the complete minute by minute timeline on 911

"VV" wrote in message
om...
nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message
...


Keith in this thread wrote that prior to Sept 11 2001 there had been
no perceived danger from a hijacked airliner.

There was time before some date in 40-ies no none percieved a danger
from an enemy plane that could make a suicidal attack. But on some
date it became a reality and later the name became known: that was
kamikaze.

I read somewhere that in 1991 there was a danger of a suicide plane
attack in Spain to prevent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations there.


But no such attack happened

In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.


But no such attacked happened since the pilot made it quite
clear that he would do no such thging

In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.


They also threatened to use nuclear weapons

These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
them and I think that there have been more attempts and threats then
these.


Your beliefs have no effect on public perception


So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.


Crap, no hijacked aitcraft had ever been used this way, the hijackers
were making routine demands and asking for clearance to airports.
There was nothing to distinguish this from any of the dozens
of other hijacks that had happened.

As soon as there was the rules changed and the passengers on flight 93
stormed the cockpit to stop the terrorists using their plane the same way

Again, before 911 the WTC had alredy been atatcked, in 1993, in a
different manner though, but the attack had really taken place.

The WTC was a tempting target. It was big enough to leave many dead
behind, great material damage, it was of sorts a symbol and so on you
name it when considering the queistion: why was the WTC attacked? But
there was an additional reason for attacking the WTC - its internal
structure.


Possibly, its floor structure of linked trusses would be more
vulnerable than a conmventional structure but I'd guess its
was attacked because of it being the largest building in NYC

Maybe some people began to think, at first maybe on just a qualitative
level, maybe later they quantified and even modelled it. The question
was: what would happen if an airliner crashed into one or both of the
towers? Beside the immediate damage what would come next? A fire of
course. How big? Planes after take-offs have lots of fuel that would
go down while burning while flames and suffocating smoke would go up.
For a regular concrete/brick/stone building the danger would have been
that the impact, fire and smoke would kill people both up and down
there, but if the building could stand without collapsing after the
impact it was unlikely that it would fall later.

The WTC was a different case because of its steel framework. Bringing
steel to melting point was not needed because steel loses its strength
at lower temperatures. Jet fuel could develop such temperatures. So
the towers probably could not survive such an attack and could not be
saved.


You have just shown your ignorance

Hundredss of buildings in NYC including virtually all
its skyscrapers have steel structures.

Another question: if it was to fall, then how? Namely if different
parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
were HIGH towers after all.

What do the specialist who do the job the company's name denotes to
prevent such things (remember, the building itself was unsavable)?

They make the building COLLAPSE, collapse onto itself.

I needn't explain how they do that you know the place the charges in
certain places and so on.

They also spend weeks weakening the structure, remove all the
elevators and stair wells.

In the WTC case it could be something like
welding thermite instead of expolosives to make the steel melt, but at
the same pace in several crucial places.


I suspect the steel workers who built it and the various inspection teams
who looked at it would have noticed


You sir are a whacko of the first order.

Keith