[quote=NASD Newbie]

The other day Newbietta and I went to see “World Trade Center.”

Don't wait for it to come out on DVD because you'll lose the spectacular sound mixing that they did.

The scenes leading up to the attack are a joy to those who love New York, and the scenes following the attack are very realistic about what it was like afterwards.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=NASD Newbie]

The other day Newbietta and I went to see "World Trade Center."

Don't wait for it to come out on DVD because you'll lose the spectacular sound mixing that they did.

The scenes leading up to the attack are a joy to those who love New York, and the scenes following the attack are very realistic about what it was like afterwards.

[/quote]

So where were you when it happened?  I was in mid-Nassau county.
[/quote]

I was in midtown.

Back in 1993 I was in Five WTC and will never forget the sensation of having my chest vibrate, or the faces of those who were coming out of the smokey stairwells.

I have a very good friend who worked at least sixty floors up in the North Tower.  He had a visitor in his office--an older man who was about 6'8" and weighed well in excess of 300 pounds.  He and a friend from the office got under each of the old mans armpits and started down.

My skin is tingling--I can't help it.

When they got to 12 a firefighter COMING UP (bravery personified) screamed, "You've got to get out NOW!"  They indicated that they had to help the old man.

The firefighter screamed "I'll take him--you two RUN down the stairs."

With that the firefighter picked the old man up like a rag doll and tossed him over his shoulder.  My friend and his friend started running down the stairs.

My friend was knocked unconcious by falling concrete, his friend dragged him out of the way.  The firefigher and the old man disappered never to be seen again.

But you know what?  We need to understand why they hate us and try our best to appease them.  It's wrong to fight back--we should turn the other cheek.

Or maybe we should nuke them back to the stone age.

I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life

[quote=babybear]I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life [/quote]

Well we could just adopt their lifestyle--it was typical in 1217 or sometime around then.

It never fails to amaze me  how many weaklings there are in this country--whining every time the US kicks butt and takes names.

We're involved in World War Three--it's just that until the French surrender the whining set won't admit it.

[quote=Indyone]

Hey, speaking of conspiracies, have any of you seen this one?

http://www.flight93crash.com/

I found myself thinking, "well, so what if they did."  In light of everything else going down, it would make sense to shoot down a threat.  I don't necessarily believe this stuff, but it makes for interesting reading.  If any of you have a "debunking" site, I'd be obliged if you could post it...

[/quote]

The FLT 93 shoot down theories have all been debunked. For example the mysterious small jet plane seen flying over the crash site shortly after the crash, identified by conspiracy theorist as an F16, was a Falcon 20 corporate jet whose crew witnessed the crash and broke off an approach to a nearby airport to investigate. The jet engines and other parts reported to be found miles away were found within a few hundred feet of the impact crator. Body parts found in a lake eight miles away, untrue. Small aircraft parts, paper and plastic bits found in a lake directly down wind from the crash site, true. Most of this debris, theory has it, was blown skyward by the intial explosion and then carried down wind by the wind. ETC. ETC. ETC.

Wanting to find the truth myself, I did a lot of reading about the conspiracy theories. I'm satisfied that Flt 93 wasn't shot down. As a former pilot with a huge interest in accident prevention, I've studied many NTSB crash reports. To me, many of the characteristics surrounding the FLT 93 crash are consistant with loss of control.

As for the downing of the twin towers I'm not so sure. Logic tells me it would be impossible to have a conspiracy large enough to get this done. And for what motive? Yet, there are many unanwered questions about why the towers fell. For example, in 1991 a fire started in the office directly below my Paine Webber office in Philly. We were on the 23rd floor. The fire burned for about 15 hours taking out floors 15 to 30 of a 35 story buiding. No collapse. While the intial explosion in the WTC was white hot, I buy the theory that most of the jet fuel was exausted in the first 30 minutes. That left an ordinary office fire. Certainly hot enough to eventually bring the towers down. Yet, 3 Meridian lasted over 15 hours and didn't collapse. WTC collapsed in less than two hours. Also, the core of the WTC was made up of ordinary steel girder construction, just like most office buildings. This core was a large area, almost half of the one acre foot print of each building. Why, especially for the south tower, where this core was reported to mostly undamaged, did it collapse? And collapse so cleanly, steel girder core and all. So, it's problematic for me.

I know someone who witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon. So no problem with that one.

Where most of the conspiracy theorist lose me is when they say planes didn't fly into the WTC. We've got that much on film.

