TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- September 11th Attacks - Do You Think It Was a Conspiracy?
Pages (19): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted... Anyway, here's an interesting vid that details the initial response to the explosions that were going off in the buildings, etc. [[ LINK REMOVED ]] |
Re: Re: Responce To Occrider
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Well I did my research on this letter and as it turns out, Kevin Ryan was not speaking for Underwriters Laboratories, he in fact stated that he was speaking for himself, and he was not in charge of their structural analysis or material science division. The exact position Ryan held at UL at the time of interest is "Site Manager at UL's water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratories." |
| quote: |
| From Kevin R. Ryan Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories South Bend, Indiana (Company site - www.ehl.cc) A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Company site - www.ul.com) To Frank Gayle Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division Material Science and Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI To: [email protected] Date: 11/11/2004 Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter". Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archiv...coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechani...ysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTC...L101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories |
Re: Re: Responce To Occrider
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by Morgan Reynolds
quote: "It didn�t seem real� There are thousands of these steel beams that just fell like pickup sticks."
~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer
quote: "What struck us � guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business � we�d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."
~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),
General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE
To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12�18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.
Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government�s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival � controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.
The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.
As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured � separated from each other � yet there is no direct evidence of "severe" structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the broken perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its counterpart column below. We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the fa�ade from beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors 95�98 at the opening, the aluminum fa�ade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the perimeter.
The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns. Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North Tower showed no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening itself. Of course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors.
The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 95�98, photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts the likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities � primarily FEMA � had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable.
Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong (claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to �" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.
Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.
While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94�98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York�s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 � hour lunch fired.
The preliminary NIST Response claims that "the wall section above the impact zone moved downward" (pdf, p. 36) on WTC 1 but offers no evidence. It offers photographic evidence, however, for a "hanging floor slab" on the 82d floor of the South Tower at 9:55 a.m. This looks minor though because there is no sag on adjacent floors and the integrity of the structure looks very much intact. The fire looks weak too, yet the South Tower collapsed only four minutes later. This would be quite a puzzle without a demolition theory.
About a dozen of the fragmented ends of exterior columns in the North Tower hole were bent but the bends faced the "wrong way" because they pointed toward the outside of the Tower. This fact is troublesome for the official theory that a plane crash created the hole and subsequent explosion between floors 94 and 98. The laws of physics imply that a high-speed airplane with fuel-filled wings breaking through thin perimeter columns would deflect the shattered ends of the columns inward, if deflected in any direction, certainly not bend them outward toward the exterior.
A possible response would be that, well, yes, an airliner crash would bend a column inward rather than outward, if bent at all, but the subsequent force of a jet fuel blast would act in the opposite direction: any inward bends caused by plane impact would straighten toward vertical or even reverse the bent steel columns toward the exterior under blast pressure. However, such a proposed steel "reversal theory" (first bend inward by collision, then bend outward by explosion) suffers two major handicaps:
Occam�s razor would suggest that the outward bends in the perimeter columns were caused by explosions from inside the tower rather than bends caused by airliner impact from outside. Also supporting this theory is the fact that the uniformly neat ends of the blown perimeter columns are consistent with the linear shaped charges demolition experts use to slice steel as thick as 10 inches. The hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures), as well as the rather-neatly shorn steel everywhere.
The engineering establishment�s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower�s hole wasn�t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155� 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I�d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68�9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.
Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is that some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the northeast hole were so short, probably less than three feet (p. 105) high (p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its frontal area. The engines are a special problem because each engine is enormous and dense, consisting mainly of tempered steel and weighing 5�6 tons, depending upon model. No engine was recovered in the rubble yet no hydrocarbon fire could possibly vaporize it.
The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not even have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead contained substantial WTC material (p. 27) just left of center (pp. 62, 105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration by a jumbo jet. These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons.
In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower. Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are unconvincing, to put it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can testify to the contrary. Further contradicting the official account, the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was completely intact upon initial impact. The government never produced a jet engine yet claimed it recovered the passport of alleged hijacker Satam al Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic collapse of the North Tower. The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack either, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes.
Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by FEMA or other government agents. I�ve never seen any objective analysis of this wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.
The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller than the North Tower hole.
The next question is whether the fires were hot enough to cause the WTC buildings to collapse. In defending the official account and its clones that try to explain the unprecedented collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers without demolition, heat arguably is more important than structural impact. That�s obviously true for building WTC 7 because there was no alleged airplane impact.
First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia�s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.
Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199�200) the same thing.
Third, the impact opening was 15 floors lower in the South Tower than in the North Tower, where core columns were thicker, so the South Tower fire had to produce more heat to raise the steel temperatures to soften up (thermally weaken) the steel columns. Yet its fires were considerably smaller and 30 minutes shorter in duration. The Tower collapsed after burning only 56 minutes. A prime candidate to explain why "the wrong tower fell first" is that the small dying fire in the South Tower forced the hand of the mass murderers who decided to trigger demolition earlier than planned in order to sustain the lie that fire caused the collapse. The North Tower stood for another 29 minutes and its core steel was thinner at its upper stories. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not collapse.
Fourth, implicitly trying to explain away these difficulties, the current NIST investigation, conducted by "an extended investigation team of 236 people," makes "dislodged fireproofing" the key variable to explain the collapses. Supposedly, "the probable collapse sequence for the WTC towers are (sic) based on the behavior of thermally weakened structural components that had extensive damage to fireproofing or gypsum board fire protection induced by the debris field generated by aircraft impact" (p. 111). "Had fireproofing not been dislodged by debris field," this team of government-paid experts claims, "temperature rise of structural components would likely have been insufficient to induce global collapse" (p. 108). Perhaps acknowledging the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that "a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112). The NIST will have to boost its creativity to plausibly explain the WTC 7 collapse because it won�t have the benefit of tales of aircraft and debris fields.
Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:
Griffin (pp. 25�7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush�s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8�9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.
A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret.
Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that the perpetrators used Mayor Giuliani�s sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer might set his victim�s dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in four fires is arson). Giuliani�s "undisclosed secret location" was perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers.
There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely prove to be sound. Revised engineering and construction practices, for example, based on the belief that the twin towers collapsed through airplane damage and subsequent fires is premature, to say the least.
More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in today�s "security state" demands daring because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
June 9, 2005
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001�2, George W. Bush's first term.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
What's sad is that the NIST didn't even bother to investigate whether or not bombs or other high-explosives had been detonated inside the buildings. They only focused on the fires as being the culprit. What a joke!
| quote: |
| The NIST probe set to get under way Wednesday is designed to be broader and more detailed than a study conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers and funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That study, concluded in May, determined the 110-story twin towers could have survived the impact of the hijacked 767s but fell victim to the ensuing fire that caused the buildings' steel columns to soften and buckle. NIST Director Arden Bement has said the relationship between fire and structural collapses will be a major focus of the probe and the investigation ``could lead to major changes in both U.S. building and fire codes and in engineering practice.'' Fluffy fireproofing sprayed onto the trade center's steel beams was jarred loose by when the jetliners slammed into the trade center, the FEMA study found. NIST investigators will look at ways to keep the fireproofing intact. Investigators are also interested in 7 World Trade Center, which is believed to have sustained little structural damage. It collapsed due to fire alone, the first fireproofed steel structure to do so. excerpt taken from: http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/8/21_APwtc.html |
| quote: |
| From: News and Views | City Beat | Friday, January 04, 2002 Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe By JOE CALDERONE Daily News Chief of Investigations A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor. A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-01-...asp?last6days=1 |
| quote: |
| "Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world." In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse. Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---------------------------------------------------------- $elling Out the Investigation By Bill Manning Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall. Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description. Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it? No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors. As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory. The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions. Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we. Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world. To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned. Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately. http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...TICLE_ID=131225 |
I'm really enjoying this George Washington Blog, by the way. It's definitely good to know that there's more than just a handful of people out there who aren't mindlessly complacent, spineless fools!
Sorry, but I just had to get that off my chest. 
