NORAD on 9/11: What was the U.S. military doing that day?

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The WTC wasn't steel framed in the conventional sense. The truss to hold the floors failed because of lack of insulating material . Steel softens at a much lower temperature than it melts, otherwise there would never have been any blacksmiths

WRT the fire, there were economies of scale. The ratio of surface area to volume was such that in the centre there would be little cooling effect. There would be lots of metals that could have melted, aluminium would be about 600c. Also depending on what burned there would have been hot spots too so it's quite plausable that some steel melted. Maybe there was a thermite type reaction, unlikley but plausable.

And yes most of the steel did NOT melt so the average temp of the fire is moot. WRT to the indenfitication of the alleged molten metal - did anyone test it with a magnet to confirm it wasn't zinc / other die-cast metal ??

What are you talking about? the WTC wasn't steel framed?

This post does not make any sense, as it is just rambling assumptions with no evidence to back up your claims. What are you trying to say?

How about you try to counter my response to your ridiculous claim(without evidence) that the fighter jets struggled to catch the airliners because they didn't have enough fuel.

The F-15 fighters are scrambling to New York City. Later accounts concerning these fighters conflict significantly. According one account, pilot Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy later recalls that they are in a hurry at this time: “we’ve been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don’t know what we could have done to get there any quicker.”

I was in full-blower all the way.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 7/3/2002] Full-blower means the fighters are traveling at or near full speed. An F-15 can travel over 1,875 mph. [Air Force News, 8/30/1997] A considerable amount of fuel is required to maintain such high speeds for long, but a NORAD commander notes that, coincidentally, these fighters are stocked with extra fuel. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 7/3/2002] Duffy later says, “As we’re climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” He says his target destination is over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 10/11/2002] Similarly, another account states that, as the F-15s are taking off, “Duffy told his wingman they would fly supersonic.” According to Duffy, “When we took off I left it in full afterburner the whole time.” [Filson, 2004]

“An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in ten to twelve minutes, according to an Otis spokeswoman.”

How do you explain that?

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe that if you look at the video, you'll see that the part of the building above the crash site collapsed down onto the building beneath, which basically then just had the floors beneath give way. The resistance would be negligible in comparison, I went over the mathematics of it in a previous thread, I have no great desire to go over it again.

There is a huge problem with that theory, as there is no evidence to back it up. There would still be some resistence, even if it was only minimal the buildings would have taken longer than 10 seconds to collapse. The official report by FEMA even came to the following conclusion...

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

In May 2002 FEMA releases its report of the WTC collapses. It concludes,“[W]ith the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.” On Building 7: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

So even the official FEMA report was not able to determine what caused the collapse, of not just WTC7, but all 3 towers, and yet some people on here claim to know it all. Notice how they never at any time mention structural damage as the cause of the collapse, which leaves fire as the official explanation to not just WTC 7, but all 3 buildings.

It's convenient and according to recent investigation, as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica on matters of scientific fact. It's only on the political side that things get shaky. However, I did subsequently reference two other non-editable sites.

It seems the only claim you are trying to make is that fires get very hot. Do you believe that jet fuel(most of which burned off in the initial fireball) and office furniture was enough to melt steel?

Remember that no steel-framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11. However we are meant to believe that on that day, not 1 or 2, but 3 buildings collapsed due to fire?

You ever burn plastics or rubber? Both are items which burn fairly well, and produce black smoke. Both are also quite likely to be found in airplanes and office blocks.

I have never been a pyromaniac or arsonist so I haven't done any burning.

What way was the wind blowing that day, vs the side of impact? Fires travel in the direction of the wind, and things get kindof breezy when you get to 70 stories up. Blazing inferno is quite possible on the far side of the load-bearing core.

NTM

That's twice you have tried to use the claim the wind being very breezy that day was responsible for fanning the flames. There was no reports of any blazing infernos from witnesses inside the towers.

The following is a list of statements from firefighters in the towers that day.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and that's when that building collapsed.

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.

Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling.[there was no delay in the floors falling] It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

Are people going to try and claim these aren't reliable witnesses?

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes, I'm a sad git. I hang around air force bases and just watch aircraft take off and land, have lots of books on the subject, and so on.

NTM

That must be true as it probably helped trying to confuse some people with all those stats on fighter jets. However the fact remains the pilot repeatedly said they were on full-blower the whole way.

You never answered the questions I posed in response to your post either.

Manic Moran wrote:

To quote Scotty.. "I canna change the laws of physics"

Yet engineers have claimed that to believe the official pancake theory the laws of physics have to be ignored.

