What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[tvbcof]

From Wikipedia...

Silverstein also has served as chairman of the United Jewish Appeal in New York, the Realty Foundation, trustee of the Museum of Jewish Heritage, and treasurer of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.

You hair brained conspiracy theory requires this man, Silverman, to be pretty darn evil.  You think he was at the center of the conspiracy.

...

Actually, Silverstein could rightly be construed as a decent and humane guy if he got as many people out as possible and minimized the fatalities encountered in the event.

As bad as the reported 2500-ish fatalities of the event, it was amazingly low considering the size and nature of the buildings.  And it seemed to be mostly just lower-end people like fire-fighters and janitorial staff who ate the big one.  Oh ya...and the people from the interesting firm 'Marsh & McLennan' who were instructed to be in the offices for a meeting while their boss teleconferenced in.  Sometimes being stuck in traffic works out OK.

I remember from back near the start of this thing, before the memory hole made it's giant sucking sound, word of the 'Odigo' Israel based instant messaging platform sending out a warning to it's patrons to get the hell out some hours before the event.  I even remember that there was to be some investigation of who sent the IM, but I never did hear how that work panned out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that miraculously no Israeli citizens were killed in the buildings when they did a count by nationality of the victims.  I do remember one individual purportedly killed on one of the planes who was, IIRC, an Israeli national.  Head of Akamai Technologies which was an organization that was a quasi-competitor of a company I was working for at the time.  That is mainly why I remember it.

[1714631154]

1714631154

[BADecker]

...
1. The Towers were made to withstand plane crashes;
2. There wasn't near enough heat from the plane fuel to do the job.

Neither of these assertions is true.

Your assertion that these points are invalid is not true.

It's your problem to prove that.  Certainly that is the opinion of your consensus.

A consensus of one - you.  I hope you can do better than the insurance company, which found no evidence of insurance fraud, and instead found, like we all know, that the planes caused the towers to fall.  

The Internet shows that there are thousands of people who think similarly.

$Money. Like anybody in an insurance company is going to tell the complete story when he is making lots of money off the ploy.

Your conspiracy theory is totally wacko because far simpler ones exist if there was a conspiracy.  Just have some Arab-looking terrorists running around the streets shouting "Allah Ackbar, we are going to blow towers up!  We give you three hours to get everyone out!"

Your conspiracy theory is completely messed up because there is nothing simple about 9/11. All your talk and throwing around of some chemistry and physics doesn't even apply to the 9/11 inside job.

Then the same pre arranged explosives go off and the towers come down.

But that's not what happened.  What happened was just one more boring, ridiculous suicidal Muslim extremist atrocity, designed to strike terror into the West (which it didn't do, of course, it just got us mad).

This "Alternate Conspiracy Theory" I mentioned doesn't require you to do all the continual lying that you have to do to maintain your belief system in a conspiracy.  Unfortunately, it isn't what you have.  So run on off and watch more crappy Youtube videos that tell you what to think.  We'll see you after a little while, Truther.

There you go, trying to support the weakest conspiracy of them all... the official story.

1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed.
3. To this you could add that the pictures of the Towers coming down is similar to the way demolition does their work.
4. Almost anything can happen against tremendous odds once, but to have it happen in this way twice at the same time makes it virtually impossible to have happened, except that the inside job people made it happen.

You have yet to show plausible rebuttal to these basic points in any of your yammering. Rather, you would attempt to make it a personal thing with me, when all over the Internet others are saying the same things with far more detail. And essentially NOBODY is rebutting them with anything that makes any sense. I mean, we can sit here all day and say, "No, I'm right and you are wrong," back and forth to each other, and it has nothing to do with anything.

But, I have to thank you, again, for helping to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, if simply by not being able to show any flaws in the above 4 points.

[BADecker]

Silverstein and others wanted to take the Towers down. Why? Because the city was condemning them for the asbestos problem. The cost would have been enormous to take them apart the same way that they went up - piece by piece - especially when they would have to be taken down in a way that would protect everyone from the asbestos. The Towers were a problem that nobody could figure a simple way around. The 9/11 deception was the cheapest way.

The planes were necessary to make it look like a terrorist attack. This way they could take the Towers down without all the care and expense, using demolition. In addition, there would be all kinds of other money deals where Silverstein and others could make money if it were a terrorist attack... like insurance deals.