Re: Re: Re: Responce To Occrider
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Who ever said anything to the contrary? Here's the original letter with the original footnotes attached, with emphasis placed by me: It sounds to me like he's simply another concerned American not too much different than myself or anyone else who has a hard time swallowing the official storyline. How you could attempt to discredit him for that is beyond me. |
not a far stretch to suggest the US Govt were behind/involved in 9/11 in order to perpetuate fear across the globe and push the anti-terrorism (weapons of mass bullshit) movement.
how ironic is the whole US leading anti-terrorism thing, when the actions that they have taken are the very epitome of terrorism.
if only lil johnny fkn howard had a brain of his own here in Australia.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Responce To Occrider
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Actually you have reposted the exact information that stevieboy32808 provided in his post. But in response to your response, numerous websites have insinuated the contrary. stevieboy32808's post insinuated to the contrary claiming that he in fact represents something that he doesn't factually represent. I'm simply attempting to clarify the situation. I don't like ad-hominems that attack a person's character while failing to attack the person's arguments. That is why I have nothing but distaste for arguments that critique Popular Mechanics because the editor is Michael Chertoff's brother/cousin or whatever. So which is it, do ad-hominems work against Popular Mechanics while failing with Ryan or are they both ancillary arguments to the meat of the matter? That is why I didn't stop with looking at the background of Ryan. He was apparentely making claims as a subject matter expert and thus the start of my investigation was to determine whether he was in fact a subject matter expert or not. Once I found out he was not, I examined his argument in greater detail to see whether there were flaws. If you reference my arguments I directly addressed his claims because that's the meat of the issue. I never attempted to discredit him for raising questions. I simply made it clear to everyone that everything he said should be subject to the EXACT same scrutiny and skepticism as any other proposed theory that provides little verification ... because he doesn't deserve the status of a subject matter expert. Quite the contrary I realised the weaknesses of ad-hominem arguments and thus I attempted to discredit his specific arguments which I then proceeded to do. Now I know you have sourced a bunch of links and papers in response to my arguments, but let's be frank ... they run the gammot on a million issues. Like I told stevieboy32808, I really don't have time to read a website that raises a million theories. I'm doing things one at a time presented by someone in their own words. This is why I originally abandoned 9/11 discussions. I would make a good case and the person i was arguing with never responded ... never admitted the weaknesses of their arguments or bolstered their case. Then someone esle would come along and post another website that I would try to refute ... and of course they would never try to argue beyond what their website told them to copy and paste. To be frank I'm sick of it. I've resolved to spend as much time as my opponent is willing to sepnd on an issue to a resonable degree. This requires specificity and arguments put in your own words with reference quotes as opposed to quoting someone else's entire arguments. So in conclusion I'm perfectly happy to debate you, but unless you're addressing a really specific argument I have raised (I think that I have addressed every specific argument that stevieboy32808 raised in quote/response, quote/response format) I really don't have the time to really argue with 10 different people on 10 different issues. I'm doing as much as I can ... |
Fair enough. We'll have to agree to be skeptical about different things.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Fair enough. We'll have to agree to be skeptical about different things. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by eRRaTiK not a far stretch to suggest the US Govt were behind/involved in 9/11 in order to perpetuate fear across the globe and push the anti-terrorism (weapons of mass bullshit) movement. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dont be a dick anf. id like to know why the conspiracy nuts believe your govt, which couldnt keep bill's cock a secret, could carry out such a successful conspiracy. firstly, lets assume that there were secondary explosions in the buildings. theres absolutely no evidence who planted those bombs. why is it automatically the government to blame? who's to say there werent some terrorists on the ground? according to the arguments in this thread, the explosions occurred at the lower levels of the buildings. why then, did does the tower collapse from the top, rather implode from the bottom? the stuctural failure of both towers occurs at the location where the planes hit, and fell down, rather than the entire tower collapsing nicely at a point where the secondary explosions supposedly went off. excellent excellent posts occ, though i can understand your frustration with the cut-and-pasters who dont respond. there are those that dont post as often that still appreciate your analysis