Missile Defense for Passenger Aircraft

A conspiracy of this size would require a huge number of participants link

As an engineer with many years of experience do you not think that something is a bit suspect with the official story. Do you really believe that a paper and carpet fire could melt the columns in such a way that the building would collpase in such a way.

In addition how did the fire start in building 7? Look at how the buildings fell, does that look like an accident to you. It is more likely that the terrorists placed explosives at the columns and triggered them to bring the buildings down. Now if we go with that theory then the next obvious questions is : Well how did the terrorists get into the buildings, have time to place explosives without anyone actually noticing them. The next obvious question is : Which group of terrorists could pull off such an act, this is where he conspiracy theorists will have their say.

building 7 was the real target all along. Not of Al Quaeda of course!

The reply is not directed to you but is meant as being general to the forum thread.

It is sad to see that some people on the side of the official government assessment of the event dish out a whole slew of 'off-topic' votes.

Is that the way to argue by getting mad and voting others down? Is it lack of reasonable words and arguments? Really, that is below the level we supposed to be as engineers contributing to CR4. Or is it that the site is being visited by unethical fellows or unethical other folk? Where is the standard. What have we come to?

We have come to replying as guests. I have been tempted myself but thought that I might as well leave, if the CR4 community can't accept very, to the point answers or questions. Don't be so vain about the OT responses. They count eff all for people who really want to contribute and broaden their horizon.

In a land of free speech anything goes and one has to apply a filter if one wants results that further education. May intelligence win over ignorance! I am not sure sometimes though, Ky.

What are you talking about? I was rather specific in saying that the steel did not melt. However, it was weakened by submelting temperatures.

(This was before reading the NIST report cited later. I have since read this report. I have some doubts about section 6, but in every other respect it makes sense.)

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post: This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Well, actually I am an engineer with many years of experience, since about 1975. I may not be an expert in every area of engineering, but I have done pipefitting, pressure vessel design, UL-508 industrial control panel design and wiring, lots of refrigeration stuff, and process hazard analysis and procedure writing.

CR4 Admin: Deleted Inappropriate Portion of Post: This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

(Go ahead; report me to the admins.)

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post

This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post

This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post

This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

CR4 Admin: Deleted Post

This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

AGuest

Nothing and nobody can convince me that something here has been explained to answer what really happened on 9.11. I was called by my son and it was around midnight here and he said to switch on the TV. I asked him if he was sane and his tone of voice made me switch on the TV.

I was still in a state of sleep but witnessed the second plane hitting live. Up to then, it could have only been a minute or two, I thought it was a new version of inferno. What I saw in the following hours was interpreted by me exactly as you say. It looked like a controlled explosion to me. In every detail, a well performed stunt.

That day at the pub there was only one theme and when I threw in my explanation for what had happened I was ostracized, just like you are now 10 years later. I have no problem with your point of view but have a problem with the way you present it here. Like me, in the pub back then, were I just shut up, I suggest you do the same.

Not that I am telling you to do so, it is just that even if you could prove all what you and others proclaim is true, you will not stop the next betrayal of the people by the democratically elected dictatorship run by the industrial military complex.

You know, it is the style of your argument that discredits you plus any other critical approach to analyzing what really happened. Can't you see that what you are doing is just the opposite of what you should be doing, namely come up with evidence and not broadly known speculation, true or not is of no importance.

Never mind all that, what I find most reprehensible is that this attack was used to start a war on a civilized country and its innocent, crying for help people and not only destroyed it but fed it to the extremists of this world and the real culprits got away with a second victory. WMD's my lovely back side.

The next one is in the making and you are still complaining about things that happened 10 years ago. Get a life and do all you can to educate the people around you and avoid this with every good thought you might have left in you. Preaching and grandstanding in hindsight is not needed. Neither here in CR4 nor anywhere else because the situation now has enough explosive potential in it to blast us all to the gates of hell and back.

Don't tell any one I told you so but the keg is getting bigger by the day and the fuse shorter. Living in the past is not going to help and your energy should be directed to avoiding the next human made catastrophe. Be my guest, you can try as hard as you like, an ignorant under educated mass will decide as it pleases, you have no chance.

