"Judah" wrote in message
...
(Michael) wrote in
om:

Judah wrote
The planes that were used on 9/11 were vehicles of destruction, no
doubt. But they did not cause the building to collapse. They just
started the fire that did.

Was there a way to cause the fire without using large airplanes to
deliver thousands of pounds of combustible fuel to the top stories?
:
Residential and office buildings are not made tough enough to
withstand the impact of a kiloton-range cruise missile. That's simply
not reasonable. What is reasonable is that if you own a kiloton-range
cruise missile (and airliners qualify) you are responsible for keeping
it out of the hands of unauthorized people.

Please document a premise wherein a jet airline qualifies as a kiloton-
range cruise missile, prior to 9/11.

Watching a programme about the plane that hit the Pentagon, they said
that the explosion was equivalent to around 500kg of high explosive. So
about half a ton. Not really close to the "kiloton-range".

As was pointed out above, it wasn't the explosion that caused the towers
to collapse, it was the combination of the explosion/erosion of the
fire-proof material and the subsequent fire.

Paul