however if you think about all the shit things the american govt has done is recent memory, and how often theyve been caught red-handed, the thought that they would deliberately massacre their own people in such a high-profile manner to justify a POSSIBLE war against iraq (remember, the US got fuck all from a war in afghanistan) two years later is laughable. grow up kids. sure, theyve abused 9/11 as much as they possibly could, but thats politics. again, remember, a POSSIBLE war against iraq. there was no guarantee that it would happen. inconsistencies in an extreme situation like two massive buildings having planes flown into them is hardly reason to automatically assume a cover-up. stop pointing out supposed inconsistencies and bring forward some real evidence and then ill start listening. youre as bad as the religious zealots. too much \"faith\" and not enough evidence, when i know for a fact that oswald planted the charges on the 6th floor. he acted alone. |
hey, im not sticking up for the US govt by any means. of course, 40 year old documents prove your theory obviously 
notice the very important part too
| quote: |
| However, McNamara rejected the proposal |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey, im not sticking up for the US govt by any means. of course, 40 year old documents prove your theory obviously notice the very important part tooso, something that was ruled out 40 years ago is evidence to suspected bombs being planted in buildings when its fvcking obvious planes crashed into them? right. i accidentally bought too much tin-foil at the supermarket this week, youre welcome to borrow it if you must. |
hehe, i just love the tin-hat imagery 
im at work and dont have time to read that whole link, but i skimmed it. i still dont see how you can draw a parallel between allowing/goading a foreign power into attacking you so that you might get a useless, selfish public into supporting a war against regimes that threatened the entire world, and flying 2 planes into buildings which also had bombs in the bottom of them which would need to be blown up so that they fell down (rather then just blowing those buildings up and blaming it on the arabs anyway), so that *maybe*, down the track you *might* get enough support for a war so you *might* be able to get some oil.
sorry, totally different things imo.
stop calling me ignorant, it doesnt add anything to your argument. how about instead of spending all your time trying to find/make distant distant parallels, you go and get me some real evidence. cheers.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN stop calling me ignorant, it doesnt add anything to your argument. how about instead of spending all your time trying to find/make distant distant parallels, you go and get me some real evidence. cheers. |
updated report by Steven E. Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
pkc's socialist hands would never want to hang on to occrider's conservative balls
| quote: |
I'm sorry for being so curt, but after researching this for so long it just gets tiresome having to answer to all of the uninformed and uneducated armchair critics who refuse to actually investigate the matter for themselves. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN pkc's socialist hands would never want to hang on to occrider's conservative balls my interest in this type of stuff is to keep me occupied when im bored at work. so i read all the stuff in this thread over the last few weeks, and im still totally unconvinced. we can sit here all day, and you can link me til youre blue in the face, and it doesnt change the fact that all you can point to is conjecture and possibilities. like i already said, inconsistencies are all you theorists have. yes, you might well be correct. but you still dont have the missing link so you can say 'i told you so'. sorry. |
| quote: |
| All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer |
By Deanna Spingola
William Rodriguez, a 9-11 Survivor
August 25, 2005 06:13 AM EST
This past week I had the great pleasure of meeting William Rodriquez, a humble man from Puerto Rico who worked at the World Trade Center. He looked healthy in spite of suffering from many 9-11 related toxic diseases.
The occasion was at a special meeting at the Schaumburg, Illinois Township Library in the Chicago suburbs. This informative presentation served as a memorial for the many victims as we approach the fourth year anniversary of 9-11. In addition to William other knowledgeable and well qualified individuals presented their thoughts: Phil Jayhan, Dave VonKleist and Christopher Bollyn, a journalist with the American Free Press. This event, which should have been standing room only, was sponsored in part by the American Free Press as well as Jimmy Walter and Eric Hufschmid, a physicist and author of Painful Questions.
A press release was sent to all of the print media in the Chicago area about a month in advance of this event. There was a very tiny isolated notice about the event in one of the Chicago papers. Surely the local newspapers would wish to interview the participants on such an important subject as 9-11. But, only one Hispanic television station sent a journalist and a camera. So we must assume that the other Chicago news organizations have already determined exactly what they desire their readers to believe about 9-11. Let's not deviate from the government version and confuse people with the truth!
