" "seeing workers like you described would not be unusual"

Yeah, that is exactly my point. That's why it would have been so easy to do once the decision was made. "

No, you don't get it - the issue is not getting the workers in the building, it is getting them into the areas that would be required to plant such devices. The buildings were occupied and access to the core structure would have required a lot of activity - activity that was never noticed. You would have needed more than the handful of workers that were reported.

You were correct though - it is easy for two people to look at one picture and draw different conclusions. That doesn't mean that both people are correct.   

As you said, you "assume" it was an inside job, so it is easy to disregard the logic and make it work.

"At least we do agree that thermite could have destroyed those steel beams. That's a start. And you do agree, I take it, that an aviation fuel fire cannot burn hot enough to cause a steel frame building's structural supports to bend and collapse?"

We agree that thermite could not have DESTROYED those steel beams, nor could thermite have made the clean cuts that were noticed. That seems to be caused by the building snapping apart.   I do think that the FIRE, caused by the fuel and fed by other material normally found in office buildings could have caused the supports to collapse.