Yes the cause were the planes - no one is debating that.
"they merely mention it (fireproofing) as one of several factors contributing to a fire hot enough to bring the buildings down" - one of several factors, there you go.
The bottom-line is that once the builders were prevented from fireproofing with asbestos, and since concrete fireproofing was no longer feasible (building was now at 67th floor level), the WTC should have been topped out at the 67th floor level, as there was not another vialble fireproofing technique that could perform to standards.
However to make the WTC project profiable, the towers had to be built over 100 stories.
The bottom line is that you still haven't explained how the builders took the cheap way out by instead continuing to build the additional 43 stories onto each tower. I won't bother to ask where you got the information that the fireproofing was not viable or did not perform to every 1970 standard (which did not include being rammed by a plane, and asbestos was never tested in such a way either, to my knowledge). You are clearly incapable of answering a direct question.
However to make the WTC project profiable, the towers had to be built over 100 stories.
You really don't know much, do you? Those towers were a white elephant for years, and as far as I know they never did reach full occupancy. Saving nearly half the cost of construction by topping them out at 67 floors would have made them almost instantly profitable.
Now, since you refuse to elaborate on the "cheap construction" of the World Trade Center, you're hereby invited again to shut the f#ck up. I won't respond to any more posts from you unless they are a detailed and sourced explanation of the CHEAP CONSTRUCTION of those Towers.
Got it? I sure hope so; an amoeba would have understood the question by now.