Of course everybody doing the deal, including Silverstein, knew that planes couldn't take the Towers down. But many people would buy into the terrorist attack idea ( some in this forum). So, save money by using demolition and terrorism deception, and getting the job done inexpensively.

Bldg. 7 was supposedly hit by pieces of the Towers, and this is what brought it down. Many people still think this way, even though it has been shown that 7 was barely hit, and that it was emptied before being collapsed by demolition.

Here's one more time your own post.  Your words.  Your own stupid Evil Jew fantasy.  Live with it.

I looked through my whole post, and I didn't find anything about evil Jews in it.

You mention the idea of evil Jews a lot with regard to 9/11. But nobody else does. What do you know that we don't know?

From Wikipedia...

Silverstein also has served as chairman of the United Jewish Appeal in New York, the Realty Foundation, trustee of the Museum of Jewish Heritage, and treasurer of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.

You hair brained conspiracy theory requires this man, Silverman, to be pretty darn evil.  You think he was at the center of the conspiracy.

Your problem, not mine.  Please stop the denials.

If Silverstein is such a good Jew, then he knows that in the Tanakh, Solomon is recorded as saying, "He who loves money never has money enough." This is why he has people like you, working to keep the sheeple from finding out that, "He who loves money never has money enough."

I suspect that Silverstein DOES care about people to a great extent. But he got himself into a bad deal, and it was, "play the thing through, or be terminated," by those with even more power and money than he. The fact that he tried to get as many people out of harm's way is a noble notable thing. The fact that he saved his own financial skin by letting a bunch of people die, throws all his noble notability under the bus.

James in the Bible says at James 2:5-7:

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

Maybe you should check into Silverstein a little more before you start bragging about his greatness. Oh, but you can't, can you? He would stop paying you if you did that. Worse, his henchmen (or those of his bosses) just might give you something undesirable to remember him by.



EDIT: But I really have to thank you, again, for helping to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Spendulus]

.....back near the start of this thing, before the memory hole made it's giant sucking sound, word of the 'Odigo' Israel based instant messaging platform sending out a warning to it's patrons to get the hell out some hours before the event.  I even remember that there was to be some investigation of who sent the IM, but I never did hear how that work panned out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that miraculously no Israeli citizens were killed in the buildings when they did a count by nationality of the victims.  I do remember one individual purportedly killed on one of the planes who was, IIRC, an Israeli national.  Head of Akamai Technologies which was an organization that was a quasi-competitor of a company I was working for at the time.  That is mainly why I remember it.

Yeah, there were some  400+ jews killed.  Which pretty much tracks with the NY population being 10-15% Jewish.  5 identified Israeli citizens were killed.   As for the Israeli citizens, not sure that means much of anything.

The rumor that you mentioned about the IM, I don't have data to state that it was Arab propaganda, but it was certainly reported and propagated by one of the big Muslim newspapers.  Of course they promote all kinds of anti-Jewish anti-Israel stuff, because their audience laps it up.
The nature of propaganda is that it self propagates, of course, so all propaganda is "unintentional" by the naive, gullible propagators....

[Spendulus]

....
1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed......

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

Now, can you refute this by arguing #1?  Nope.  For two reasons.  First, the test scenarios used were different.  As always, an engineering test is a very specific test.   For example, is a safe "Fireproof?"  

No, of course not.  A safe might be rated for 15 minutes, or 30 minutes at a certain temperature.  But you'd like to ignore that, and extend the SIMULATED (using 1960s technology, too) design testing to the glib, broad statement "The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them."

That's changing the facts to support your predetermined hypothesis.  That's what Truthers do, of course.  

Of course, you seem to think that you can blindly assert that the "Engineers were right" but then the "Insurance companies were all wrong" when they looked into insurance fraud.  You don't have any facts on this, you just blindly assert it.  I believe they both could be right or wrong, but certainly you've misrepresented the facts on the testing and design verification of the structure.  Basically, you are lying when you assert certainty.

Then you'd like to try to argue that there "were people walking around."  But you neglect to cite that they were walking around before they jumped to their death.  Therefore, there was fire pretty close to them.  Your design to bind the facts to your scheme blindly is telling.  For example, weren't they walking around on the upwind side, where the wind was coming in?  Again, you seem to be lying by modifying the facts to support your Truther viewpoint.

