From: "Glenn Meadows" 

My brother in law is actually involved in this investigation.

The key to the steel problems has to do with the time of design.  At that
time, the steel WAS built to withstand the heat from a fire fueled by the
jets of that time, 707's.  Their size, fuel load, etc were all taken into
consideration, and the buildings were designed to withstand the impact and
burn of a jet of that era and then some (no idea how much, but it was over
engineered).  Remember, the towers were built some time ago.

He works for Tishman Construction, one of the original GC's on the
construction.  He, and many others were on the roof of the Tishman Building
in upper Midtown on 9/11, and were all commenting at that time, that they
thought the buildings would survive the fires.  All (as most did) stared in
disbelief as the towers collapsed.  They actually pulled plans and
specifications from the files that day to start looking into the why's.  He
figures he'll be involved with the litigation as a company expert for years
to come.

--
Glenn M.


"Phil Payne"  wrote in message
news:40979D09.51F19D6B{at}isham-research.com...
> > The attack on the Pentagon was very near the ground.  The attack on the
> > towers was much higher up than necessary and a much lower attack would
have
> > been much more catastrophic.  So, given the amount of thought and
> > rehearsals, why was the attack near the top of the buildings.
>
> I don't know.  I mean, that's obvious - I wasn't in on the planning and
OBL
> hasn't said.
>
> So - speculating:
>
> I don't think they anticipated the collapses.  There were structural
> defects within the buildings that have still not been adequately explained
> - the internal structure should have been protected against fire damage
> (intumescent coatings on the girders, etc.) to a much greater degree than
> seems to have been the case.
>
> Why go high/low?  My own guess is that they realised the first impact
would
> draw video filming, and that would record the second event as graphically
> as it turned out to do.  I believe at that point their objectives had been
> met - the collapses were a kind of (sick) bonus.
>
> --
>   Phil Payne
>   http://www.isham-research.com
>   +44 7785 302 803
>   +49 173 6242039

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5