The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Mr. Jones]

Can we please not keep quoting that extremely long post?

which post is that?

The Mr. Jones post with all the links!

Hey man, Dawgshit started it with the list of people NIST contracted, as if a wall will somehow legitimize anything he says...But it still is the NIST report.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?.

Wait.

This your argument above?

That extreme temps were needed to overcome the steel (melt the steel) in the towers, that high temperatures in the debris pile confirm this, and NIST didn't analyze the debris pile to see what caused these high temps so therefore NIST didn't investigate this properly?

Is this the case?

The wreckage pile temps were hot enough to melt steel...But no such thing occurred before the collapses..Fires in a low oxygen environment should not have reached melting metal temps...and lasted for 100 days or so...NIST should have been more diligent regarding this IMO.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Here's your answer Mr. Jones on why/how the debris pile burned so hot and so long. No "mysterious" heat source.

A NATION CHALLENGED - THE FIREFIGHTERS - With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire - NYTimes.com

As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another.

''When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire,'' said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. ''Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris.''

From page 2 of your link-
It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete and assorted combustibles are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
Is steel being considered a combustible along with concrete??? WTF? Also, what combustible fuel source would be able to achieve temps in the range of 2700 Deg? This article just glosses over this...Steel being compared to ******* coal? Are they serious? LOL..



One idea that was accepted came from a company in Lynchburg, Va., that sold the city about 3,000 gallons of its product Pyrocool, which, when mixed with water, is intended to absorb heat from a fire until the temperature drops below the point of combustion. A total of 750,000 gallons of the diluted Pyrocool was spread over ground zero in late September and early October, at a cost of about $120,000.

When round-the-clock Pyrocool treatment at the trade center was stopped after a week, Chief Blaich said, there was noticeable progress. But the fires were still burning, in large part because of difficulty in getting the substance down through the debris pile and directly onto hot spots.
OK, let me get this straight...Some say the fires were being fed by a LOW supply of oxygen that somehow filtered its way through the tangles mess to juuuust keep the fires alive, at great temps mind you....BUT the pyrocool being a liquid...couldn't slither its way down there despite thousands of gallon of it being pumped in????
Doesn't make sense IYAM.

 

[Montrovant]

which post is that?

The Mr. Jones post with all the links!

Hey man, Dawgshit started it with the list of people NIST contracted, as if a wall will somehow legitimize anything he says...But it still is the NIST report.

I'm not trying to blame you for anything or complain about your original post with the links. I do, in fact, appreciate that. I just hate how such a long post ends up quoted, then quoted again, leaving me to have to scroll through a bunch of stuff I've already seen that isn't actually needed for the new post. I've made the same complaint in other threads, to multiple posters.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not going to quote in order to save space.

I read the first 5+ links, then randomly clicked a couple more and read the summations.

First of all, there is very little that I could call confirmation of molten steel. In fact, in the links I clicked, I don't know if there was a single instance of a direct quote from someone claiming to have seen molten steel. It was a lot of, "This person said they saw molten steel" or, "These workers have been finding molten steel". So many of those links could easily have been molten aluminum.

Cmon man, You're trivializing this again. The point is that there were many reports, and confirmations from many sources. The other point is the NIST ignored all of them, As I been saying, this I considered damaging to their honesty, credibility, and integrity.

More, a few of the links describe temperatures within the debris well below the melting point of steel. That certainly doesn't lend credence to the idea that there was molten steel.

The links provided are in keeping with the spirit of the thread. Many have the same link, but if people bothered to click them it takes you to what link is available, in most cases. And again, there were more then 2-3 instances and sources that mentioned this phenomena, so IMO, it should have been looked into with more earnest effort by NIST.

That aside, perhaps a much more important question is if the fires would cause greater temperatures in the debris than in the towers before collapse? I believe you have talked about the impossibility of an open-air fire reaching the temperatures necessary to melt steel. Well, the fires underground in the debris were not open-air, were they?

This is the mystery. How could open air diffuse flame fires, first of all...get hot enough to overcome the steel support components of these buildings, without actually doing any melting, but be able to produce such extreme temps within the wreckage, and be sustained for so long a time??? I'm at a loss to explain this, and apparently NIST was too, which is why they ignored this and just passed over it...

