"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. You see, Ron, how looking at the same thing from 2 different sets of assumptions can lead to 2 totally opposite conclusions? It happens all the time. ;-)

I assume there was an inside job. You assume there wasn't. That determines how we look at things. We aren't in disagreement about facts or events, basically, we're in disagreement about interpretation of those facts or events.

" it would have required a large number of people to plant the devices."

For sure. Several work crews.

"Crashing the planes into the building would have been enough."(to start a war)

Agreed. It would indeed have been enough. I think they had additional private incentives to knock down those buildings. I think there were many powerful people who stood to gain monetarily. What we have seen is just the tip of the iceberg.

But I am extrapolating from a different basic assumption than you. That's the only reason that we disagree about the probability of this or that.

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?