Discussions and Questions about 9/11 - without CT

[Blaupunkt69]

I'm not sure if its even possible but I was hoping to have a thread for 9/11 on JREF which doesn't involve conspiracy theories.

The subject fascinates me and I try to read/watch/learn all I can, even if, at times, it can get a bit technical and out of my scope. (I'm in Water Treatment, so beyond basic physics and chemistry, there isn't much my background can bring to the subject). On the other hand I have difficulty giving much time to irrational conspiracy info.

Anyways, I thought I would start with questions:

Was there ever an estimate of the number off people killed during the collapse of the towers, not including those in them, but on the ground outside or in nearby structures?

Was there any significant and visible damage to the North Tower caused by the collapse of the South Tower? I'm thinking along the lines of the damage done to The Marriot (prior to the North Tower collapse) or WTC7. Any pictures or video?

What was the reasoning for housing various emergency stations at the World Trade Center itself? It was known to be a target for terrorists and any potential attack held the possibility of rendering these emergency stations ineffective.

Is it known if Bin Laden, or others involved, did any research into the structural makeup of the Tower? I realise its likely even they didn't expect total collapse, but I wondered what they learned of the Towers after their failed attempt to bring them down in 93.

That's all I have for now. Thanks

 

[cjnewson88]

Dunno about all of them, but I can add to some;

Was there any significant and visible damage to the North Tower caused by the collapse of the South Tower? I'm thinking along the lines of the damage done to The Marriot (prior to the North Tower collapse) or WTC7. Any pictures or video?

I too have wondered about this. Although I have never actually seen any images or video, we know there was at least some damage, as the very first person who was pronounced dead on 9/11 was Mychal Judge, a priest/fire fighter who was inside the North Tower when the South Tower fell (he was filmed by the Naudet brothers).

Is it known if Bin Laden, or others involved, did any research into the structural makeup of the Tower? I realise its likely even they didn't expect total collapse, but I wondered what they learned of the Towers after their failed attempt to bring them down in 93.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, was a qualified mechanical engineer, and studied the World Trade Centre as part of his degree (according to the documentary 'Secrete History of 9/11'.

Hope that helps.

 

[Bell]

I too have wondered about this. Although I have never actually seen any images or video, we know there was at least some damage, as the very first person who was pronounced dead on 9/11 was Mychal Judge, a priest/fire fighter who was inside the North Tower when the South Tower fell (he was filmed by the Naudet brothers).

Iirc Father Judge died from a heart attack.

 

[JSanderO]

I'm not sure if its even possible but I was hoping to have a thread for 9/11 on JREF which doesn't involve conspiracy theories.

The subject fascinates me and I try to read/watch/learn all I can, even if, at times, it can get a bit technical and out of my scope. (I'm in Water Treatment, so beyond basic physics and chemistry, there isn't much my background can bring to the subject). On the other hand I have difficulty giving much time to irrational conspiracy info.

Anyways, I thought I would start with questions:

Was there ever an estimate of the number off people killed during the collapse of the towers, not including those in them, but on the ground outside or in nearby structures?

Was there any significant and visible damage to the North Tower caused by the collapse of the South Tower? I'm thinking along the lines of the damage done to The Marriot (prior to the North Tower collapse) or WTC7. Any pictures or video?

What was the reasoning for housing various emergency stations at the World Trade Center itself? It was known to be a target for terrorists and any potential attack held the possibility of rendering these emergency stations ineffective.

Is it known if Bin Laden, or others involved, did any research into the structural makeup of the Tower? I realise its likely even they didn't expect total collapse, but I wondered what they learned of the Towers after their failed attempt to bring them down in 93.

That's all I have for now. Thanks

These are some interesting questions.

I noted the absence of damage to 1WTC when 2WTC came down just 130 feet away. The buildings were offset such that the facades the facade could peel away perpendicular in each building and not impact the other. I suppose this plan form was so that the light and views were optimized. How odd to have the windows face into another building just 120 feet away and so they offset them. But I don't think this was in contemplation of the facade coming off and falling away as it did on 9/11.