The difference between the WTC and an ordinary office fire is that the planes not only fueled the fires--their impact weakened the structures themselves.

We'll never know how many of the supporting beams were destroyed by the impacts--but it's crazy to conclude that none were.  So as the fires got started there the buildings were already primed to fall--add intense heat, even for only a short while, and a steel beam that is supporting tons of weight above it will start to yield.

Just like dominoes, once it got started it just kept going.

I lost good friends that day--one of them I didn't know was gone until I was wandering through Union Square, still in shock, and saw his picture hanging there with the hundreds of others.

Fifty six year old men are not supposed to cry--certainly not in public, but there are reasons to shove that rule aside.

[quote=tjc45]

As for the downing of the twin towers I'm not so sure. Logic tells me it would be impossible to have a conspiracy large enough to get this done. And for what motive? Yet, there are many unanwered questions about why the towers fell. [/quote]

I think when the specific unique structure of the WTC, the danage done by the impact and fires and the pancaking action, there really aren't any questions left.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

The difference between the WTC and an ordinary office fire is that the planes not only fueled the fires--their impact weakened the structures themselves.

We'll never know how many of the supporting beams were destroyed by the impacts--but it's crazy to conclude that none were.  So as the fires got started there the buildings were already primed to fall--add intense heat, even for only a short while, and a steel beam that is supporting tons of weight above it will start to yield.

Just like dominoes, once it got started it just kept going.

I lost good friends that day--one of them I didn't know was gone until I was wandering through Union Square, still in shock, and saw his picture hanging there with the hundreds of others.

Fifty six year old men are not supposed to cry--certainly not in public, but there are reasons to shove that rule aside.

[/quote]

That was a tough day. Even for 56 year old men. Most of cried.

I don't disagree, on the collapse. it's more like I'm insettled. Even structural engineers can't agree as to exactly how and why the towers fell so rapidly and so cleanly. The inner core, almost half an acre of vertically aligned space, did not contain the floor after floor 4 inch concrete floors that officially caused the pancaking.. Much of the core was hollow, containing vertical shafts for elevators and utilities. The suspect trusses that broke lose triggering the collapse were tabbed to these core girders. So, if the fires were hot enough to weaken the trusses to a point that the welds failed on the outer tube wall, how is it that the welds holding the trusses to the inner core were strong enough, even though heat damaged, to drag down a half acre of steel girder construction as strong as any in the world? Weak enough to break, strong enough to bring the tower down? Like I said, it's a nagging little thing. especially with the south tower, where reportedly, the plane all but missed the core. With the Tube type construction of the towers, once the link to the core was lost, the towers were doomed. That's officially what happened. Yet, for the buildings to have fallen the way they did, asks me to believe that those connections were lost all the way around each building at the same time. If a connection was lost on the most damaged side, why didn't that side just fall away, or fall away first? I, like everyone else, am left to accept the official version of events. Yet, 3 Meridian stood until about three years ago when the city finally had it demolished. Had the inner core of each WTC tower been a stand alone building, their foot prints would have been larger than 3 Meridian. Three Meridian stood for 12 years after the largest office building fire in U.S. history. The WTC, with a much more robust steel girder construction lasted one and a half hours. Still problematic for me.

I guess wherever there is tragedy, there will be conspiracy theorists.  JFK was been dead for over 40 years and yet there are still people arguing about who really killed him.

Thanks tjc for the post.  There's still a part of me that would have been almost pleased to hear that an F-16 had shot flight 93 down...that would certainly act as a potential deterrent for future nutjobs.  Of course, I'm saddened by the innocent loss of life and cheered by the evidence that suggests a lot of bravery on flight 93, whether or not the passengers actually reached the cockpit.  In the end, the result was the same as if they did.  Had I been on that plane, and been unable to get into the cockpit, I would have been rooting for an F-16 with malevolent intentions to show up and do what comes naturally.

I'll definitely catch WTC...occasionally, we need to be reminded why we've commenced two military actions in the middle east since 9/11 and I don't believe that Michael Moore is the one to do it...I refuse to pollute my mind with that man's trash.