William Rodriquez gave an outstanding, sensitive discourse of his experiences on that fateful morning. He appears to be a genuinely warm, gentle caring human being and it is easy to believe that his relationship with his many fellow employees was much more - they were also his long time friends. Daily, he met with them for breakfast in the Windows on the World Restaurant on the 106th floor. Nearly two hundred people, most of William's friends, were in the restaurant that morning. None of them survived. Not only did he lose his job on 11 September 2001, he lost most of his friends. William would have also perished had he been in the restaurant that morning but he arrived at work at 8:30 a.m. rather than his usual time of 8:00 a.m.
William had worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. They were narrow and without windows. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class "A" building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.
Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion's resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.
A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. "He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries." The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body. "He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms." William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?" William led Felipe David outside to safety. William continued to hear people screaming and returned to the building in spite of police orders. There were people encased in elevators. There were people who needed help.
There was a swooshing sound coming from the freight elevators on B2 and B3. Water from the fire sprinklers from all of the floors had gone into the elevator shaft. There were two individuals trapped below who were in danger of drowning. Rodriguez was able to secure a long enough ladder to extend into the shaft to facilitate their escape from a watery grave.
He had possession of just one of the five master keys that opened all of the stairwell doors at each of the floors in the 110 story building. The other four key holders were trained for emergencies. They had already left the building. Firemen from New York City Unit Six arrived. Each fireman, in addition to protective clothing, had about 70 pounds of equipment. William, who now had the only key, led the firemen up stairwell B. Firemen were going up as victims were coming down. The stairwells were narrow with no windows.
The firemen made it up to the 27th floor but were exhausted from the burden of their equipment. As William had ascended up the stairwell he, as well as the firemen, had heard explosions from the 20th through the 30th floor. Chunks of the building were falling down all around them and they could literally hear the building coming down. Yet, the firemen continued to climb and give aid. After all, they assumed the fire was isolated at the location where the plane entered.
On the 33rd floor, William was able to procure some dust masks from a maintenance office. The air was thick with smoke. On the 33rd floor he found a woman laying on the floor in a fetal position. She didn't know where to go or what to do. They had fire drills twice a year but because of employee turnover, not everyone had a clear view of emergency procedures. While some individuals intuitively respond appropriately in an emergency, others are absolutely paralyzed by their fears.
Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was completely empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. He said that this was the first time that he felt fear.
They continued to ascend to the 39th floor. This is as far as William got before he was turned back by the firefighters. As he began his descent he heard the plane hit the south tower.
He made it back down to the hole where the front doors used to be before they were blown out. The bottoms of the elevator doors were blown partially open. He couldn't breath, his eyes burned, his leg was burned. Someone yelled: "Don't look back!" William looked back momentarily then raced for the first cover he saw - a fire truck. That is where he was found. Pulverized concrete mixed with asbestos and smoke created a dark cloud of doom. Flashlights were necessary. William received temporary medical assistance and then went to work trying to find survivors.
The mangled bloodied bodies of the jumpers blanketed the ground. William will never forget the anguish he felt or the sight of this senseless horrific carnage. This was evidence of desperation - people desperate to escape possible death by suffocation or by fire chose death by jumping. The fires were contained and isolated. Much of the flame actually burned outside of the building upon impact. The fire was out - even at the giant gaping hole where the plane breached the building where people worked, talked with friends and felt relatively safe.
William Rodriguez saved lives that day. Currently he is attempting to alert the public to what actually happened. He is a courageous witness to those terrible events. The controlled censored media doesn't really appear willing to report the real news but rather they promote whatever the propaganda ministry wants the masses to believe. It takes continuous courage to go against such opposition but that is the kind of man he is. He says that he owes it to his friends - those that were slaughtered for some covert political agenda.
William spent hours testifying before the 9-11 Commission behind closed doors. His testimony as an eye witness does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report. But after all, Bush told us who did it, so why bother to examine the evidence or talk with the witnesses. The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA.
The National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST), an independent investigative group ignored his plea to tell his story. He contacted them four times but never got a response. NIST was funded by the government which gives you a pretty good idea of just how subjective their findings were. They were paid $35 million dollars and the investigation lasted two years. The taxpayers certainly did not get their money's worth.