I'm with you Mate but I try to be a bit more diplomatic about it. What I saw back then is nothing compared to what I see now. A train wreck of biblical proportion happening in front of all our eyes, in slow motion and full color and surround sound.

Lord have mercy, Ky.

I just hope this is not going to be deleted, please let it be, it could just help that little bit, please, I really mean well, Ky.

There is no need for your post to be deleted. Nothing you said was untrue but you failed to tell the whole truth which was disappointing. I would also like to point out the following (not that this in anyway defends my behaviour):

1. I was not the only one to have my posts deleted by Admin so it was a bit unfair to just single me out for personal attacks/ bad behaviour. I had a disagreement with certain members on another thread and they carried it over to this thread and then got Admin and others to back them up, however that is just the way it is so I am getting used to that. Perhaps I should, with hindsight, have ignored it.
2. I was not the only one asking for people to look at things differently but again you failed to mention this. For example Chrisg288 was pointing out similar issues with the official story.
3. I do not believe the official story nor do I believe the conspiracy theorists, I just look at what was shown and what was written and it does not add up.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your reply.

Based on the mails that I received from Admin with their not-so-subtle threats I would have to disagree with you when you say that Admin are not supporting an attack on me. I assume that you have not received an abusive mail from one of the registered members, I have and it is not that nice.

I have no doubt that my time here is coming to an abrupt end and I am sure that this will please many. I have taken the liberty of marking this off topic as it will save certain members from doing so - you see I do like to help others.

I have no doubt that my time here is coming to an abrupt end

Promise :D

Thank you for your input, it was very enlightening.

Admin writes me notes when they think I merit one. Admin has probably sent the same note to everyone posting/talking on this thread. Admin does not like 'personalised discord'. Sometimes Admin mistakes technically relevant input for 'lewdness'. Sometimes Admin writes quite crossly. Sometimes members PM quite crossly - I've only had one of those, but it was very very cross.

I do not dwell on it, I just think a bit more carefully how to make the point in a manner that cannot be mistaken for 'something other than as intended'. Writing is not as clear as speaking.

Now, as I am somewhat devious, and suspected you would not grasp my message:

Within my response to you/Chris; I made some statements.

You responded to me on "everyone ganging up".

Passington responded; "I think you have it wrong"

Then he provides a brief outline of what parts I "have it wrong" on.

Then he provides a reference in support of his position - so reason for saying ....

Esbuck responds; "What buildings are you talking about?" then talks about the buildings.

Rick@cae responds to Passington; (not me)

"Thank you.

Very well written explanation (even though there is no mention/explanation of WTC7's failure)..."

Rick is simply dismissing the "wrong" one (me) - by supporting the "Passington post"

They all may be thinking it, but do NOT say; "you are an incompetent moron/idiot/fool, who obviously knows zip and shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion".

No one has mentioned "personal aspects" - they saw "facts"- discussed "facts".

So now ask yourself why - as the 'central advocate of this 911 sub topic' - you did not respond with a technical reasoned and supported argument on the topic, as they did?

I think you have to decide if being a member is about 'you first' or the 'topic first'.

Or "you first" yields your response - "topic first" yields the Passington/Esbuck/Rick response.

Were you not bound up in the "slings and arrows" - you could have/would have seen that opportunity to comment 'technically'.

Had you read the thread I sent you to several times (and had awareness of my history on CR4) you would have realized I was "up to something".

Do this 'topic first thinking' and you will automatically avoid all that mail.

So, come on, convince me/us you can focus on 'facts' and can discuss things without personal drama.

Y/N ?

I think you have it wrong, the building was intended to be comparatively lightweight. The exterior columns were coated with a cementatious fireproofing that does expand, but probably shattered with the shock of impact.

This is a very clear explanation of the structure and its failure,

Thank you.

