At first blush, this seems like some real crackpot psuedo-science. Read more, and it presents a solid alternative to the 'official' explanation.
The first footage, I saw, of the collapsing towers amazed me. The collapse of all of the structures was remarkably similar to the many planned demolitions that have been filmed of condemned buildings. I was surprised to hear it explained that the heat from the igniting jet fuel liquified the steel support beams. Who has ever heard of that happening? Jet fuel burns quickly-surely not enough to cause what we saw on 9/11. The power inherent in a bomb is not the size of the bomb itself, but in what surrounds the bomb. That's why bombs that go off in buildings cause more damage than those that are detonated outside. Any explosions happening from the collision were coming from the outside, not inside the buildings. These are the thoughts that I, a layman, had when I heard the explanations surrounding the cause of the destruction.
Then I saw the article below and I imagined a plot from an Oliver Stone movie. I thought this professor is just trying to get published-get famous.
Maybe, I think too much.
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC