Well, its true. You may not like it, but it really is true that no jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken the support core of a skyscraper which was actually designed, being so tall and everything, to withstand a full-on impact from a Boeing 747. Hell, the cheif architect said so, I'm inclined to believe the man who actually drew the damn plans.

That, and of course the fact that the building collapsed from the ground up, NOT from the top down as some proponents of the "pancake theory" suggest. And even if a few impacted floors collapsed, causing a cascade effect which took the rest of the building down, the core should have been left standing to collapse rather messily onto the surrounding city blocks.

Of course, as I mention, you can see the buildings collapsing from the ground up. Just like they do when someone wraps a lot of demolition explosives around the central support of the building and then blow it up. Only they usually don't do that when there's people still inside, but hell, there was a war on. Too bad nobody knew that yet.

The world trade center was started to be constructed in 1969/70.  No one ever thought a terrorist would use an airplane to crash into a building. During that time all that happened was planes being hijacked and demaned ransom and to free these people demands. The garage area on the other hand the engineers made sure to reinforce it with concrete.  Which is a good thing because that car bomb that went off in 1993 did a lot of damage down there.

There's no way in hell that you could design a skyscraper that would with stand a missle which a 767 (not 747) would be without it being insanely expensive (especially considering NO ONE WAS THINKING THAT THERE WOULD BE A MISSLEL ATTACK ON THE MAINLAND U.S. some CRAZY DERANGED person would FLY A PLANE INTO IT) for an extended period of time.  A 767 is has a wide body and much a wider than a 747.  Also the 767 has more fuel than a 747.  Before I get to the fuel thing lets stay on the steel part.

WTC had many steel beams supporting it.  For an illustration of what happened (this is a fun activity for the kids so let's get the kiddies involved) get a bag of uncooked spaghetti noodles.  If you put those noodles in a firm foundation (where they can stand upwards) they can hold a heavy book up (a dictionary works very well).  Let's say that you get a couple of those noodles wet or some of them break.  They can still hold that dictionary up pretty well.  The problem is once you get a good amount of them to be compromised they will no longer be able to safely hold up the dictionary.

Inside the building nothing should even be catching on fire at 1000 F. There was nothing prepared to withstand that temperature let alone Airplane fuel which burns at 2000 F. There's nothing that can fire proof against that except ceramic tiles.  Which if you look at any space shuttle you see that it has ceramic tiles on the bottom.  The reason is because it reaches tempatures of an excess 4000 F.

The initial impact did not bring the buidling down alone.  The initial impact compromised along with the floors collasping it and then the fires burning as well.

You named dropped so I'll name drop as well (well actually you just stated without backing which is expected) Hy Brown. Oh wait Popular Mechanics. Guess what! They put the debunking the 911 myths online.  You know why because of leptons that believe myths and that wouldn't buy popular mechanics. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Yeah I would believe them yet I also believe in logic.

On a final note, as you've 'claimed' to know most people from the states don't know this and that UBL was an Engineer.  Most Engineers know that the integrity of steel once it gets heated to a certain point becomes compromised and basically useless.

Several of his top commanders were explosives experts. One of whom was trained in the U.K. as one.

People that believe in 911 myths should also be put next those few that hold onto that the earth is flat (aka flat earthers) and that category title would be leptons.

That was a different group one of the splinters of that group was the Taliban the other was Al Qaeda. Neither received direct funding or weapons from the USA. When the war was over we stopped funding all of the groups except one and that group was killed off by Al Qaeda on 9/10 2001. The Taliban was created and funded by the Pakistani ISI their version of the DIA. Al Qaeda was started by Bin Laden who declared war on the USA in 1991. Their first attack on US soil was in 1993. With the Taliban we refused to get involved over there and that left a vacuum for them to fill. At the time Al Qaeda was based in the Sudan and only pressure from the Sudanese government caused Al Qaeda to move to Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban in the late 90’s. Just for the record Sudan offered to turn over Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda’s leaders to the US after the first attack on US soil but the President refused to take them. Sudan warned us three times that AQ was a danger to us and we ignored them and their three offers to take them into custody prior to their demand that AQ leave their country.

We supported the Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. When the Soviets pulled out in 1986 we pulled all funding and weapons. So we never supported or funded either group that we are at war with today. You need to stop getting your history from hate sites. We did support the Northern Alliance which fought the Taliban but as I stated before the leaders were killed off in 2001.

The only problem with this theory is that I have done demolition work. To take down a ten story building takes about 18 months of planning and work. On the day the towers fell did anyone notice five tons of explosives being brought into the buildings. Load bearing walls cut open and holes drilled into the walls for the explosives? The miles of cables connecting the explosives so they can go off at the right time? Would not the fires have caused issues with the explosives prior to detonation? The building was designed to withstand the impact of a 747 traveling at 200 mph not a 767 traveling at 550 mph fully loaded with fuel. This impact damage would wipe out the structural integrity in the upper floors as well as sever load bearing walls and columns needed to keep the buildings standing. Don’t you think that people that worked in the buildings might have noticed the 3 inch cables attached to explosives running across the office floors and down the stairways months before the attack? Don’t you think people might notice the teams of people prepping the buildings for demolition? It takes months to do this not days or hours and too many people walked down the stairways and took pictures of firefighters, I saw no cables in the stairway did you? Has anyone reported seeing these cables in the stairway? They would be easy to spot they are between two and five inches thick with the words “Danger, EXPLOSIVES” every 18 inches. None of the survivors would have noticed any of this? The buildings fell from top to bottom that is easily seen.

On a further note, UBL did not need any more money. He already has amassed a decent sized fortune of about a billion. That's my point. Most people from the States think that the Bin Laden family got all their money because of oil which is not true.

Your point is that UBL would have some very close relationship with , Bush, a Jaheel (that's arabic. I'm guessing you probably also know very little about radical Islam and the culture that goes with it.)  Only if you would take the time to learn the culture of radical Islam.