I'd also point out that in one of the first links you provide, that to an article about Structural Engineer Abolhassan Astaneh, he says that the fires weakening the steel was the reason for the collapse.

Yes, following the links he talks about that bridge overpass that collapsed a few years ago, and mentions molten steel at the WTC when he was there in comparison.

BTW, Tho you seem to be having some degree of difficulty I appreciate you at least being open minded enough to keep this civil and interesting....for now at least.

I can accept that you think the investigation should have looked into reports of molten steel. As a layman, from many of the things I've read about this, it seems quite possible that reports of molten steel may have actually been aluminum or other low-temperature melting metal that was assumed to be steel. Because of steel's fairly high melting point, I can easily see such claims, if not verified, being dismissed as mistakes. And while you provided a number of links about molten metal at ground zero, few if any appear to be direct and convincing accounts that it must have been steel and not some other material.

I don't know about the possibilities of greater temps in the debris. I asked you because you have brought up open-air fires before, seemingly saying that such a fire cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt steel. As such, I was just wondering if the fires in the debris, being of a different sort, might reach the required temp.

While that structural engineer does mention melted steel in the towers, his claim is in regards to the bending seen in beams he studied, not pools of molten metal found on site. And he clearly did say that weakening of the steel was the likely cause of the collapses.

I'd like to have this remain civil. I don't think we're going to convince each other of the opposing viewpoint, but that doesn't mean we need to be nasty. I know these kinds of arguments often do get that way, and I also know that in responding to others some might accidentally splash on me, so I'm trying to avoid getting annoyed or frustrated overly much. It's very easy to just lump all conspiracy theorists together, and I imagine it's very easy for conspiracy theorists to lump those who agree with the government versions together. I'll try to keep my responses individual and not reply based on anything said by the other frequenters of this forum.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I can accept that you think the investigation should have looked into reports of molten steel. As a layman, from many of the things I've read about this, it seems quite possible that reports of molten steel may have actually been aluminum or other low-temperature melting metal that was assumed to be steel. Because of steel's fairly high melting point, I can easily see such claims, if not verified, being dismissed as mistakes. And while you provided a number of links about molten metal at ground zero, few if any appear to be direct and convincing accounts that it must have been steel and not some other material.

So many reports eyewitness or otherwise, should have been examined, and that is my point, strike one if you will.

I don't know about the possibilities of greater temps in the debris. I asked you because you have brought up open-air fires before, seemingly saying that such a fire cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt steel. As such, I was just wondering if the fires in the debris, being of a different sort, might reach the required temp.

We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??
I'm not trying to jump the gun as we still have to see what in the NIST reports said about fire temp, fuel loads to feed them etc.. but this is one of the reasons that started people thinking about just what else could have been supplying the extreme temps in low to no oxygen environments, and sustain them, and of course this is when the speculation of other chemicals such as thermate/nano thermate etc started.
I have my thoughts on this to be sure, and there is much that has been learned, but I do not think much of it would have been needed given that it is speculated it might have been used in a nano form..But we can get to that later as the NIST fire testing is what I had in mind of discussing next..

While that structural engineer does mention melted steel in the towers, his claim is in regards to the bending seen in beams he studied, not pools of molten metal found on site. And he clearly did say that weakening of the steel was the likely cause of the collapses.

Again this had to be caused by high enough temps within the tower fires to cause this failure...I think we can rest assurred that the likely hood of there being molten steel was high given all the info we have from all the different sources we can read about mentioning it, and we know for a fact that NIST did ignore them so we move on to see what else there is that causes people to doubt NIST, and people to be convinced by them that the OCT is legit...

I'd like to have this remain civil. I don't think we're going to convince each other of the opposing viewpoint, but that doesn't mean we need to be nasty. I know these kinds of arguments often do get that way, and I also know that in responding to others some might accidentally splash on me, so I'm trying to avoid getting annoyed or frustrated overly much. It's very easy to just lump all conspiracy theorists together, and I imagine it's very easy for conspiracy theorists to lump those who agree with the government versions together. I'll try to keep my responses individual and not reply based on anything said by the other frequenters of this forum.

Cool..I'm just trying to see why those who oppose my views do, and explain where I'm coming from regarding this at the same time..