A good conspiracy theory really shouldn't require lying to support it, should it?  As an example, I don't know of anyone who has discussed the JFK killing who has had to lie to assert a point.  Zero.  Nada.  Zip.  Nunca.

[BADecker]

....
1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed......

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

The Towers came down after they sat there for a while after the planes flew into them. This means that there is more to it than the simplicity of the Towers coming down because the planes flew into them.

Again, the fires were not sufficient to cause the buildings to fall, even in their weakened conditions. People were walking around in the little bit of heat that there was. Not enough heat to do anything.

Now, can you refute this by arguing #1?  Nope.  For two reasons.  First, the test scenarios used were different.  As always, an engineering test is a very specific test.   For example, is a safe "Fireproof?"  

No, of course not.  A safe might be rated for 15 minutes, or 30 minutes at a certain temperature.  But you'd like to ignore that, and extend the SIMULATED (using 1960s technology, too) design testing to the glib, broad statement "The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them."

That's changing the facts to support your predetermined hypothesis.  That's what Truthers do, of course.

Can't change any facts that are unknown, one way or another. And that is the exact thing we are attempting to find here... the facts. We know it wasn't the plane crashes themselves. We know it wasn't the heat. All that is left is demolition.

Of course, you seem to think that you can blindly assert that the "Engineers were right" but then the "Insurance companies were all wrong" when they looked into insurance fraud.  You don't have any facts on this, you just blindly assert it.  I believe they both could be right or wrong, but certainly you've misrepresented the facts on the testing and design verification of the structure.  Basically, you are lying when you assert certainty.

Insurance company stuff is for the public eye. Nobody knows what deals were made behind the scenes.

Then you'd like to try to argue that there "were people walking around."  But you neglect to cite that they were walking around before they jumped to their death.  

What? LOL! They were walking around after they jumped to their deaths? How absurd can you get?

Therefore, there was fire pretty close to them.  Your design to bind the facts to your scheme blindly is telling.  For example, weren't they walking around on the upwind side, where the wind was coming in?  Again, you seem to be lying by modifying the facts to support your Truther viewpoint.

But they were walking around. How many guys did you have to call to get some of this garbage you are trying to show?

A good conspiracy theory really shouldn't require lying to support it, should it?  As an example, I don't know of anyone who has discussed the JFK killing who has had to lie to assert a point.  Zero.  Nada.  Zip.  Nunca.

In everything you always say about this, you start out assuming that the official story is truth. If you can't back away and ask questions and look at answers from the standpoint of not knowing, you are simply trying to push an idea, and cover for someone.

Oh, and thanks again for helping to support the 9/11 demolition/inside job idea.

[Spendulus]

....
1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed......

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

The Towers came down after they sat there for a while after the planes flew into them. This means that there is more to it than the simplicity of the Towers coming down because the planes flew into them.

PeAgain, the fires were not sufficient to cause the buildings to fall, even in their weakened conditions. ....

...

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.

[popcorn1]

To Mr trump good job you got the poles to do the building work on your building because it seems the yanks build terrible buildings ..
Also it seems the Arabs can build better buildings than USA workers seem to withstand fire better..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzA3RzJ6wyM..
ANOTHER BETTER STONGER BUILDING BY ARABS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNU3SaU1A4Y
Just as the fire started notice it started at the bottom so more weight to hold at the top so more chance to collapse steel got more weight to hold if it melts at bottom..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PbHMbs4PBk
Now after the fire do you notice something can anybody say what it is..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmrmlJcDOuQ...
You say WHAT it's still standing..
And building 7 in new York city came down because of fire..

Now if i was you Mr trump never get a yank to build your wall it might blow up with petrol and office items..Get the poles they work for cheap and they under cut everyone good workers FACT..
BAD BUILDERS USA WORKERS..
No wonder all your companies are moving BAD WORKERS
Also be careful who builds your bombs you yanks might blow your own planes up

SO ARE YOUR BUILDINGS SO BAD?..I LEAVE THE ANSWER TO YOU USA CONSTRUCTION WORKERS..

[popcorn1]

....
1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed......

