Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

Since a large plane hit the tower at high speeds it would have carried everything in it's path along with it until it all came to a stop in one big pile.

If you ignore the fact that a large plane hit the tower, then you can assume that.

The WTC’s tremendous reserve capacity was no secret. In 1964, four years before the start of construction, an article about the planned WTC appeared in the Engineering News-Record. The article declared that “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs.”[72]

A careful reading of the piece also gives insight into why the plane impacts were not fatal to the integrity of the outer wall.

The reason is simple: the perimeter columns were designed to function together as an enormous truss, specifically, a Vierendeel truss. The wall was inherently stable. After the plane impacts it behaved like an arch, simply transferring the load to the surrounding columns. As the 1964 article states,

“the WTC towers will have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities. This capacity stems from its Vierendeel wall system and is enhanced through the use of high-strength steels.”[73]

5 After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center Skilling was asked if the towers were vulnerable to a terrorist attack. He replied that he designed them to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jet liner of the day.

In 1993 Skilling evidently saw no reason to revise his original opinion in light of the more recent Boeing 767s, which are slightly larger: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there." Eric Nalder, “Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision,” Seattle Times, February 27, 1993.

Interestingly, one week before the September 11 attack, Skilling’s partner, Leslie Robertson, spoke at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany. When asked what he had done to protect the towers from terrorism, Robertson confirmed Skilling: “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it.” “Towers Build to Withstand Jet Impact.” Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.

These bogeymen have not been invented, but their strength and influence has been grossly exaggerated. I think I make avalid point about this conspiracy theory giving Al Qaida propaganda credance.

Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.
Credibility[4] is defined as “the quality, capability, or power to elicit belief:”[5]

The most reliable form of credibility is based on science. The least reliable form is established through repeated or “pathological” lying. If we know someone to be a frequent liar, we will refuse to accept anything they say. Indeed, we will ignore them. This is therefore the most damning blow to credibility.

Is the US administration credible in their scientific reports?

Before answering this question accurately we should first define science. What is the difference between the Scientific method and the Political method?

* Scientific Method: Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.
* Political Method: Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument.

The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence—it must consider every detail. If evidence contradicts the thesis it must be rejected in favor of a new thesis that follows all of the given evidence. In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence.
The US administration has occasionally made reference to “creating our own reality”.[6]

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''[7]

Reality is not subjective; it consists of scientific laws that are observed to be true. “Creating our own reality” entails using facts that support an imaginary “reality” and ignoring facts that do not. This is the very definition of the political method.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/281006_scientific_vs_political.html

The men who blew themselves up on 7/7 in London believed 9/11 had been perpetrated by Jews.

Computer simulations show the plane disintegrating except for those parts that were made of much stronger material or were reinforced.

The towers were designed to take a hit from a 707.

The force of the plane is still there even if the individual parts are destroyed.

Do you understand how physics works?

I can easily design a truss structure that holds up 1000 lbs but can be knocked over with only 2 ounces of force.

It only means you can't just account for one stress which is what you are trying to do.

A perfectly idiotic and immature response,

The NIST report even states that the towers would probably have stood indefinitely, if the impacts had not dislodged the fireproofing material that protected the steel from fire-generated heat.[6]

Another of your famous red herrings. That has nothing to do with properly braced trusses which was the case in these towers.

No less puzzling was the fact that the collapses were total and nearly symmetrical. This means, of course, that when the collapses began all of the columns on that floor failed at precisely the same moment. But, again, how could this happen?

On the contrary. You are trying to describe all manner of stresses that aren't supported by the available evidence.

Yes, and the loss of fireproofing caused the internal beams to sag applying stress to the external columns that was NOT downward and which they were not designed to withstand.

Again. Let's just ignore physics and the visual data from the collapse so we can make this statement.

Physics states that the building will collapse DOWN, not out, because gravity is the greatest force working on it. The video of the collapse clearly shows the top of the building tilting as the collapse starts but gravity forces it DOWN as the other members fail.

And there are other problems. Since in a global collapse all of the columns by definition must fail at once, this implies a more or less constant blaze across a wide area.

Each failed support places more strain on adjacent supports, causing them to fail faster. Eventually, it reaches the point of catastrophic failure.