New video of first WTC attack surfaces

[IowaSkinsFan]

Read it here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-121531-8607r.htm)

[AGibbsGirl]

They hijacked the planes, the gunned the engines, they rammed them into the Towers, what else do they really need to know?

[IowaSkinsFan]

If they can determine the speed at which the planes were at when they hit the buildings, it can help structural engineers to design buildings in the future that can withstand the same type of attacks.

Knowledge is power.

[AGibbsGirl]

PLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLease!!!!

[bfauble83]

Design a building that could withstand having a plane fly into it? I am VERRRRRRYYY skeptical about that.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

The Empire State Building withstood a direct hit from a B-17 (I believe) a few decades ago.

And let's not forget that it wasn't the planes hitting the buildings that did them in, but the fire afterwards. It melted the steel supports. If they just use some sort of heat-resistant alloy that could do the trick.

[roberro]

The aircraft that were used in the attack were loaded with enough fuel for a coast to coast flight. That is why the highjackers chose those flights; so that they would have maximum fuel on board. No building in the world could withstand the heat generated by that much jet fuel. As I recall, the Al Qaeda expressed amazement at the results of the attacks; They had no idea that the twin towers would come down completely.
This was clearly a cowardly act by a bunch of extremestists, and I believe we will evenually catch up with Osama Bin Ladin. But I do not believe his capture, or death, will end the hatred of the Muslem world against the United States. We can expect more atrocities against our country and it's people. And, Bush's swaggering arrogance, "Bring 'em on", is doing nothing but inviting more trouble. I served 22 years in the Marine Corps, And willingly went to Vietnam, (2 times more than the Chief Cowboy), and I believe going after the Taliban was right, but, going after Saddam was clearly wrong. And, look at us now; losing 1-2 troops a day, sometimes more, being asked to pay 87 billion dollars to rebuild the county which has the world's third largest oil reserve, and because of a war that no-one wanted except the members of PNAC, (Project For The New American Century) They have thier own web site Don't trust me, look it up for yourself. Check out the letter to Bill Clinton dated Jan 26, 1998 calling for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam. On May 29, 1998, when Clinton didn't take thier advice, they wrote to Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich to try to get them to put pressure on Clinton. They didn't buy it either. Ten of the 18 signatories to that letter to Clinton are now officials in the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Although not a signatory to that letter, Dick Cheney was a close supporter of PNAC. When the 9/11 attacks occured, they were in place to carry out thier long thought-out plans to invade Iraq. They had to invent excuses to convince the American people, (they never were able to convince the rest of the world except Tony), and consequently were proven wrong on all counts except that Saddam was not a nice man. Well, DUH; we all knew that. But, he didn't pose any threat to the United States. Why do we have to give up young men and women and Billions of dollars for a "war" that is none of our damn business.

[roberro]

Being new at this computer/internet thing, I am still trying to get the hang of things. That is why I put the above diatribe here instead of the political thread where it belongs and which I just discovered. I apologize and ask all you guys and gals to bear with me while I learn how to use this gadget right.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by JoeDaSchmoe
The Empire State Building withstood a direct hit from a B-17 (I believe) a few decades ago.

And let's not forget that it wasn't the planes hitting the buildings that did them in, but the fire afterwards. It melted the steel supports. If they just use some sort of heat-resistant alloy that could do the trick.


I thought it was MANY decades ago, but that TINY plane didn't cause a lot of damage, and didn't have NEARLY the fuel (as roberro illuded to). We ARE indeed building sky skrapers better, but that fact is in the 70's (when the towers were built) they didn't have the technology and know how as we do today. There is pretty much nothing that could prevent a commercial airliner full of fuel from destroying a building...and I don't know about you, but when I watch that tape, I'm amazed NOTHING went through the other side of the building. The front of that building took the entire blow.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by roberro
Being new at this computer/internet thing, I am still trying to get the hang of things. That is why I put the above diatribe here instead of the political thread where it belongs and which I just discovered. I apologize and ask all you guys and gals to bear with me while I learn how to use this gadget right.

It's all good roberro.

[IowaSkinsFan]

The reason the towers fell is due to the intense heat from the fires, via the jet fuel, melting the supports, as stated in earlier posts. However, the reason the fires continued to burn is that the fire suppression systems were severed by the planes as they impacted the structures. The buildings themselves withstood the impact.

Any information that can be gathered from the videos will help in designing future fire supression systems with 9/11 in mind.

[jsarno]

you're right robert.
But even getting new info, the bottom line is the bottom dollar. I'm sure if they had elaborate system that could work from all corners of the building with or without being severed, it would cost millions and millions and millions. Even if we do come up with the technology, they would have to warrant spending it. Because 2 buildings were attacked in history, do we spend that extra to protect it in the future? I don't know.

[CarMike]

I saw on public TV the other night that they are using heavier, thicker metal along with a lot more concrete, which stands up to heat a lot better. Supposedly it absorbs the heat better......

BTW, I believe also that they have already began rebuilding the WTC, which I'm not sure what they are going to call it...

[jsarno]

Originally posted by CarMike


BTW, I believe also that they have already began rebuilding the WTC, which I'm not sure what they are going to call it...

My buddy was just up there about 1-2 months ago, and he said clean up was still taking place.

Does anyone know what they are planning to do once the spot is completely cleaned up?

[rskinsfan10]

From what I've heard they have not begun to build anything there. There is still much debate as to what to do, with alot of people wanting it to become a memorial and nothing more.

[roberro]

Being the cynic that I am, I can't imagine the developers leaving that big a space in the middle of Manhatten empty. My understanding is that several commercial buildings are planned for the area, along with a memorial. The proposed 1776 foot tower/spire, as I understand it, is actually part of one of the commercial buildings. Regardless of what happens to the site, the funerals now seem to be over and it is time to move on. We will remember the events of that terrible day, and get on with the business at hand. God bless America!

[jsarno]

how tall were the old towers?

I'd love for that area to have the largest building in the world...or at least America.

[roberro]

Tower one, the north tower, was 1,368 feet tall. Tower two, the south tower was 1,362 feet tall.

[roberro]

I'd love for that area to have the largest building in the world...or at least America. [/B][/QUOTE]
Once again, I have to apologize if I am doing this wrong. I am trying to include a quote from a previous writer, and don't know if this is going to work. Here goes; the tallest structure in the world right now is the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Maylasia, at 1,483 feet. The proposed tower/spire at the site of WTC would be 1776 feet, or 293 feet higher than Petronas. If it happens, you get your wish.

[rskinsfan10]

roberro,

If you look down in the box of the post you are trying to quote, there is a "quote" button. Click that button. When the message box appears, simply start typing your response behind the "[/B][/QUOTE]". You should be good to go.

[roberro]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
roberro,

If you look down in the box of the post you are trying to quote, there is a "quote" button. Click that button. When the message box appears, simply start typing your response behind the "". You should be good to go. [/B][/QUOTE] OK, here goes, Thanks, rskinsfan10. Let's see if this works.

[roberro]

I don't think I quite have the hang of it yet, but bear with me; I was once a jet pilot, so I think I can eventually learn how to operate this contraption.

[rskinsfan10]

Actually you did it correctly roberro. It only came out looking the way it did because I used the quote code within my post which made your response look the way it did. Try responding to this one the same way you did that other and you should see the difference.

[roberro]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Actually you did it correctly roberro. It only came out looking the way it did because I used the quote code within my post which made your response look the way it did. Try responding to this one the same way you did that other and you should see the difference.
Did I do it right? If I did, Thank you, Mucho grasios, Domo arrigato rskinsfan10.