the complete minute by minute timeline on 911

http://www.911timeline.net/

This, in my personal view, is certainly from must read department.

Michael

You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
website might have to say.

http://www.911timeline.net/

What an amateurish conspiracy "expose"! Or is it a purposeful attempt to
mislead the ignorant?

Look who posted it - that answers your question right there

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...
http://www.911timeline.net/

This, in my personal view, is certainly from must read department.

Michael

You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
website might have to say.

Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent that I can in "one
sentence
to completely discredit anything that this website might have to say"?
BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?

Michael
--------------------------------

"...The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began
-- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went
into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the
beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the
earth.

seismogram

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data tends to lend credence
to the theory that perhaps a massive explosion(s) in the lowest level
of the basements where the supporting steel columns of the WTC met the
bedrock caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of
University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear
explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of
the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in
the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support
columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten
steel" were discovered. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70
feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural
supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York,
told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World
Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the
debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
(CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the
debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the
controlled demolition and implosion of structures." Loizeaux, who
cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on
the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire
operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These
incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts
of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The
molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the
rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was
also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously at 5:20 on September
11th.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2800°
Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme
heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

A way to prove that explosives had blasted the supporting steel
columns of the Twin Towers would be to examine fragments from them
among the debris for evidence of what metallurgists call "twinning".
While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite
numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers
involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

The WTC debris was removed as fast as possible and no forensic
examination of the debris was permitted by the FBI or any other
government agency. Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel from the Twin
Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported to places like
China and Korea as quickly as it could be loaded onto the ships,
thereby removing the evidence.

The magazine Fire Engineering, a respected journal of firefighting for
125 years, which publishes studies of catastrophic fires, criticized
the American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA investigations as "a
half-baked farce." Fire Engineering editor WiIliam A. Manning wrote in
the January issue: "...the structural damage from the planes and the
explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring
down the towers." Why is such there disparity in opinion within the
ranks of the fire-engineering community?

The immense clouds of dust and apparent disintegration of the 425,000
cubic yards of concrete of the World Trade Center cause me to question
the MIT account of events. Describing the ruins, television evangelist
Dr. Robert Schuller said that "...there was not a single block of
concrete in that rubble." One observer described the scene "as if some
high-energy disintegration beam or laser had been focused on the
towers and pulverized the concrete into minute particles of ash and
dust." The 110-ten-story World Trade Center reduced to dust by jet
fuel?

Dr. Michael Baden, New York state's chief forensic pathologist and an
expert in pathology said in September that most of the victims' bodies
should be identifiable, because the fires had not reached the 3200°F
for 30 minutes necessary to incinerate a body. At a November press
conference, Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, told
grieving relatives that many bodies had been "vaporized." Are we to
believe that the people killed on 9/11 were "vaporized" at 1700° F?

The World Trade Center smoldering pits of molten steel burned for
exactly 100 days, despite the constant spray of water being applied.
The fires were finally reported extinguished on December 19.

Also, the collapses of the south tower at 9:59:04 took only 10 seconds
while the collapse of the north tower at 10:28:31 took only 9 seconds,
this is only slightly more than a free fall from the same height,
indicating that there was very little resistance. Yet the floors
themselves are quite robust, each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a
poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses
underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by
crumpling as one floor fell onto another. So how did both of the
towers fall so quickly?

In a newly release audio, two of New York City's Bravest are heard to
have made it up to where United Airlines Flight 175 impacted, the 78th
floor. Their voices where calm, they explain what was needed to help
the many causalities and to put out the two small fires that they
discovered. The type of fire that these two NYC Firemen describe does
not seem to jive at all with the inferno that is blamed for melting
the support beams and bringing down the first steel high-rise or
skyscraper ever.

Also, Louie Cacchioli 51, another NYC firefighter, assigned to Engine
47 in Harlem, has stated on September 11, 2001: "We were the first
ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking
firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position
to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think
there were bombs set in the building. I had just asked another
firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were
trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out."

