This is a gross misrepresentation of the hypothesis of Dr. Jones et. al. The well-supported belief is that Thermite was used to cut the core columns, not to implode the rest of the building. Separate explosive charges would have been required to produce the effect we witnessed. This is misdirection plain and simple.

Anyone who’d spent more than 14.7 minutes on YouTube watching anything Stephen Jones said could have figured this one out!

Do they even show the building collapse even once?

“It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don’t have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time.”

So even though the theorised weakening was localised, the sudden loss of structural integrity in one corner of the building led to a total simultaneous collapse.

Ok, fine I can accept that possibility. But wait! Then Jones is mentioned as having suggested thermite cutting charges were used, and how does the BBC counter that argument?

“The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.

“I’ve never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don’t see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time.”

So apparently if you use explosives or thermite the timing is CRITICAL; if you don’t get it exactly right you do not get an implosion. Yes, that we have all heard many times before… but wait, weren’t we just told that such perfect timing is NOT needed to gain the results seen?

If the symmetry etc of the collapse is NOT evidence against scattered fires, how can it be evidence against controlled demolition? Either it requires precisely timed and placed detonations, or any kind of scattered fire can do it. You can’t have it both ways.

If it’s the latter, why does it take “months to design and months to prepare the structure for the placement of charges” Why not just set fire to buildings and let “nature” take its course?

Also, according to Loizeaux no one would even try to bring down a building using thermite because it would be impossible to get the simultaneous ignition required to cause an implosion. OK, but who said the people who rigged the building were TRYING to make it implode? Maybe they WANTED it to collapse asymmetrically (thus looking more natural) maybe they intended for only a partial collapse or maybe they intended the building to fall on another building. There are a whole lot of reasons someone may decide to use a method other than that used in controlled demolition. So the fact that thermite is not used commercially for the job in no way proves that thermite could not have been used – this was not a commercial controlled demolition – it was an attack that did not care one bit about possible collateral damage.

In fact it seems to me that the ultimate result was a mistake – something went wrong with both the timing and placement of the charges, and rather than an seemingly natural collapse soon after the first two, they ended up with a long delayed collapse that in the end screamed “DEMOLITION!”