The poles could very well be uprooted by jetwash we have all seen the video of the cars being blown away by the get engines and such so that is a possibility. There are tapes of what happened at the Pentagon that were taken from two different places a hotel and a gas station that could very easily prove or disprove this whole incident yet those tapes have not been played for anyone. Here is a link of the security cam from the Pentagons Heli pad.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/images/pentagon-9-11.gif

There are a few things that are wierd about this and that is there really is no real view of a plane of that size. A plane with a 125' wingspan would be on camera long enough to be seen. Also think about the precision flying that would be required to fly a plane at this low of an altitude without hitting the ground at all. The most skilled piolts in the military dont even fly this low. The only other explanation is that there are frames of this sequence missing which is a possibility. These are the five images that were released however by the goverment.

Also there are people stating that there was a c130 flying around at that time. They can be used at times to target laser guided muntions as well as launch such a weapon. Its kind of hard to confuse a missle with a 757 so that raises questions as well.

If jetwash uprooted the poles (unlikely) then why were no cars on the highway damaged? Why were no other objects (far more likely to succumb to jetwash than a nice tine pole) damaged from the jetwash that was strong enough to remove concrete anchored aluminim poles that withstand that type of force all the time. Think about blast fencing around airports etc. Poles like those light standards can sit in a jetwash while a motionless jet spools for takeoff. Far more force that that of a moving jet at full power (even) flying overhead. Jet exhaust is most dangerous when the aircraft is stationary but the engines are spooled (like staging for takeoff).

Jetwash my butt, otherwise cars would have been blown off the road too.

I believe three witnesses saw the C130, as well as one Pentagone worker stating that they saw a helecopter at the scene just before the impact as well.

PAX

Alex Yingling wrote:hey jackalope, why dont you prove that all those things you listed are not true?

Because I'm not the one hair brained theroies thats why. And everthing I've asked you guys to proove I have proven in the past 2 times this damn topic has come up.
Do a search and you can find it for yourselves. The Pentagon? I provided links to sites that tell how its built and it answers EVERY single question involveing the building.

Don't be lazy I've provided it twice go find it, read the links then come back and tell me
what you found out.





Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Yea Jakalope PROOVE that its not a conspiracy. i said those are possibilities, not the fact. anything can happen and dont say any possibilites are ruled out. Im not convinced that what they said happened is what happened. so dont tell me you have enough damn proof to say there isnt a conspiracy because you dont.

Quote:

PROOVE how on Earth a cover up of this magnatude could be kept quiet for so long.

Classified. took long enough to get the daily briefing reports the President saw from before 9/11. and then when they let info out there is still a bunch of blacked out senteces. stop acting like an ass and think for a second. . just a second. i may not be right, but that dont mean it cant happen, wont happen, or has never happened. Maybe if they took your Towers away from you, then maybe you'd be the one asking for more explanations.

Whoe! Starting down a bad road, I never sid that the govt doesn't do shady @!#$ at times, hell sometimes down right illegal. i've rad the differing opinions on what happened from BOTH sides of this arguement. I've even spoken with people that were on the ground at the Pentagon directly after the attack by no more then a couple hours so I know what was on the ground there. These are military friends of mine that called and told me @!#$ before it was all over the news and before they were told its all classified. I've done the research read the the theries and have come to my own conclusion. if you don't agree with me hey no problem its all good but please don't expect me to buy into the massive govt cover up that you have cause there ain't one.

Now as for did the govt know something was comeing? The answer to that is a resounding YES. Problem was they didn't have enough intell to tell them where or when it was comeing.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Every site I have seen that attempts to prove that a commercial airliner (in fact a United airlines jet) hit the Pentagon fails miserably. They show parts that came from an aircraft, but not a uUnited aircraft (red white and blue markings, but the wrong markings, or wrong background colour), they show a turbine hub, but it came froma Pratt and Whitney JT65 engine, not a Rolls Royce engine as all 737-200s had/have. they cannot explane why the "wing tip drag mark" is in an area photo taken days before. They do not explain the curious damage to the light standards nor the lack of an impact crater. They do not explain how a vehicle of enourmous size does not show up on one single frame of the only video surveilence they will give us, even though they have way more video of the incident. They do not explain why the FBI's first action was to seize the tapes and inform people that they are not to talk about what they saw, or the fact that they were there. etc etc etc.

