencies in the OS.
This case is almost completely closed. Until someone can provide a peer-reviewed rebuttal of the Niels Harrit / Steven Jones "Active Thermitic Material Found..." paper, then science by way of hard evidence has given its solemn answer on the matter.
Controlled Demolition using thermitic material.
This next video is pretty good too.
"Keep 'yer eye on that building, that thing's comin' down."
"The building is about to blow up - move it back. "
"Here, I'm walking back, there's a building about to blow up"
It's like defending OJ Simpson. Bewildering.