What appears to have occurred is that the vast majority of the mass came down inside the footprint with the facades falling mostly away and perpendicular leaving a cross shaped debris pattern of the facade... more or less. 1WTC was not on the cross patter of 2WTC and so the debris missed it... strange as that may seem... and so it appears that there was little to no mechanical damage from 2WTC debris on 1WTC.

But you do see that the buildings which were next to and perpendicular to the facades experience a raining down of the facade panels which plunged right through their roofs and floor structures (4 & 6WTC)... 5 was not aligned and mostly intact and burned... 3WTC did see 1&2WTC debris crash down upon it and collapse it as well.


I don't think anyone had modeled what would happen if fuel filled planes struck the towers at high speeds. And since they were standing the only strategy would be to prevent a hijacked plane from being flown into them and this would involve interception... something which probably had not been considered since it would kill the passengers and crew. Hijackings in the past were used to extort "something" not as missiles and suicide weapons as they appear to have been used on 9/11. But the idea was clearly out there that this could happen.

The 93' bombing proved how robust the structure at the base of the towers was. It's hard to imagine (for me) that anyone could have figured out that cutting the top sections (somehow) could lead to them dropping and destroying everything below. However it's indisputable that dropping 15-30,000 tons of mass on any structure would pretty much collapse it like a house of cards. Commercial CDs find it more economical to destroy the columns at the base than to use the mass above to crush the building except for the verinage technique used in France.

I am unaware of people who were outside the tower being killed in the collapse, but surely some exiting or nearby bystanders would have lost their lives. I don't recall if there was any sort of evacuation zone set up... but there is some news footage take quite close to the towers as 2WTC came down.

I am not sure what you mean by housing emergency management stations at the WTC... but if you are referring to the Mayors Office of Emergency management it was located in 7WTC and involved a lot of controversy in siting it there. I suppose the idea was that it needed to be close to the city government and in a building which could be altered easily to house it's facilities and that ruled out all the older buildings in lower Manhattan. One wonders why a lot could not have been acquired (west side of lower Manhattan) and a hardened underground facility built. It seems like the OEM was simply a central communications and monitoring hub where perhaps emergency operations were to be conducted from... but 7WTC lost its power before 9am on 9/11 and the building was thought to have been bombed (there were explosions apparently in the sub station area below floor 8)

It seems that one of the major lessons is that steel frames are susceptible to unfought fires... and can lead to catastrophic cascading failure.

 

[threadworm]

What was the reasoning for housing various emergency stations at the World Trade Center itself? It was known to be a target for terrorists and any potential attack held the possibility of rendering these emergency stations ineffective.

I think there are two answers here.

Firstly, given its likelihood as a target, it makes perfect sense (to me at least) to provide facilities that could deal with a terrorist incident. If it gets taken out they are no worse off. if it is not taken out then there are first responders on hand.

Secondly, terrorist incidents are not the only likelihood that could call for emergency responses. In buildings of that size containing that number of people, logistics alone suggests emergency stations might be handy! It takes long enough to get up x flights of stairs without having to travel a mile to get there first.

 

[DGM]

...... And since they were standing the only strategy would be to prevent a hijacked plane from being flown into them and this would involve interception... something which probably had not been considered since it would kill the passengers and crew. ..................

Not really. The only defense would be to not let them get hijacked in the first place.

Unless you can guarantee the plane could be intercepted over uninhabited land, a shoot down would never make the table as a plan. Unlike in the movies, a plane does not disappear when shot down, it crashes to earth. Possibly with much worse consequences than if it was allowed to hit it's target.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I'm not sure if its even possible but I was hoping to have a thread for 9/11 on JREF which doesn't involve conspiracy theories.

...

Was there any significant and visible damage to the North Tower caused by the collapse of the South Tower? I'm thinking along the lines of the damage done to The Marriot (prior to the North Tower collapse) or WTC7. Any pictures or video?