Just very strange. Like I said before, it could all be settled quite easily. They claim to have proof, let us see it.

I would be way less suspicious if they just said "hey, we have no idea how this happened this way, very strange, but it did." nope, they explain it away as if it's no big deal. Well, it is a big deal, a very big deal. It's odd in the way it occured, and more odd in the way they explained it away very hap-hazzardly.

Release on frame of one video that shows a commercial aircraft hitting, or even approaching the building, that''s all it would take to shut up a lot of people. Why won't they do that?

PAX

you really believe a missile hit the pentagon?
you really believe that the govt. planted bombs and intentionally flew planes into the exact same floors that they were on?
people heard explosions because, well, they have never heard anything like a plane hitting a dead solid object like a 100 story building before.. no one knows what happens inside like that, explosions are bound to happen. they were not bombs/explosives.
theres a video out there that shows what happens when a plane hits a wall going like 150 mph or something like that.....
look it up on google "plane hitting wall"
you'll find it, and you'll find your answers to why no parts of a plane could easily be identified at the pentagon or the wtc
the plane absolutely disentgrates

/\ /\ /\ Your right about one thing, the video provided does not show a plane hitting the Pentagon. Unfortunetly the video from the survalence camera is that of a time lapse type and it misses the planes actual impact. I know, I know " how convenient " right ?
There are lots of bad things that have happened that noone has video for but that doesn't mean they didn't happen as stated. My buddy from work saw the airliners parts and swears they were from the airliner that they say they were from. now true hes not an airplane mechanic so he wouldn't know if its the correct engine parts or not. But I
would LOVE to examine these so called "wrong" type engine parts with the correct ones in a side by side camparo but since I doubt they would let me then I have to go on their word and the word of the witnesses on the ground as opposed to a conspericy theroy sorry. And don't you guys remember the eye witnesses on the ground that watched the plane hit ? Are they all lyers ? Or are they in on it to ? Gams guess about spaire parts in the cargo hold make so much more sence then we blew ourselves up.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

The explosions were heard 1 hour after the aircraft impact. They registered 2.0 on the rictor scale, meaning they were large and genuine explosions.

The aircraft did not have to hit where the explosives, if they existed, were.

I did not suggest a missle hit the pentagon, I suggest that a Boeing 737-200 did not (the official story)

Funny you know, because there is an aircraft archiologist out in Nevada that can identify parts from crashes of prototype aircraft that crashed 40 years ago, but nobody can find an identifiable piece of a common 737-200??? Seems odd.

In the Nevada test range, when an aircraft crashed, they would dig a hole, push the remaining parts in, fill the hole with fuel, burn the aircraft carcus, then burry it. 40 years later this guy can find a tiny little piece and say know what aircraft it came from. See, the fact is that every little piece of an aircraft has inspection stamps on it. from that, the maker, year, model, inspector, date of inspection, etc etc etc can be found. Interesting huh?

How do explosions happen with no explosives or explosive conditions?

Why, just before the collapse, but after the 8 or 9 explosions are heard, is there a strange whitish dust or smoke rising from street level?

It was 59 minutes from the south tower impact until the collapse. The firefighters said they had two isolated fires that could be controlled or extingished with only two lines. They were on the 78th floor at the time (impact bottom was the 80th floor). The firefighters showed no concern for structual integrety what so ever. The series of detonations are heard 9 beginning about 9 seconds before the collapse.

I'm not saying what happened, only that something happened to cause the collapse anfd it was not a simple plane crash. Those building can take a crash, heck, they could take a couple. They could also take earthquake, fire, hurricanes and tornados, lighning strikes, etc etc etc.. Whatever brought them down was either very unusual, or deliberate. I don't know which, but I sure would like to. So would many building engineers, metalurgists, archetechs, civil engineers, and other concerned parties. If mistakes were made in the design, we need to know. If there is a far more serious threat to safety, we need to know.

