This kind of objective reporting is always welcome Tom, you have covered all the biggest points, (there are many more questions of course and we all have our personal favourites.) As you and others here in the comment thread have pointed out we are never likely to get definitive or even credible answers to most of these questions, but it’s also useful and necessary to remind the world how governments and government friendly media can control the narrative.
The symmetrical collapses of the towers has always intrigued me because they all came down as if the job had been planned by an expert demolition contractor or military explosives experts. OK, could be coincidence, could be they were designed that way but as you say Towers One and Two were hit at dfferent points. And Tower 7 was not hit at all. However, in the 1980s I led projects to install computer systems in several of the towers in the London Docklands redevelopment and the job involved getting down into the guts of the building often accompanied by structural engineers. And they told me and showed me that charges were built into the framework at strategic points so that in the event of some catastrophe, the buildings could be brought down as safely as possible.
I’ve been called all sorts of names by fans of big government for telling this story, but it happened long before 9/11 those guys had no reason other than possibly winding up the gullible computer geek, for telling me that, and what they told me were explosive charges, short of having ACME DYNAMITE CORP stamped on them like in a Road Runner and Coyote cartoon, could not have looked any more like explosive charges.
Other than that I’ve never felt inclined to investigate what they told me, but in the context of 9/11 and they way those towers came down, it makes a lot of sense.