Liverpool FC Forum

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:38 am

I was in bed asleep.

I came down, put the tele on and was confronted with scenes of atrocity.

I tuned in just before the first tower collapsed.

I can't believe it's been 5 years. Seemed like 2.

Awful, awful events.

by **PhiLFC** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:42 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:
Fred Dibnah could not have brought down the towers with more precision and they were hit by aeroplanes

The Pentagon thing... Remember Lockerbie? Remember the devastation and the fukkin huge hole in the ground? Exactly!

The fall of the World Trade Center towers caused total devestation across lower Manhattan. "Precision" is not an accurate description. The South Tower broke in half and toppled over. It was chaotic. The North Tower collapsed in on itself. Each tower reacted differently due to the way they were hit and the damage they sustained.

The Pentagon was essentially a highly fortified concrete slab hit by a much smaller plane (than Lockerbie) at a shallower angle. The plane that hit the Pentagon was pretty much shredded like tinfoil. The plan was never to destroy the Pentagon but rather as a symbolic strike against a symbol of American military power. And even at that, the Pentagon still suffered significant damage. The houses on Sherwood Crescent were nowhere near as robust as the Pentagon, and besides they were hit by two wings fully laden with fuel connected to enormous engines falling from thirty-one thousand feet virtually straight down.

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theorists. It fails to take into account the fantaticism of the enemy. These guys don't think twice about strapping bombs to themselves, blowing out women's brains at point-blank range and cutting people's heads off and people doubt whether they are committed enough to fly a plane into a building? It has a precedent. The Japanese did it, and the theorists don't think that Islamic terrorists weren't capable of the same level of extremism?

If anything, the cause of September 11th was America underestimating their enemy and the politicians failing to act on intel and opportunities they were presented with due to short-sighted diplomatic decision. A failure to act decisively when required to do so.

That's a good post...

I don't really subscribe to the conspiracy stuff either - I just find its intriguing and makes you think.. rather than take the Government line all the time. But I will remain sceptical about the Pentagon thing and yes, maybe I do need to go to New York to appreciate the size of the area at ground zero. It did look err... "controlled" (maybe that's the wrong word but you know what I mean) on telly though didn't it?

Also, I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.

Good post... cheers

by **taff** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:56 pm

Its a good thing to read different views and people should be encouraged to do so. Personally I think complacency and lack of ground intelligence plus fanatical opposition.

I was in work in a high rise office building like so many millions worldwide. Some lad was going on about a plane crashing into one of the towers, I remember reading about a plane crashing into the empire state building in the 40's and to be honest a group of us were discussing some disaster that was going to happen with huge skyscrapers, we thought about the plane into a tower block in Amsterdam etc.

Then the next plane came in and a sense of doom went around the place, this is an attack. The internet then became unbearably slow. Later on the same lad who was glued to his screen and refresh button while the rest of us discussed the events said one of the towers has collapsed, his screen then froze and we didnt believe him, this was too much, the WTC collapsing no way. Then the other one went down and we had TV access by then and it became surreal, like it wasnt happening, two huge buildings in the most famous city on earth had just collapsed.

I remember being home that night and glued to the news but also thinking please let this be the catalyst that brings about peace, instead of reacting lets talk and try to get some understanding, this is huge. I knew one way or another 9/11 would see a different world.

A month later I had to go to the Cardiff business dinner to represent work and the guest speaker was General Michael rose who said some interesting things regarding terrorism and security. We can have security but at the cost of freedom, as we all like freedom we have to have some talks with the people involved. He said about errors liek America investing billions in sattelite security but they had no ground troops/spies in hotspots. It was interesting as he had served in Northern Ireland and reckons that talking was the only way forward as conflict makes it worse and encourages martyrs where there wouldnt have been any, he hoped America used a sensible way forward and tried to overlook revenge.

Whilst I am not a Blair fan I do think History will be kind to him as the Yanks were up for revenge big style after this and I think he was a calming influence, but as I said earlier the world was now a different place.

by **PhiLFC** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:58 am

911 controlled explosion stuff

Sorry to bring up older stuff but this is highly watchable, thought provoking and very very intriguing - its 36 minutes long.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:54 am

World Trade Center Towers

Built in a different manner to traditional skyscrapers like the Empire State Building. A lighter structure based on a "tube" design with the supporting beams around the outside of the structure giving it rigidity instead of the traditional "cage" structure (which has the advantage of providing strength, but at a cost of having many intrusive pillars on each floor).

A central core holding the elevator shafts and stairwells protected by panels of a substance which is incredibly resiliant to fire, but very lightweight and fragile.

The central core and the outer walls were connected by a series of cross-bridges which formed the floors. Each cross-bridge was supported by a series of thin beams linked by trusses, which are lightweight and strong (but weaker than solid beams). All the steel in the core and trusses were protected by a spray-on fireproofing. Able to resist high temperatures, but is highly fragile. This provided an enormous amount of open spaces on each floor.

North Tower/Tower One

Hit full-on. The plane struck directly into the side of the building and continued flying for a while into the core of the building, severely damaging it. The impact also destroyed the stairwells and elevator shafts. There was no escape. The central core continued to weaken until it finally buckled and collapsed. Pulling the outer walls of the North Tower inwards. The antenna atop the North Tower fell straight down. It was directly attached to the core.

South Tower/Tower Two

Hit at an angle, far lower down than the North Tower, and crucially was hit in one of the corners. The plane entered the building and exploded, blowing out many of the outer supporting columns from the the opposite wall to the initial impact. The central core largely remained intact and one stairwell remained open for those fortunate enough to find it. But the damage to the outer beams proved to be too much for the design to bear and they gave way, unable to cope with the extra weight of the building above, cracking almost simultaneously, buckling the already damaged corner, and the damaged side of the building fell away pulling the undamaged side of the building with it. The core remained generally intact and was pulled down with the undamaged side of the building. The South Tower, unlike the North Tower broke in two and toppled over.

In both towers, the force of the blast blew away all the fragile fireproofing leaving the steel exposed to extraordinary heat (caused by the aircraft fuel burning office material).

The towers collapsed due to the way they were hit by the planes. Both differently, but enough. I don't believe the "controlled explosion" theory because it's dependent on two things. 1) the planes hitting the building at exactly the right points where the demolition charges have been set and 2) the demolition team placing explosives at exactly the places that they expected the planes to hit.

It's too precise and fails to consider that no controlled explosions would be necessary since the planes interacting with the building would be more than enough to get the job done.

The idea of clandestine forces creating a "Pearl Harbor" type event intended to rouse the American people to support their government's shadowy agenda (to invade oil rich nations) sounds believable if you subscribe to all that sinister stuff, but the potential gains for the U.S government are IMO outweighed by the risks of the plan being discovered, IE: if the U.S government were discovered to have been behind these attacks and the murder of thousands of American people, it would probably cause a revolution in the United States as the American people murdered their government with extreme prejudice.

The only time a controlled explosion would have entered discussions would have been if say the towers did not collapse and were allowed to burn themselves out over a number of days. Then I would have expected the U.S authorities to declare them a total-loss then either somehow disassemble them or demolish them through implosions.

Liverpool FC Forum

9/11 - Where were you

Who is online