Saying "it collapsed because of fire/structural damage/planes" is a zero information theory that can explain any outcome, therefore it is also unscientific because it cannot be falsified.

Bzzt. The hypotheses are capable of explaining different counterfactual outcomes: if you could repeat the experiment (so to speak) with structural damage but no fire, with fire but no structural damage, or with planes and all their effects but a certainty of no explosives, you might falsify some. In any case, you obviously know that the "official story" includes far deeper theories:

IIRC the study claimed that one central column was damaged and caused the collapse.