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

The Towers came down after they sat there for a while after the planes flew into them. This means that there is more to it than the simplicity of the Towers coming down because the planes flew into them.

PeAgain, the fires were not sufficient to cause the buildings to fall, even in their weakened conditions. ....

...

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.

Trouble with you is your still stuck in the 8th grade science department..
Did you miss 9 10 11 and so on?
I know your quite smart so stop making yourself look like a DICK
Best for you to withdraw from the conversation you remind me of Badecker with his religion..
YOUR MAKING PEOPLE DO MORE RESEARCH TO PROVE YOU WRONG..NOT WISE..
Anyone with a brain knows it was an inside job..

IN FACT OUR WHOLE LIVES ARE RUN BY AN INSIDE JOB
TO MANY POLITICIANS WHO ARE ROBBING THE TAX PAYER ALL OVER THE WORLD..
When a politician gets in power there intentions are good at first BUT once they see the money they can make they do it no matter what or who gets hurt as long as there family and friends don't get hurt..

[maku]

Russia claim to have evidence that 911 was an inside job and are planning on releasing the info shortly.

I am interested in this piece of evidence. Can your provide source of your information?
Is that even remotely true news or it was only a publicity stunt forged by Russian government?

I like how some people are defending the idea of 9/11 being a terrorist attack even though every possible scientific explanations and simulations point to the conclusion that it was an inside job.

[popcorn1]

To the politicians correct what you have started and make our lives better I am sick of all this
bullshit you create BOOTS ON THE FUCKIN GROUND..To end this bullshit..

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE IS GETTING WORSE NOT BETTER..So sort it out BIG BOSS..

[Spendulus]

....
1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed......

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

The Towers came down after they sat there for a while after the planes flew into them. This means that there is more to it than the simplicity of the Towers coming down because the planes flew into them.

PeAgain, the fires were not sufficient to cause the buildings to fall, even in their weakened conditions. ....

...

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.

Trouble with you is your still stuck in the 8th grade science department..
Did you miss 9 10 11 and so on?
I know your quite smart so stop making yourself look like a DICK
Best for you to withdraw from the conversation you remind me of Badecker with his religion..
YOUR MAKING PEOPLE DO MORE RESEARCH TO PROVE YOU WRONG..NOT WISE..
.....

The trouble with your argument is that these morons who claim one or another thing should simply be able to prove it.  Time after time, though, simple 8th grade math and physics shows them wrong.  That's their problem, not mine.  My point of view is very simple.  You apply the correct formula, and note what the result is.

It's not exactly something I have control of, what the numbers say.  Not one time have they supported these Truthers' arguments.

[BADecker]

....
1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed......

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

The Towers came down after they sat there for a while after the planes flew into them. This means that there is more to it than the simplicity of the Towers coming down because the planes flew into them.

PeAgain, the fires were not sufficient to cause the buildings to fall, even in their weakened conditions. ....

...

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.

Trouble with you is your still stuck in the 8th grade science department..
Did you miss 9 10 11 and so on?
I know your quite smart so stop making yourself look like a DICK
Best for you to withdraw from the conversation you remind me of Badecker with his religion..
YOUR MAKING PEOPLE DO MORE RESEARCH TO PROVE YOU WRONG..NOT WISE..
.....

The trouble with your argument is that these morons who claim one or another thing should simply be able to prove it.  Time after time, though, simple 8th grade math and physics shows them wrong.  That's their problem, not mine.  My point of view is very simple.  You apply the correct formula, and note what the result is.

It's not exactly something I have control of, what the numbers say.  Not one time have they supported these Truthers' arguments.

What is there to prove? How do we prove that nobody knows the completely right answer? There is simply no proof in the official story, because as many have shown, there are too many big gaps of information... of things not accounted for.

Buildings of this size and type simply do not crash this way without demolition:

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

[BADecker]

....
1. The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them.
2. The heat was non-existent as shown by the people walking around in the places where the flames were supposed to have existed......

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

The Towers came down after they sat there for a while after the planes flew into them. This means that there is more to it than the simplicity of the Towers coming down because the planes flew into them.

PeAgain, the fires were not sufficient to cause the buildings to fall, even in their weakened conditions. ....

...

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.

