As I pointed out, you shield the electronics, not the antenna. You filter the antenna, passing frequencies in the signal band. Interference due to the structure can be circumvented by a network of transceivers within the building.

Your most important contention is the impossibility of adequate shielding. To the contrary, anyone familiar with the basic physics would guess that a thick, small smooth shell formed from a good conductor should adequately exclude whatever EMF might be found in this environment. I may look at this further and follow up with some numbers in a few days.

Now you're getting into the realm of "maybe" in a big way. Retransmitting the detonation signal to all explosives, precisely timed down to the last millisecond, through a building so large it would require thousands upon thousand of seperate charges to drop it; installing said explosives without ANYONE noticing; making structural cuts in the appropriate places to ensure the building collapsed as intended, without the building falling down in a high wind or again, without anyone noticing...

You are going to believe whatever you want to believe. I am done here. No offense, my friend, but you seriously need to go read some books on structural engineering and metallurgy, then go do some research on large scale demolitions.

And always remember Occam's Razor: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." The theory that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demo is full of assumptions.

“Thousands of charges”: I'd tend to allow that hundreds of charges would be needed, and I've argued that they could have been placed by a company of military demolitions engineers while the WTC was closed shortly before the attacks. However, it's worth noting the comment reported in the Albuquerque Journal on the evening of 9/11/01 made by Van Romero, one of the world's pre-eminent experts in skyscraper demolition, that what he'd observed could've been accomplished with “a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points”.

“You're going to think what you want anyway...”:
I've presented rational arguments, and have responded to as many of your points as I've had time to address. You offer reasonable opposition to my arguments regarding the physical evidence, showing that some are inconclusive without really refuting them, but fall far short of dealing with the preponderance of evidence for government complicity in 9/11. Respect for these facts does not constitute obstinacy on my part.

Sherlock Holmes doesn't claim that the truth remains after eliminating all that's hard to explain. Occam's Razor is not a license to discard data that contradicts one's thesis.
What about that Thermate? What about the numerous, regular explosions reported by so many witnesses and visible in some of the footage? How did temperatures reach levels hot enough to vaporize steel?