This is an open forum and you don't get to unilaterally decide on the parameters.

They are highly likely to be overcome in both scenarios, that's the point. You have to believe that 5 men with knives could control the plane for half an hour against 76 passengers and 11 crew members. With no guns and no real means of control they couldn't have done it. According to the script of Flight 93 this is exactly what happened.


Really, so the plane couldn't have been intercepted and shot down or the crew and passengers couldn't have taken back control of the plane?



The other planes hadn't been hijacked at this stage, so the whole operation would have been put in jeopardy. The fact that they, according to you, locked themselves into the cockpit and only had knives would have been a vital alert to other planes. Then other facts like them being Middle Eastern, there being 5 of them, using mace etc. these are all pieces of information that would alert other crews. They would not have known if this information would be passed around or not. Why would any real hijacker put the whole operation at further risk by allowing information to be passed on. Besides all they really had to do was go to the phones and cut the cords or take out the handpieces.


You did say the plane wasn't being tracked but I will address that aspect later.

You have completely failed to address how the passengers in coach weren't aware of what was going on so I'll take it that you can't. Furthermore when the two flight attendants were supposedly stabbed the crew would have lost complete control of the passengers.

I've already said I would address the other aspects, including the length of time it took to get interceptors of the ground and why they supposedly couldn't track the planes.

Sorry, have you checked my location?

Youngdan, whatever familiarity you have with engineering and higher education is simply that of a failure. As indicated you showing an unparralelled ignorance of the subjects you profess to have a degree in.

Factor in your inability to even make a coherent argument, only highlights what a shoddy state of affairs higher education is in generally if what your claim is true...

interesting that you never answer any counterpoint? Must mean you conceed everyone. Yes over a 1'000'000 tonnes of debris had to be shifted. Finding the structural steel of the affected floors with few identifying marks (those not burnt) would be what? a needle in a hay stack?

Do you think that Ground Zero would still be covered in rubble?

No...NIST just tested every reasonable hypothesis until it replicated what happened that day...

No... again, what you're doing is speculation. there's a big difference between that and the scientific method.

dont worry 'Anewbegining', keep avoiding the counterpoints.

Stop being a whingebag. I posted a post, you failed to deal with it because it ripped you apart. You know come back, after lying that i was on your ignore list, to try and argue again about a subject which your reasoning is highlyt suspect.

Its not too much to ask that before you start again, that you deal with my unaswered post. Or is it?

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION?

But we'll take your avoidance of the question to mean that 5 men armed with Stanley knives are MORE likely to be overcome if they try and patrol the entirity of the aircraft.

You know this, I know this, the terrorists knew this. All they had to do was control the cockpit for half an hour with a confused and panicky crew and passengers...

Regarding UA 93, You see, this is where you logic breaksdown. One question.

WHAT DID THE PASSENGERS AND CREW ON UA 93, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WESTERN WORLD KNOW, THAT THE CREW AND PASSENGERS OF FLIGHT 11 DIDN'T?

Oh that's right. That hijacked planes were being crashed into buildings...

Well firstly NORAD had how long to scramble fighters? When did the first fighters take off? Its quite patently obvious that the Plane couldn't have been intercepted - because it wasn't.

The Crew and passengers could have taken back the plane. If they knew that a) they were going to die either way b) The Terrorists didn't have a bomb c) guns d) only armed with knives e) going against their Anti hijacking drills of passive resistance.

Hostages tell of 'brutal' hijack - News - The Independent

1996. 5 men hijack an airliner... with knives and broken bottles and fake bombs...

Five months after hijack, knives can still enter aircraft from Nepal

Knives

Hijack jet has landed in Medina - Telegraph

opps, knives again.

According to you, these coudn't have happened.

Flight 175 already knew that Flight 11 was Hijacked before it itself was Hijacked. It identified Flight 11 after al. So perhaps nobody considered multiple simultaneous hijackings? When was the first time it happened?

