[Vote] Who did 911?

[J. J. Phillips]

Just got up. Looks like no one has picked one of the flights to focus on and given a sequence of clear, unambiguous statements that, if true, would disprove the official narrative. (If I missed it, please point it out to me.) Hopefully that means people are taking their time and being careful about it.

[1715168770]

1715168770

[1715168770]

1715168770

[Spendulus]

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Hard to believe less then 50% believe al-Qaeda did it.

Such is the result of active dis-information campaigns.  Part of which is on this forum right now.  Cheers!

When you look at all the facts, and assemble all the points, isn't it difficult to see which campaign is the dis-information campaign?

If you notice, he didn't specify WHO is engaged in a disinformation campaign, just that one was taking place

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Wikipedia. Thats cute. You are mistaken. Just because you can dig up a single bias poll from 2008 does not magically mean most people agree with you......

The article lists a great many surveys that have been done, including the Zogby poll you mentioned.  Anyway, what is your point?  Most people do not think the US Government was responsible, in any of the polls.  IIRC.

Your points I deleted are not inconsistent with my rebuttal of umaOuma, are they?

[BADecker]

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Hard to believe less then 50% believe al-Qaeda did it.

Such is the result of active dis-information campaigns.  Part of which is on this forum right now.  Cheers!

When you look at all the facts, and assemble all the points, isn't it difficult to see which campaign is the dis-information campaign?

If you notice, he didn't specify WHO is engaged in a disinformation campaign, just that one was taking place

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Wikipedia. Thats cute. You are mistaken. Just because you can dig up a single bias poll from 2008 does not magically mean most people agree with you......

The article lists a great many surveys that have been done, including the Zogby poll you mentioned.  Anyway, what is your point?  Most people do not think the US Government was responsible, in any of the polls.  IIRC.

Your points I deleted are not inconsistent with my rebuttal of umaOuma, are they?

The polls? The surveys? The fact that you, one with way better than average understanding, would mention them, shows that you are not sincere in much of anything you say, except that it benefits you or your cronies in some way.

Polls and surveys are not only designed to elicit the answers that the pollsters want to hear, but they exist to take the elicited answers and use them to direct the people into thinking the things that politicians want them to think.

Do the polls give a true picture regarding what people think? Some, perhaps. But others create pure falsehood. And this is reasonably common knowledge.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122236095083475619

[J. J. Phillips]

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

...

...

...

...

...

The polls? The surveys? The fact that you, one with way better than average understanding, would mention them, shows that you are not sincere in much of anything you say, except that it benefits you or your cronies in some way.

Polls and surveys are not only designed to elicit the answers that the pollsters want to hear, but they exist to take the elicited answers and use them to direct the people into thinking the things that politicians want them to think.

Do the polls give a true picture regarding what people think? Some, perhaps. But others create pure falsehood. And this is reasonably common knowledge.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122236095083475619

umaOuma said "most of them think ..." Can you suggest another way to determine if the statement that "most of them think X" as being true or false? It was someone on your side that made the "most people believe X" assertion. Do you think if someone in an argument says "Most people think X," the statement should just be allowed to stand as true without any possibility of rebuttal? That's a terrible way to argue.

By the way, most people don't believe Muhammed was a Prophet. That doesn't do anything to convince Muslims he wasn't. Polls are a terrible way of determine truth of statements other than those of the form "Most people believe X."

[Spendulus]

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Hard to believe less then 50% believe al-Qaeda did it.

Such is the result of active dis-information campaigns.  Part of which is on this forum right now.  Cheers!

When you look at all the facts, and assemble all the points, isn't it difficult to see which campaign is the dis-information campaign?

If you notice, he didn't specify WHO is engaged in a disinformation campaign, just that one was taking place

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Wikipedia. Thats cute. You are mistaken. Just because you can dig up a single bias poll from 2008 does not magically mean most people agree with you......

The article lists a great many surveys that have been done, including the Zogby poll you mentioned.  Anyway, what is your point?  Most people do not think the US Government was responsible, in any of the polls.  IIRC.

Your points I deleted are not inconsistent with my rebuttal of umaOuma, are they?