The Weidlinger Associates were hired analyze the tower collapses. From their report:

An investigation of the collapses of the World Trade Center towers was performed by a pre-eminent group of engineering firms led by Weidlinger Associates. The study, conducted on behalf of the attorneys for Silverstein Properties, Inc., is the most comprehensive study to date of why the Twin Towers stood for as long as they did and why they ultimately collapsed. The results of the study were released to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal agency charged with conducting an in-depth investigation of the causes of the collapses. The study established that the strength and redundancy of the superstructure of the towers initially allowed them to withstand the high-speed impact of the Boeing 767s and that the subsequent collapses were initiated separately by a combination of immediate damage from the impact of the airliners and the resulting fires on the floors that were struck.

Here's some pictures of the debris patterns from that study. Note that Tower 2's debris pattern stayed clear of Tower 1.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not really. The only defense would be to not let them get hijacked in the first place.

Unless you can guarantee the plane could be intercepted over uninhabited land, a shoot down would never make the table as a plan. Unlike in the movies, a plane does not disappear when shot down, it crashes to earth. Possibly with much worse consequences than if it was allowed to hit it's target.

I have mentioned this many times when responding to truthers who declare that the WTC had to be completely destroyed in order to garner a war in the M.E.
Four civilian domestic aircraft hijacked within the contiguous USA, and shot down over uninhabited territory would STILL count as a win for the terrorists and certainly result in a call to war.

Once the aircraft were in the control of the terrorists, they had already essentially satisfied their own major goal as well. That being to strike the USA homeland with a highly visible attack killing many citizens.

Four aircraft's passengers and crew would kill 300 or so outright.
Hamas has been satisfied with killing a dozen or so Israelis on buses, or in clubs/restaurants.
The PLO in the 60s hijacked several passenger planes and released their occupants but destroyed the planes for the publicity.

AQ simply combined the basics of these two operations.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm not sure if its even possible but I was hoping to have a thread for 9/11 on JREF which doesn't involve conspiracy theories.

The subject fascinates me and I try to read/watch/learn all I can, even if, at times, it can get a bit technical and out of my scope. (I'm in Water Treatment, so beyond basic physics and chemistry, there isn't much my background can bring to the subject). On the other hand I have difficulty giving much time to irrational conspiracy info.

Anyways, I thought I would start with questions:

Was there ever an estimate of the number off people killed during the collapse of the towers, not including those in them, but on the ground outside or in nearby structures?

Was there any significant and visible damage to the North Tower caused by the collapse of the South Tower? I'm thinking along the lines of the damage done to The Marriot (prior to the North Tower collapse) or WTC7. Any pictures or video?

What was the reasoning for housing various emergency stations at the World Trade Center itself? It was known to be a target for terrorists and any potential attack held the possibility of rendering these emergency stations ineffective.

Is it known if Bin Laden, or others involved, did any research into the structural makeup of the Tower? I realise its likely even they didn't expect total collapse, but I wondered what they learned of the Towers after their failed attempt to bring them down in 93.

That's all I have for now. Thanks

You need to work on your writing skills. Your post only becomes readable if I put my thumb up on the screen right below your name.

 

[jaydeehess]

The Weidlinger Associates were hired analyze the tower collapses. From their report:


Here's some pictures of the debris patterns from that study. Note that Tower 2's debris pattern stayed clear of Tower 1.

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/tower2_dmg.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/tower1_dmg.jpg[/qimg]

Well, look at that. It also illustrates why the eastern portion of 7WTC was less impacted than its western side.

I am sure that 1WTC had windows broken by smaller debris being bounced about in the collapse of #2, so did 7WTC.

 

[KDLarsen]

It's probably a silly question, but after rewatching the Naudet documentary the other day (the 10th anniversary edition), I started wondering at what point Jules Naudet's footage of the AA11 crash seeped into the rest of the media.

My memory gave me the impression that the footage eventually made it into the mainstream during the evening and/or night, but looking at the documentary, it didn't seem like either of the Naudet brothers had the presence of mind to suddenly ask "I wonder if anyone else caught the crash on tape?", and suddenly dart off to review the tape, splice it, and start negotiating with a news agency to sell it off to the various TV stations.

