To say the least, I find several of your arguments less than convincing, although I am quite willing to accept the empty tower premise in general. You start off badly ("The Empty Towers is something we induce...": surely you mean "deduce"!), get better briefly ("The basis is the fake pictures and the fake video (sic).") but then throw in some very questionable remarks:
It's pretty easy to interpret this latter comment as a put-down of the evidence provided by Dr. Judy Wood and by Dimitri Khalezov, but under the light of day in a written forum (rather than a call-in talk show) it's a blatantly Straw-Man. We in all likelihood have empty towers and faked victim databases, but the major problem of 9-11 is the buildings' disintegration itself, illustrated not only on these researchers sites and YouTube videos but in this very early and pretty much forgotten ABC news clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LW6b8JF5lsThe conclusion is that you can take down the Towers any way you like, as long as you complete the work in the allocated time frame... This is a major argument against any/all more esoteric conspiratorial scenarios, such as using UFO-style death ray weapons, using A-bombs in the basement, UFO attack, licorice steel effect, etc.
You then go on to state
The problem, as I've said, is that the buildings were not just demolished but rather pulverized. Under our conventional understanding of physics, the amount of energy required to do so - as several critics of the "molecular polverization theory" have commented - is more than that existing in all forms of manipulatible energy (nuclear, petroleum, hydroelectric, etc.) available at any one time in the world! So why do they and you think that your conventional explosives are somehow adequate to do so?? You'd face the same energy deficit problem. Or are you now going to suggest that the top-down billowing fountains of debris that were WTC1 and WTC2 (as contrasted with WTC7) were just so much fake video imagery?You can take down the towers using conventional means. A controlled demolition use(s) a computer-controlled sequence of shape-charges..." followed by some rather dubious if not laughable explanation of the technique.