You just have to decide which conspiracy theory you want to believe. The other theory that says some poorly trained Arabs high-jacked 4 planes at the same time, with box-cutters, under the command of some guy in a cave. That seems a little far fetched, to me.
Both are conspiracy theories. We have to admit that a conspiracy must have been involved in this case. Unless you can prove all this was done by one man acting alone. This is nothing like the assassination of JFK.
Speaking of Bin Laden. William Cooper had a radio show. He pointed out how odd it was, that we are told the CIA is looking for Bin Laden because he's a leader of terrorists. But an NBC news host give Bin Laden an interview in his cave. Isn't that funny? Supposedly the CIA can't find him, but an NBC news host walks right in his hide-out with a camera crew.
So he concluded that the CIA was building Bin Laden up as a patsy to take the blame for a fake terrorist attack on US soil that would give us a reason to go to war, like the Lusitania for WW1 and Pearl Harbor for WW2.
And when 9/11 happened he reminded his listeners that's what it was he had been predicting.
What happened to William Cooper? He was shot in his home 3 weeks after 9/11.
And there are similar stories of people who would not keep quiet about 9/11 who where also killed.
I agree, the fire could not have burned hot enough to melt steel. It is unlikely to have burned hotter than about 750C, which is only half of the 1500C needed to melt steel.
The billowing black smoke only indicates oxygen starvation. This is not surprising, the fuel mixture was not controlled and would have been very fuel rich. Closing a few small ventilation conduits on a fire of that scale with massive holes sucking in air through the side of the building is likely to be less than relevant. You might as well talk about how much hotter your stove burns when you blow air at the flame through a straw :P
The building would have come down because:
1. Some of the load bearing beams on the exterior of the building were damaged during initial impact.
2. At that temperature the steel is more maleable and its structural integrity is about halved.
3. The almost explosive spread of the fire all around the building created large temperature gradients (due to hotspots) which caused warping in the steel (particularly the steel clips holding it all together).
It only took a few beams to snap and then the remainder were no longer able to hold up the building. Unsurprisingly the building subsequently came down one floor after another.
You can not compare this to other fires that have taken place in sky scrapers. In those cases the fire would have spread slowly leading to lower temperature gradients and it would be far better managed by the sprinkler systems and control of the ventilation ducts etc.
Why you would describe 500,000 tonnes of falling debris as having potential to only cause "just a bit of damage from some [sic] debris" I have no idea. The point is skyscrapers like WTC 7 are designed to withstand winds of hurricane speed. Not the kind of ball of rushing shards of debris generated in the fall of the larger towers. This would have stressed the structural integrity of the tower immensely.
If you think putting a man on the moon is "not much of an accomplishment" then I really don't think you understand the physics involved. I agree, they did it, but that wasn't really my point at all.
How could a bunch of Arabs with wirecutters have emotionally overpowered US citizens and ultimately hijacked the airplanes? Who do you think was expecting them to commit suicide at the time? It's nice to analyse the situation from the cool comfort of your home and conclude no one would have made mistakes like that.
I don't see your point about the NBC new host. It's not like he FOUND bin Ladin, he was led there because bin Ladin wanted to be found obviously. What makes you think he'd be stupid enough to stay in the same cave? What makes you think bin Ladin even resides in a politically enough inocuous area of the world that the presence of CIA operatives would not be problematic. There's a large population of Muslims in western China. This isn't James Bond my friend.
Why were people being killed? I bet that talk show host pissed off a lot of very patriotic Americans. Since they were visible figures it wouldn't be hard for someone who thought they were fullfilling their "national duty" to off them. Emotions were running incredibly high at the time. Do you honestly think the CIA would be dumb enough to validate the opinions of these people by killing them and drawing attention to what they were saying?
Perhaps this whole WTC attack was orchestrated by a 12 year old contracted by the government who just wasn't quite as smart as the legions of conspiracy "researchers" out there, hence why he left a series of simple to follow clues to unravel the whole mystery. Hmmm? ;)