nick2 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Anyway, it's irrelevant because they still wouldn't have shot them down bacuse there was no day to day guidance in place at that time that even remotely suggested it. Not only that but shooting down a plane over New York might have caused even more deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Speaking of passenger planes being shot down, what happened to those reported stories that one of the planes, the one that crash-landed upside down, was taken out by the USAF? The first news reports said the plane was 'shot down' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 The fact that if the building had fallen naturrally they would toppled sideways causing total devastation. The charges were installed at the manufacture of them to facilitate demolition, when they were no longer required. The order to pull them down was to prevent any further loss of life. If the structural supports were taken out by the plane, and the portion of the building above the crash fell on to the rest of the building, it would be crushed downwards because of the weight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 No there shouldn't be an independant enquiry. A bunch of nutters hijacked two planes and flew them into the WTC. They collapsed as a result of this probably due to some weakness that no one would have thought to identify back then. I'm with Beakerzoid on this. wasnt part of the original engineering brief to design the towers in such a way that they could withstand the impact of a large commericial airliner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 If the structural supports were taken out by the plane, and the portion of the building above the crash fell on to the rest of the building, it would be crushed downwards because of the weight Some years previously a massive ammount of high explosive was detonated in one of the towers, causing massive damage to the building. This did not bring it down, but at the time Arab terrorists were not the main concern. The explosion was caused by Al Qaida, but the Americans were using the Arabs to fight the Russians in Afghanistan at the time. The outcome at that time may have been a little different if times were changed. At that time the threat to the Oil Companies were the Soviet Union not the Arabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 No they aren't in the USA. There hasn't been any reason to have them on standby for years. What threat would require a 2.5 minute scramble? There are aircraft in Europe and Asia and the Middle east that are, but not on the Homeland. That may have changed, but that's retrospect for you Anyway, it's irrelevant because they still wouldn't have shot them down bacuse there was no day to day guidance in place at that time that even remotely suggested it. I suspect it would be difficult to get anything shot down today without presidential approval TBH. Errr... come on artisan. Let's not lose touch with the facts. 'In the event of a hijacking, the National Military Command Center will be notified by the most expedious means bt the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of requests needing an immediate response.....forward requests for Department of Defence assistance to the secretary of Defense approval." http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf It is possible to formulate to any element in the chain of command "Requests needing Immediate Response." These arise from imminently serious conditions where only an immediate action action taken by an official DoD or a military commander can prevent loss of lives, or mitigate human suffering and great property damage." http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d302515p.pdf Nothing to do with the president, more like an official who is available to make an immediate decision. District of Columbia certainly does have 24 hr standby, but considering it all happened from Flight 11's transponder being turned off at 8:14 AM, and confirmation of it's hijacking by 8:31 AM, you think a second plane was able to hit the Soth Tower and over an hour later another plane hit the Pentagon without resistance or air traffic guidance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwhatref Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 wasnt part of the original engineering brief to design the towers in such a way that they could withstand the impact of a large commericial airliner? It was, but i remember watching or reading an extract from one of the designers who clearly stated that the towers should withstand the impact but he also went on to explain where the towers failed and that it wasn't thought of at the time. Cant recall what it was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 No there shouldn't be an independant enquiry. A bunch of nutters hijacked two planes and flew them into the WTC. They collapsed as a result of this probably due to some weakness that no one would have thought to identify back then. I'm with Beakerzoid on this. Well thought out, balanced and factual argument eloquently delivered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 wasnt part of the original engineering brief to design the towers in such a way that they could withstand the impact of a large commericial airliner? Wind resitance created more force than a Boeing 757 travelling at c.400mph. The building was designed to carry over five times it's own weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwit Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I have just skimmed through this thread with great interest. I don't know whether it has been mentioned, but I seriously suggest that people watch the Loose Change documentary - Watch it here. Please watch it with an open mind. OK, there are a few flaws in the arguments put forward, but in the main - especially regarding the Pentagon attack - the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a conspiracy. If anyone would like a copy of Loose Change 2nd Edition on DVD, I would be more than happy to send them a copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.