If you want to proceed scientifically, you must consider all of the evidence in total. Viewed in isolation, many if not most of the phenomena seem reasonable. Taken together though, the picture changes.
So, why don't you apply the same standards to your own pet theories? Let's have a look:
We have a whole parking lot full of toasted cars. ...car engines burst into flames, car windows explode from the inside out, rubber tires disappear leaving steel belts behind, and paper is unscathed. Just give me the scenario. Imagine the car is parked anywhere you want to imagine.
We have dripping, wilted car parts. What caused this? Don't say heat. I know it was heat. Heat from what?
So, on the one hand, we have "dripping wilted" car parts, but it somehow leaves "steel belts" from the tires behind. So, can your Evil Device of Doom(EDD) (of whatever nature it may be), melt steel or not? If it can do both at the same time, how is that possible?
Car windows and engines "burst" and "explode", but the tires just "dissappear"? Why don't the (pressurized) tires explode too?
It can make "rubber tires" disappear, but not burn paper? Again, how is that possible?
The dust which is bellowing from the falling steel cannot be drywall dust, because there is far too much of it, it lasts for far too long, and because it is coming directly out of the steel, and because it expands afterwards.
So, once again, we have EDD disintergrating steel. Why didn't the steel in the cars disintegrate, why did it just "wilt"? Why didn't the steel from the steel belted tires do either?
How the presence of strutural beams would cause round holes in buildings has not been explained, and I fail to see the point. Also, we have round holes in the debris and dust, holes of the same diameter. It looks plainly as though round holes have been drilled, and these have not been explained.
So here we have EDD "drilling" "round" holes in buildings. Why didn't it drill holes in the two towers? Why did they explode outwards instead?
The explanation for the disappearing buildings is that rubble hit them and they went splat. I don't accept this, because there is nothing left of these buildings. Look at WTC4. The north wing of the building is sliced clean off, and nothing remains of the rest. If falling parts of WTC1 or 2 did it, where are those parts? They can't mutually anihiliate, can they?
So, now we're back to EDD making buildings "disappear", oh, expcept for where WTC4 was "sliced clean off". So, now EDD produces nice clean, straight slices, where before it was producing uniform, round holes.
Again, how does one EDD produce such different effects?
WTC3 was mostly intact after WTC2. Then it went away. If WTC1 parts hit it, where are they, and how much of WTC1 did that take (the official story says that these towers stayed within their footprints)? Explain, don't post kittens.
So, now we have EDD needing two shots to take down WTC3, when before it took down eachof the (much larger) towers in one go. So, how powerful is the EDD again? Did they just turn it up to 11 the first time? And why did it leave that one "sliced off" part of WTC4 again?
What about the core of WTC? 700 feet of it stands on its own for seconds, then falls apart, leaving not a trace. The arial shots show no trace of WTC2 core. What happened to it, and why? Even if it was unstable without lateral support, it wouldn't disintegrate, would it? No. It would either fall over, or it would buckle and fall down, not break apart into 30 foot sections. If you say it should break apart into 30 foot sections, please explain why, I don't get it.
So now we're back to disintegrating the steel, or, maybe, just sectioning it into 30-foot lengths. Does EDD disintegrate steel, make it "wilt", or just cut it into handy 30-foot lengths? And where did our round holes get to in all this mess?
You've posited a device of some nature that shows amazingly different effects all at the same time, relying on unknown physics and engineering, which, other than the damge it did, produced no other signs, such as sounds, optical effects, or effects on any people in the area. And you think that's reasonable?
And that's accepting all your assertions at face value, which you know we don't do.
Whereas we can explain everything with the "buildings fell on them" explanation.
I've got to go home now, so I'll leave that last bit as an exercise for the class. If no one else steps up, I'll tackle it later.
