While ignoring and making up more complex unprovable explanations about anything that disproves that theory?

No, imagination comes after the facts, to piece all of them together and find MISSING evidence that connects existing facts.

What has been systematically proven, it seems to me, is that the jet fuel and a plane crashing into the towers were enough to weaken the towers and cause the collapse.

in no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

You don't know shit about what happended inside the towers and noone else does either, until that do an exact experimental replication. Deal with it.

I obviously disagree with what seems to me a logical fallacy..

all 3 buildings were the first steel frame buildings in history to collapse due to "fire" (compare Madrid Windsor tower/the recent cctv tower in Beijing that burned for much longer and didn't collapse).

he overwhelming majority of demolition experts argue that there were no explosives and the building collapsed by itself.

I'd like to add that not only does this guy completely dodge the question when the reporter asks him "how would 10 to 100 tons of nano-thermite be transported in the buildings without ANYONE noticing?"

what have laser guided missile got to do with... well anything? who is "we"?
most conspiracy theorists lack even the the most simplistic understanding on what a state really is.

according to wiki the us border size is a good 19.000 miles. the us border patrol currently has around 18.000 employees.

currently has around 18.000 employees. while the wtc surely wasn't your average mall even a mall is obviously easier to control than the us borders.
the twin towers on a typical day had ~50k people working and ~200k visiting. surely someone... would... have... noticed.

Name one.

On top of that, you're telling me that a STEEL FRAME building dropped due to... fire? That wouldn't just be amazing, it would be the first time it had ever happened.

We have missiles capable of locating a pinpoint laser and landing straight up your ass, but we can't smuggle materials into a building?

No. Completely untrue. This is a catch-phrase used in CTs videos such as Lose Change, and few people take the time to do a little research to verify if that claim is true. The truth is that steel frame buildings CAN and HAVE collapsed due to fire.
Read this about WTC and fire:

I fail to see any connection between the two. Missiles already existed when Nixon was in charge, but Watergate still happened, didn't it? How exactly do you think 10 to 100 tons of thermite were brought in and placed in the three buildings without anyone noticing? And you're not the only one who went to NY before the attacks btw, I still don't see how you can argue that no-one would have noticed.

That's because there are no columns to be analyzed. There is still evidence that it can and has happened elsewhere.

"One of the most common structures today is the strip mall built with steel bar joists and metal deck roofs. A serious fire in one of these structures should be expected to produce roof collapse in as little as 5 to 10 minutes."

Another way of looking at this is, if office fires can’t get that hot, why is it the law in New York City that all steel-framed buildings over 1 story tall must have fire resistant coatings applied to their structural steel?

“It doesn’t take that much fire protection to be removed for the steel to fail.”

"There are still some misconceptions that steel construction and steel buildings are safe when attacked by fire. This is as far from the truth as you can imagine."

Right. When the fire protection fails, that steel is just nothing to the unstoppable force that is fire.

The website is http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction.

The page I linked to addressed the claim that there can be no damage to steel elements due to fires. And it does so very well, since it shows damage to steel elements due to fires, it quotes experts saying fire can damage steel, and it asks the question why would there be a need to protect steel from fire if, by itself, it was already fire resistant...

which is a pertinent question. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support your claims.

Nonames with no source? I'm sorry, I never knew "Vedic" was a bigger name in the world of fire protection engineers than... actual fire protection engineers.

I have provided you with evidence several times, but you choose to discard it because it doesn't fit your views. So apparently you're not new to the scientific process because you don't even know what it is yet.

How is it not established as a fact on the page I posted that steel columns can be damaged by fire?

For your first paragraph, now that we agree that you were wrong on your first statement, could you do me a favor and read the rest of the website I gave you?

take a look at the explanations provided by Popular mechanics etc.

Dude, there's a difference between being a secret shopper (the trend of amazing analogies continues!) and bringing in 10 to 100 tons of thermite inside the Twin towers.

No, you merely misunderstood. No steel building has completely fallen due to fire, as supported by your link. In order to do away with a remaining frame, you'd have to do controlled demolition.

you're telling me that a STEEL FRAME building dropped due to... fire? That wouldn't just be amazing, it would be the first time it had ever happened.

The McCormick Place exhibition hall fire in Chicago, Illinois in 1967 was a public assembly occupancy built with fire protected steel construction

The prop assembly building was built using a steel rigid frame and steel clad exterior and roof.

No, I didn't misunderstand anything. The first part of your post clearly said that no steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fires. I linked you to an example of THREE steel frame buildings collapsing because of ONE single fire. Now either you agree that your statement

a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater

Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade could effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly collapsed at 5:30 p.m., and Building Three at 6:05 p.m.

lol, I made the claim that they collapsed, then I provided proof that they did collapse, in the form of reports by experts. You, on the other hand:

2) Argued that the reports of a collapse were wrong (still according to your definition) and that this would be apparent had photos of the Kader Toy Factory buildings been available, even though the reports do mention a complete collapse. If that's not making a claim without backing it up, I don't know what is.

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.