"There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass
chaos. The power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We
had oxygen masks and we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it
out and some of us didn't. I know of at least 30 firefighters who are
still missing. This is my 20th year. I am seriously considering
retiring. This might have done it."

When cameraman and Jules Naudet arrived at WTC tower one along with
other crews of NYC Firemen and entered the building's ground floor
lobby, they were to a one completely puzzled, actually astonished, to
find significant and widespread damage to the entire lobby area;
although not of a deep, structural kind. Moreover, nowhere was there
any indication whatsoever of an incendiary-type explosion or any kind
of fire in this area.

Yet the incredible number of blown-out windows and other extensive
though rather superficial damage throughout the lobby area was
profoundly perplexing to these experienced professional firefighters
in relation to the impact of the plane eighty stories above. As one
put it: "The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby!"

Other reports, from firemen, have said that the FBI's offices in NYC
that were on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors of the north tower of the
WTC were totally destroyed, presumably by bombs. ..."

In article ,
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent that I can in "one
sentence to completely discredit anything that this website might
have to say"?

This is not something to be thankful for.

It means you're a loud, persistent looney, who can't understand the
damage he causes to his own side.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
website might have to say.

Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent

I never said that. Your delusions of grandeur shouldn't include re-writing my
words into a sort of compliment - damn, you really ARE that stupid, aren't you?

... that I can in "one
sentence
to completely discredit anything that this website might have to say"?

With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.

BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?

What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a conspiracy
nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.

The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot. Fifteen minutes before the
collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the first
tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife thought
I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was missing.
Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the event
as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror, you
might have noticed it yourself.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...
You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
website might have to say.

Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent

I never said that. Your delusions of grandeur shouldn't include re-writing my
words into a sort of compliment - damn, you really ARE that stupid, aren't you?

No Gordon I am not that stupid, as you migh think.


... that I can in "one
sentence
to completely discredit anything that this website might have to say"?


This is what you think, don't you? Just one stupid guys opinion,
no more nor less.

With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.

BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?

What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a conspiracy
nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.

The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot.

This what you idiot want ot believe in. How about seismic data?
how about 10 sec collaps times which is approximately free fall time
from WTC altitude? How about other material data which do not go well
with you symbol of believe?

Fifteen minutes before the
collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the first
tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife thought
I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was missing.
Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the event
as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror, you
might have noticed it yourself.

I was not dancing and I am not glade about that now. Chechens bandits
were the only part of russian people who were celebrating this
indeed horror criminal act. Actually I am very sad about american
people who have showen to be so stupid to have such goverment who
can play a role (not clear exactly which one) in all that **** done
on 911. But it does play a role.

Michael

This is what you think, don't you? Just one stupid guys opinion,
no more nor less.

Yeah, Mike -I'm the only guy on the planet that thinks you're an idiot.
Riiiiight.


With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.

BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?

What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a
conspiracy
nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.

The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot.

This what you idiot want ot believe in. How about seismic data?
how about 10 sec collaps times which is approximately free fall time
from WTC altitude? How about other material data which do not go well
with you symbol of believe?

Simply put: if you tried to convince me the sky was blue, I would naturally
assume it was not and would have to wait for proof from other sources. Every
time you bring 'evidence', it has so many holes in it that it becomes a joke.
You're the fool that fervently believed your Serb 'brothers' shot down hundreds
of Allied aircraft. You're the utter moron that believes the USA spent
billions of dollars to fake moon landings. You have been wrong in every case I
have seen in the past four years, so I have that much history of you being
screwed up to fall back upon. The chance that Americans planned, carried out,
and then covered up a mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is the same,
mathematically, of you ever being right about anything. Your brain is poisoned
- no other conclusion.

Fifteen minutes before the
collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the
first
tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the
point
of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife
thought
I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was
missing.
Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the
event
as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror,
you
might have noticed it yourself.

I was not dancing and I am not glade about that now.

