The best you could do is to read the NIST report. It's written for engineers, but really highlights the failure of investigation for the actual accepted theory by the experts.

The way it works: A) The plane collision and impact damage is a reasonable explanation, if the plane could have penetrated the 1" thick red iron structural columns, it would have approximately damaged the wing area least with most in the fuselage and engines. The insulation stripped IN THE ZONE DAMAGED, starting gas fires.

B) fire analysis assumes ALL INSULATION REMOVED, then does a reasonable extrapolation of fire spread and mention the localised temperature increase in the steel structure, and weakens with temperature. Correctly notes that the fires would only burn a local area for about 10 min before moving for lack of fuel.

C) Failure analysis assumes that once the temperatures do not cool down as the fire moves on. The steel weakened for collapse initiation, and once the top of the structure started moving that it would cause total structural failure, because that's what was seen.

All assumptions mentioned are never STATED only used as assumptions.

The official explanation is seriously that poor