The polls? The surveys? The fact that you, one with way better than average understanding, would mention them, shows that you are not sincere in much of anything you say, except that it benefits you or your cronies in some way.

Polls and surveys are not only designed to elicit the answers that the pollsters want to hear, but they exist to take the elicited answers and use them to direct the people into thinking the things that politicians want them to think.

Do the polls give a true picture regarding what people think? Some, perhaps. But others create pure falsehood. And this is reasonably common knowledge.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122236095083475619

I don't believe in polls or polling with rare exceptions, but was simply responding to a post about polls by providing a link to a great many that had been done.

Earlier there was a similar propaganda statement, something like "Most people know the Zionists did 911."

Total bullshit. 

[BADecker]

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Hard to believe less then 50% believe al-Qaeda did it.

Such is the result of active dis-information campaigns.  Part of which is on this forum right now.  Cheers!

When you look at all the facts, and assemble all the points, isn't it difficult to see which campaign is the dis-information campaign?

If you notice, he didn't specify WHO is engaged in a disinformation campaign, just that one was taking place

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Wikipedia. Thats cute. You are mistaken. Just because you can dig up a single bias poll from 2008 does not magically mean most people agree with you......

The article lists a great many surveys that have been done, including the Zogby poll you mentioned.  Anyway, what is your point?  Most people do not think the US Government was responsible, in any of the polls.  IIRC.

Your points I deleted are not inconsistent with my rebuttal of umaOuma, are they?

The polls? The surveys? The fact that you, one with way better than average understanding, would mention them, shows that you are not sincere in much of anything you say, except that it benefits you or your cronies in some way.

Polls and surveys are not only designed to elicit the answers that the pollsters want to hear, but they exist to take the elicited answers and use them to direct the people into thinking the things that politicians want them to think.

Do the polls give a true picture regarding what people think? Some, perhaps. But others create pure falsehood. And this is reasonably common knowledge.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122236095083475619

I don't believe in polls or polling with rare exceptions, but was simply responding to a post about polls by providing a link to a great many that had been done.

Earlier there was a similar propaganda statement, something like "Most people know the Zionists did 911."

Total bullshit. 

All right. My mistake... about your sincerity, that is. 

[bumpk1nK]

only 12% vote for da joos? it will be more when more people see this.

it was all the joos fault to get more oil they needed to start a war.

I was not the jews, It was the Terrorists.

[BlitzandBitz]

only 12% vote for da joos? it will be more when more people see this.

it was all the joos fault to get more oil they needed to start a war.

I was not the jews, It was the Terrorists.

Come on guys it was clearly the Muslims they wanted to be attacked so they could become the new victims.

[BADecker]

only 12% vote for da joos? it will be more when more people see this.

it was all the joos fault to get more oil they needed to start a war.

I was not the jews, It was the Terrorists.

Come on guys it was clearly the Muslims they wanted to be attacked so they could become the new victims.

But remember. Obama wasn't in office yet. So it was also people other than Muslims, inside government, that set things up so that Muslims could get away with it.

[Spendulus]

@Netpyder: I'll check in tomorrow morning to see if one of the four flights has been chosen. If you start a new thread, please link to it here.


yes no worries

Better to just copy and paste his answers here.  Remember Netyder the guy who has twice said a thread should be closed because it wasn't going "his way". 

He just wants to control the thread so he can delete posts, and close the thread if it doesn't go his way.  Which it won't most likely.

the reason why i am opting for a new thread to post everything is because you never really reply to my answers and questions, you just pick whichever you want to reply. whilst the new thread i will be the one posting the 5 first thus you cannot say you didnt notice them or it got lost in the pages

Well, after you pick one of the four flights, I will ignore anything that's not relevant to the one you picked. In fact, I'll see it as an act of bad faith if you keep bringing up things that are irrelevant. For example, if you pick Flight 93, everything about the Pentagon and WTC will be irrelevant. The point of focusing is to focus.

I guess Netpyder is not going to take you up on this simple challenge.

[J. J. Phillips]

@Netpyder: I'll check in tomorrow morning to see if one of the four flights has been chosen. If you start a new thread, please link to it here.


yes no worries

Better to just copy and paste his answers here.  Remember Netyder the guy who has twice said a thread should be closed because it wasn't going "his way". 