Again, nobody knows how much fuel and heat got into the buildings. All the work in the official story is simply speculation. However, even burning fuel doesn't penetrate concrete and steel by convection rapidly enough to cause enough weakening to cause this kind of crash.


Buildings of this size and type simply do not crash this way without demolition:

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

[Spendulus]

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.
[/quote]

Again, nobody knows how much fuel and heat got into the buildings.

....even burning fuel doesn't penetrate concrete and steel by convection rapidly enough to cause enough weakening to cause this kind of crash.
...
[/quote]Concrete?  Who said anything about concrete?   Rapidly enough?  Sez who?

Some beams were already sheared by the jets impact, some more on the other side are heated by jet fuel and by the office contents burning, not just one but several floors.

I am quite curious.  See bolded above.  Were this true, then you could not be so very certain that the jet fuel and combustibles could not do the job.  In fact you we do know the local combustibles, those have been calculated to about 1 lb per square foot.  And you do know a range for the jet fuel.

The proof that these factors caused the collapse is right in front of you.  It is that similar conditions, impact and fire caused an identical outcome in the second building.  Ordinary fires can easily produce 1000F temperatures. 

It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

[BADecker]

Concrete?  Who said anything about concrete?   Rapidly enough?  Sez who?

Okay, okay. There wasn't any concrete in the buildings. It was all asbestos. LOL!

Some beams were already sheared by the jets impact, some more on the other side are heated by jet fuel and by the office contents burning, not just one but several floors.

All that jet fuel that blew out into the air, partially unburned and boiled away, did all that damage, right? Nobody knows how much fuel actually burned. But very little of it, if any, would have burned with blowtorch effect? Why not? No blowtorches. No bellows.

In addition, there are all those people walking around in the heat. People just don't have the ability to walk around in heat that approaches 212°, the boiling point of water. And water-boiling heat is way too little to affect steel beams, steel girders, and "non-concrete" (LOL) especially through asbestos.

I am quite curious.  See bolded above.  Were this true, then you could not be so very certain that the jet fuel and combustibles could not do the job.  In fact you we do know the local combustibles, those have been calculated to about 1 lb per square foot.  And you do know a range for the jet fuel.

If the planes and the fuel were the only things to consider, there might be questions. But there are all the photographs and videos of buildings coming down in ways they couldn't without demolition.

Regarding local combustibles, that's considering buildings that didn't have an unknown amount of combustibles blown out by the force of the explosions, and that were actually known to have burned.

The range for jet fuel is however far someone transports it? What you even talking about?

The proof that these factors caused the collapse is right in front of you.  It is that similar conditions, impact and fire caused an identical outcome in the second building.  Ordinary fires can easily produce 1000F temperatures.  

Again, this isn't proof because there are too many of these factors that have only been guestimated, and might be factors, but aren't facts, couldn't be known to be facts, except by inside job people who had everything calculated out just the way they needed them, to do the demolition job.

It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

And it is even easier to show all the pictures of buildings that are engulfed in flames and don't crash... maybe don't come near crashing. Simply Google "burning buildings."

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

I didn't forget anything. One gallon of jet fuel in a gallon gas can just sits there. One gallon of jet fuel properly releasing all its nuclear energy might take out an area as large as the whole U.S. - who knows?

In the 9/11 inside job, we simply don't know the conditions of how much of the fuel boiled off without burning, how much of it burned incompletely with great dark billows of smoke, and what tiny amount might have come close to burning efficiently. If the buildings had toppled, there might have been a chance that it wasn't demolition.

What does it matter, about the fuel? All kind of other things show demolition... a 9/11 inside job.

[Spendulus]

All that jet fuel that blew out into the air, partially unburned and boiled away, did all that damage, right? Nobody knows how much fuel actually burned. But very little of it, if any, would have burned with blowtorch effect? Why not? No blowtorches. No bellows.

In addition, there are all those people walking around in the heat. People just don't have the ability to walk around in heat that approaches 212°, the boiling point of water. And water-boiling heat is way too little to affect steel beams, steel girders, and "non-concrete" (LOL) especially through asbestos.

Nobody said anything about blowtorches.  You make that up?

Just a regular wood fire producing 1000F will reduce steel strength to 20-25%. 

Walking around in heat?  So someone can't walk next to a campfire.