You sure relish the thought that we could have done such a thing to ourselves,
regardless of what we all watched happen live that day.

Chechens bandits
were the only part of russian people who were celebrating this
indeed horror criminal act.

You 'celebrate' it every time you deny an airliner struck the Pentagon. Your
compassion for the victims is underwhelming.

Actually I am very sad about american
people who have showen to be so stupid to have such goverment who
can play a role (not clear exactly which one) in all that **** done
on 911.

Not clear exactly? But you will jump on any conspiracy theory and claim it to
be true. That's very scientific.

But it does play a role.

Michael

The role we played was as agitators to Muslim extremists, and targets. Unless
you feel that GWB managed to organize the entire episode in a few months, and
he was able to put into place THOUSANDS of necessary accomplices to carry out
this heinous act. That makes a lot of sense to an America hater like you, but
thankfully to very few other bent minds. Always a few that will agree with
your views, Michael - thats the fun of mental illness; you get to share it.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

This is what you think, don't you? Just one stupid guys opinion,
no more nor less.

Yeah, Mike -I'm the only guy on the planet that thinks you're an idiot.
Riiiiight.

Not the only, but yes you are a minority. And not the better part
of humans I personally know. You level is very low indeed. In my
personal view certainly.



With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.

BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?

What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a
conspiracy
nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.

The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot.

This what you idiot want ot believe in. How about seismic data?
how about 10 sec collaps times which is approximately free fall time
from WTC altitude? How about other material data which do not go well
with you symbol of believe?

Simply put: if you tried to convince me the sky was blue, I would naturally
assume it was not and would have to wait for proof from other sources. Every
time you bring 'evidence', it has so many holes in it that it becomes a joke.

Well it could be. But let's talk about these holes rather than
my personality.

You're the fool that fervently believed your Serb 'brothers' shot down hundreds
of Allied aircraft.

Wrong again. I told you that russian general staff reported that
according to their intel data there were 40-50 allied aircraft
shoot down. Since 1) I do not beleive a word from criminals form US
goverment and 2) in my view there is no any interests for russian
army to overestimate NATO losses in this war, I prefer
to beleive russian army reports. Logically, isn't it?


You're the utter moron that believes the USA spent
billions of dollars to fake moon landings.

Yes sir, your goiverment faked manned parts of moon landings.
Automatic probes were fine as far as I know. I have
no idea and do not care about how many billions of
US tax money were stolen in that process. You do not
like this? Your problem.


You have been wrong in every case I
have seen in the past four years, so I have that much history of you being
screwed up to fall back upon.

Highly overestimation. I was wrong in a few of cases.
I am not affraid to be wrong. Humans are often wrong.
You for instance. Should I remind you about little
Tu22Ms mistake. Or even here your claim "You have been
wrong in every case I have seen in the past four years"
is not only wrong it is open lie. Because I have beat
your many times and in a few cases you have admited
that. Should I remind you your own words?

The chance that Americans planned, carried out,
and then covered up a mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is the same,
mathematically, of you ever being right about anything.

Well who said Americans "planned, carried out, and then covered
up a mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is the same". Not me
at least. I said that US goverment played a role in this ****.
Which one I have no idea. You too.


Fifteen minutes before the
collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the
first
tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the
point
of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife
thought
I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was
missing.
Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the
event
as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror,
you
might have noticed it yourself.

I was not dancing and I am not glade about that now.

You sure relish the thought that we could have done such a thing to ourselves,
regardless of what we all watched happen live that day.

No. Indeed I do not really care about US but I am not
happy at all that such powerful country as US has goverment
of criminals playing a role in massmurder of its own
innocent citizens. Why? Because I affraid that at certain
stage there will nobody but russian people who would
have obligation to eliminate that band of criminals.



Chechens bandits
were the only part of russian people who were celebrating this
indeed horror criminal act.

You 'celebrate' it every time you deny an airliner struck the Pentagon. Your
compassion for the victims is underwhelming.