Very well written explanation (even though there is no mention/explanation of WTC7's failure)...

a well thought out logical explanation... It does not address all the evidence, but it is well done. thank you.

links for nano-thermite etc..

the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy1oPmuZZ98&feature=related

which has the link....
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

which allows you to download this pdf report.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=25d772b2d5b5810bf1c9e685cbd8822d

and for visual and FDNY evidence and testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU

although this is a very interesting argument for the non-conspiracy side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

Chris

You know Chris, some time ago I spent a few hours sifting through all the footage to find the sequence I remembered as a dead give away for controlled explosions. I never found it and just gave up because it was taking up to much time and was leading to a place were I did not want to be.

Now, lets assume that it could have been masterminded. Give it only a 5% chance. What does that tell us?

1. The culprits are still living among us.

2. Their power is not diminished.

3. The time that is spent on digging in the past is wasted because they will not be standing still and are working on their next "project", no matter what.

4. Infiltrating their hierarchy would be harder than robbing Fort Knox.

5. Surviving such an intrusion is impossible.

6. It is the equivalent to proving the existence of god and at the same time disproving the existence of the devil.

Which ever way one would like to interpret these historic events the only thing they prove is that the enemy is within and utmost vigilance is asked for. If those 5% really existed, they will not take prisoners but will go all the way. To where and for what reason will never be found out. A bit like Schroedingers cat if you know what I mean.

Nuff said, I was going to refrain I told admin after being contacted, just couldn't help myself, again.

See you soon, Ky.

well said. GA.

but then again, even 1% evil in governments is too much.

secrecy acts and oaths, are very powerful, and getting more powerful all the time. just ask someone to tell you classified secrets... see what happens.

whistleblowers for the 9-11 op... forgeddaboudit.

Chris

I tried having a rational discussion on the presence of thermite with this topic thread; it didn't go too well.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/41102

That discussion appears to have contained plenty of rational thought

where is LynnLynch anyway? I suspect a conspiracy involving Dvader1000

"For instance; this steel temperature thing is irrelevant. The buildings were concrete encased steel frame. The concrete holds them up."

What buildings are you talking about? The World Trade Center buildings' frames were not concrete encased. The floors were concrete over steel, and the "pancake" theory had it that the steel softened and dropped the concrete floor onto the floor below, which dropped on the next, etc.

The core of the towers was a steel structure enclosing the elevators, etc. with many large columns about 4 inches thick, massive enough and conductive enough that they would never get hot enough to soften. NIST did not explain how that core structure failed, except to say that the incoming plane must have cut critical columns, which I find incredible. If the floors pancaked at almost free-fall rate, as proposed, they must have detached from the core sturcture. So why wasn't the core left standing above the rubble?

The site was a crime scene, yet the evidence was removed and no one was allowed to examine the steel in situ. Did columns buckle? Was there evidence of softening? Did joints fail? Apparently the powers that be did not ask those questions.

Three buildings with similar structures collapsed when subjected to fire. If no one helped them to fail, then the structural design was deficient; there was negligence. Why haven't the engineers lost their licenses? Why are the architects still in business? Where are the tort lawyers? Where are the text books pointing out to engineering students how to avoid such dumb designs?

The conspiracy nuts point out other anomalies. There are assertions that, before 9/11, about $5 billion in gold was stored in the sub-basements. One truck with gold was found crushed. What happened to the rest? It is said that, since the buildings were not profitable, there had been an application for permission to demolish (implode)them, but permission was denied, and taking them apart bit by bit would be too expensive. The leaseholder profited by $Billions form the insurance settlement, so he had a motive. Mossad had a motive. Politicians who had a lust for power (as in PATRIOT Act) had a motive. Portions of the buildings had been shut down, alarms shut off, for long enough to plant charges. Aluminum oxide and sulfur, allegedly Thermate residue, were found in the dust. Oh, and some of the highjackers are still alive.

I don't know which of these assertions are true. Apparently no one has bothered to ask, not the government nor the media.

As for missile defense, had the Air Force not been told to stand down, and the FAA had raised an alarm, some or all of the airplanes might have been intercepted, as they did not have a missile defense.

That is a very good answer. As guest I cannot vote, however.