So moving on-
The NIST’s findings refuted the pancake theory of collapse that had been widely reported. According to the pancakers theory the WTC collapse was due to failure of the WTC truss assemblies. They blamed the failure of the WTC truss assemblies, and experts
said the weak link was the point of attachment where the trusses connected with the inner core and the and outer columns. More precisely the angle clips, were made of relatively lightweight steel and were attached by welds and steel bolts.
Thomas Eagar, MIT engineer describes-
"...the steel had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100º to 1,300ºF. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor....then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle-clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle-clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold."

Which makes sense enough except the NIST investigation conflicts with this.
NIST did metallurgical and fire studies projects,that included 236 samples of steel columns, panels, trusses, etc. recovered from GZ. Some of these parts were identified and they knew what parts of the tower/s they came from. This was really a small sampling of the overall amount that could have and should have been recovered, instead of shipping most of it elsewhere.
This is another problem that bothered me. The evidence of such a crime scene being shipped off and made unavailable. So strike 2 against the accuracy of any investigation with such limited evidence, but NIST felt that they had enough to test these sample as small amount as was available, and they proceeded on to determine the quality of the steel and evaluate its performance.
Some of the samples were from the plane impact zones and where the fires were.

This was when NIST contracted UL to perform their fire testing on the truss assemblies.
What do say regarding these tests, from your point of view?

 

[Mr. Jones]

No one has anything any fire testing that slam dunks the theory of trusses failing due to intense fires, causing the bolted and welded angle supports to simply "unzip" all the way around each floor, from the core columns to the perimeter columns?

 

[Montrovant]

Sorry, I'd need to go look at what exactly is in the NIST report to answer your question. That might take a while, I'm not rushing to do it.

I enjoy this conversation well enough, but wading through the NIST looking for specific data is more involved than I usually get into when I'm browsing this board. I've also got some things taking up my time in the next couple of days. Hopefully I can find and read the relevant portions this week and get back to you.

 

[Gamolon]

The wreckage pile temps were hot enough to melt steel...

Do you have a link proving these temps or are you still assuming there was melted steel?

But no such thing occurred before the collapses..

So?

Fires in a low oxygen environment should not have reached melting metal temps...

Provide you proof that they did. Nobody can visually tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel.

 

[Gamolon]

From page 2 of your link-
It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete and assorted combustibles are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
Is steel being considered a combustible along with concrete??? WTF? Also, what combustible fuel source would be able to achieve temps in the range of 2700 Deg? This article just glosses over this...Steel being compared to ******* coal? Are they serious? LOL..

LOL

Reading comprehension for the win!!! REad that quote again. Where is that saying that steel is a combustible fuel source???

Do you know what "and" means. If the quote said "Mangled steel and concrete, combustible fuels sources, blah blah blah", you'd have a point. If you can't understand what is being said, that's your problem.

One idea that was accepted came from a company in Lynchburg, Va., that sold the city about 3,000 gallons of its product Pyrocool, which, when mixed with water, is intended to absorb heat from a fire until the temperature drops below the point of combustion. A total of 750,000 gallons of the diluted Pyrocool was spread over ground zero in late September and early October, at a cost of about $120,000.

When round-the-clock Pyrocool treatment at the trade center was stopped after a week, Chief Blaich said, there was noticeable progress. But the fires were still burning, in large part because of difficulty in getting the substance down through the debris pile and directly onto hot spots.
OK, let me get this straight...Some say the fires were being fed by a LOW supply of oxygen that somehow filtered its way through the tangles mess to juuuust keep the fires alive, at great temps mind you....BUT the pyrocool being a liquid...couldn't slither its way down there despite thousands of gallon of it being pumped in????
Doesn't make sense IYAM.

Why doesn't it makes sense? If there was a fuel/heat source at the bottom of the pile, How can you make sure you actually get the stuff to it??? You don't even know where the heat source is!!

 

[Gamolon]

We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??

Your ignorance is showing yet again.

Fire DRAWS oxygen to it. Go do some research will you! The debris pile was pourous enough to let enough oxygen get drawn to the fires/hot spots.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out the difference between fire drawing oxygen TO ITSELF and trying to get a liquid TO A PARTICULAR UNKNOWN LOCATION DEEP WITHIN A DEBRIS PILE????

 

[whitehall]

Interesting that the NIST "investigation" was funded through FEMA. People are still waiting for assistance for devastation of Sandy but the government thinks that we should spend money to re-investigate the laws of physics.

