TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
Firemen on detonators:
"Bomb in the building"
Hey, another out of context quote 
so now firemen are also demolition experts? that vid was nothing. and that collapse is like nothing any of you have ever seen before. looks like a nice example of pancaking.
again, the towers collapsed top down, not from the ground up like ANY demolition i have ever seen.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so now firemen are also demolition experts? that vid was nothing. and that collapse is like nothing any of you have ever seen before. looks like a nice example of pancaking. again, the towers collapsed top down, not from the ground up like ANY demolition i have ever seen. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Oh yes, that was a gas tank or something |
theres a bomb in the building? uh, ok.
its funny how the CTs cling to all the mis-information that was released during the actual catastrophe. you know, in the chaotic environment where anybody's guess is paraded as truth. then ignore all the retractions from various sources that come out later.
and again, what kind of "bomb" were in the towers. you still dont have any evidence at all.
this particular video from one fireman on the day of the attack means nothing, no matter how hard you cling to it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Oh yes, the single floor "single pancake" |
Did you even take a look at the second one posted in response to what you said?
i watched all the videos you posted. im still not seeing/hearing what you are.
the last video was obviously taken after the collapse of one of the towers, based on all the grit in the air. that explosion you hear couldve been anything. but you automatically ASSUME its a bomb without any evidence. lets not forget all the damage the collapses caused to building around it.
unless ive missed what you were trying to say...
So ummm, did anyone see the 9/11 southpark tonight? I thought it was funny ...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider So ummm, did anyone see the 9/11 southpark tonight? I thought it was funny ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im in australia. we're like 2-3 years behind the rest of the world |
WTC1 base explosions prior to beginning of collapse
come on shaolin. you can do better than that cant you?
thats not how demolitions work, sorry to break this to you.
Re: WTC1 base explosions prior to beginning of collapse
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z |
| quote: |
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained... The Palisades seismic record shows that � as the collapses began � a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm This story uses the following chart to make its point. |
| quote: |
And indeed, it does look like the spikes occur early on, but that's mostly because the chart is so compressed. If you look at the actual spikes for each collapse ( as recorded at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html ) then the results are very different. Here�s the first collapse, for instance... |
| quote: |
The original story tells us that �the strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses�, but it doesn �t look that way here, does it? What we have, in both cases, is a noticeable build-up lasting a number of seconds, showing a gradual start to the collapse. The strongest jolts are not at the beginning; the claim is simply incorrect. Do we have the qualifications to interpret these correctly, though? Nope, none whatsoever. Arthur Lerner-Lam, a seismologist at the University that recorded these readings does, though, and his statement to Popular Mechanics doesn�t leave much room for interpretation. "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...html?page=5&c=y Geophysicist Terry Wallace concurs. "How can geologists catch a terrorist? With their instruments, explains Terry Wallace, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona. There are about 16,000 seismometers installed around the world, many of which offer data on freely accessible Web sites. Seismometers detect motion in the Earth, which can be triggered by an earthquake, or possibly explosions. By learning how to read these signals, Wallace hopes scientists might catch on to suspicious activity. "We can study these signals and begin to develop a portfolio of different kinds of signatures of explosions," says Wallace. "It will be like have a set of fingerprints." Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers � but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires � that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11". http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/n...0527-secure.htm Not much support for �bombs in the basement� here. |
WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics
Assuming the pancake theory is indeed the correct explanasion for the collapse of the towers, there should be no significant difference between the total enery in both cases (and since KE = PE). So the laws physics don't apply and were magically suspended for a brief moment of time? Right... . What was the source of that additional energy of pretty significant magnitude? Was somebody making pancakes for breakfast?
Re: Re: WTC1 base explosions prior to beginning of collapse
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN THE SECOND- LINK |
]).
