"Ideologically speaking, this event promised to change the world. To remake it in the "Milton Friedman Free-Market" mold. So, perhaps that factored in as well."

Um, it promised to align the world's interests with those of Zionism, which is otherwise up shit's creek for various reasons. And 9/11 has not brought about any kind of free-market reforms, quite the opposite in fact.

"Control is everything. That is one of the main reasons I know for a fact that "nanothermite" or "super thermite" or any other such distraction WASN'T used. There is no control factor on untested explosives (even the Jones report can't fully claim that the stuff could blow up anything... much less the floor systems in the Towers) and therefore I know for a fact, these guys would NEVER have used it as the primary high explosive."

Here you're using circular reason. Controlled demolition companies like having control, so they didn't use thermite, so thermite wasn't used, which shows it was done by demolition professionals. Not very convincing. Demolition companies are not in the business of demolishing buildings covertly so as to assign a cause other than their handiwork. But this is exactly what was done at the WTC, which points towards the logical use of a steel melting incendiary like thermite to thin down the thicker steel components so as to minimize the use of loud explosives.