 

[Mr. Jones]

We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??

Your ignorance is showing yet again.

Fire DRAWS oxygen to it. Go do some research will you! The debris pile was pourous enough to let enough oxygen get drawn to the fires/hot spots.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out the difference between fire drawing oxygen TO ITSELF and trying to get a liquid TO A PARTICULAR UNKNOWN LOCATION DEEP WITHIN A DEBRIS PILE????

Dude, give it up already..I think I made myself clear in the points I was making.
Many reports of molten steel from many sources.
It was more then reasonable to suspect it was not aluminum.
NIST blew this phenomena off by saying they never even heard of this, despite the many sources and people saying the opposite.
This was one of the first instances where I started losing respect for NIST's integrity, end of chapter.
We could debate this till hell freezes over and it wont make a bit of difference or change any of it, or what we personally think..
I'm trying to move on to the NIST metallurgical and fire testing. Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.
Feel free to post what results in the NIST testing are convincing to you regarding the fires, the trusses, the steel etc...

 

[Mr. Jones]

The wreckage pile temps were hot enough to melt steel...

Do you have a link proving these temps or are you still assuming there was melted steel?

But no such thing occurred before the collapses..

So?

Fires in a low oxygen environment should not have reached melting metal temps...

Provide you proof that they did. Nobody can visually tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel.

Can you provide the links where these images originated from? I did a search and come up with your photobucket account, and some place that sells images for the first one, and no results on the 2nd.
Anyway, how can we be sure that this is exactly what the GZ people saw? Is it possible the molten part was on the end of a piece of aluminum?
This is why it is important to reason, how much aluminum was in the building and where it was placed, and where the molten parts were in the piles.
The fact that there was significantly more steel vs aluminum throughout the towers, and that the aluminum was mostly on the outer skin of the outer perimeter columns, and that the molten phenomena was occurring deep within the centers of all 3 buildings (WTC7 had no aluminum skin) makes a much stronger case for the metal being anything but aluminum.
There was no mentioning of any of these reports that it was aluminum.
There was a lot being mentioned about melting steel, right after the collapses by experts, and during the GZ clean up and the aftermath.
Good God man, all the talk was about the steel being melted, the steel turning to licorice etc..The steel supports failing due to fire..Not aluminum!
Now you want to act as though it was all aluminum and the towers were made of aluminum components rather then steel!
You know damn well they were not, and you know damn well that NIST ignored dealing with this, and that this was initially when I started doubting NIST's integrity, which is the main point I am trying to convey regarding this topic..

Now perhaps you can discuss what in the NIST special testing in regards to the steel, the fires, trusses etc.. provides convincing proof that fits their hypothesis?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Sorry, I'd need to go look at what exactly is in the NIST report to answer your question. That might take a while, I'm not rushing to do it.

I enjoy this conversation well enough, but wading through the NIST looking for specific data is more involved than I usually get into when I'm browsing this board. I've also got some things taking up my time in the next couple of days. Hopefully I can find and read the relevant portions this week and get back to you.

No problem most of us can't spend all our time on here as though it was a job.
What I usually do is read what sites have to say regarding this topic and check the source that supports their opinions, but since this thread is about what in the NIST report itself makes us have our views, it must come from NIST itself. ie: what in it is strong and what in it is weak.

To summarize, the instance where NIST ignored the reports of molten steel and did not give it any attention is the first big strike I have about their integrity. There are other instances throughout their investigation and reports where they ignore or dismiss other claims, but I figured we'd start as close to the beginning as possible, and the news from GZ in the immediate aftermath seemed to a good place to start...

 

[SAYIT]

We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??

Your ignorance is showing yet again.

Fire DRAWS oxygen to it. Go do some research will you! The debris pile was pourous enough to let enough oxygen get drawn to the fires/hot spots.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out the difference between fire drawing oxygen TO ITSELF and trying to get a liquid TO A PARTICULAR UNKNOWN LOCATION DEEP WITHIN A DEBRIS PILE????