BTW, the NIST Report the people who believe in the official story rely upon so heavily is totally untrustworthy as it is put out and sanctioned by the government, the one side that is questioned as perhaps lying.

As I said before, a killer citing his side of the story would not be believed in a court of law when a lot of evidence suggests otherwise. In this case everybody believes the "killer".

The questions presented are exactly those that would normally be asked. Why not here?

GA (Guest A) (Not to be confused with "Aguest".)

I demand that those not believing the NIST report send me millions of their hard-earned dollars to investigate their theories. Further I will spend this money sitting on my can while forming a committee to investigate that is acceptable to every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there.

My 20,000 person committee, representing people from all walks of life, including theologians, musicians, and iceberg samplers will then debate every piece of steel and concrete rubble from the site and will come to the conclusion that there are roughly 10^7 different ways that it could have happened but that in all likelihood, it was the massive planes traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and loaded with jet fuel that crashed into the side of the buildings and brought them down. It will sadden us and the nation that a small group of people motivated by a misbegotten ideology in a few hours executed nearly 3,000 innocent people and that these actions will then be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands more over the next nine and counting years.

We will be frightened by the realization that in the final analysis, it comes down to the fact that you have to trust people (sometimes even the government) and that every once in a blue moon, the person next to you on the plane, or the guy that rented the Ryder truck on his way to OK City, or the person walking up to you in Fordes Theatre is capable of unspeakable evil against you and others. That these people don't value human life the same way most people do and no amount of security precautions will stop them.

We will be gladdened though that while a tiny minority of people are like that, there are a multitude of people that aren't and that there probably was not a cabal of literally thousands of people wiring up two of the largest buildings in history with explosives on the off-chance that some zealots would hijack planes with boxcutters and drive them into said buildings. That if a cabal of these people actually existed, one of them, just one, that knew of even a fraction of the details would be able to stand up and say "stop"

Sadly, the committee will be unable to clear the Bronx Zoo denizens of any wrongdoing and the animals populating the zoo will be summarily gassed, starting with the nefarious monkey house (the so-called gang of the "12 Monkeys").

Its almost like a poor project manager.......I would like every ones opinion.

move on....

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say.

As for the opening statement of money should be donated by people who do not believe the NIST report, what is that supposed to do? The government spends your and my tax dollars to investigate. Besides, why private money, any other report, especially private, will be ridiculed. You can't piss against the government, so to speak.

Herein lays the whole problem. The one who writes the reports puts himself in a good light and does not accuse himself of wrongdoing. If you expect otherwise you would be naive. We all know that.

The government paid for the NIST story. How can the result be any different than it is?? It was said here before that there is no way we will change anything by arguing the point. The government pays for the report so the government is never at fault. How else can it be?

Even when all the scientific proof says different, it will be disputed by a NIST report and most people "believe" what the government says. We have proof of that right here.

Just a few thinkers look at the technical events more closely and conclude that the NIST report simply cannot be true. But whom do you tell that? What the Government says is "law". Period. Unfortunately.

GA (Guest A)

Look, I appreciate your vigor and elan but to interpret admin's actions as a 'single out' is paranoid. They just want to keep matters civil. Some of your reactions are clearly provoked and give the instigators great satisfaction.

I, for one, found your comments and views interesting but irrelevant and have pointed out that things are in the now and here. Even if the smoking gun would be found it would change nothing. People will always believe what they want to believe and the few that are able and flexible enough to change their views should spend their energy on the now and here.

That is as hopeless as trying to keep ash in an ashtray on a motor bike but smells better than exhuming bodies and accusing the not excusably. Not much left to do then? I don't think so, Ky.

I have seen many buildings, factories and fuel tanks on fire, and the results after the fire. And always there was twisted, bent and deformed metal and collapsed ceilings and roofs.

I trained safety engineers and fire fighters in high risk areas, like storage plants for liquid chemicals and refineries.

And I might be of the same generation as Tornado but certainly from a different continent.

I have seen both links in this post and the video creates room for doubt, but does not give me enough of a reason to back it also.