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im in australia. we're like 2-3 years behind the rest of the world |
Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Assuming the pancake theory is indeed the correct explanasion for the collapse of the towers, there should be no significant difference between the total enery in both cases (and since KE = PE). So the laws physics don't apply and were magically suspended for a brief moment of time? Right... . What was the source of that additional energy of pretty significant magnitude? Was somebody making pancakes for breakfast? |
the simple fact is shaolin, all this data has been examined by people from all over the world. yet you think these CTers are somehow able to see things the recognised experts havent? every single structural engineering firm or employee that i have ever read agrees with the official line. how you can so easily dismiss this actuality is beyond me. especially without any actual evidence, just conjecture and assumptions.
we might never know exactly what went down and how. thats the nature of disasters. but you're still no closer to disproving the substantial body of evidence from recognised experts in their field.
| quote: |
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy... For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is... "Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science Northwestern University The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News: Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001). That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors. I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books." http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor: Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder [email protected] http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...ple.cgi?corotis Editorial Board: Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego http://kudu.ucsd.edu/ Henri Gavin, Duke University http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/ Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/ Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/ Nicos Makris, University of Patras http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep...en.asp?profid=5 Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calenda...ademicAlpha.htm Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/facul...aculty_list.htm Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592 George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff...iadjis_Gbio.htm Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...e/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/ James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/ Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354...ategory&op=show Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact Journal of Engineering Mechanics More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse... Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370. Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150. Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001. "Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108. Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135. "Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line) Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48. "Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103 Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17. Monahan, B. "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135. Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800. National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs �Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center� Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002. Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images. Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online) Post, N.M. "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14. Post, N.M. "Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14. The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site. "WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12. Home | Free Fall | WTC 7 | Sagging trusses | The Fire | Quotes | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Steven Jones Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | The Meeting | Explosions | Molten Steel | The Paper |
Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so what? the towers registered different recordings of seismic activity? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you do know that each collapse is individual dont you? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN just because they both pancaked doesnt mean they would be exactly the same collapse. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you got nothing. |
That also explains why you copy paste all of this crap.
Prior knowledge of attacks? FACT
Failure to take any action (let alone effective action or preventive measures)? FACT
Unusual change in chain of command and interference with standard NORAD protocols resulting in attack on pentagon that would never have happened if standard procedures were allowed to take place? FACT
Seismic data consistent with controlled demolition theory? FACT
Expansion of excecutive branch and tyrannical bills/law butchering constituionaly guaranteed protection from state and abuse of power? FACT
Clear abuse of power and convicted criminals appointed in key governmental positions? FACT
Illegal and unwarranted domestic spying on grassroots organizations, peace groups, and political advesaries? FACT
War based on blatant lies and deliberate manipulation of intelligence considered faulty by agencies in the first place and produced under pressure from executive branch? FACT
Feel free to add to the list guys.
EDIT: Some more additions to that list:
Illegal destruction and removal of forensic evidence from crime scene? FACT
Executive branch blocking independet investigation into 9-11 and 9-11 commission only being formed after families of victims pressuring the Government? FACT
Re: Re: Re: WTC 1/2 Seismic data and Physics
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z They don't need collapse in the exact same manner. The fact is both towers were virtually identical and the total energy should have been virtually identical. Plus, the total energy in a system is conserved and Kinetic energy is equal to potential energy. Do you even know a thing about physics? K.E = (1/2)m(v^2) (this applies to moving object) P.E = mgh (this applies to objects at rest) There should have been NO significant difference between the total energy in both collapses and the seismic data shows a HUGE difference. Where was the source of that external energy? Didn't you once claim/post in here that it would take a ridiculous amout of explosives to bring the towers down? Well, the seismic data indicates exactly that. |
