I'm not a physicist, so like a lot of us here, I couldn't tell if what this person is saying is right or wrong, but what little I can surmise is that the laws of physics on this relatively elementary level are probably well-understood.  I simply don't understand how you can have a debate on whether 1+1=2 or likewise, how much energy is needed to do what was done within the constraints of gravity.  And yet, there is debate.  Some engineers somewhere (probably available on the net) created an official explanation.  It's been criticized as much for what it did say as what it didn't.  And yet the laws of physics do not offer room for argument.  But physicists and engineers can scream and hollar all they want but won't change an official explanation.  So, in short, who knows.

It's like the case of Sarin gas that Saddam was supposed to have.  For all the talk about his "stockpiles," what they (our officials) didn't tell us is that the stuff had a shelf-life of like 2-months, so whatever Saddam manufactured pre-1991 would be of no danger to anyone in 2003.  That's fact.  They told us the piece of the story they wanted us to hear, letting us fill in a blank that didn't need to be filled.  I suspect that the official engineering report on the WTC is probably the same - it probably made certain statements that would allow the reader to possibly draw the wrong conclusion, and probably ignored the facts that would lead the reader to the correct conclusion.  Or, in the case of Saddam's sarin gas, they left out that whatever stockpiles he might have still had were not of any danger whatsoever.

Where's the media?  Why isn't our media being more diligent in doing this kind of homework and pointing out these kinds of deceptions?   On the one hand we have Fox (check out the film "Out Foxed" which is a very interesting look at how Fox news operates).  On the other hand we have ABC/CBS/NBC.  And we have CNN.  Bill O'Reilly says "we're looking out for you."  Franken points out that he's such a pathological liar that he can't be sued (e.g., by Jeremy Glick) because one would have to prove Bill knew he was lying - and the more Bill lies the more difficult such a thing is to prove (talk about twisted legal logic!)  We can't count on Fox to point out important inconsistencies in what we are being fed.  ABC et al don't focus on anything for more than a minute or two.  What about CNN?  Are they as independent now that they are owned by Time Warner?   If not them, who?