BTW, is it "Loose Change" or "Loose Chance"? :
I've seen it, but I don't remember which it actually was...
I don't think there's anything weird with WTC collapsing. Certainly it was not a controlled demolition... The "bursts" that were mentioned were most likely windows popping because of air pressure inside the collapsing building.
And, just like Maddox said, steel doesn't need to melt to lose its integrity quite significantly. When you add the gaping big holes through both towers, which naturally cut away great part of supporting structures, I'm more or less impressed that the towers kept up that long...
About WTC 7 collapse: It has been said to be the first time when a steel structured building collapses just because of a fire.
Firstly, there's first time to everything; that's not a proof or evidence to any direction.
Besides, I bet multiple tons of steel and concrete were dropped on top and side of the mentioned building...
Then there's the Pentagon's "lost plane" conspiracy. I don't know what people think will happen to a plane that hits and pierces multiple stone walls (they were not actually concrete but some stone, don't remember the name but it's harder than reinforced concrete)? There's not much behind after that in any case. Take a look at this:
Phantom F4 hits a wall at 800 km/h (500 mph)I'm not the slightest bit surprized that there was "no plane" found at site... The hull material did punch a hole through many of the Pentagon's... pentagons. But it wasn't intact at that point. Instead it was more like a cavity-based explosive, which accelerates a copper cone material into high velocity with an explosive. The plane disintegrated, but the matter still had sufficient momentum to penetrate the walls. It's simple mechanics, really; there's nothing much weird about it.