Gordon you simply do not like to see the true. That's your problem.
I tell you and you can trust me I have no reasons whatsoever to
celebrate anything in 911 ****. It is not only tradegy more imprtant
is that nobody knows what those who planed and did all that wonna do
next.


Actually I am very sad about american
people who have showen to be so stupid to have such goverment who
can play a role (not clear exactly which one) in all that **** done
on 911.

Not clear exactly? But you will jump on any conspiracy theory and claim it to
be true. That's very scientific.

But it does play a role.

Michael

The role we played was as agitators to Muslim extremists, and targets.
Unless you feel that GWB managed to organize the entire episode in a few months,

As we have been recently told by his former cabinet memeber GWB is plain
stupid playing very little role in his own government affairs. Looks true.
How he could managed to organize the entire episode? The only think
he seems really care is his Texas rancho.

and
he was able to put into place THOUSANDS of necessary accomplices to carry out
this heinous act. That makes a lot of sense to an America hater

I told you I do not hate America, I just do not like it. And it is true.
Why should I love it? do you need I love america? If so why?
Is it due to a inferiority complex?

like you, but
thankfully to very few.

Unfortunately yes there are too few of those who
are immune against US NAZI styled propaganda mashine,
particularly in US. But thanks to internet (US invention!)
nobody can stop information distribution any more.
Even US government cannot stop distribution of
data on its criminal acts. Internet will kill this
propaganda mashine.

Always a few that will agree with
your views, Michael - thats the fun of mental illness; you get to share it.

But you have to agree I have all rights to have my views as
you do with yours. Try to take it easy.

Michael

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot. Fifteen minutes before the
collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the first
tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity.

Don't be so sure, Gordon. Maybe some people had the same thought long
before you and long before 911, maybe after 1991 or 1993. Maybe it was
not a bomb but a charge placed there in advance.

Is it true that the contract to clean up the site was awarded to a
Controlled demolitions Inc. company or a company with a name like
that?

I know you hate conspiracy theories but here is one for your
consideration.

Keith in this thread wrote that prior to Sept 11 2001 there had been
no perceived danger from a hijacked airliner.

There was time before some date in 40-ies no none percieved a danger
from an enemy plane that could make a suicidal attack. But on some
date it became a reality and later the name became known: that was
kamikaze.

I read somewhere that in 1991 there was a danger of a suicide plane
attack in Spain to prevent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations there.

In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.

In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.

These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
them and I think that there have been more attempts and threats then
these.

So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.

Again, before 911 the WTC had alredy been atatcked, in 1993, in a
different manner though, but the attack had really taken place.

The WTC was a tempting target. It was big enough to leave many dead
behind, great material damage, it was of sorts a symbol and so on you
name it when considering the queistion: why was the WTC attacked? But
there was an additional reason for attacking the WTC - its internal
structure.

Maybe some people began to think, at first maybe on just a qualitative
level, maybe later they quantified and even modelled it. The question
was: what would happen if an airliner crashed into one or both of the
towers? Beside the immediate damage what would come next? A fire of
course. How big? Planes after take-offs have lots of fuel that would
go down while burning while flames and suffocating smoke would go up.
For a regular concrete/brick/stone building the danger would have been
that the impact, fire and smoke would kill people both up and down
there, but if the building could stand without collapsing after the
impact it was unlikely that it would fall later.

The WTC was a different case because of its steel framework. Bringing
steel to melting point was not needed because steel loses its strength
at lower temperatures. Jet fuel could develop such temperatures. So
the towers probably could not survive such an attack and could not be
saved.

Another question: if it was to fall, then how? Namely if different
parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
were HIGH towers after all.

What do the specialist who do the job the company's name denotes to
prevent such things (remember, the building itself was unsavable)?

They make the building COLLAPSE, collapse onto itself.

I needn't explain how they do that you know the place the charges in
certain places and so on. In the WTC case it could be something like
welding thermite instead of expolosives to make the steel melt, but at
the same pace in several crucial places.

