Competing conspiracy theories are fun. They can really add spice to a debate.

Ron, does the official view on 911 not assert that the steel beams were weakened by the heat of the fire, bent and gave way, and the buildings then fell down, floor by floor?

An aviation fuel fire does not burn hot enough to have that effect on steel beams. Not nearly hot enough, in fact.

A steel frame skyscaper building in Madrid burned hot and hard, eventually right up to the top floor for over 24 hours. It did not collapse and fall, despite having a huge construction crane sitting on its roof. The steel beams remained rigid and in place. No other modern steel frame skyscrapers in the world have ever collapsed and fallen into their own footprint due to a fire. Only the 3 at the WTC (supposedly).

Steel beams cannot fail due to the heat of burning aviation fuel. They could, however, easily fail if taken out by thermite and shaped charges...as can be done in a controlled demolition. If so, the building will come down at virtually freefall speed and fall into its own footprint. That's if you do it right...which takes a good deal of prior experience.

I think the airplanes were a spectacular visual demonstration intended to deceive. They did major damage, all right. They provided a red herring for people to focus on. But I don't think they were what ultimately brought down those buildings, because you can't melt steel beams (or cause them to bend and give way) by burning aviation fuel around them...although you certainly can melt the aluminum in the airplanes themselves.