PAX

Ok, I'll play. Lets shoot holes thru the towers first. Do you know how they were built ?
All the frame work for the buildings was on its exterior to allow more floor space. Now since we all actulay agree thet the 2 planes hit the towers ( right? ) Where then did they hit ? On the exterior where the buildings supports were. Now fly a big ass plane thru those supports and what do you think that would do to them ? Why brake them in half thats correct. Now debris from the planes continued thru the buildings and exploded out of the other side. ( right? ) Now that explosion would have also destroyed the supports on the other side of the building. So now your left with only 50% max of the original structural support trying to hold up the floors above, and they did so for a good while. Now what happens to steel when its pushed beyond its limits ? Very good it fails. Now not only do we have double the weight on the remaining supports but lets throw in some fire too shall we ? Now as I've stated before a PAPER fire was enough
to buckle the steel I beams in the recycling center off River RD in Ellicott city MD and we all agree thet jet fuel burns a little hotter then paper ( right? ) Well if its steel buckled under the weight of justt a roof what then do you suppose would have happened to the steel in the towers ? Hmm ? Ok, on to your "expolsions" at the towers. Have you ever heard the noise concrete makes when it snaps ? I have, it in fact makes a rather big bang as it shatters from stress. Now the concrete I heard was in a old coaling tower as it was pulled over by CSX. No explosives were used but the snapping of the concrete sure sounded like one. Now lets see, Half the support beams GONE, the other half subjected to TWICE its nomal load, then add fire fueled by jet fuel, that steel WOULD have buckled, once the steel started to buckle the concrete tried to support its own weight but it wasn't designed to so it collapsed. Your famous 2.0 ricter scale reading ? Easy. You drop a building and see if it doesn't shake the ground.

I am not trying to start a fight, but I find it funny as to why you think it happened any differently ? Anyone ?



Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

If you look at the lights they are not held into the ground by much basicly four bolts. The blast fencing at airports have the posts burried in concrete and pavement if I had to guess 4+ feet into the ground. This makes a huge difference. In the very first picture of that sequence you can see an object in the lower right corner that almost skims along the ground. If a plane where to have dragged its wing tip through the ground at that point in time you would have seen debris flying around. The second picture shows exhaust more chaircteristic of a rocket or solid fuel exhaust a white cloudy streak. A plane of the size they are talking about would easily be seen in the first shot. I am not saying its not possible that what happend is exactly what has been reported and accepted as the truth I am just saying that there are a lot of unanswered questions that need to be answered.

The witnesses say everything from commecial sized passenger jet to small light aircraft, with one saying they ssay a helocopter. How can you use any of that?

The aircraft rotor parts and the wheel hubs shown as being found at the site are not from a boeing 737-200, that is known. You can get side-by-side comparisons, and they simply do not fit. At least the wheel hub shown was from the right manufacturer, unlike the engine part.

Ground witnesses described a lear Jet 45 type aircraft, a SAAB 340 (quite possible, engine part match), a light aircraft, three saw a c130 overhead, one saw a helocopter (military person said that). Those who did not see, but heard, said it sounded like a missle, some would know, others would be guessing at what a missle sounds like). There is simply too much contradiction in the eyewitness testamony. Ask any judge, physical evidence is way, way more reliable than eyewitness testamony. So what does the physical evidence sya? Well, something, hit the Pentagon at high speed and puched a 16 foot hole clean through 9 feet of renforce concrete, but did not leave any other marks. Found on site was one smallish wheel hub (too small for a Boeing 737-200, and one engine rotor from a PW JT65 engine. This engine has many applications, but was never used in a Boeing 737-200. It is used in SAAB aircraft (one eyewitness) and in cruise missles (3 earwitnesses).

The evidence provided saying that a strip along the lawn was from the wingtip of the aircraft touching down before the impact is present in areal photos taken weeks before the incident. Why would they lie about that? That is a big one.. I mean navigating a huge airliner to that point would be very difficult indeed, so the story is a tough one in the first place, why get caught in a lie about it? That one is definately a lie as well, many can prove that.

next is the fact that a 737-200 has two huge rolls royce engines, that are 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet long weighing in at 6 tons each. They managed to hit the Pentagon walls, not leave a mark, and vanish all in one go.

I have questions and I'm not sorry for asking them.

