Just to put a wee damper on any possible follow-on conspiracy whackadoo...
...given that thermite (its commonest form, at least) is just aluminum and iron oxide, one would almost expect to see it (or its byproducts) in a disaster of that nature. The probability of aluminum and oxidized iron coming into contact at extreme temperatures should, I think, approach 1 under those conditions, so if you go looking for evidence of thermite, you're very likely to find it.
As for the "core", there really wasn't one in the WTC towers, at least not in any structural sense. The floors were peripherally supported; the central area consisted of little more than a firebreak and the elevator shafts (which were anchored to the floors). In fact, it was the peripheral support that was largely responsible for the mode of failure exhibited.
As for free speech, well, yes, zeldaprajidh45, you have the right to say what you want (unless it is defamatory, threatening, or falls afoul of any applicable hate laws). But so do I, and unless you can come up with something a little more substantial to support your argument, you're going to be scienced and engineered into dust by people who have actually taken the time to look over the buildings' structure and understand a little bit of physics and chemistry. I've already explained that the impact did relatively little damage to the buildings -- they may have been structural write-offs, but without the fire they could have been safely evacuated and razed in a controlled manner.
Because one building acted in one way and another in a different way proves nothing -- I highly doubt that the apartment building you're talking about was built in anything like the way the WTC towers were. (And the chances are pretty good that the airplane wasn't a nearly-fully-fueled 737 either.) Neither was the Pentagon; the damage it sustained was huge, but nothing at all like the towers. The towers were essentially empty boxes held together by their floors, and all it took was for one floor to let go of its outer walls. At that point, the "box" above fell on the floor below, which couldn't support it, so it fell on the floor below, and so on until everything hit the ground. It's pretty simple, really. It was a great structure where wind, earthquake and impact were concerned, but the idea that an enormous fire would occur immediately after an impact that knocked most of the solid (but fragile) insulation off of the structural members in the area of the impact wasn't something the engineers had planned for (nor, I think, would it have occurred to anybody at the time).
Oh, I've seen the vid, many times. The pops you see are due to air compression. You did at least realise that the windows didn't open, didn't you? And that as one floor collapses on another, the air contained by that storey has to go somewhere? Try thinking independently rather than listening to anyone with an agenda. Get a copy of the building's structural schematics -- you should be able to find them in a lot of places, along with neato documentaries of how the building structure was designed. Remember, those towers were the architectural marvels of their time -- there is a lot of information out there that predates 9/11, so you don't have to worry about a cover-up if you look hard.
)