Small math, big truth

Well, the collapse of the building has been explained by expert engineers, and scientists. Weather you choose to believe in their theory or not that's another matter. (And yes, theirs is also only a theory.)
1. Can the plane damage the building's structure enough to cause it to collapse?
Here you get several factors that come together.
1. You have the impact of the plane, which doesn't bring the building down. Just the way the building was designed.
2. The problem is the explosion and the fire that follow.
3. This gets complicated by the large open spaces in the offices, where they didn't have enough, or no fire walls at all. Increasing the size and scope of the fire and it's capacity to damage the building.
4. Then you have the failure of the sprinkler system and the system is not designed to spray into some areas that become importantly involved in the development of the fire, complicating things even more.
5. The steel never melted, but it reached a point where it was weaker and then comes the structural failure.
(I'm away from home, so best regards. "rush969"

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmmm well I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy and saw many engines after bird strikes. They can damage and break rotor blades if they're big enough, like a goose.

As a Navy mechanic you saw a lot of cases of bird strikes on engines. Then you should understand my point. And I wonder if you ever saw a wing leading edge punctured with a hole, made by a bird!!
This explains my analogy. The bird is killed and disintegrates (planes) but is capable of making a hole in a strong metal wing (buildings), due to it´s momentum and mass.