 

[Redwood]

The debris diagrams underestimate the area affected. Debris from WTC 2 broke windows in WTC 7, but did no major damage. Flaming debris from WTC 1 carried all the way over WTC 7 to parts north, igniting vehicles stuck on West Broadway. Additionally, there was minor damage to One Liberty Plaza.

 

[Robrob]

I have mentioned this many times when responding to truthers who declare that the WTC had to be completely destroyed in order to garner a war in the M.E.
Four civilian domestic aircraft hijacked within the contiguous USA, and shot down over uninhabited territory would STILL count as a win for the terrorists and certainly result in a call to war.

Once the aircraft were in the control of the terrorists, they had already essentially satisfied their own major goal as well. That being to strike the USA homeland with a highly visible attack killing many citizens.

Four aircraft's passengers and crew would kill 300 or so outright.
Hamas has been satisfied with killing a dozen or so Israelis on buses, or in clubs/restaurants.
The PLO in the 60s hijacked several passenger planes and released their occupants but destroyed the planes for the publicity.

AQ simply combined the basics of these two operations.

I too have made that argument many times and never received a response.

It's a perennial flaw of CT, elaborate conspiracies ten times more complex than necessary to achieve their alleged goals (e.g. fake a hijacked plane crash into the Pentagon by hijacking a real plane, etc...)

 

[Bell]

It's probably a silly question, but after rewatching the Naudet documentary the other day (the 10th anniversary edition), I started wondering at what point Jules Naudet's footage of the AA11 crash seeped into the rest of the media.

My memory gave me the impression that the footage eventually made it into the mainstream during the evening and/or night, but looking at the documentary, it didn't seem like either of the Naudet brothers had the presence of mind to suddenly ask "I wonder if anyone else caught the crash on tape?", and suddenly dart off to review the tape, splice it, and start negotiating with a news agency to sell it off to the various TV stations.

In the days following 9/11 there was talk about a French tv-crew that had been filming inside the WTC. The footage of AA11 was brought out at least a couple of days after the attacks.

 

[KDLarsen]

In the days following 9/11 there was talk about a French tv-crew that had been filming inside the WTC. The footage of AA11 was brought out at least a couple of days after the attacks.

Ah thanks, I'll tell my memory to go back and keep quiet

 

[Blaupunkt69]

Thanks for the responses.

I do recal that collapse map now that I look at it. It does seem that much collapsing towers tended to fall in the direction of their respective points of impact. If it can be related to chopping down a tree, where it falls towards the direction of the chop, I can see why this might occur - path of least resistance being the weakest point.

I think it was the Mayor's emergency bunker I was refering to and I do recall that being mentioned on that day. I guess the other station I was thinking of was the Port Authority being a tenant?

A gruesome question, but are there images out there of passengers still strapped to their seat? There were reports of this occuring at the Pentagon and I thought I read of isomeone seeing this at Ground Zero prior to the collapses.

Were there ever discussions by the engineers involved with the Towers on how they might be demolished at some point in their future? For instance, say unforseen issues arrose after completion, making them unsafe. Or they failed to attract tennants and someone intended to build something in their place. Unlikely, I know. Would they have employed explosives or would they have had to dismantle it floor by floor as was done with with the damaged Deutsche Bank?

Flight 77 seems to be the only flight where neither the pilots, the crew, or passengers were injured or killed in order for the hijackers to assume control of the plane. Was there any speculation during the investigation as to why this group didn't feel it necessary to use that level of force?

You need to work on your writing skills. Your post only becomes readable if I put my thumb up on the screen right below your name.

My SO. I often find myself unable to concentare in her presence for some inexplicable reason. I'm guessing my avatar would also make me unpopular with Atheism+, which I'm fine with.

 

[Robrob]

Were there ever discussions by the engineers involved with the Towers on how they might be demolished at some point in their future? For instance, say unforseen issues arrose after completion, making them unsafe. Or they failed to attract tennants and someone intended to build something in their place. Unlikely, I know. Would they have employed explosives or would they have had to dismantle it floor by floor as was done with with the damaged Deutsche Bank?

