GreyCloud wrote:
> Light Templar wrote:
>
>>> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking
>>> in' is understandable.
>>> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the
>>> proof is undeniably there.
>>
>> The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably
>> prove that the proof is undeniably there.
>>
>
> It was already brought out in the latest hearings. They knew that it
> was going to happen, just didn't know the manner or form.
>
>>>
>>> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC
>>> buildings. The architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design
>>> the buildings to take a direct hit by an airliner.
>>
>> In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same
>> claim, and it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I
>> think it was.
>>
>>
>>> I find it odd that the building
>>> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
>>
>> The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
>> airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat
>> from the fuel did the job.
>
> Not from the NYC fire dept. tapes.

From the expert investigations findings.

The firefighters were inside the
> same room that the jet hit. You need a lot of forced air to get jet
> fuel to be hot enough to melt steel or even weaken it. The fire
> fighters over their radios were already planning to put out the fire.
> So the fire couldn't have been possibly hot enough to have any
> effects on the exoskeleton type of construction that the towers were
> designed.

Yet, a number of girders were melted.

> Mostly it was reported as quite smokey. When things are
> smokey you don't have a full combustion of fuel. I did notice that a
> lot of the heavy stuff like the jet engines, tires, etc were laying
> on the ground.

The fuel is in the wings, didn't see them on the ground.

>
>> The steel girders could not handle the
>> heat of the newer grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature
>> are specifically designed to go straight down, if they go down at
>> all.
>>
>
> We'd hope that they do. But as an exoskeleton type of structure the
> heat wouldn't be uniform anyway. Even if the heat were high enough
> to weaken the structure the wind would have cooled one side. This
> could have caused the structure to topple rather than crumble inward.
> JP4 or JP5 fuel is designed to run inside of engines that have the
> fans (blades) made of titanium steel... according to the architect
> the exosekelton was made of a high strength alloy that would be
> flexible in the wind due to the height of the structure. I'm only
> using the information made available by PBS and can already see the
> falacy of the claims made by the so-called experts. I find it more
> of a PR form to calm the public. It was bad enough as it was.
>
>>
>>> I find
>>> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
>>
>> That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think
>> that they would fall over like a big tree?
>
> Some do.

Some of the older ones maybe. Anything built after about 1950 was designed
differently. There hasn't been very many skyscrapers taken down that was
built after 1950 yet.

Why do demolition experts spend so much time timing and
> placing their charges in the right places?

Because so far, they've been dealing with older buildings that were not
constructed to go down in that manner.

> The also have to weaken the building in certain places to make a
> controlled collapse possible without doing damage to any nearby
> structures. So I'd say that my previous assertion has a good chance
> of being correct.

Only if you're talking about older buildings. When was the WTC built, like
1973?

>
>>
>>>
>>> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur,
>>> just that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
>>
>> or where.
>
> That is still the scariest part... where.
> And it can still happen again.

Of course. It could happen again any time. I hope you're not just figuring
that out.

--

I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright