the complete minute by minute timeline on 911

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

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

Did this fact make it impossible? AFAIK this particular one failed
due to the fact some Arab intelligence service learned about it in
advance. Yet it was possible, at any rate one of many could be
successful.

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

Conclusions were made: Don't rely on pilots' 'cooperation', train your
owm pilots devoted to accomplish the job. And that was done, as you
know. Things in this dark world are really 'improving'.

In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.
They also threatened to use nuclear weapons

They had none, it was a shallow threat. But a plane could be hijacked
and it was hijacked, namely in May 2001 a TU-154 plane was hijacked in
Turkey, but pilots locked the door and didn't let the hijackers in.
What was on their minds?

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

I once again state, that I believe in some conspiracy theories. I do
believe that even right now some terrorists are planning new attacks
including those with suicide bombers. Sober-minded public may disagree
with me.

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.

Kith, maybe some mistake on my part. I meant to say such an attack was
not impossible. English is still a foreign language to me.

There was nothing to distinguish this from any of the dozens
of other hijacks that had happened.

When you don't know whether a gun is loaded or not threat it as
loaded. If through intelligence sources you learn that some fanatic
people are being brainwashed into a suicidal attack take it seriously.

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

Rules changed before 911 see Palestine, India etc, but not everybody
was fully aware of that.

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

Most probable you're gight. The WTC was a tempting target no matter
what its structure was. Had it been as robust as possible it would
still be. Besides for the terrorists it could be a matter of 'honour'
to get it finished. 1993 was only 'a partial success' for them.

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.

I do not claim I know all things. But what is wrong with these two
paragraphs above?

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

And what? Does it make them less vulnerable that there are hundreds of
them?

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.

A good point. There are really big differences.

Under regular circumstances they don't have to hide what they are
doing. They take every step to prevent the trouble - they bar access
to the building, remove what can and must be removed, evecuate people
from around the site etc. And weakening the structure before an attack
takes place is a stupidity of course.

But a terrorist attack is an emergency and some changes to the regular
procedures may be needed.

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

A good question. Have they? Have they not?

You sir are a whacko of the first order.

In developing my theory I used ALL my brain convolutions available,
i.e. both of them

It is just a theory you are free to criticise or even debunk.
Besides reread what the goal of placing such charges could be.

Anyway thanks for such a promotion

Regards

VV

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

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

Did this fact make it impossible?

No bit meant it didnt become a perceived threat.


AFAIK this particular one failed
due to the fact some Arab intelligence service learned about it in
advance. Yet it was possible, at any rate one of many could be
successful.

Quite so but not everything possible is perceived as likely



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

Conclusions were made: Don't rely on pilots' 'cooperation', train your
owm pilots devoted to accomplish the job. And that was done, as you
know. Things in this dark world are really 'improving'.


Hindsight is wonderful

Using the same tool it was 'obvious' that Chechen rebels would hijack
a theatre, how come the Russian authorities failed to prevent it ?


In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.
They also threatened to use nuclear weapons

They had none, it was a shallow threat. But a plane could be hijacked
and it was hijacked, namely in May 2001 a TU-154 plane was hijacked in
Turkey, but pilots locked the door and didn't let the hijackers in.
What was on their minds?


Not being hijacked

Duh

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

I once again state, that I believe in some conspiracy theories.

We've noticed


Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"VV" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

But no such attack happened

Did this fact make it impossible?

No bit meant it didnt become a perceived threat.

?????


Quite so but not everything possible is perceived as likely




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

Conclusions were made: Don't rely on pilots' 'cooperation', train your
owm pilots devoted to accomplish the job. And that was done, as you
know. Things in this dark world are really 'improving'.

Hindsight is wonderful

It is. What's your point here?

Using the same tool it was 'obvious' that Chechen rebels would hijack
a theatre, how come the Russian authorities failed to prevent it ?

One of several attempts may succeed. If no steps are made all of them
will. Just ask Putin. Just ask Sharon. Just ask Bush. Just ak Blair.
Just ask... The list gonna be long.

The questions are who, when, where and how.

And you'd better call them freedom fighters.

In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.
They also threatened to use nuclear weapons

They had none, it was a shallow threat. But a plane could be hijacked
and it was hijacked, namely in May 2001 a TU-154 plane was hijacked in
Turkey, but pilots locked the door and didn't let the hijackers in.
What was on their minds?

Not being hijacked

Oops I meant hijackers, not pilotes.

We've noticed

Let's note we've stopped discussing and are just exchanging
meaningless remarks.

Regards

VV