where is Osama?

[Benny2guns]

Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

So where is your proof? How did it happen once let alone 3 times? Please, I would like to know what supports your belief of the official story.

How about the intense heat from the gallons of jet fuel?
Couple that with buildings were never built to withstand the kind of damage inflicted on it by
the plane crashing, jet fuel fires with very intense heat and debris from the plane would create a conduit for the burning of those fires.

The building frame would collapse under it's own weight Benny with those kind of pressures.
No conspiracy theory necessary.
Here's the proof
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...tml?page=4
C.B.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to fatigue the steel mains to cause the collapse as it happened. Thats a proven and well known fact.
All of them would need to go in a precise pattern floor by floor to bring it straight down at near free fall. Thats another proven and well known fact. 3 buildings came down the same way not just the one.
I am sorry but that link proves nothing. Jet fuel would indeed heat them in the aera of the impact but the fire was not burning long enough to accomplish what FEMA (lol) claims. Fire fighters themselves have stated the fires were for the most part out. There are to many experts that agree the buildings were pulled.
Why was all the steel hauled away and disposed of before anyone could examine it for trace evidence. I do not beleive a word of a report from FEMA of all places.
EDIT: Those 2 towers were indeed built to sustain damage from an airliner crashing into them and by more than just one strike I might add, thats well published info by the way.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

First of all neither I nor the article provided ever say that the burning jet fuel would be hot enough to melt a steel frame. Debunking Benny #1
The wtc towers did come down the same way by "pancaking" from the weight of the debris and floors on top of each other. Debunking Benny #2
Nothing was carted away before it was examined Benny if you watched the proceedings as I did or saw the way it fell in real time as I did you would know that the fires were most certainly not out after the explosions.
What common sense will tell you if a building is filled with fuel that found a spark like oh say PAPER, furniture, and carpeting it is going to burn like a motherfucker conspiracy theories aside it doesn't just go out by itself it burns Benny Boo it burns!
It is apparent to me you couldn't have possibly read all ten plus pages and discounted all of the reports from different agencies. Not all of them are associated with Fema mind you but if you want to believe in hocus pocus by all means and lest we forget all of the proof from the nut cases please provide the links from your reliable sources dearest. I'm going to bet that your proof comes from a nut site like AttackonAmerica.net or some other clone of it.

Here are some of Attack on Americas claim's;

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.


So there you go Benny boo.
This concludes my "Debunking of Benny's conspiracy theories" part 1
C.B.

Some how you are tring to debunk me, this is SD&D and is not the case.
The Fires' Impact
How the Towers' Fires Affected the Structural Steel
As an exercise let's set aside all of the evidence about the actual severity of the Twin Towers' fires, and imagine that the fires were incredibly intense and widespread. Let's imagine that the jets were full tankers and spilled 80,000 gallons of fuel into each tower. Let's imagine that there was a strong wind giving the fires plenty of air. Let's imagine that the the fires engulfed over 10 floors in each tower, saturating the capacity of the steel buildings to draw away the heat. Let's imagine the fires burned intensely for hours, completely gutting several stories of each tower. Would that cause them to collapse? Not according to people who have studied steel structures subjected to such stresses. The following passage is from Appendix A of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

This graph represents strength as a function of temperature, which is expressed in degrees Celsius ©.

At temperatures above 800° C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. 1 Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.
If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Collapse Features
Characteristics of the Twin Towers' Destruction and What They Show
The total destructions of the two towers were almost identical. The most apparent difference is that the top of the South Tower tipped for a few seconds before falling, whereas the top of the North Tower telescoped straight down from the start. Here are some of the principal characteristics of the destructions, based on study of the surviving evidence.

The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.
The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.
Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.
The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.
Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.
The towers' tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud?
The halting of rotation of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered.
The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.
Explosions
Explosive Events in the Twin Towers
While the explosive nature of the events that destroyed the Twin Towers is evident in their gross features such as the mushrooming of the tops and the huge clouds of concrete dust produced in the air, there are many specific observations that point to the detonations of explosions within the towers.

Eyewitness Reports





Many eyewitnesses who were near the South Tower when it began its precipitous collapse reported sights and sounds of explosions. Several accounts are described in the evidence section.

Energetic Ejections of Dust and Objects
Explosive ejection of dust early in the collapse of the South Tower is clearly visible in the NBC video taken from far to the east, and in still frames from that video, portions of five of which are shown on the right. In addition to the large ejections of white dust from the left wall, the video shows a small high-speed ejection toward the back of the right wall, visible as a small white fleck in the first frame to the right.

Many of the photographs of the tower collapses show solid objects, such as sections of steel columns and aluminum cladding of the outer walls, being thrown ahead of the expanding dust cloud. This pattern is characteristic of explosive demolitions. According to Chapter 1 of FEMA's own report pieces of the steel columns and plates of the perimeter walls were thrown over 500 feet from the towers. The distribution pattern they diagram suggests that, with both towers, perimeter wall pieces were thrown an average of about 150 to 200 feet outward. This is corroborated by the shape of the vertical holes in WTC 6.

South Tower Demolition Wave
A three-second movie shows about 2.5 seconds of the South Tower collapse starting at about three seconds into the plunge of the tower's top. The short movie shows the roughly spherical debris cloud nearly double in size, even accounting for the perspective. The leading edge of the wave is about to reach the 44th-floor sky lobby when the camera operator turns to run. The movie (mpeg) was found on plaguepuppy's cafe with the following description.

Though the view of the building is brief, looking at it in slow motion reveals some peculiar features. At the very start of the clip we can see how perfectly even the collapse is, advancing with what looks for all the world like rows of explosions progressing in a perfectly straight line around the building, and advancing down in an extremely uniform way. As the demolition wave advances there is only dust and smoke where the top of the building used to be, and a great quantity of dust mixed with small pieces of structural steel is ejected out horizontally at high speed. To account for this very rapid ejection of debris without the use of high explosives, especially in the early stages of the collapse, seems quite impossible.

If you look closely as the wave travels down it seems to spare the corners, perhaps letting them lag behind to help keep the implosion aligned. The demolition wave is clearly advancing ahead of the actual collapse of the structure, and speeds up as it travels down. The delays between demolition charges would have to be very precisely controlled to create this effect, suggesting to me that each floor was wired to a separate detonator, with control of the sequencing most likely done remotely. This would also allow the collapse to be triggered from the point of impact of the plane to make it look more realistic. Such sequencing could easily be done from a laptop connected wirelessly to the towers, as long as each floor could be detonated separately.
Secondly I saw them come down myself and I don't need anyone to tell me that exploseves were used to pull all 3 buildings, I have known it since it happened.