OK then. Just the facts. 9-11

[cbrer]

25. Thanks for the link

Despite the contempt I hear in your words, I'm gaining information, and hope to continue this path. Again I appreciate true expertise.

You're right in saying that my research as of now, has been limited. Wrong about which conclusions I've drawn, and how & why.

The only references I could find about high rise fires stated that of the six massive building fires studied, all suffered fires more severe than WTC 1&2, and building 7. None collapsed, although some significant design differences existed in some of the buildings. Concrete framing in one, full length atrium in another.
Three major building collapses were mentioned in additional articles. The only one that was attributed to fire was a roof collapse, and didn't destroy the structure. The other 2 cases mentioned suffered failure from inferior construction.
If the conclusions reached in these articles bears a closer look, please explain.
Heat is generally blamed as the cause for WTC collapse. Structural damage from aircraft impact is generally listed as within design parameters of load carrying capability. Yet heat more severe than WTC event occurred in other high rise fires.
So may I surmise the next issue to rebutt is the unique susceptibility of WTC 1&2 that led to collapse?