I try not to become personal but since I became a member of this forum, I have honored the contributions of Tornado and many other competent people.

Any idea how long an airplane burns?

Or the fuel?

What do we know about the electric arcs?

This sounds odd, but imagine: maybe loads were part of the design in case of emergencies to bring the building down to avoid more damage to the neighborhood?

It is far too early to know the finesse, but I have problems with conspiracy with that many people involved, without a leak or confession.

Nobody is perfect and I think in the first place about myself but where is the limit.

I also have a problem believing the conspiracy theory but I think there is more to this than what has been included in the official reports. Everyone keeps on about the plane and the fuel but no plane or fuel hit building 7 and it collapsed just like a building being demolished by explosives. Perhaps you are right about the building design, if so why not just include this in the official report.

As far as I have heard, the 911 report doesn't mention the collapse of #7?

correct and this is what seems strange. Maybe they forgot that it collapsed, there was quite a bit going on !!

I am sure this subject could be debated at length (as it already has been) and no ones opinion will be changed.

"Ah, there's building 7, come 15 left"

Did not get too far into the analyses of the reports from the building. And with the conspiracy theorist to bucking with their views to support a conspiracy. If people were to dig deeper....who's to say that it was a not so much a conspiracy but a crinimal cover-up not in the sense talking about now, but a cover up from the government officials and contractors who built Building 7 of not building it to code.

Which applying the standards of collapse due to heat that would go out the window.

p911

Here is link to show the decline in strength of Mild Steel at elevated temperature. At 650 °F you have little loss of strength ~10%, you need near 500 °C and above for a noticeable decline.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1345&context=engpapers

How hot does paper burn? You must distinguish between the temperature in the flame core and at the flame tip. 500 °C is about the max. Have you ever tried to heat treat steel with a paper fire?

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

As to the amount of fuel at impact I agree that there was still a substantial amount present at time impact as could be seen by the fire ball of red-orange flames spewing out. The fire ball lasted but a few seconds and the fuel was gone.

How would it be possible then to re-ignite itself (in case any was left that did not get burned, why I would not know) 40 Minutes later and some 10 floors down without a red flame but this time causing black smoke only and throwing steel beams 100 feet or more away from the building? And very sudden with a horizontal flame I might add.

I remember coal stoves, made of cast iron and designed for coal, crack and collapse when wood, carton and paper was burned in it? And wood burning through the grid? And the classic foyer stoves had MICA problems? How come?

All right, I cannot keep this secrete another day.... what really happened was the aircraft were hit by Stingers fired by the "Men Who Stare At Goats" - causing them to veer into the WTC, Pentagon and a paddock.

(the planes, that is - not the MWSAG's)

This is of course a "cover up" because Juili.. Guile..., the Mayor, had actually specified 9K38 Igla's, according to his cat's you-tube expose on imported Russian fake Canadian Salmon Rushdie.

Naturally, the only way to hide the awful truth was to trot out every nitwit known to pronounce at the smell of a microphone, how nothing anyone could say was valid against their BS CV areas of Captaincy.

This effectively gagged all sane input, but most importantly; stopped any reference the book that deals with the very physics of WTC collapse and the Pentagon impacts.

And obliviously "they" have also 'suppressed this book' - all to bring us to this day and this topic of $sqilions, driven by remorse, and guilt, or discovery, should MWSAG with SAM's (about which we, will forever, know nothing) rampage again.

Oh so devious!

Why so angry? If others are not of the same opinion as yourself you start offending them, right? That is simply a sign of immaturity, essentially making your comments worthless.

Please be more open-minded and at least consider other possibilities. Your rant expresses nothing but anger.

Good laugh, good answer. Made my day.

I know I will never convince anyone to stop this nonsensical approach to the tragic incident of 911. I suspect these "non-believers" are trying to rewrite history before it reaches entrenched documentation. That theory is disingenuous to the victims. But here is my take on their "termite" theory of building collapse:

In the reaction, Fe2O3 + 2Al --->Al2O3 + 2Fe plus lots of heat.

