Steven Jones and journalof911studies.com are not primary sources.
A primary source for the "molten steel" claim is needed.
Sorry that I find the "thermite" claims unpersuasive.
I have also yet to read any demolition claim that discusses how the necessary electronics could function in the middle of the inferno or how the alleged explosives would remain undisturbed until the moment of collapse initiation. That seems to be at the core of any demolition claim.
Is there a demolition theories that discusses the impacts of the collisions on the towers, as described by survivors who were inside (and below the impacts). It seems reasonable to assume that any effort to claim that the impacts and infernos didn't cause the collapses would have to precisely quantify the damage from the collisions.
It seems reasonable that there was substantial structural failure from the impacts of large planes flying full speed into the structure, shattering numerous supports.
Whoever (or whatever) was aiming those planes, it seems as if they were trying to topple one tower onto the other -- if the impact had been enough to induce a toppling over, it would have fallen onto the other one (that's the case for both collisions). But the towers stayed standing long enough for nearly everyone below the impact zones to escape.
The "Towering Inferno" presentation didn't mention the impact of the collisions. Also, the claim that the south tower fires were small because the 78th floor wasn't that hot omits other claims that the fires were considerably bigger a couple of floors above the 78th ...
I believe the towers were intentionally demolished -- by allowing the planes to be flown into them, and probably hijacking the autopilot to ensure that it happened.
I have a legal case that will convict Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, General Myers, right now in court based upon evidence that is not scientific in nature, I don't need to go there, that is a red herring when we focus on the crime that has been committed against this country. We've already proven who did it, the how doesn't have to be fully fleshed out. ...
These discussions of what possibly induced that [collapse of the towers] is a major psychological operations campaign designed to keep the American people from looking at the evidence of guilt.
-- Michael Ruppert, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, "The Party’s Over"
The case of 9/11, now being tried in our metaphorical court of the corporate media and public perception, leaves no doubt as to who could produce more expert witness testimony or present them in the most impressive manner. ... It is something else to analyze the temperature at which steel is weakened and determining whether or not an unproven amount of burning jet fuel, in unspecified concentrations and unknown locations could have weakened steel supports in the World Trade Center to the point where an unspecified amount of weight might cause them to buckle.
-- Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, pp. 13-14
implosionworld.com
A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint
By Brent Blanchard
August 6, 2006
"for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the initial violent explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.
"The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely."
