Robywar, I agree. Fir na tine remarks are unhelpful. You got several helpful responses. Why don’t you talk to them?
I’m reading through all the links and threads now. Seems this sort of thing has been done to death.
I’m willing to be that most people that subscribe to theories like this are piggybacking on other’s claims without researching it at all. The old “I heard a fireman at groud zero said” then-it-must-be-true-type thing. It all sounds very compelling, and even if you don’t want it to be true, you think that maybe there is a posibility, so it only feeds the fire.
Thanks to everyone for all the links and information. I appreciate your help!
SEE! There was more than kerosene burning, there.
RUMORS brought down the WTC.
What?
Well, there’s an upside to overdoing some questions, particularly conspiracies. If one recalls, J. Edgar Hoover kept caterwauling that there was no such thing as organized crime/Mafia/whatever, and dismissing claims to the contrary as belonging to the tinfoil hat club. His bona fides were immaculate, at the time. Plus, somewhere in my head I have the concept that many actual engineers/physicists in the 30s-40s were saying that what we call the atomic bomb would not be possible. So, it pays to keep asking, because those in the know ain’t always in the know. Hopefully, one can be an irritant in the process! 
hh
I haven’t troubled myself to research the tinfoil-hat claims that planes alone could not have brought the towers down. Do these people have no idea how much a commercial airliner weighs?
To their claims, the weight is irrelevant. The towers stood for a long time after the crashes; the crashes, themselves, did not bring down the towers.
Now, the weights of the planes do figure into some of the stories surrounding the eventual collapses, but the proximate causes of each building’s collapse was fire, not the crashes.
I rarely see it mentioned that the towers did not collapse in the order they were hit. The first building hit stood for much longer than the second. It clear why, it seems to me, since the first tower was hit much higher up. The second tower was hit lower down and thus the weakened structural elements had more weight to support.
The second tower was also hit more off-center, taking out nearly an entire corner or the building. That would have made the load on the remaining beams more uneven.
My understanding is that the main weight-bearing supports were the center columns in the WTC towers. The perimeter beams were for stiffness mainly, to handle the wind forces.
And you can see that this tower fails when the top 30 floors or so start tipping over, towards the side where the airliner hit. Of course, buildings are made to support themselves vertically, so soon after the tipping started, it all came crashing down.
basicly structural failure.
tower one fell due to structual failure in the core, tower two fell to structual failure of the southeast corner floor (appx 80th floor) . (fema report from sept. 2002)
wtc 7 is still a bit of a mystery.
Actually, all of you are wrong. The towers never collapsed, it was an optical illusion. They are still there.
Wait until the Democrats get back in power, and the truth will be revealed.
I know this is true because my cat told me.
Was your cat wearing a Tinfoil hat?
BTW, where do you purchase Tinfoil these days? All we ever get is Aluminum foil.
In the true spirit of fighting ignorance, I feel it is a good idea to mention that wearing a foil hat, whether aluminum, or tin can cause your head to overheat. It reflects radiative cooling back into the head, and blocks air movement thus reducing evaporative cooling.
I am not able to report the actual measured effect on brain temperature, since my own experiment was monitored only by the wearer’s report of extreme discomfort. However, the hypothesis that such headwear might be statistically associated with impaired intellectual function is not incompatible with my research.
Tris
“We better get back, cause it’ll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night, mostly.” ~ Newt, Aliens