All I'm trying to say is don't assume you're getting the full truth from documentaries such as these. They have a clear agenda and very rarely will they explore explanations that are not fully aligned with this agenda.
The asbestos could indeed be a valid reason, although i haven't looked into it yet. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the investigation was hindered because of that delay. Investigation that would have put an end to all the questions scientists and engineers outside of NIST have.
You brought up agenda and that these documentaries don't explore expalnations that fit their reasoning. Maybe they do, i don't know them personally but it's not like governments don't have their own agenda. In fact the official report of NIST has been critisiced for that exact reason - they focused only in fires as the reason of the collapse.
There hasn't been a single building in history that was recorded collapsing this way becuase of fires before (or after) the 9/11 event. That's fine though, maybe those three buldings were a special occasion. The question is why didn't NIST look for alternative explanations? Like I said the probability of a fire bringing down these buildings prior to that day was zero percent(0%). Ok, maybe they did their research and found a few good reasons it could have been office fires. Why not make further research to secure other more possible explanations were not the case? They've said it themselves they did not look for explosives:
22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
That is not how investigations work! It is embarrasing for them to just deny the existance of explosives without even looking especially when other researchers later found evidence of nanothermite -a highly explosive material used by the military- in the dust (or at least something that resembles it). But, again I'm not an expert maybe the substance indicative of nanothermite was created because of some other reaction during the collapse and not bacuse of controlled explosives. A proper investigation would require NIST to make these simple experiments in the dust, find the nanothermite-like material and then explain why it wasn't explsosions because of this or that. They didn't do any of this! All the questions about thermite/nanothermite in their FAQ were added after the reasearch from other scientists. They either did it on purpose or they are really bad scientists.
Anyway, I agree that the information wherever we get it from is probably filtered. If I wanted to get completely unfiltered information it would require me being a reasearch, but I'm not. The video I posted was about a guy doing his own research and watching videos from scientists talking. I did go a level below and took the time to watch these videos myself.
One of those was really interesting. Professor Steven Jones was teaching physics in his university for 21 years and had a couple of awards for his work - definitely not your typical crazy conspiracy guy. He made a paper questioning the official story and he was prohibitted from teaching because of this! He also was the first guy who found the nanothermite.
Anyway the point is maybe i was a bit overzealous at first but a lot of those people are just scientits wanting to answer every question in a reasonable way because that's what scientists do. Maybe it was not controlled demolition that brought down the buildings but it's not a given either that fires did the job until sufficient investigation has been made.
BTW, I remember back in 2010 (or 2011?) when Bin Laden was reported to be dead, some of us here were asking for the video of his death to become public like it was done with Saddam Hussein. I believe it was you who said that they would "leak" it once the elections of 2012 arrive to gain more votes. Yeah.. still waiting for that video!
Also here's the video of Steven Jones. It's half the duration of the first one and contains more "raw" material.
There's also the fact that no building of that stature has ever been hit by a plane. In that respect, nothing about the theory is even testable. I'd be more surprised if a building hit by a plane wouldn't collapse. Even more surprised still if they managed to put the amount of explosives required, on all the various floors required, without any employees noticing. A man with a reasonable motive, with identified attackers from airport security, took responsibility for it. His organization and the organizations that inherited that mantle have continued to make attacks under that same banner.
But these buildings aren't meant to collapse by a plane crush. The constructors themselves have said it in the video I posted. The official story supported by NIST claims all three buildings (WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7) eventually collapsed because of fires and conspiracy theorists try to prove it was not done by fires.
