It has been stated 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."
Perhaps, but perhaps the possibility was extremely low. I'm not a military demolition expert, so I wouldn't know, but I believe that the evidence that the buildings -were- taken down by controlled demolition is definitive.
spidergoat has argued that the evidence is far from definitive. I did qualify that 'definitive' with an 'i believe'- I acknowledge that many remain unconvinced but I attribute this to a lack of knowledge concerning the relevant facts.
It has been stated that "unless there was residue of explosives at the site, or evidence of explosive related material, the rest of it is pure conjecture.". There was, in fact, such residue. My evidence and arguments that this is indeed the case can be seen here.
It has been stated that "The towers, if you notice, did not fall straight down, The top section fell on the damaged section and tilted on an angle, then the lower floors pancaked." My response can be seen here.
It has been argued that "Demolitions require multiple blast points and usually start from the ground up."
In the case of WTC 7, it did indeed start from the ground up. In the case of the twin towers, there is evidence that the initial explosions were near simultaneous with the aircraft collisions and that they happened in the basements. There is lots of evidence that there were far more blast points as well:
Evidence of explosions and flashes
spidergoat has argued that there is a lack of explosive shock waves in the video. In point of fact, there is a fair amount of evidence of a demolition wave, as can be seen here.
It has been argued that the buildings were not designed for that size of an airplane, and definitely not for the amount of fuel they carried. In fact, they were.