PAX

From what I understand, the 2.0 reading was from each of the explosions, not when the building fell. And half of those things you said are made up, how do you know half of the support beams were taken out? And like others said, jet fuel does not burn anywhere hot enough to make steel beams, plus, I would sure hope the beams in the WTC were a lot stronger than some paper plant in MD.

ShiftyCav wrote:

Quote:

who knows if anyone was in the plane, maybe it was on autopilot

I bet the people who were waiting for loved ones to arrive on those planes know if there was anyone on the planes. Listen to yourself, you sound like a friggin broken record. It sounds to me like your "college proffesor" AKA "liberal nutjob" has to wake up and face the facts.

Terrorist were flying these planes. They were passenger planes, with real passengers. Terrorist crashed these planes into the WTC. WTC burned and burned and eventually fell.

Oh, tell your professor to read Michael Savages' book "Liberalism is a mental disorder", and "The Enemy Within". And i would trust the governmant before i trust any wackjob "proffesor"

have a nice day.

Steve


My other car is an interceptor.

Jackalope wrote:Ok, I'll play. Lets shoot holes thru the towers first. Do you know how they were built ?
All the frame work for the buildings was on its exterior to allow more floor space. Now since we all actulay agree thet the 2 planes hit the towers ( right? ) Where then did they hit ? On the exterior where the buildings supports were. Now fly a big ass plane thru those supports and what do you think that would do to them ? Why brake them in half thats correct. Now debris from the planes continued thru the buildings and exploded out of the other side. ( right? ) Now that explosion would have also destroyed the supports on the other side of the building. So now your left with only 50% max of the original structural support trying to hold up the floors above, and they did so for a good while. Now what happens to steel when its pushed beyond its limits ? Very good it fails. Now not only do we have double the weight on the remaining supports but lets throw in some fire too shall we ? Now as I've stated before a PAPER fire was enough
to buckle the steel I beams in the recycling center off River RD in Ellicott city MD and we all agree thet jet fuel burns a little hotter then paper ( right? ) Well if its steel buckled under the weight of justt a roof what then do you suppose would have happened to the steel in the towers ? Hmm ? Ok, on to your "expolsions" at the towers. Have you ever heard the noise concrete makes when it snaps ? I have, it in fact makes a rather big bang as it shatters from stress. Now the concrete I heard was in a old coaling tower as it was pulled over by CSX. No explosives were used but the snapping of the concrete sure sounded like one. Now lets see, Half the support beams GONE, the other half subjected to TWICE its nomal load, then add fire fueled by jet fuel, that steel WOULD have buckled, once the steel started to buckle the concrete tried to support its own weight but it wasn't designed to so it collapsed. Your famous 2.0 ricter scale reading ? Easy. You drop a building and see if it doesn't shake the ground.

I am not trying to start a fight, but I find it funny as to why you think it happened any differently ? Anyone ?

You are messing with the timeline. The sounds that registed 2.0 on the rictor scale happened 9 seconds before the collapse.

You use faulty logic when comparing to the recycling center as it was not an external steel frame, nor was it a 100+ storey tower, nor was it built to withstand an aircraft strike.

You assume that 50% of load bearring members were destroyed by the crash, but that is an assumption. Agin, the building was designed to withstand an aircraft strike. Then there are the statements made by firefighters inside the buildings. There are also the bunch of structural engineers who are questioning it. Then there is the fact that building had renforced bulkheads, designed to hold the entire structure above, if needed that didn't even slow the collapse.


The load bearring members of this building were hardened steel, not typical mild steel as used in low rise construction, let it go, they're not the same. I'm betting that your recycling center example also had sheet metal walls and an internal frame. Not at all the same.

This building was basicly a web of redundant members, a few failures would not bring it down. At the 40th story, huge bulkhead, and again at the 80th. The impact was right at that bulhead. the floors above 80 could easily be supported, in fact, the bulheads could hold the entire buildings weight if needed. One engineer described it like a screen in a window. Poking holes in the screen will not cause the screen to collapse.

It would not matter if there actually was a raging fuel fire (firefighters say there was not, so does the thick black smoke), kerosene does not burn hot enough to deform hardened steel.

