Judah wrote
And how much damage did that bomb do again?

It killed 6 people and wounded just over 1000.

I meant to the building. And I believe the answer is "minor damage."

Those building were tough and well-designed. They stood up to a truck
bomb that wounded hundreds just fine. A small plane crashing into
them, regardless of how it was loaded, would barely make a dent.
Nothing short of a large, heavy aircraft could possibly deliver the
payload necessary to take it down. Hell, the buildings withstood the
impact. It was the tons of combustible fuel that did them in.

The military complexes of all the advanced sector nations in the world
can't be wrong - there is no substitute for large heavy aircraft for
delivering death and destruction to a city. When you own and operate
an aircraft that carries as much and goes as fast as a heavy bomber,
you have a certain responsibility over and above the usual.

Was there a way to cause the fire without using large airplanes to
deliver thousands of pounds of combustible fuel to the top stories?

I can think of numerous ways that an equivalent or even more damage could
have been inflicted. It's irrelevant

Bull****. It's relevant. Name ONE that does not involve use of
military equipment.

was there a premise to assume that
an airplane would be used as a missile prior to 9/11?

There was a novel on just this.

How many people outside the WTC buildings
were killed?

I'm not certain. Are you?

A small handful - the ones who stayed to gawk, and the ones who risked
their lives rushing in to help.

You're right, I didn't mention them. It wasn't part of the
discussion. I concur that the security procedures followed by their
operators are inadequate.

Neither was your example of Nuclear Power Plants. But I believe my example
to be more accurately representative of your case. And it falls short.
Either the security procedures are inadequate, or your case is.

I just told you - I concur that the security procedures are
inadequate.

I guarantee you that you have no idea what happened in the cockpit on that
day.

I guarantee that I know enough - hijackers gained access to the
cockpit. Should never have happened.

And I guarantee you also that you have no way of knowing what the
results would have been if the pilots were armed

No, I don't. Armed people have been overpowered before. But the
question is - do you have a better chance of defending yourself with a
gun or without? I suppose being a Texan, I consider the question
rhetorical.

which, incidentally,
prior to 9/11 would have been criticized also as being "the Archie Bunker
method"...

And as I've told you before, I'm not opposed to it in principle.

Michael