He just wants to control the thread so he can delete posts, and close the thread if it doesn't go his way.  Which it won't most likely.

the reason why i am opting for a new thread to post everything is because you never really reply to my answers and questions, you just pick whichever you want to reply. whilst the new thread i will be the one posting the 5 first thus you cannot say you didnt notice them or it got lost in the pages

Well, after you pick one of the four flights, I will ignore anything that's not relevant to the one you picked. In fact, I'll see it as an act of bad faith if you keep bringing up things that are irrelevant. For example, if you pick Flight 93, everything about the Pentagon and WTC will be irrelevant. The point of focusing is to focus.

I guess Netpyder is not going to take you up on this simple challenge.

It's still early. In my experience when I try to write down clear, unambiguous sentences, the first attempts fail. Additionally, needing a collection of such sentences that implies a conclusion requires making a lot of "obvious" assumptions explicit. It's tricky.

Also, the challenge isn't restricted to Netpyder. If someone else wants to choose a flight and commit to an argument with clear, unambiguous statements which together imply the official narrative is false, then that's fine. It has to be first-come-first-serve though because I don't have time to focus on more than one argument at a time.

I have a hard copy of The 9/11 Commission Report that I bought many years ago and barely looked at. (I had to search for it.) At least that will mean a little less internet searching if/when the time comes.

[Spendulus]

@Netpyder: I'll check in tomorrow morning to see if one of the four flights has been chosen. If you start a new thread, please link to it here.


yes no worries

Better to just copy and paste his answers here.  Remember Netyder the guy who has twice said a thread should be closed because it wasn't going "his way". 

He just wants to control the thread so he can delete posts, and close the thread if it doesn't go his way.  Which it won't most likely.

the reason why i am opting for a new thread to post everything is because you never really reply to my answers and questions, you just pick whichever you want to reply. whilst the new thread i will be the one posting the 5 first thus you cannot say you didnt notice them or it got lost in the pages

Well, after you pick one of the four flights, I will ignore anything that's not relevant to the one you picked. In fact, I'll see it as an act of bad faith if you keep bringing up things that are irrelevant. For example, if you pick Flight 93, everything about the Pentagon and WTC will be irrelevant. The point of focusing is to focus.

I guess Netpyder is not going to take you up on this simple challenge.

It's still early. In my experience when I try to write down clear, unambiguous sentences, the first attempts fail. Additionally, needing a collection of such sentences that implies a conclusion requires making a lot of "obvious" assumptions explicit. It's tricky.

Also, the challenge isn't restricted to Netpyder. If someone else wants to choose a flight and commit to an argument with clear, unambiguous statements which together imply the official narrative is false, then that's fine. It has to be first-come-first-serve though because I don't have time to focus on more than one argument at a time.

I have a hard copy of The 9/11 Commission Report that I bought many years ago and barely looked at. (I had to search for it.) At least that will mean a little less internet searching if/when the time comes.

I guess that makes sense.  Give him / Anyone a week or two to answer.  I don't have a 9/11 report and have only answered assertions based on well, basic physics and chemistry and aircraft structures.  I don't have any doubt some issues were covered up in the 9/11 report, for example to protect inside sources in Al Queda, Pakistan, etc.  But that has nothing to do with the basic series of events, their cause and their effects.

[BADecker]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

The fact that it happened to the North Tower as well - although this one took a bit longer - bends any slight chance of it happening without demolition all out of shape.

The fact that Building 7 fell for almost no known reason makes the whole thing an absolute impossibility without demolition.

If the official report is the truth, get out now. Run from the highrise buildings as fast as you can. They are absolutely unsafe. Run for your life. Get out of New York city, now, while you still can.



EDIT: ... and every other city that has highrise buildings. Run.

[Spendulus]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

The fact that it happened to the North Tower as well - although this one took a bit longer - bends any slight chance of it happening without demolition all out of shape.

The fact that Building 7 fell for almost no known reason makes the whole thing an absolute impossibility without demolition.

If the official report is the truth, get out now. Run from the highrise buildings as fast as you can. They are absolutely unsafe. Run for your life. Get out of New York city, now, while you still can.



