The quote you keep spitting at me:

This is impossible, as it is well known that the maximum temperature that can be reached by a non-stoichiometric hydrocarbon burn (that is, hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air) is 825 degrees Centigrade (1520 degrees Fahrenheit). Even worse, the WTC fires were fuel rich (as evidenced by the thick black smoke) and thus did not reach anywhere near this upper limit of 825 degrees. In fact, the WTC fires would have burnt at, or below, temperatures typical in office fires.

is in RED type on your link, and was NOT part of the FEMA report, but was added by whatever tinfoil-head spent a good chunk of his life analyzing the report.

The actual quote from the FEMA report, in BLACK type is:

The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3-5 trillion Btu/hr, around 1-1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 degrees Centigrade (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), for all of 5 minutes, until the jet-fuel burnt off, with an estimated confidence of plus or minus 100 degrees Centigrade (200 degrees Fahrenheit) or about 900-1,100 degrees Centigrade (1,600-2,000 degrees Fahrenheit).



A major portion of the uncertainty in these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900-1,100 degrees Centigrade (1,700-2,000 degrees Fahrenheit) in some areas and 400-800 degrees Centigrade (800-1,500 degrees Fahrenheit) in others.



Not quite the same conclusion, is it? And just who the hell are the fire experts here anyway? The guys who wrote the report, or Mr. "Why Can't We Question The Holocaust?"

As for the demolitions, the towers fractured high up the walls of the building, at the points of impact, not from the basement, which a five-year-old could see. Detonation in the basement would have caused the collapse beginning at the bottom, which examination of films of actual detonation demolitions in other buildings would easily show you.

Van Romero retracted his analysis a short time thereafter, and stated that the fire was the cause of the collapse, but in your mind, that just proves a conspiracy forced his silence, doesn't it?

Nothing personal, but you just plain don't know what you're talking about, and quoting people even more ignorant than you are isn't going to change anything.

I've pointed out the impossibilities, the logical inconsistencies, and the sheer idiocy of the entire WTC conspiracy pantload. I'm sure the rest of the posters here got tired of it a long time before I did. Now, it's moved on to that Great Next Page In The Sky, and there I think we can leave it.