Jazzz said:
I don't see how this makes sense, falling debris won't cut a spire.
Well since it did you're really up shit creek aren't you.
Ok, let's look at this from your point of view, first there were explosions at the base of the towers as the planes hit, from your precious magician's assitant.
Then, much later the collapse started through whatever means and we get to the photograph in question. The damage to the metal truses was done by explosives just before the debris from above hit it. Now these explosives were powerful enough to cut the beams in some cases, but not in others as the beams still standing are very ragged. In fact a massive section was not rigged for explosives at all yet the shape of the collapse is no different there (with the exception of the still standing, if ravaged steel beams) to those that had been rigged with explosives. Then MORE explosives were detonated at the base to cause the tower to fall over, after and in addition to the earlier explosives.
Read that, then tell me it makes even a token bit of sense.
Jazzz said:
It's your turn to answer a question - you claimed that the family steering group 'hadn't done their research' and asked questions to which the answers had already been officially revealed, and then listed loads of them as 'unanswered' when the 9/11 Commission bizarrely refused to answer a question to which the answer was already in the public domain, thus giving the impression they might be covering something up.
relatives who can't do research said:
1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.
On second thoughts i can't be arsed to find an offical response to that question, it's too stupid. NORAD did not get routine updates on passenger plane trafic, there is no system for them to use to tell if a plane is on course or not. The only way NORAD would be able to spot four planes with deactivated transponders out of 4500, that they wouldn't be watching too hard initally, would be an act of god. Highlighted by this excerpt:
Because the hijackers had turned off the plane’s transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return.
They knew roughly where the plane was, but still had to spend minutes looking for it. Remember too that the NORAD section in question will have been looking at the planes that they knew were in trouble, not looking for more planes. That wasn't their job and looking at their position on the information curve they would always be lagging behind the FAA who had primary responsability for that job.
rwcdr said:
2. Why weren’t the jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification?
Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial
aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a
phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).
If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC)
and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.
The protocols did not contemplate an intercept.They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet,“vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,” where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft’s flight path.105
In other words what they are asking is irrelevant. Intercepting the planes was never a question untill the first one hit the towers. AFTER that point (also the point in time when the first F15s were scrambled from OTIS).
So, 1) a silly question as reading the 9/11 report would make clear, 2) the planes were unable to make it to the towers in time even if they knew exactly where they were going. Remember too that NORAD was first alerted to 175 roughly when it was hitting the towers.
rwcdr said:
3. Why did NORAD wait until after the second plane hit the WTC to try and prevent possible further attacks?
The answer is self evident looking at the time scale: They only knew about the second plane when it hit the second tower. Up till that point they had assumed that it was a single event. Not an unreasonable assumption, i can't think of an event before that which had resulted in multiple simultaneous hijackings.
rwcdr said:
4. Why weren’t the fighter jets that tailed flights 11 and 175 as they crashed into New York’s WTC, rerouted to intercept flights 77 or 93, before they crashed into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?
Tailed? I have looked and found NOTHING to suggest that any planes were tailed. However while we're here the idea that the two Otis fighters would be sent is really stupid, there were other fighters scrambled to head to Washington from Langley (to intercept American 11, which had been mistaken for 77), those were airborne by 9:30 while the Otis fighters were kept over New York (where two planes had already hit remember).
The offical narative states:
The time was 9:34.151This was the first notice
to the military that American 77 was missing, and it had come by chance.
That's 2 minutes before impact. Thanks to cockups the planes were in the wrong location, but even if they'd been where they were wanted it would have been pretty impressive to get them on target in that time. Planes were scrambled to intercept Delta 1989.
All from the 9/11 report. Now, if we're in the game of swaping answers for questions here're mine:
1) Is the term "tailed" not incredibly misleading in this case?
2) Could you create a coherent timeline (not detailed, merely self consistent) of how explosives would have been used in your opinon to bring down the towers.
