whereswhat

Feel free to do the calculations and tests, but your "engineering view" is very wrong.

I feel I have done this already and I am not sure you have backed up your claim properly. I am a licensed civil engineer with extensive experience designing and analyzing tall buildings. During my phd studies, I actually modeled impact loading and progressive collapse of tall strucutres using the finite element method combined with an averaged langragian-eulerian coordinate system approach to handle the large displacements and deformations. The analyses considered nonlinear deformation patterns, stress and temperature dependency, and a myriad of other factors. I could go on but the point is, I am not afraid to do these calculations myself and I am not ignorant on this topic.

Just do a simple energy-analysis. Where does the energy come from that destroys and pulverises all the concrete and (some) steel. If the buildings falls down near gravity acceleration, there is no energy to draw from it.

Wrong. The gravitational potential energy of the static structure is converted to kinetic energy during the collapse which is dissipated through collisions between falling elements (turbulence) and between falling elements and the ground. The total energy drawn from these collisions is equal to the height of the center of mass times the weight of the mass that is falling (i.e. PE=mgh). Even if we only consider the portion of the building above the impact zone, the energy involved is more than enough to melt steel, pulverize concrete, and even cause a shockwave in the ground that can be measured by seismometers from other states. These towers were about 210m tall and 500000t each! Any "explosion" more energetic would have been obvious for anyone to see I would think.

In actual demolitions, this gradual collapse is sometimes used. And it shows a far slower acceleration, that falls down to zero acceleration (=constant speed). They reach some kind of terminal velocity. In these demolitions, they need to carefully prepare the collapse and remove almost all underlying carrying structures. Because anything off centre creates an imbalance that increases with each step. This often causes the building to fall sideways, instead of downwards. Or just get stuck half-way.

No. I am embarrassed for you after reading this part.

The planes are just a distraction, only capable of starting severe fires. Just like in a plane crash, we get a fireball and then a quick fire that exhausts all the fuel. According to the firemen the fires were under control, until (according to them) everything suddenly exploded. And if you look more into the planes, you will see that there has been some major mix-up with military hijacking simulations. And the remains of the planes that hit the buildings, were traced back to military versions of planes.

What evidence do you have of these claims?