The following arguments were made by Spidergoat in this
- She argued that it would not be logical to prepare an extremely
risky mission to secretly place explosives in addition to jets, since it was
certainly possible that any preparations for explosives would be damaged by
the crashes and later detected. My response is here.
- She stated that "Explosives do not eliminate the evidence
of their existence." My response to that is here.
- She argued that WTC7 was not a prominent target and that
there would therefore be no advantage to destroying it on purpose. The following
link explains that some people would actually have been quite happy of its
collapse: Who benefitted from the WTC 7 collapse?