Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...
The passport being found... The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...
The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.
The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...
Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...
I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...
By that logic, a driver not wearing a seatbelt would never be cannoned through the windscreen in the event of a head-on collision.

I have avoided this thread for several days and just watched the back and forth arguments.
Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I simply go on the facts.
1. It is impossible that a commercial aircraft the size of the ones that struck the WTC buildings 1 & 2, to collapse the buildings. It is not debateable at all. The structure of the lower 75 floors which were not in anyway effectived by fire or structural damage would prevent it.
2. As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged, yet the entire 40+ storey building fell down into a perfect heap, in its own foundations. Yet buildiungs 5&6 which were much more seriouslay damaged, remained standing.
3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.
If you are blind to the facts, that is fine. I do not know or frankly care why the demolitions took place. But demolitions they were.
IF a 767 hit the penatgon at the angle they claim, how come it wasn't seen by anyone on approach at all. Not a single witness saw it? How come it managed to miss all the 60ft high floodlights surrounding the penatgon? How come the wings caused no damage at all to the pentagon, yet they sliced through solid steel 4" thick at the WTC?
The only mystery here for me is Why? I have absoluitely no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the WTC was indeed hit by two commercial type aircraft. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there was an initial fireball, followed by relatively serious fires on 3-5 floors. But I also have absolutely no doubt whatsoever from an ex RAF engineers perspective, that you could slice out 6 floors of the WTC and drop the upper 30 floors directly down on to the remaining 65 floors and the WTC would still not collapse.
I am frankly amazed at the sheer stubborn viewpoint that some of you have when viewing the footage of the alleged collapse. Do you really believe it even possible for every single steel beam to give way at exactly the same time, without explosives?
How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?
What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?
As said already, how come build 7 was decalred to collapse before it actually did. Look at the building. It had no reason to collapse, except that it was menat to come down when flioght 93 hit it. Only problem? flight 93 never hit it. they could hardly lkeave it standing filled with exlosives for people to see afterwards could they? So, bring it the hell down anyway. Why not!
I do not know the motives. I have suspicions, but nothing more. I do know a demolition when I see it though. And that was a demolition.