Are you saying that you are one of those who think that somebody placed explosive charges in the various buildings and were simply waiting for a "golden opportunity" to trigger those charges and bring the buildings down?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

I think when the specific unique structure of the WTC, the danage done by the impact and fires and the pancaking action,

[/quote]

If the core of the South tower hadn't fallen so cleanly and so soon I'd be right there with you. And I am right there with you for the most part.The weak link in the collapse scenerio were the steel tabs that the floor trusses were connected to. As these trusses sagged they broke loose from the outer tube wall. They broke loose at the the tabs. So the failed tabs get fingered as the cause of the collapse. Yet, looking down at each buildng, the foot print of each building was made up of a very strong steel girder inner core surrounded by concrete floor space anchored by the tube wall. This inner core was very much a building in a building. The inner core, from a weight bearing POV, was mostly hollow. Yet those very same "weak link" steel tabs that were failing in such a way as to disconnect the outer tube wall held on to the inner core as the concrete floors started to pancake, dragging down a 47 column steel inner building in a clean, no girder left standing way. I can't explain that inconsistancy. I buy that the North tower's inner core was severely compromised by the plane. Not so for the South tower. It causes me to question how this happened. Understand, I'm not buying into any theories, I just don't get it.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

Are you saying that you are one of those who think that somebody placed explosive charges in the various buildings and were simply waiting for a "golden opportunity" to trigger those charges and bring the buildings down?

[/quote]

Absolutey not. I just don't understand how a steel tab on one end of a steel truss can be weak enough to break causing a catastrophic collapse while a similar tab at the other end of that very same truss can be strong enough to drag down the steel girder it's connected to. Let alone all the steel girders that girder is welded to. Yet, this is what happened? Apparently, as there is no other plausable answer. 

Something else to remember is that the buildings were built in New York.  You may not believe this but everybody is not honest and ever since it happened there have been whispers about short cuts taken--especially as the buldings got taller.

One of the really signficant ones is the talk that the steel was not coated with asbestos as it was supposed to be--that the inspectors began to show signs of being willing to take people's word for things.  By this I'm saying that the talk is that an inspector would show up and instead of actually doing whatever was necessary to see if the steel really was coated they'd simply ask somebody--or perhaps accept a bribe and not even ask or look.

You may recall that there was talk that the impact shook the asbestos off the steel.  Yep, that makes sense--steel coated with asbestos is not going to look like it was never coated as a result of being shaken, or burned. There would always be trace evidence.

Within hours nobody was talking about the bare steel.  Cover up?  I'm certain of it--but I don't count.

Anyway, if there were short cuts with the asbestos whose to say that there were not similar shortcuts with the tabs that held the floor to the inner core--or some other shortcut that would only matter if something that would never happen actually happened.  Like a plane flying into the buidlings.

We'll never know--but if somebody said they'd give me a huge sum of money if I could guess the real problem I'd guess fraud and bribery among the construction companies and unions.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=babybear]I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life [/quote]

Well we could just adopt their lifestyle--it was typical in 1217 or sometime around then.

It never fails to amaze me  how many weaklings there are in this country--whining every time the US kicks butt and takes names.

We're involved in World War Three--it's just that until the French surrender the whining set won't admit it.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

Something else to remember is that the buildings were built in New York.  You may not believe this but everybody is not honest and ever since it happened there have been whispers about short cuts taken--especially as the buldings got taller.

One of the really signficant ones is the talk that the steel was not coated with asbestos as it was supposed to be--that the inspectors began to show signs of being willing to take people's word for things.  By this I'm saying that the talk is that an inspector would show up and instead of actually doing whatever was necessary to see if the steel really was coated they'd simply ask somebody--or perhaps accept a bribe and not even ask or look.

You may recall that there was talk that the impact shook the asbestos off the steel.  Yep, that makes sense--steel coated with asbestos is not going to look like it was never coated as a result of being shaken, or burned. There would always be trace evidence.

Within hours nobody was talking about the bare steel.  Cover up?  I'm certain of it--but I don't count.

Anyway, if there were short cuts with the asbestos whose to say that there were not similar shortcuts with the tabs that held the floor to the inner core--or some other shortcut that would only matter if something that would never happen actually happened.  Like a plane flying into the buidlings.

We'll never know--but if somebody said they'd give me a huge sum of money if I could guess the real problem I'd guess fraud and bribery among the construction companies and unions.

[/quote]

A sad fact of life that more likely than not played a role.

[quote=tjc45] Yet, for the buildings to have fallen the way they did, asks me to believe that those connections were lost all the way around each building at the same time. If a connection was lost on the most damaged side, why didn't that side just fall away, or fall away first?

Because once one part of the floor was lost, all of it was lost (remember we're talking about a floor that had tons of weight on it from floors above it). Once that happened it collapsed on the floor below it, already weakened, to repeat the porcess. Seriously, I don't see the mystery here.

 Yet, 3 Meridian stood until about three years ago when the city finally had it demolished.