We also know that from rollout to arrival was an average speed of about 500mph, which including taxi, launch and transit sounds about right for a full military power transit.

So now you are trying to claim that fighter jets are in reality no faster than an airliner?

You are quoting the absensce of proof of cause to be proof of something, it seems. The towers seemed to me to go down about as quickly as one might expect a million-ton structure to go down: Fast. Without evidence to show that what seems to me to be patently obvious is in fact not the case, I don't see how you can expect me to think otherwise.

The only footage we have from inside the towers that day is from the Naudet brothers documentary, which in the following short clip shows severe damage in the lobby.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5925490088127820509&q=naudet&pl=true

The accounts from firefighters in and around the buildings also tell a very different story to what we were told by the government.

I've not paid much attention to WTC 7, but I don't see why fire -shouldn't- be a cause of collapse.

Probably becuase no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire. Here is a picture of those fires just over and hour before the building was demolished.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/359_wtc7_fires.jpg

Probably because anyone who was on the 70th floor for any length of time is now dead and cannot report.

NTM

There are plenty of reports from emergency workers who survived.

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

kippy wrote:

Honestly- I couldnt give too figs if the yanks were up to their eyes in crap as regards the truth in the matter. But I dont think they are-based on logic/fact and what I perceive to be the truth myself.

You wanted to know why nobody has spoken out about this, so I tried to show you just how difficult it is to tell the truth in the US.

Your whole argument about only a few people needing to know the full story is nonsense.Something this big does not get kept secret without people who were involved in it coming out and selling their story or partners of these people or families of these people-perhaps a jilted lover or a "friend" who knew what you were up to.

There are many credible people who have come out and called for an independent investigation, as the official conspiracy story is an impossiblity.
The following short video is a logical look at all the evidence from a doctor's point of view.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674&q=government&pl=true

The planes hit the twin towers, the towers fell, over 3000 innocent people died. A plan crashed into the pentagon, a plane crash landed in PA. I believe all of this cos it happened in front of both a live and a TV audience.

Nobody is disputing that two planes hit the towers, however we have never been shown any of the video evidence that was quickly confiscated of what hit the pentagon. There is no physical evidence an airliner hit the pentagon.

The following is a picture from the supposed crash site of flight 93.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/344_flight93_above.jpg

Do you really think an airliner crashed there?

Another major point I would like to put to you....if you believe the planes were remote controlled can you advise how this happened and who set them up for this-

Have you not heard of UAV's?

The technology has been around for decades.

how did the pilots not advise the towers that there were being remote controlled....

They could have, but we will never know as the air traffic controller's tape was conveniently destroyed.

Please also explain the fact that people who were on the flight that crashed in PA, called families before the crash and advised them of the terrorists on board the plane and the fight between the terrorists and certain passengers. Were these robots, its possible I'll bet.

Of course it's possible. Would you ever call your ma and give her your full name?

An as for the buildings coming down.....are you saying that the new management company were actually the people who planted the "explosives".

I don't know who planted the explosives, but when you read all the firefighters statements, the only logical explanation is that there was explosives planted in the buildings.

To the logical human being I dont see why a jet liner crashing at speed and full of fuel will not cause the catastrophic failure of the supersturcture. The collapse of a number of floors caused by this would put massive pressure on the levels below....causing the whole structure to fail.
Pretty logical really. Without going into massive detail.

Even the official theory discounts the airliner crashing into the building as the cause of collapse, so you are left with fires. If the buildings were so compromised by the impact of the planes, logically would they not have failed immediately?

I dont think that anything I or anyone else who believes what we were told, can change your opinions of what happened and I dont expect us too.

So can I assume that to this day you continue to swallow the official conspiracy story whole?

Have you thought that the people who put these theories out there and attempt to back them up with more and more quasi data may in fact be enemies of the US or other States, trying to destablise it?

Have you not thought that half of the sites out there are just blatant attempts at spreading disinformation? by doing so making it as difficult as possible for people to try and find out the truth of what happened that day?

I am just asking difficult questions and presenting factual information, what conclusions people draw from the evidence is completely up to them.

In case you haven't realised the 9/11 commssion admitted that NORAD lied to them. At 7:35 in the following video you will find Senator Mark Dayton asking some very uncomfortable questions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=painful&pl=true

kippy wrote:

I will come back with a full report and indeed anything I think me be of benefit to other readers......
Regards,
Kippy

Nothing to report?

Anybody else have an opinion?