You talk like it's cut and dried, but you have not actually looked at the evidence, or the engineering involved. It simply is not that easy to knock down a building that was built to withstand so much. These towers were built to last. They were not flimsy crappy designs like present on discovery channel. They were wind, fire and impact tested long before the billions were spent to build them.

When trying to knock a building down, what happens if you cut the top off? Well nothing, the top comes off, that's about it. It does not bring the entire structure down, especially at the maximum possible velocity.

The speed of the collapse is one of the big concerns here. from standing to flat in 14 seconds. Tower 7 in 4.5 seconds. No blast damage as you would expect from a exploded fuel tank (popular myth).

PAX

The movie is claiming that explosives were used below the impact floors to help aid in taking down the buildings. The did not say they were placed at the floors where the impact took place. I stated previously that smoke has biproducts that can weaken steel and other materials used in the construction of the buildings. Acids can form in the smoke that can distress the beams now add the concentrated heat (remember the building would trap most of the heat like a chimney without a hole in the top) and it could very easily distress the steel. Firefighters turnout gear is made to withstand extreem teperatures however it is ruined if it is subjected to being dried on the high temp setting of your household dryer. Its not that the temperature is higher its that it is more concentrated. The WTC doesnt leave as many questions for me if the structure was alread weakend from impact then add in the stress caused by the heat I could see how a chain reaction colapse would result. As far as colapse goes most skyscrapers are built to implode rather than topple. The construction of the towers themselves would allow for the mini explosions a few floors down. If the inside is falling faster when it hits a floor the pressure would blow out like was seen in the video. I can see how this is possible. The Pentagon raises more questions for me.

Alex, What do you mean no proof ? Its a fact how the buildings were constructed with all the load bearing supports on the exterior of the building. The plane hit the building and punched a big hole in its side. Remember the video from the news choppers at the scene ? Well what was holding up that side of the building ? And if you hit a stationary object at those speeds it will blow right thru, Again I referr you to the original video at the scene showing the planes blasting out the other side. Now again I'll ask
where were the supports that held up the entire building located on the buildings ?
So if we smashed thru one side and had debris fly thru the other side how many sides were left un touched ? There were only 4 sides, remove 2 due to them being hit by the planes that leaves 50% of the supports stiil in tack and 50% ripped in half. Make sense so far ? Now all that added weight would have placed huge amounts of stresses on the remaining 50% of the supports that plus they didn't have to liquefy to fail guys only buckle that heat is indeed enough with that weight pushing down to cause a failure.
The explosions ? Were not explosions, they were they concrete giving way under its own weight. Each time the concrete gave way BOOM as it failed.

See, easy.

Anything else I can clear up for you ?


Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

so i just watched some of that first video that was posted

a missile or some other explosives were on the front of the plane eh?
hahahahah
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96781308/K=plane+into+wall/v=2/SID=e/l=VDP/SIG=128bm5i93/EXP=1135115253/*-http%3A//www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mpg
theres a plane into a wall
heres a slow motion of what happens to the plane
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg
you expect to find a lot of debri when a plane hits the pentagon? thru 3 re-inforced concrete walls?

50% of the support would mean that two sides of the building were completely removed from the roof to the ground and below if you want to get technical about it. If you look at the pattern of distruction from where the planes entererd not even all of the structure was removed from a single floor. The building is simply to massive to do that. I think that is where your arguement loses some of its credibility Jackalope.

all thats left of that F4 are the wings that did not hit the wall. All the debris coming out the back is a smattering conglomeration of plane pieces and concrete, good luck finding a lot of anything identifiable on those pieces

oh and please say....."well this is an F4, blah blah blah"
its a fricken plane, its what happens when it crashes into a wall

it takes 200 deg F to stress hardened steel, it takes 3000 to melt it. Kerosene burns at 875 DegF. With all the heat trap in the world, the temp cannot exceed 875 degF from kerosene alone. Perhaps there was more, but remember that was PLANNED FOR in the design.

The two affected walls were not entirely destroyed, infact the most important members (being the corners) wer left pretty much untouched.

The sounds (like explosions) were heard 9 seconds ahead of the colapse. The actual collapse registers at a wimpy 1.3 on the rictor scale (logarithmic scale, each .1 increase is a 10 fold increase in energy).