EDIT: ... and every other city that has highrise buildings. Run.

On this thread I have shown the calculations that to bend one of those supporting columns like putty only requires 22kg or about 7 gallons of kerosene.  And the kerosene itself was not required, only a fire of sufficient breadth and intensity.

Given that these were steel frame structures, there was no "concrete" to penetrate, as you put it. 

You are mistaken in your premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

[BADecker]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

The fact that it happened to the North Tower as well - although this one took a bit longer - bends any slight chance of it happening without demolition all out of shape.

The fact that Building 7 fell for almost no known reason makes the whole thing an absolute impossibility without demolition.

If the official report is the truth, get out now. Run from the highrise buildings as fast as you can. They are absolutely unsafe. Run for your life. Get out of New York city, now, while you still can.



EDIT: ... and every other city that has highrise buildings. Run.

On this thread I have shown the calculations that to bend one of those supporting columns like putty only requires 22kg or about 7 gallons of kerosene.  And the kerosene itself was not required, only a fire of sufficient breadth and intensity.

Given that these were steel frame structures, there was no "concrete" to penetrate, as you put it.  

You are mistaken in your premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

You can postulate that the moon is made of green cheese, as well.

If 7 gallons of kerosene can figure out a way to release all of its energy at one tiny spot on a column all at the same time, you might have a point. That's not, however, the way combustion in simple air works. It doesn't even work this way when there are open stairwell doors to allow the air to circulate to the fuel freely.

No concrete in the walls surrounding the columns?

The BIG point that you are attempting to distract from is, 3 buildings, collapsing at nearly the same time, into their own footprints, when they were specially designed to withstand the exact forces that crashed them, the third building for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL, clearly shows that the whole thing was staged to happen just this way. It was an inside job. It was sabotage.

However, if it DID happened as the official report says, especially in the light of the buildings being designed to withstand this, then >>> RUN, RUN, RUN, because all those buildings are unsafe, and more than likely, the ability to crash like they did was intentionally built right into their construction from the beginning.

[Spendulus]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

The fact that it happened to the North Tower as well - although this one took a bit longer - bends any slight chance of it happening without demolition all out of shape.

The fact that Building 7 fell for almost no known reason makes the whole thing an absolute impossibility without demolition.

If the official report is the truth, get out now. Run from the highrise buildings as fast as you can. They are absolutely unsafe. Run for your life. Get out of New York city, now, while you still can.



EDIT: ... and every other city that has highrise buildings. Run.

On this thread I have shown the calculations that to bend one of those supporting columns like putty only requires 22kg or about 7 gallons of kerosene.  And the kerosene itself was not required, only a fire of sufficient breadth and intensity.

Given that these were steel frame structures, there was no "concrete" to penetrate, as you put it.  

You are mistaken in your premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

You can postulate that the moon is made of green cheese, as well.

If 7 gallons of kerosene can figure out a way to release all of its energy at one tiny spot on a column all at the same time, you might have a point. That's not, however, the way combustion in simple air works. It doesn't even work this way when there are open stairwell doors to allow the air to circulate to the fuel freely.

No concrete in the walls surrounding the columns?

The BIG point that you are attempting to distract from is, 3 buildings, collapsing at nearly the same time, into their own footprints, when they were specially designed to withstand the exact forces that crashed them, the third building for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL, clearly shows that the whole thing was staged to happen just this way. It was an inside job. It was sabotage.

However, if it DID happened as the official report says, especially in the light of the buildings being designed to withstand this, then >>> RUN, RUN, RUN, because all those buildings are unsafe, and more than likely, the ability to crash like they did was intentionally built right into their construction from the beginning.

I'm not distracting anything.  Just refuting a simple assertion about heat, combustion and materials strength.   You are welcome to check the numbers.  Oh and by the way they are for a temperature of 1000C, which is not required.  400-600C is perfectly fine to cause the steel to be worthless structurally.   That means 3.5 gallons of kerosene.  Or other combustibles, basically everything in there.

It's you that are throwing out arguments left and right, trying to see what will stick.

Concrete? 