After the events take place it's a 'well done, nice job' situation.
Guys here is your contract. You'll do the cleaning job clean, won't
you? Some things should remain hidden from the public and these crazy
conspiracy theorists. The secrecy is justified. In this case many
lives could not be saved, but many have really been saved. Maybe in
the future (God save but who knows) it will help again.

Incredible? I dont' know. Also I don't know who was to make such
decisions in the USA and NYC if there was (were)such (a)person(s).

Now imagine, Gordon, it's you, or you are one of those who are to
decide say batween 1991 and 1995. You know an attack is possible
anytime and maybe pretty soon and they explain to you that if only a
part of the building falls aside it will lead to such and such
results, so and so many deaths (avoidable!)and the only thing you can
do of course except airport and flight security is damage control
thorough some preventive steps. Some things must be placed in right
spots IN ADVANCE. There are people who can determine, where, what and
how much is to be placed. There are other things to discuss with them,
too. They are damn experienced, that's their job they've been doing
for years.

Aren't you grasping the phone receiver yet, to call the guys?

Regards

VV

"VV" wrote in message
om...
nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message
...


Keith in this thread wrote that prior to Sept 11 2001 there had been
no perceived danger from a hijacked airliner.

There was time before some date in 40-ies no none percieved a danger
from an enemy plane that could make a suicidal attack. But on some
date it became a reality and later the name became known: that was
kamikaze.

I read somewhere that in 1991 there was a danger of a suicide plane
attack in Spain to prevent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations there.


But no such attack happened

In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.


But no such attacked happened since the pilot made it quite
clear that he would do no such thging

In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.


They also threatened to use nuclear weapons

These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
them and I think that there have been more attempts and threats then
these.


Your beliefs have no effect on public perception


So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.


Crap, no hijacked aitcraft had ever been used this way, the hijackers
were making routine demands and asking for clearance to airports.
There was nothing to distinguish this from any of the dozens
of other hijacks that had happened.

As soon as there was the rules changed and the passengers on flight 93
stormed the cockpit to stop the terrorists using their plane the same way

Again, before 911 the WTC had alredy been atatcked, in 1993, in a
different manner though, but the attack had really taken place.

The WTC was a tempting target. It was big enough to leave many dead
behind, great material damage, it was of sorts a symbol and so on you
name it when considering the queistion: why was the WTC attacked? But
there was an additional reason for attacking the WTC - its internal
structure.


Possibly, its floor structure of linked trusses would be more
vulnerable than a conmventional structure but I'd guess its
was attacked because of it being the largest building in NYC

Maybe some people began to think, at first maybe on just a qualitative
level, maybe later they quantified and even modelled it. The question
was: what would happen if an airliner crashed into one or both of the
towers? Beside the immediate damage what would come next? A fire of
course. How big? Planes after take-offs have lots of fuel that would
go down while burning while flames and suffocating smoke would go up.
For a regular concrete/brick/stone building the danger would have been
that the impact, fire and smoke would kill people both up and down
there, but if the building could stand without collapsing after the
impact it was unlikely that it would fall later.

The WTC was a different case because of its steel framework. Bringing
steel to melting point was not needed because steel loses its strength
at lower temperatures. Jet fuel could develop such temperatures. So
the towers probably could not survive such an attack and could not be
saved.


You have just shown your ignorance

Hundredss of buildings in NYC including virtually all
its skyscrapers have steel structures.

Another question: if it was to fall, then how? Namely if different
parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
were HIGH towers after all.

What do the specialist who do the job the company's name denotes to
prevent such things (remember, the building itself was unsavable)?

They make the building COLLAPSE, collapse onto itself.

I needn't explain how they do that you know the place the charges in
certain places and so on.

They also spend weeks weakening the structure, remove all the
elevators and stair wells.

In the WTC case it could be something like
welding thermite instead of expolosives to make the steel melt, but at
the same pace in several crucial places.


I suspect the steel workers who built it and the various inspection teams
who looked at it would have noticed


You sir are a whacko of the first order.

Keith