Water boiling heat?   Who made that up?

You need to get real about this stuff.  Ranting and raving and spewing nonsense left and right won't prove up the Trutherisms you want to prove.

[BADecker]

All that jet fuel that blew out into the air, partially unburned and boiled away, did all that damage, right? Nobody knows how much fuel actually burned. But very little of it, if any, would have burned with blowtorch effect? Why not? No blowtorches. No bellows.

In addition, there are all those people walking around in the heat. People just don't have the ability to walk around in heat that approaches 212°, the boiling point of water. And water-boiling heat is way too little to affect steel beams, steel girders, and "non-concrete" (LOL) especially through asbestos.

Nobody said anything about blowtorches.  You make that up?

Then why did you bring it up? What can you even be talking about?

Just a regular wood fire producing 1000F will reduce steel strength to 20-25%. 

Did they have a fireplace for their wood fire in the Towers?

Walking around in heat?  So someone can't walk next to a campfire.

Did they have a fireplace for their wood fire in the Towers?

Water boiling heat?   Who made that up?

I'm sure somebody figured out that water boils at 212° at sea level.

You need to get real about this stuff.  Ranting and raving and spewing nonsense left and right won't prove up the Trutherisms you want to prove.

Well, you keep talking about stuff in ways that don't apply to 9/11. So, I totally agree with you. You really need to get real about this stuff. But you're fun, even if you don't get serious.

Oh, and btw, thanks again for helping to solidify the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, by not having anything to show that it wasn't.

[Spendulus]

All that jet fuel that blew out into the air, partially unburned and boiled away, did all that damage, right? Nobody knows how much fuel actually burned. But very little of it, if any, would have burned with blowtorch effect? Why not? No blowtorches. No bellows.

In addition, there are all those people walking around in the heat. People just don't have the ability to walk around in heat that approaches 212°, the boiling point of water. And water-boiling heat is way too little to affect steel beams, steel girders, and "non-concrete" (LOL) especially through asbestos.

Nobody said anything about blowtorches.  You make that up?

Then why did you bring it up? What can you even be talking about?

Just a regular wood fire producing 1000F will reduce steel strength to 20-25%.  

Did they have a fireplace for their wood fire in the Towers?

You mentioned blowtorch and "blowtorch effect." Your words.  Which have no bearing.  Obviously, there were no people walking around in areas too hot to walk around in.  You made up some argument about "water boiling."  For what purpose?  Last I heard a person could walk up to a fire, pretty close. 

Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire.  Just like a regular wood fire.   It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.

[BADecker]

All that jet fuel that blew out into the air, partially unburned and boiled away, did all that damage, right? Nobody knows how much fuel actually burned. But very little of it, if any, would have burned with blowtorch effect? Why not? No blowtorches. No bellows.

In addition, there are all those people walking around in the heat. People just don't have the ability to walk around in heat that approaches 212°, the boiling point of water. And water-boiling heat is way too little to affect steel beams, steel girders, and "non-concrete" (LOL) especially through asbestos.

Nobody said anything about blowtorches.  You make that up?

Then why did you bring it up? What can you even be talking about?

Just a regular wood fire producing 1000F will reduce steel strength to 20-25%. 

Did they have a fireplace for their wood fire in the Towers?

You mentioned blowtorch and "blowtorch effect." Your words.  Which have no bearing.  Obviously, there were no people walking around.  You made up some argument about "water boiling."  For what purpose?

The only way to get jet fuel to burn efficiently in air, is to have a blowtorch effect to add air in sufficient quantities. Since you didn't understand that this is what I was getting at, you easily disqualify yourself as a realistic commenter on the 9/11 subject.

Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire.  Just like a regular wood fire.   It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.

Great. There are some forest fires going in different parts of the country. People walking around in the Towers in the 9/11 inside job were not sufficiently affected by either, the forest fires or the 9/11 fires. How do we know? They were walking around in the Towers. They couldn't have done so if the fires were affecting them. They might have been affected by their fear of the fires, but the fires didn't affect them.

The point? Not enough heat to weaken the Towers sufficiently to bring them down.

Thanks again for helping to prove 9/11 to be an inside job.

You are losing it, buddy. Seems like you gotta be spoon fed the info just to understand.