The bulhead immediately under the impact zone had enough strength (in it design) to support the weight of the building. There was another at the 40th floor.

How did it fall at the speed of gravity? Why were the central core (elevator shafts, utility conduits etc. not left at least partially standing?

why was the 300 000 tons of evidence removed and destroyed before investigators could look at it? Why were investigators denied access to parts of the area for the first week?

Let's look at WTC 7.. why did it fall straight down in 4.5 seconds? If there was a blast from a fuel tank, why did it not heave? Why did it fall oh so symetricly? Was the fuel storage so well placed that it cause symulatanious failure of all support beams? That's what it would take to cause a nice, even fall unimpeeded like we witnessed.

On another note. When it happened it was the first day of my vacation. I dropped my G/F off at school and heard a report on the radio. I got home just on time to see the second plane hit live. I was watching CNN but it doesn't matter, it was on every channel by them. I sat in disbelief./ I couldn't believe it, it seemed totally unreal. Then it sank in as I spend most of my vaction watching the events unfold, listening to various reports, etc etc etc. I bought it all. Two planes cause the castophic failure of 3 buldings and a 3rd jet hit the Pentagon, as well as the passengers unfortunately crashing a jety in Penn. Then the Penn one started to bug me. Tiny crater, huge debris field.. This plane had to be in pieces before it hit the ground. I assumed it was shot down, no biggy, that would be the appropriate action all things considered, but they say no, it hit the ground.. That's odd. The I look at the pentagon.. That's odd too. Now comes the tapes of the firefighters and many engineering questions regarding WTC 1, 2 and 7.. Hmm says I..

All I am trying to do at this point is get any one of these incidents to make complete sense. No luck so far.

PAX

No your missing what I'm saying. 50% of the supports were blown out WHERE THE PLANES IMPACTED. Geez I thought that was obvious didn't realize I had to lead you along that much.

Ok, where the plane hit the building the supports that it flew into would have been destroyed, Then the remains of the plane continued thru to the other side and blew out the supports on that side. Now all thats left holding up the UPPER floors above where the planes point of impact was is the 2 remaining untouched sides. Then the floors directly above the point of impact caved in, that caveing in as the concrete gave out was the explosions that were heard. No bombs or anything just the concrete giveing way and exploding under its own massive weight.

Geez !! Now that thats clarified anything else?




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
listen to him!!!!!!!!!!!! (only this time tho...cuz its the only time i agree with him...hahah jackalope)

and please
watch this
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

get your head straight people

T2 wrote:so i just watched some of that first video that was posted

a missile or some other explosives were on the front of the plane eh?
hahahahah
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96781308/K=plane+into+wall/v=2/SID=e/l=VDP/SIG=128bm5i93/EXP=1135115253/*-http%3A//www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mpg
theres a plane into a wall
heres a slow motion of what happens to the plane
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg
you expect to find a lot of debri when a plane hits the pentagon? thru 3 re-inforced concrete walls?

So then why was the exit hole the same size as the entry point? 16 feet ion both cases. If the plane should have disentigrated, then why didn't it? Why only parts. Of the 130 000lbs of aircraft, where did it all go... If it burned then there should be at least some charring. If the wings collapsed and followed it through the building.. Well @!#$, I don't buy that for a minute anyway, we all know the engines and wings would sheer off on impact. Where is the 12 tons of titanium engine(s)? Were are the impact marks? Didn't even break the windows.. gimme a break.

See if the exit hole wasn't after 9 feet of bunker type wall, I might buy it, but the exit hole is the same size as the entry hole. That makes no sense in the disentigrating aircraft model, none at all. If it had enough strength to make it through 9 feet of bunker wall, then it had enough strength to leave some trace of itself. See my point?

Jackalope.. Look again, the walls the were impacted were not destroyed entirely, especially the corners, You keep saying 50%, but that is exaggerated. Besides, if you've done any engineering you know that 50% failure should not kill anything. Especially when the design is to house humans. Engineering standards dictate that anything had double the required strength. IE that building should have been able to withstand a hurricane with 50% of it supprts missing.

You keep using a condesending tone, but you really haven't thought this through. It is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be.. Not even close. Talk to a couple engineers (aside from me) if you don't believe me.

PAX