Not the same construction....

The WTC, with a much more robust steel girder construction lasted one and a half hours.

I think you're wrong on calling the WTC a "more robust" structure, since each floor simply hung on its outer edges on the vertical structure. Secondly, 3 Meridian didn't suffer the same damage.

.[/quote]

[quote=tjc45][quote=NASD Newbie]

Are you saying that you are one of those who think that somebody placed explosive charges in the various buildings and were simply waiting for a "golden opportunity" to trigger those charges and bring the buildings down?

[/quote]

Absolutey not. I just don't understand how a steel tab on one end of a steel truss can be weak enough to break causing a catastrophic collapse while a similar tab at the other end of that very same truss can be strong enough to drag down the steel girder it's connected to. Let alone all the steel girders that girder is welded to. Yet, this is what happened? Apparently, as there is no other plausable answer. 

[/quote]

I don't think that's what happened at all. The first floor to collapse simply sagged off of its girder as the floor distorted, pulled free and added its weight to the floor below it. That floor, not designed to bear that added weight, failed. The outer structure, never designed to be stable without the floor hanging between it, and weakened by fire and impact, collapsed (not dragged down by the floor), adding to the velocity of the pancaking floors and the cascade. The inner structure of concrete stairwells and elevators shafts, long ago weakened by burning fuel, collapsed under the weight of the cascading structure.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Again, I don’t see the mystery here.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=babybear]I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life [/quote]

Well we could just adopt their lifestyle--it was typical in 1217 or sometime around then.

It never fails to amaze me  how many weaklings there are in this country--whining every time the US kicks butt and takes names.

We're involved in World War Three--it's just that until the French surrender the whining set won't admit it.

[/quote]

On this count I agree wholeheartedly.

We've tried to make friends.  They've attacked us.  Too many people in this country-especially as you get farther away from New York and D.C.-just don't get it.  We are at war with these people, or at least they are at war with us.  It's been that way for over a decade.  They aren't going to stop attacking us until they win or we obliterate them.
[/quote]

Agreed, and it mystifies me how that element of our society that goes into a deep tizzy over any perceived civil rights infringement here are so uniformly reticent to speak out again our attackers given their agenda to kill every non-believer and their “special treatment” reserved for homosexuals and women who dare attempt to drive or escape the burka.  <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It’s as if their “Blame America First” instincts have come into the ring with their devotion to “rights” that they’ve long professed to have and the “Blame <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America” side came out a winner via  a K.O. in the first 2 seconds of the first round.

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

Absolutey not. I just don't understand how a steel tab on one end of a steel truss can be weak enough to break causing a catastrophic collapse while a similar tab at the other end of that very same truss can be strong enough to drag down the steel girder it's connected to. Let alone all the steel girders that girder is welded to. Yet, this is what happened? Apparently, as there is no other plausable answer. 

[/quote]

I don't think that's what happened at all. The first floor to collapse simply sagged off of its girder as the floor distorted, pulled free and added its weight to the floor below it. That floor, not designed to bear that added weight, failed. The outer structure, never designed to be stable without the floor hanging between it, and weakened by fire and impact, collapsed (not dragged down by the floor), adding to the velocity of the pancaking floors and the cascade. The inner structure of concrete stairwells and elevators shafts, long ago weakened by burning fuel, collapsed under the weight of the cascading structure.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Again, I don’t see the mystery here.

[/quote]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian. it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

There were no inner concrete walls. A fact that probably led to the deaths of hundreds of people who were trapped above the damaged floors. The stairwell walls were made out of gypsum wallboard, just like the stuff in your house. The planes and fires knocked out all the starwells in the North tower and all but one in the South tower. As a sad irony, those flimsy walls allowed several people to escape from an elevator stuck high up in the South tower. They were able to literally claw their way out of an elevator shaft.

Structurally, the inner core was mostly a hollow rectangle of free standing steel girder construction. It was a building in a building. Short of its job of adding integrity to the outside tube wall it wasn't carrying much weight. This inner core was surrounded by concrete floors, but was hollow, giving space for the elevator shafts, starwells, and utilities.  Where there were concrete floors inside the core, they weren't connected to the truss floor system holding up the tube walls.The question is, as the concrete truss floors pancaked in succession, why did it take the hollow core with it? I've asked that question from the moment I first saw this happen. There is a mystery to those who understand the construction of those magnificant buildings. That the inner core collapsed isn't so much a mystery as is the fact that it completely failed, steel girders snapping like match sticks at every floor.