The problem here is the tinfoilers love arguing theories.
Look up the word 'theory'.
Everyone talks about 'the buildings were built to withstand'...etc etc.
Yes - obviously with this (in fact any) degree of engineering, there is careful and detailed scientific/computer modelling. In very simplistic explanation, they plugged in a whole lot of data and variables and out came the answer that the buildings would withstand xyz, but this was also all theoretical. There are always hidden variables in play that can make minced meat of these theoretical models.
Remember, these were was no actual physical precedence of anywhere near this magnitude and of course, they cannot build a building and then crash a plane into it to see if their models are correct.
Look at all the world's engineering disasters - bridges, buildings etc. All carefully modeled and yet, disasters can and do occur and IMPORTANTLY, in hindsight, there are always variables that are very difficult to those used in the model.
I guarantee you 110% that if those towers were built again, they would do it differently - they would look at the experience, factor in all the additional variables that they know about and other data that they learned from this disaster and they would come up with a new building that will also be "designed to withstand...". However, they cannot factor in every possible variable and in the end, this is all theory until something actually happens to test it.
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account..."
------------
Forget your theories and consider that this actually happened in front of our eyes. Therefore, the modelling was no good (for this exact set of circumstances) and so no amount of scrutiny (based on this modelling) is going to make a difference - your theories are therefore faulty.
Theories theories theories are just that, theories!!!
