The WTC Tower Collapses

The fact is, I was unconvinced whether there were explosives used in the WTC collapses, until I read Webster Tarpley's new book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA", and then I have switched over to the controlled demolition camp.

The argument for explosives used to bring down the tower goes something like this:
1) the WTC was bombed before--in '93, so there is precedent
2) the extreme speed at which the towers fell-- not consistent with pancake model, where each floor gave way due to pressure from above
3) both towers collapsed same exact way though the damage to each was very different
4) there were abundant eye-witness reports of explosives on 9/11, including from firemen
5) the Fire Dept is suppressing discussion of bombs in the WTC on 9/11 by firemen
6) Giuliani and the government clearly hindered any investigation into the collapse-- quickly cleared away the material before it could be analyzed. Giuliani didn't even want tourists taking photos at the WTC site.
7) Silverstein-- the owner of the WTC complex took out a huge insurance contract as soon as he bought the buildings
8) there were reports of molten steel at the base of the WTC collapse-- this is not consistent with a pancake collapse
9) there were many empty offices in the WTC where bombs could have been planted
10) a worker at the WTC said power was shut off in the WTC the weekend before the attacks for laying cables
11) finally, recently a Madrid skyscraper where it burned for 24 hours-- 12 times as long as the WTC, but only suffered a partial collapse of a few floors.

The argument against demolition is something like this:
1) the weakened steel from the fires led to a sequential pancake collapse of each floor-- this is an unproven theory
2) there couldn't have been more layers to the 9/11 conspiracy-- this is more of a belief it seems than anything else.