that there were some defects, not only in the materials that were used to build the WTC Towers, but in the workmanship itself.
What defects, specifically? And how could these defects result in the near-total pulverization, in seconds, of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel-reinfrced concrete? What was their contribution to the absence, at Ground Zero, of the approximately one hundred acres (or very roughly, about four million square feet) of concrete pavement, the thousands of steel trusses, and the hundred acres of steel corrugated floor pan?
That's for one tower; double it for the two of them.
Why did one firefighter on the scene state that there wasn't anything bigger than the screen from a cell phone in the rubble of Ground Zero?
This story of "defects" is just more snow in the overall snow job.
The materials of which the Twin Towers were built lasted just fine for about thirty years, and then failed all at once, supposedly from causes that have never, before or since, caused the collapse and disintegration of even one single other high-rise building in the whole world.
The official story is impossible to the point of being ridiculous.
Don't say "but the airplanes..."
Yes, they were there, and did hit the Towers. But the airplanes were irrelevant to the collapse and disintegration.
Had not demolition explosives been used those two Towers could still be standing, albeit with big holes in the side.
Only explosives could have done what was done. I suggest more research, if that is not yet understood.
I've worked in construction most of my adult life and I know very well that steel and concrete are much, much harder to break, melt, pulverize, or shatter, than seems to be generally known.
When a car hits a concrete wall it does not turn the car, or the wall, to dust and grit in a few seconds.
When an airplane hits a skyscraper, great damage is done, but the building continues standing and does not suddenly turn to dust in mid-air, as the Twin Towers in fact did- a point which is fact, and not even arguable.
No known agency can do what was done, except for high explosives, and probably also exotic explosives or incendiaries, but definitely high explosive of the same type used in typical commercial building demolitions.
The demolition was top-down for reasons of safety and containment, as well as to fool the public into believing the nonsense that the planes were responsible for the collapse, by having the collapse begin up high.
A standard bottom-up demolition could not be used due to the height of the Twin Towers.
The pulverization, too, was planned, to greatly reduce the amount of large pieces of debris falling from a thousand feet above the streets. .
. The so-called dust cloud was, in fact, "powdered skyscraper, with contents".