Thread: 9/11 question

Really need a reason for the towers to stand to come up with something on this. Lower burn temperature, they got the fire out, the explosive force prevented a sustained burn, without one of these, there's no decent answer.

If you go with the explosive force scenario, there would be very few deaths outside the impact zone. The former two would involve many people dying before being rescued, with the number escalating the longer it took to rescue them.

Originally Posted by Porras

Really need a reason for the towers to stand to come up with something on this. Lower burn temperature, they got the fire out, the explosive force prevented a sustained burn, without one of these, there's no decent answer.

If you go with the explosive force scenario, there would be very few deaths outside the impact zone. The former two would involve many people dying before being rescued, with the number escalating the longer it took to rescue them.

"Don't trust the truss."

Thw WTC was built with engineered trusses, not I beams. Now there's NOTHING wrong about doing this, it's standard practice, a lot cheaper and quicker and almost always just as safe as regular I beams, sometimes even better under normal conditions like high winds.

Which, you have to admit, is a lot more likely than having a giant 747 with full fuel hit the building at top speed. The force of this explosion blew all the insulation off the trusses and then their engineered integrity disintergrated as they melted.

Additionally, the building was, in another practice of New Architeture, held up substantially by it's WALLs, not it's center core. Considerning this is the way ALL buildings were made until about 100 years ago it didn't seem either radical or dangerous....it's since been corrected, most new modern buildings now have a strong concrete/steel core to carrry their staircases and the older ones are being reinforced (given time and money)

Sure, they could have been overbuilt to a factor of 12, then Osama would have probably gotten a nuke, nothing (well maybe besides the Blue Tick,) is well-nigh invulnerable.

According to the book, the main problem aside from the structural damage was that the fireproofing material wasn't up to code anymore. If it had been, the buildings would have gotten about 2-3 times as much time as they did get. I wonder if the extra time would have been enough to substantially change things.

According to a few survivors who saw the lowest floors of the impact zone, there were quite a few badly wounded up there who could have been saved given sufficient time. and the fires weren't bad down there. The one fireman who did make it up to the lower part of the impact zone in the south tower said two lines would be sufficient for that floor. Of course, the raging inferno a few floors above that would have been much more difficult.

But anyway, I'm mostly interested in how long the fire department needed to really fight the fire and do a rescue operation. By the time the south tower fell, they were only just getting started scouting the fire and helping people on the lower floors. Once the south tower fell, they concentrated on getting as many people out of the lower floors of the north tower as possible. But most of the firefighters never even knew the south tower fell. A few firefighters who survived said they found as many as 100 firefighters on floor 19 catching their breath so they could resume their assent. When warned that they needed to get out, they said they'd get started in a few minutes, but by that time they only had a few minutes so they never made it out.

Originally Posted by adaher

What if the towers hadn't fallen? I was reading a book about what went on in the Twin Towers on that day, and one thing I didn't know was that only one firefighter ever reached the impact zone, and there really wasn't any progress yet on fighting the fires or getting to the people above the impact zone. When the north tower fell, most of the firefighters were around the 20th floor catching their breath while a few hardier ones were up around 30 and 40 trying to help people get out.

So if the towers had stood, which according to the book everyone expected them to hold up, what would have been the plan for fighting the fires and getting the people out, and how long would it likely have taken?

What if Martians invaded the Earth?

THEY HAD TO FALL. That was the whole point of 9/11!

That was also the point of the 1993 bombing. Just because you have an objective doesn't mean you'll achieve it.

Originally Posted by adaher

That was also the point of the 1993 bombing. Just because you have an objective doesn't mean you'll achieve it.

It depends on who has "an objective", and what that objective is.

Originally Posted by adaher

What if the towers hadn't fallen? I was reading a book about what went on in the Twin Towers on that day, and one thing I didn't know was that only one firefighter ever reached the impact zone, and there really wasn't any progress yet on fighting the fires or getting to the people above the impact zone. When the north tower fell, most of the firefighters were around the 20th floor catching their breath while a few hardier ones were up around 30 and 40 trying to help people get out.

So if the towers had stood, which according to the book everyone expected them to hold up, what would have been the plan for fighting the fires and getting the people out, and how long would it likely have taken?

Given that the towers were conceived to withstand a direct collision with big airplanes, such a plan should be visible easily.

Originally Posted by Alma

It depends on who has "an objective", and what that objective is.

Damn Bush!!!

It should be noted that even if both airplanes had hit the Empire State Building most engineers are of the opinion it would still stand today.

Originally Posted by John Drake

It should be noted that even if both airplanes had hit the Empire State Building most engineers are of the opinion it would still stand today.

One could simply say that means they knew which buildings to hit and why.

Originally Posted by Alma

It depends on who has "an objective", and what that objective is.

Osama Bin Hidin (Piss be upon him) had an objective.
His objective was to kill Americans and damage the US economy.

Matt

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

Given that the towers were conceived to withstand a direct collision with big airplanes

Not to my knowledge, I doubt the direct impact of a loaded airliner was considered in their construction.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Osama Bin Hidin (Piss be upon him) had an objective.
His objective was to kill Americans and damage the US economy.

Matt

But that doesn't mean he organised 9/11.

Besides, no one can damage US economy better then US power elites...