Dude, give it up already..I think I made myself clear in the points I was making.
Many reports of molten steel from many sources.
It was more then reasonable to suspect it was not aluminum.
NIST blew this phenomena off by saying they never even heard of this, despite the many sources and people saying the opposite.
This was one of the first instances where I started losing respect for NIST's integrity, end of chapter.
We could debate this till hell freezes over and it wont make a bit of difference or change any of it, or what we personally think..
I'm trying to move on to the NIST metallurgical and fire testing. Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.
Feel free to post what results in the NIST testing are convincing to you regarding the fires, the trusses, the steel etc...

Not if your sources claim never to have said "molten steel" (Robertson) or were repeating what they heard others had said (Geyh) or had no way of knowing what the molten mats were (everyone else). In all, you and they have absolutely no proof that what they saw was molten steel. None.
Therefore it is not only unreasonable to assume it was steel and continue to post such nonsense, it is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst intentionally misleading.
Oh, yeah ... and have a nice day.

 

[SAYIT]

The wreckage pile temps were hot enough to melt steel...

Do you have a link proving these temps or are you still assuming there was melted steel?


So?

Fires in a low oxygen environment should not have reached melting metal temps...

Provide you proof that they did. Nobody can visually tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel.

Can you provide the links where these images originated from? I did a search and come up with your photobucket account, and some place that sells images for the first one, and no results on the 2nd.
Anyway, how can we be sure that this is exactly what the GZ people saw? Is it possible the molten part was on the end of a piece of aluminum?
This is why it is important to reason, how much aluminum was in the building and where it was placed, and where the molten parts were in the piles.
The fact that there was significantly more steel vs aluminum throughout the towers, and that the aluminum was mostly on the outer skin of the outer perimeter columns, and that the molten phenomena was occurring deep within the centers of all 3 buildings (WTC7 had no aluminum skin) makes a much stronger case for the metal being anything but aluminum.
There was no mentioning of any of these reports that it was aluminum.
There was a lot being mentioned about melting steel, right after the collapses by experts, and during the GZ clean up and the aftermath.
Good God man, all the talk was about the steel being melted, the steel turning to licorice etc..The steel supports failing due to fire..Not aluminum!
Now you want to act as though it was all aluminum and the towers were made of aluminum components rather then steel!
You know damn well they were not, and you know damn well that NIST ignored dealing with this, and that this was initially when I started doubting NIST's integrity, which is the main point I am trying to convey regarding this topic..

Now perhaps you can discuss what in the NIST special testing in regards to the steel, the fires, trusses etc.. provides convincing proof that fits their hypothesis?

Indeed we can't be sure exactly what the GZ people saw and neither can those who made those unsubstantiated claims but we know the fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel, therefore the molten mats had to have been something else. The steel supports did fail but as has been repeatedly pointed out to you (yet ignored), they did not melt but simply lost the strength necessary to support the floors. This is not rocket science, Princess ... how is it you can't seem to grasp the truth (or is it you choose not to)?

 

[Gamolon]

We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??

Your ignorance is showing yet again.

Fire DRAWS oxygen to it. Go do some research will you! The debris pile was pourous enough to let enough oxygen get drawn to the fires/hot spots.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out the difference between fire drawing oxygen TO ITSELF and trying to get a liquid TO A PARTICULAR UNKNOWN LOCATION DEEP WITHIN A DEBRIS PILE????

Dude, give it up already..I think I made myself clear in the points I was making.

Yeah, you did make yourself clear.

Read your damn statement again!

As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??

You're trying to draw similarities between the two things above and then show that it's a mystery as to why the end result isn't the same, hence the "we are led to believe" crap.

The point is oxygen is DRAWN to a fire while a liquid will just seep wherever gravity pulls it. The water and pyrocool can't be directed to an unknown location, 70ft down in a massive debris pile.

 

[Gamolon]

Anyway, how can we be sure that this is exactly what the GZ people saw?

Exactly!!!!!

 

[Gamolon]

Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.

I can tell you why we have opposing views without looking at the NIST report.

Go back to your first opening post. It is full of incorrect assumptions and claims. Let's start with this.

I believe we should start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.

The paragraph above is full of garbage. It was not only "intense heat" that caused the collapse of the twin towers. It was a combination of the plane impact damage AND the resultant fires. You just don't get. The plane impacts weakened the structure and the fires finished them off.

Here is NIST's exlpanation:

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

I will go no further until you correct your understanding of what actually happened and quit cherry picking bullshit as you see fit to support your bogus beliefs.