We know there was lots of metals available to create such reactions.

Further there was magnesium present that could be pulverized by the impact and then could be ignited by the accelerants present in the fireball. The reaction would leave residuals similar to "thermite," so don't make a case for conspiracy based on that issue. I suspect there had been many such chain reactions involving other metals in the immediate aftermath of the airliners crashing into the buildings. I do not think there was any significant part of these aluminum hulled planes left because they would be consumed in a very hot fire. Hot enough to melt steel and collapse buildings.

A very similar incident occurred in the Falkland's war when an EXOCET missile took out a British aluminum hulled ship. It burned very hot and very quickly with tragic results.

Not thermite, but military grade Nano-Thermite.

Thanks Chris. It would be expected that some of the explosive particulate from an aluminum plane crashing into a building be in the nano size. I am no explosive expert but the chemistry would be on the molecular size and very widespread and fast. It would be nice if there was an forensic explosive report that explains this phenomenon of particulates and sizing.

Maybe we should start building large commercial airplanes and battleships with Kevlar... hmmm... food for thought.

"Further there was magnesium present that could be pulverized by the impact and then could be ignited by the accelerants present in the fireball."

Where was the magnesium? Can you point to any aircraft crash which has <pulverized> metals? Why is it that aircraft do not burn like magnesium flares when they crash?

If we believe that a full-sized aircraft penetrated the Pentagon wall, and the engines didn't, with only a small hole, then I suppose we must believe that the aircraft and engines were pulverized. Raise your hands, all you who believe a jet engine can, upon impact, be pulverized to the point where it cannot be found.

When visiting the Pentagon, which has a shrine to 9/11, I asked the tour guide what happened to the flight recorders of the plane which punched through the wall. He said they are buried in a time capsule in the repaired wall. (too bad they didn't read the tapes first, because then they could figure out the flight path) So, the engines were pulverized and did not penetrate the wall, but the flight recorders (sturdy boxes) did penetrate the wall and were intact enough to bury? Please explain, using engineering vocabulary.

I would not expect airplanes to be made of magnesium but it does have applications in components. Most new airplanes post 1995 or so have made attempts to eliminate this material. The ignition of these parts may be minor but would still contribute if they were present. Pure magnesium construction would not happen unless it was for corrosion protection, a sacrificial anode for example. I have no knowledge of the construction of the planes that struck the WTC towers or the pentagon. Nor do I have knowledge of the building construction in either case. Magnesium use may have been an overstep to suggest thermite reactions. But such residuals of thermate or thermite should still be present in the airplane aftermath.

We do know that the aluminum structure would burn rapidly and release lots of energy. There was an air France airplane that had a hard landing in Toronto about 4 years ago. Everyone got off the plane safely but the plane burned completely. As with the British Falklands ship the burning was total. I did suggest that planes could perhaps be built of lighter and with safer materials but then I am not an expert in airplane construction nor building construction. They did use magnesium/aluminum alloys in the past in airplane construction.

Does anyone know the energy released by the airplanes hitting the WTC? I would expect building material in both the airplane and the towers to be pulverized into some very fine materials. Not all but some. This is my opinion but if I am wrong I will accept a logical answer. I agree with most acceptable explanations of the WTC collapse but the nay-sayers do not present any convincing arguments to move me.

By the way did you know they even made race cars out of magnesium up until about the 1960 mark until crashes burned the cars and drivers? I am glad to see they are or have removed magnesium in airplane construction but they may want to reconsider aluminum as well.

Yeah, like a bloody lost flock being questioned by someone from Vladivostok

Just couldn't help myself

Meanwhile; on Magnetic Island

"No, no, their both on the one landing"

oh that IS funny! but I think it only fair that they are wearing tinfoil helmets!

Must I?

Unfortunately Ky, I think the suggestion was that you and I were on the plane!

Well, if that is the case he is aiming in the wrong direction. Never mind the morning or afternoon sun. And then there is the magnetic field which disables a lot of stuff around here. Besides, there is another reason they could not be here but I'll keep that to myself. Just let them come, the more the merrier.