Comment: If you think in terms of traditional box frame steel structures,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If it fell it would be one thing (see in situ)

fireant's picture

If you think in terms of traditional box frame steel structures,

no, it would not make sense. None of the three towers were of such design. They were all what is termed "large span". The Twin Towers esp were essentially hollow tubes, and the floors below impact were pre-weakened, offering very little resistance to the mountains of churning steel pouring down.
Pulverized concrete is no mystery. It was 4 inches of lightweight spec concrete per floor, spanning 60 feet in two directions and 30 feet in the other two directions. They broke and got ground up with the churning steel. Spandrel connections all confirm floor trusses were torn from the walls and core in a downward motion. Floor trusses were turned into spaghetti. Floors were weakened ahead of the collapse line due to shock and splaying of the core columns.
No temperature measurements I'm aware of were hot enough to melt steel. Steel will, of course, lose strength, buckle, and warp at much lower temps than what is required to melt it.

Undo what Wilson did