they wouldnt have wired the same exact towers in the same exact way? | quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z You got nothing, no explanasion for the source of massive additional energy, which is consistent with tons of explosives, which you youself posted about before. No wonder you believe all the horse shit you read on "debunking 9-11" sites. You don't even have an understanding of elemntary physics. And when someone points out the the laws of physics magically being suspended, your best response is "so what?" That also explains why you copy paste all of this crap. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z EDIT: And this isn't stuff I had to google for, I remember elemtary physics from high school. Here's some more formulas off the top of my head just to rub it in v = u + at and v^2 = u^2 + 2ax EDIT2: Clearly, the seismic data is completely inconsistent with the pancake theory and IS consistent with the controlled demolition theory. EDIT3: Have any off you pancake theorist ever taken a physics course and formally studied physics? WHERE THE HELL DID THAT additional massive quantitiy of energy come from?!?! |
i cant explain the .2 change is seismic activity between the towers. mustve been explosives for sure! perhaps the fires reduced some of the potential energy in one tower more than the other. fucked if i know, but youre still grasping at desperate straws that still dont give you the smoking gun.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Prior knowledge of attacks? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Failure to take any action (let alone effective action or preventive measures)? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Unusual change in chain of command and interference with standard NORAD protocols resulting in attack on pentagon that would never have happened if standard procedures were allowed to take place? FACT |
| quote: |
Debunk 9/11 myths Topics 7 World Trade Center Controlled demolition Foreknowledge Larry Silverstein NORAD Osama bin Laden Pentagon United Airlines Flight 93 Films Loose Change United 93 World Trade Center Miscellaneous Miscellaneous References References debunk911myths Web NORAD From Debunk 9/11 myths Jump to: navigation, search Page under construction NORAD/FAA response Background The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was established in 1958 through a bilateral U.S.-Canada agreement. Its mission was, and is, to defend the airspace of North America and protect the continent. That mission does not distinguish between internal and external threats; but because NORAD was created to counter the Soviet threat, it came to define its job as defending against external attacks. Soviet threat The threat of Soviet bombers diminished significantly as the Cold War ended, and the number of NORAD alert sites was reduced from its Cold War high of 26. Some within the Pentagon argued in the 1990s that the alert sites should be eliminated entirely. In an effort to preserve their mission, members of the air defense community advocated the importance of air sovereignty against emerging "asymmetric threats" to the United States: drug smuggling, "non-state and state-sponsored terrorists," and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology. NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists' use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11. Notwithstanding the identification of these emerging threats, by 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States. NORAD structure NORAD is based out of Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station and Peterson Air Force Base near Colorado Springs. In the United States, NORAD is divided into three sectors: * Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) - Rome, New York * Southeast Air Defense Sector - Tyndall Air Force Base (Florida) * Western Air Defense Sector - McChord Air Force Base (Washington State) On the morning of 9/11, NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters: * Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts * Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. Other facilities, not on "alert," would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews. NEADS reported to the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR) headquarters, in Panama City, Florida, which in turn reported to NORAD headquarters, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. FAA and NORAD Main article: Federal Aviation Administration On 9/11, air defense of the United States relied on close cooperation between the NORAD and the FAA. Previous hijackings The most recent hijacking that involved U.S. air traffic controllers, FAA management, and military coordination had occurred in 1993. The FAA and NORAD had developed protocols for working together in the event of a hijacking. As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government.101 FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by "squawking" a transponder code of "7500"-the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers would notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters in Washington. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate.102 If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency. The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance. If approval was given, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD's chain of command.103 The NMCC would keep the FAA hijack coordinator up to date and help the FAA centers coordinate directly with the military. NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it.104 The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, "vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft," where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path.105 In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that * The hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear; * There would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and * Hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile. 9/11 On 9/11, the defense of U.S. airspace depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the FAA and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol for hijackings was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen. American Airlines Flight 11 Main article: American Airlines Flight 11 NEADS received notification of the hijacking 9 minutes before