I have heard this speculation before. It is absolutely insane. No building has eve been built with the intention of making it easy to demolish "in the future" or "in case they can't attract tenants." I have actually read posts by bat **** insane CT claiming the WTC towers were built with pre-placed explosives "just in case."

Flight 77 seems to be the only flight where neither the pilots, the crew, or passengers were injured or killed in order for the hijackers to assume control of the plane. Was there any speculation during the investigation as to why this group didn't feel it necessary to use that level of force?

Because their threats and intimidation succeeded as planned?

 

[LSSBB]

I have heard this speculation before. It is absolutely insane. No building has eve been built with the intention of making it easy to demolish "in the future" or "in case they can't attract tenants." I have actually read posts by bat **** insane CT claiming the WTC towers were built with pre-placed explosives "just in case."


Because their threats and intimidation succeeded as planned?

Policy and counter-terrorism training at the time of the hijacking emphasised avoiding confrontation with hijackers. It was called the "Common Strategy" approach. So it is not surprising that on any particular flight there would be no killings.

 

[Blaupunkt69]

I have heard this speculation before. It is absolutely insane. No building has eve been built with the intention of making it easy to demolish "in the future" or "in case they can't attract tenants." I have actually read posts by bat **** insane CT claiming the WTC towers were built with pre-placed explosives "just in case."


Because their threats and intimidation succeeded as planned?

I didn't mean to suggest constructing buildings in a way that makes it easier to demolish. I was thinking along the lines of the engineers saying the buildings could withstand an impact from a low speed 707. That claim seemed to be more of an afterthought than a design requirement. I wondered if those same engineers had thought about what technique would be best for demolishing buildings of such grand size, in close proximity to other buildings, and sitting atop a subway system in a delicate "bathtub" foundation. If certain key elements were removed from the impacts of the planes (ie: kinetic energy, jet fuel, blasted fire proofing, etc), the towers could of remained standing, yet heavily damaged. The option to demolish would have been considered. That got me thinking about what would be the best technique to do that and had me wondering if it engineers had thought about it since they had concieved of the Towers withstanding a 707.

What I was getting at with the hijacking of flight 77 was that I would assume the leaders of the plot would not want to leave anything to chance. Letting the pilots live or not showing the passengers and crew how serious you are with a murder, in my mind, leaves the possibility of a revolt against you and the possibility of failure of your mission. They had all practiced ahead of time by slaughtering livestock in order to make it easier to kill. So I wondered if the lack of violence by this particular group on flight 77 suggested not all involved were ready to slaughter people face to face yet found killing themselves and all onboard easier to deal with. Or did investigaters find any evidence of the hijackers having secound doubts about what they were going to do?

 

[JSanderO]

How do we know that all the passengers were killed inside the planes by the hijackers? It seems that the hijackers were not to extract demands... but were in the model of the suicide bomber in Palestine... just on a bigger scale for the USA.

I imagine that in NYC when it is determined that a hi rise is no longer sustainable for any number of reasons.. ie renovations and upgrading don't cut it in a cost benefit analysis the building will be taken down... and done sort of the reverse of how it was erected... piece by piece from the top down. Obviously blowing it up would be less expensive... but completely impractical and explosives are no permitted in NYC and no controlled demolitions either.

A NYC highrise is really a steel frame with all the bits an pieces applied to it. The steel itself should not degrade if maintained (painted etc. to prevent corrosion) and can even be replaced one piece at a time. A new skin can be applied, new glazing, new HVAC systems, elevators and so forth. These sorts of improvements can be made over time and apparently are because it is the more economical option. From a plan/use POV there's not much functional difference from one tower to the next... cores with services and vertical transport surrounded by usable office space. And most of them have similar structures... with a few exceptions... the 3 collapsed towers and CitiCorp being obvious examples of innovative designs.

I suspect that the plotters believed that simply pulling off 4 hijackings would be mission accomplished. They might have planned to inflict more damage and make symbolic strikes on iconic buildings, but I doubt whether they expected them to collapse as they did and certainly had no idea that 7WTC would be collateral damage from a twin tower strike.