Where the fuck did you get the idea there would be concrete that high up in the air on a building of that sort?  We are NOT talking rebar reinforced concrete but vertical steel beams, 1/4 inch thick at the top and 4" thick at the bottom.   Typical cross dimension 12" x 36".

After you accept these facts I'm willing to talk about the third building.

[J. J. Phillips]

[Deleted] I found an error in this post. I'll edit it and repost.

[J. J. Phillips]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

Hi BADecker. These statements are a bit difficult to interpret. Let me try to find simpler statements that might correspond to what you're saying. You can clarify if I am misunderstanding you.

First, there are preconditions without which the sentence makes no sense.

(1) A plane X hit the South Tower.
(2) The fuel from X caused a fire Y in the South Tower.

Presumably we all agree on these. After this things become less clear.

Here's something you might be asserting:

(3) The fire Y could not have caused the steel girders in the South Tower to weaken enough to cause the South Tower to collapse.

Are you asserting (3)? If you are, then we could discuss this simple proposition. However, I think Spendulus has already done calculations to argue against this. I haven't checked his calculations, but I'm willing to.

If you are not asserting (3), then I think you're probably asserting (4) and/or (5):

(4) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the debris field would have a maximum* radius of R meters with probability P.

The "maximum radius of R meters" in (4) is to interpret "come down into its own footprint." I think you're suggesting that if the official narrative were correct, the debris field should be larger than the "footprint." A strict interpretation of "footprint" would mean the radius R equals the distance from the center of the South Tower to one of its corners. I suspect you don't really mean that. You probably mean an R bigger than that, since it's clear that the debris field was not confined to where the South Tower stood. Do you already have an idea what the radius R of the debris field is?

The reference to "with probability P" in (4) is suggested by your second sentence "The odds against ..." It seems like you're not saying such a collapse is not impossible, but improbable. How improbable? Less than one chance in 100?

Before going on, is (4) an accurate restatement of part of what you are saying?

I haven't included your reference to the time required for the collapsed. I would restate that as follows:

(5) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the collapse would take less than T seconds with probability P'.

I said "less than T seconds" because I think you're suggesting that it should have collapsed more slowly if the official narrative were true, right? Again, "the odds against" suggest you think P'(T) with T between 11 and 14 would be low. How low? I haven't verified that the time for the collapses were between 11 and 14 seconds. I can if it becomes relevant.

When you respond, it will be helpful if you refer to the numbered statements (1) - (5) to avoid confusion. Which of (1) - (5) are you asserting? All of them?

* In the original post I wrote "minimum" instead of "maximum" here. As I've said before, trying to be precise is tricky.

[BADecker]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

The fact that it happened to the North Tower as well - although this one took a bit longer - bends any slight chance of it happening without demolition all out of shape.

The fact that Building 7 fell for almost no known reason makes the whole thing an absolute impossibility without demolition.

If the official report is the truth, get out now. Run from the highrise buildings as fast as you can. They are absolutely unsafe. Run for your life. Get out of New York city, now, while you still can.



EDIT: ... and every other city that has highrise buildings. Run.

On this thread I have shown the calculations that to bend one of those supporting columns like putty only requires 22kg or about 7 gallons of kerosene.  And the kerosene itself was not required, only a fire of sufficient breadth and intensity.

Given that these were steel frame structures, there was no "concrete" to penetrate, as you put it.  

You are mistaken in your premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

You can postulate that the moon is made of green cheese, as well.

If 7 gallons of kerosene can figure out a way to release all of its energy at one tiny spot on a column all at the same time, you might have a point. That's not, however, the way combustion in simple air works. It doesn't even work this way when there are open stairwell doors to allow the air to circulate to the fuel freely.

No concrete in the walls surrounding the columns?

The BIG point that you are attempting to distract from is, 3 buildings, collapsing at nearly the same time, into their own footprints, when they were specially designed to withstand the exact forces that crashed them, the third building for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL, clearly shows that the whole thing was staged to happen just this way. It was an inside job. It was sabotage.

However, if it DID happened as the official report says, especially in the light of the buildings being designed to withstand this, then >>> RUN, RUN, RUN, because all those buildings are unsafe, and more than likely, the ability to crash like they did was intentionally built right into their construction from the beginning.