American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. Although the Boston Center air traffic controller realized at an early stage that there was something wrong with American 11, he did not immediately interpret the plane's failure to respond as a sign that it had been hijacked. At 8:14, when the flight failed to heed his instruction to climb to 35,000 feet, the controller repeatedly tried to raise the flight. He reached out to the pilot on the emergency frequency. Though there was no response, he kept trying to contact the aircraft. At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a "no radio" aircraft. The controller checked to see if American Airlines could establish communication with American 11. He became even more concerned as its route changed, moving into another sector's airspace. Controllers immediately began to move aircraft out of its path, and asked other aircraft in the vicinity to look for American 11.108 At 8:24:38, the following transmission came from American 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport. The controller only heard something unintelligible; he did not hear the specific words "we have some planes." The next transmission came seconds later: Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking. He alerted his supervisor, who assigned another controller to assist him. He redoubled his efforts to ascertain the flight's altitude. Because the controller didn't understand the initial transmission, the manager of Boston Center instructed his quality assurance specialist to "pull the tape" of the radio transmission, listen to it closely, and report back. Between 8:25 and 8:32, in accordance with the FAA protocol, Boston Center managers started notifying their chain of command that American 11 had been hijacked. At 8:28, Boston Center called the Command Center in Herndon to advise that it believed American 11 had been hijacked and was heading toward New York Center's airspace. By this time, American 11 had taken a dramatic turn to the south. At 8:32, the Command Center passed word of a possible hijacking to the Operations Center at FAA headquarters. The duty officer replied that security personnel at headquarters had just begun discussing the apparent hijack on a conference call with the New England regional office. FAA headquarters began to follow the hijack protocol but did not contact the NMCC to request a fighter escort. The Herndon Command Center immediately established a teleconference between Boston, New York, and Cleveland Centers so that Boston Center could help the others understand what was happening. At 8:34, the Boston Center controller received a third transmission from American 11: Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves. In the succeeding minutes, controllers were attempting to ascertain the altitude of the southbound flight. Military Notification and Response Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked: FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out. NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise? FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call. At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report. F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern. In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings. Theories Stand down order? Theory The government intentionally stood down NORAD, and any attempt to intercept the hijacked flights. Military intercepts Theory The military is perfectly capable of intercepting commercial aircraft. Fact The hijackers turned of the aircraft transponders, making it much more difficult to locate the aircraft (as radar blips, among all the many radar blips from all aircraft). Further, bureaucratic problems and incompetency inhibited the government from a quick, efficient, timely response to the hijackings. Some conspiracy theorists point to the 1999 NORAD intercept of Payne Stewart's Learjet before it crashed. There was already a F-16 in flight, on training, and available. Unlike the hijacked 9/11 aircraft, the transponder in the Learjet was never turned off. These two facts made it possible to make the intercept. References * FAA Believed Second 9/11 Plane Heading Towards NY for Emergency Landing - National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 165, George Washington University (September 9, 2005) * Bronner, Michael (September 2005) "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes", Vanity Fair. Retrieved from "http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NORAD" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Seismic data consistent with controlled demolition theory? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Expansion of excecutive branch and tyrannical bills/law butchering constituionaly guaranteed protection from state and abuse of power? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Clear abuse of power and convicted criminals appointed in key governmental positions? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Illegal and unwarranted domestic spying on grassroots organizations, peace groups, and political advesaries? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z War based on blatant lies and deliberate manipulation of intelligence considered faulty by agencies in the first place and produced under pressure from executive branch? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Illegal destruction and removal of forensic evidence from crime scene? FACT |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Executive branch blocking independet investigation into 9-11 and 9-11 commission only being formed after families of victims pressuring the Government? FACT |
ok, heres a question for you, mr physics expert.
assuming each tower had the same potential energy, couldnt the manner in which they fell translate to a different seismic reading, even though they were expending the same amount of energy? are seismic readings really energy-measurements and so easily transferable? i didnt think so.
if one tower spewed more debris outwards, and the other took more debris down to its base/core, couldnt that translate into a different reading?
also, wouldnt .2 on the siesmograph be a relatively small different gizen the size and height of each tower?
edit: also, in that vid you posted, the time for each collapse was different by two seconds. is it possible that a building expending the same amount of energy but collapsing slightly slower would translate into different seismic readings? i mean, if one tower took an hour to collapse, i would assume the force would be greatly reduced?
these are honest questions, like ive admitted, im not a physics expert.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.