William Rodriguez also contacted the FBI who never followed up. The media was not interested. CNN spent a day filming and interviewing him at his home but when it was shown the following day it was thoroughly edited. Some reporters have subtly warned Rodriguez to keep quiet as he could jeopardize his life. They said "You do not know who you are dealing with!" He already looked death in the face and he will probably continue to courageously tell his story. He is speaking the truth and he is speaking it for his friends. He says: "I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."
William Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a RICO lawsuit filed against George W. (warmonger) Bush and others. He is alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes. So not only is he speaking for his friends but he is seeking justice for all of the victims, both those who died and those who were injured.
The World Trade Center twin towers were built from 1968 to 1972. To fireproof the building a mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed during the construction. However, this fireproofing technique was banned in 1971 by the New York City Council. By then there was already hundreds of tons of this material in the building. Later, some of this material was removed yet there was still about 100 tons of asbestos remaining. Asbestos was used in other areas that would not leave the harmful residue unless there were extraordinary circumstances such as those that occurred on 9-11.
William Rodriguez says: "I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can't even say a word." Thank goodness for the alternative media where one may still discover the truth.
On 11 September 2001 our defense systems failed, NORAD failed, our president, intent on a goat story, failed to immediately respond; the twin towers failed - they collapsed - the only known steel frame buildings in history claimed to have failed because of fire. Other steel frame buildings have been known to burn for hours and hours yet they did not collapse. Of course, we do not know the cause of their failure as the evidence was rendered unavailable for investigation - either immediately sold or otherwise withheld. There was also the failure of the local authorities to warn the people about the toxic air that burned their lungs and blanketed their homes and would create life long health problems. They were told that there was no problem.
After 9-11 there was a failure to discover exactly who made millions on all of the put options on American Airlines and United Airlines. That was another failure. So many failures and I haven't heard of one person reprimanded for inefficiency. However, there are those who were promoted.
However, there were also great successes:
The firemen who gave their lives - crushed in the totally unexpected and unusual building collapses. There were medical people who tenderly treated the trauma struck victims. The policemen did not fail and the thousands of volunteers who searched for the dead and dying did not fail. There were search and rescue dogs who did not fail - many of whom have since died of cancer. And William Rodriguez did not fail. He acted appropriately -just like a man of integrity and courage should act. He did not hesitate. Unlike others who should have responded immediately, he sprang into action and made selfless sacrifices for others.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com...le.html?id=7762
William Rodriguez
video interview:
http://www.911proof.com/resources/i...nsept05snow.wmv
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X What you don't know can't hurt you, right Occ? Anyway, at this point I think that I've grown to be more cynical than skeptical. |
. Personally I think cynycism and skepticism end up going hand in hand in due time.
I barely even touched upon even a small fraction the facts surrounding 9/11 which have been so conveniently swept under the rug by the mainstream media.
I could continue to delve into why NORAD stood down, why the FAA Controllers became confused because of all the false blips on their radar screens, etc. However, for the sake of brevity (and the fact that I get tired of typing), I'm just going to post some links to video footage and such. Thankfully for those of us who actually want to learn the truth, there's a good bit of evidence which has been archived online.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...wtc.msnbc.2.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9....reporter.1.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/911/comments/91....jack.kelley.rm
http://terrorize.dk/911/comments/91....explosives.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
NPR Clip talking about how George Tenet had warned of an imminent attack (.mp3)
Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS
September 12, 2001
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.
"When the fire started, the room was sealed," said Jones, who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building. "Flames were shooting off the walls....We started putting wet towels under the doors. The Fire Department unsealed the door and grabbed us by the hand and said, 'Run!' "
Security worker Diane Easton said she was out front writing tickets when notice of "a plane flying too low" placed security personal on alert.
"The plane went right through the building...and debris started falling everywhere, then 15 minutes later the second plane," Easton said.
Nancy Joyner said several police officers were knocked down and then were stampeded in the ensuing frenzy.
"People were flying out of the windows; there was nothing we could do," Joyner said. "People were pulled from the top floors by the wind tunnel created."
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local...0,6794009.story
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.