I'm not distracting anything.  Just refuting a simple assertion about heat, combustion and materials strength.   You are welcome to check the numbers.  Oh and by the way they are for a temperature of 1000C, which is not required.  400-600C is perfectly fine to cause the steel to be worthless structurally.   That means 3.5 gallons of kerosene.  Or other combustibles, basically everything in there.

It's you that are throwing out arguments left and right, trying to see what will stick.

Concrete? 

Where the fuck did you get the idea there would be concrete that high up in the air on a building of that sort?  We are NOT talking rebar reinforced concrete but vertical steel beams, 1/4 inch thick at the top and 4" thick at the bottom.   Typical cross dimension 12" x 36".

After you accept these facts I'm willing to talk about the third building.

3.5 gallons of kerosene.

Liberate all the energy in 3.5 gallons of kerosene all at once, and what do you get? An explosion big enough to kick the state of New York over into China.

Liberate all the combustible energy in 3.5 gallons of kerosene by placing the kerosene into a big "tin" can in open air, and tossing in a lighted match, and you would probably see the match go out. No liberation at all. But if you got it to burn, your flame probably wouldn't reach 1,200 F (a lot less C), would smoke because it wasn't burning clean, and would never come close to melting the tin can.

The buildings were designed protected from an airplane crash. Were they designed to encourage blast furnace action in simple air? If they were designed this way, and if you could get blast furnace action to operate, you might get a loss of tensile strength in steel so that the buildings could collapse. But, they certainly wouldn't have come straight down... certainly not in two buildings... certainly not in the third building which wasn't affected by the flames at all.

There is a coverup. The coverup is big. It might exist only to protect the designers of the buildings. Or it might exist to push us into WWIII with the whole Middle East. But the coverup is certainly there.

[BADecker]

There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.

Hi BADecker. These statements are a bit difficult to interpret. Let me try to find simpler statements that might correspond to what you're saying. You can clarify if I am misunderstanding you.

First, there are preconditions without which the sentence makes no sense.

(1) A plane X hit the South Tower.
(2) The fuel from X caused a fire Y in the South Tower.

Presumably we all agree on these. After this things become less clear.

Here's something you might be asserting:

(3) The fire Y could not have caused the steel girders in the South Tower to weaken enough to cause the South Tower to collapse.

Are you asserting (3)? If you are, then we could discuss this simple proposition. However, I think Spendulus has already done calculations to argue against this. I haven't checked his calculations, but I'm willing to.

If you are not asserting (3), then I think you're probably asserting (4) and/or (5):

(4) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the debris field would have a maximum* radius of R meters with probability P.

The "maximum radius of R meters" in (4) is to interpret "come down into its own footprint." I think you're suggesting that if the official narrative were correct, the debris field should be larger than the "footprint." A strict interpretation of "footprint" would mean the radius R equals the distance from the center of the South Tower to one of its corners. I suspect you don't really mean that. You probably mean an R bigger than that, since it's clear that the debris field was not confined to where the South Tower stood. Do you already have an idea what the radius R of the debris field is?

The reference to "with probability P" in (4) is suggested by your second sentence "The odds against ..." It seems like you're not saying such a collapse is not impossible, but improbable. How improbable? Less than one chance in 100?

Before going on, is (4) an accurate restatement of part of what you are saying?

I haven't included your reference to the time required for the collapsed. I would restate that as follows:

(5) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the collapse would take less than T seconds with probability P'.

I said "less than T seconds" because I think you're suggesting that it should have collapsed more slowly if the official narrative were true, right? Again, "the odds against" suggest you think P'(T) with T between 11 and 14 would be low. How low? I haven't verified that the time for the collapses were between 11 and 14 seconds. I can if it becomes relevant.

When you respond, it will be helpful if you refer to the numbered statements (1) - (5) to avoid confusion. Which of (1) - (5) are you asserting? All of them?

* In the original post I wrote "minimum" instead of "maximum" here. As I've said before, trying to be precise is tricky.

The more the words, the less the meaning.

Precision isn't needed. What is needed is an overview of all the events.

If the buildings came down as the official report indicated, RUN, because the buildings are all unsafe, right in their construction.