Posted on 09/11/2001 4:27:20 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
I agree with you. I don't believe that they had figured out how to make the buildings implode. More likely they followed the law of "gross tonnage"--accellerate a big plane loaded with fuel towards the target. If they hit, they could count on Palestinian dancing in the street.
That there was some sophistication is evidenced by turning off the radars, etc, and (possisbly) flying low enough in DC to go off the radars.
The fact that four planes were used is mere audacity. No one could have expected that. By staying as low tech as possible and looking for huge symbols and destruction, they may feel that their terrorism was effective. It is because we have lived in freedom that much of this was possible. We will remain free, but today means the books are being rewritten. We need to recah to our religious roots in order to find the resolve and strength needed in these times.
"Palestinian" is a made up word anyway, it comes from the "Philistines."
I feel bad for them, I'd personally rather they make their state in Jordan.
They dance in the streets because of the lies they are taught, the hatred they are raised with. I'd rather help them than waste them. It's the leadership I want to crush. Anyone, ANY world leader who supports ANY terrorism--not just this specific group--should be extreminated, unless he delivers up the heads of all of the terrorists living in his country.
Hitting the building is the easy part, assuming you are lined up.
The line up. Hitting a building is like a bombing run. You need to make a turn to the final run-in course and not overshoot.
Speed. The second plane was clean (flaps and gear up), which means it was travelling over 200 knots (probably more like 300). Flying at that speed and hitting the target requires more skill.
The planes took off out of Boston, and were travelling to California. Depending on when they were taken over, they had to be flown for some time, descended from a high altitude, etc.
Interestingly, the planes were modern (757, 767). These new planes have sophisticated navigation systems, with multiple inertial systems updated by GPS. Very accurate. Most older planes like the 727 don't have this. With GPS, and good coordinates of the target, it makes it easy.
A skilled private pilot, using a good PC flight simulator, could prepare for this, to include learing how to operate the navigation system, but PC simulators don't provide the side vision needed to estimate when to make a turn to the run-in course. If an initial point was programmed into the naviation system, the terrorist could have used it to lead the turn to the run-in course.
In short, I doubt some slack-jawwed yokel from the streets of middle east did this. This is not driving a truck into a building.
*Very* astute.
I had come to the same conclusion myself.
People are assuming that the terrorists "knew exactly" how to bring down the buildings. They're forgetting these scenarios:
1. The terrorists naively and wrongly assumed that the plane impacts alone would topple the towers, but they didn't. But they got lucky and the flames finished the job, much to their surprise.
2. The terrorists figured the best they could do was to cause twin "towering inferno" out of control fires (which is why they made sure they used fully fueled planes, and hit high enough that water from the ground couldn't be sprayed on the fire), which would be more than enough to cause enormous death tolls and major financial/business disruption. They simply succeeded better than they dreamed when the fires caused the buildings to fail structurally.
Other factors which point to less than masterful planning was the relatively small amount of damage to the Pentagon (and into the *least* occupied wing of the building), and the botched fourth hijacking.
I don't see this as necessarily being the work of criminal masterminds. Balls and sheer luck could have been all that was needed.
Finally, it wouldn't surprise me if all the structural advice necessary to do even a planned demolition was contained in the pages of Time and Newsweek in the weeks after the original WTC bombings -- remember how all the news magazines fell all overthemselves interviewing building engineers and posting breathless stories about how, "it could have been worse, things could have been really catostrophic had the terrorists instead done something more like..."
Hey, turkey!! If I didn't live in an anti-RKBA state, I WOULD BE an 'average permit holder! So might you--so are you going to hijack a plane because your wife kicked you out of bed? Or because your "god" told you to kill Americans to get to heaven? You think you'd get a permit??
Another way to think of it is: how many crimes did permit-holders commit in the last, oh, say, century? Rarely do I call someone ignorant, but you get the first runner-up prize...
if there were explosives planted, why would they wait an hour to let the building occcupants flee.
a new report just came out that NYPD cops caught a truck full of explosives on the george Washington bridge over the hudson River.
When I was doing research for our terrorism response plan, one of the things I found out was that the bomb in the last World Trade Center bombing was actually strong enough to bring the building down, and the planners had it figured out fairly well. The problem was that the people who carried out the bombing put the vehicle in the wrong place.
The original plan was to take out the base of one corner of the "cube" that provided the infrastructure support. If the bomb had been parked in the right place, it would have collapsed one tower into the other.
I suspect that the reason the WTC has been targeted multiple times is because the terrorists believed the nature of the structure would allow a complete collapse under the right circumstances.
If there was indeed state support of this act (down to technical guidance, logistics, what have you), the US Government might be able to confiscate that nations financial assets that are deposited/invested through US institutions (that was done during the Tehran Embassy hostage crisis). Thus used for compensation. Question: would there have to be a Declaration of War, or other Act of Congress, in order to sieze assets in such a manner? (don't get into asset forfeiture in the War on Drugs, this is another matter)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.