Oh thats right, 9/11.

Joined up thinking much? What is every flight going to do? Stabbed everybody of middle eastern extraction? One of the people who got stabbed was an Israeli for gods sake.

Again, we've already proved that the Hijackers are at more risk patroling the aircraft, than not. They also don't need to as they don't intend to be around longer than 30 minutes, too fast for any meaningful response.

Did I? Or have you resorted to lying?

What I said was...

Care to retract your previous statement? Prbably not, because that would credit you with more intellectual honesty you have yet to display.

Again, another lie... What I said in my previous and UNASWERED post was this...

In your opinion. What are the Passengers going to do?

Well why don't you then? Here it is.

Have fun...

The next aspect is when ATC knew there was a problem and why it took so long to scramble interceptors.

Shortly before 8:14 A.M.,

This was the first indication that something was wrong on Flight 11, approx 8:15, and it should have started the process of contacting the military.

This was the first call from the flight attendant Ong which was passed onto a supervisor, Gonzales, who contacted AA operations:

Next on the timeline another AA dispatcher got a message from another AA flight:

So ATC where still trying to make contact with Flight 11 by alerting other planes but still hadn’t alerted the military.

At 8:22 SOC acknowledged the emergency from Gonzales:

Finally at 8:25 ATC in Boston acknowledge the emergency, not because they received a call from SOC but because of clicks and a broadcast from the hijackers:

This is now a full ten minutes after they couldn’t make contact with the plane and it’s only now they decide to take action.

This is the first contact between SOC and Boston ATC, a full 7 minutes after SOC acknowledged the emergency and incredibly they contacted Boston to ask about the flight not to tell them there was an emergency???

Next we have this unbelievable report:

Eh eh weren’t they talking to Ong indirectly for the past 11 minutes and didn’t they already acknowledge the emergency back at 8:22.

Time is ticking here folks is now 14 minutes since you in SOC knew there was an emergency.

Ah at last someone actually thought of …eh…contacting the military, only 22 minutes after the first loss of contact with the flight, sure not to worry there’s all the time in the world.

Still no planes actually in the air and it’s now an incredible 25 minutes later!!!

Ok Conor the bold, from your beloved Nist Report.

“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location." (NIST, 2005; p. 179.)

There it is in black and white from who you claim to be the ultimate authority, NIST.

This in turn opens some very interesting questions and the primary one of these is that the central core metal pillers would not have been exposed for long to the jet fuel, perhaps a minute or two, since the fuel would have very little surface area on individual pillars and probably ran down the pillars. So it is highly likely the massive central pillers which effectively held the tower in place were untouched by the fire. The subsequent burning of office material cannot have touched the central pillars either so please don't argue that.

So we are left with the main body of the fire consistanting of the burning of office material. What would that be? Carpet? Very thin would burn up in a few minutes. Paper? Again burn up probably in a minute or two. Desks? Burn for a few minutes, then go out. There was basically very little fuel to keep a strong fire going for any length of time. The firemen who reached the floors of the fire reported saying the fire wasn't that bad and if they got two lines up they would put it out in a few minutes, as would be expected with a normal office fire.

The fire in the world trade centers were no more intense than those in the other steel buildings which went on fire around the world, indeed were less spread accross the building than those other fires, and burned for no more than 30 minutes.

Now to the question of the sagging floors dragging in the outer shell of the building. At the outer shell of the buidling were massively thick steel beams. There were something like 56 of these steel beams on each face of the building. That's a total of over 220, holding up the floors. In addition, given it was a run of the mill office fire, do you think all the trusses on the floors in question were sagging? I doubt if more than a few trusses were sagging. But lets be generous and say 20% of the trusses were sagging and this put pressure on 50 or so of the exterior steel columns. That still leaves over 170 steel columns to take the load as well as the central core, more than enough to hold up.

By the way, we are also forgetting that the floors attacked by the planes were ones which had undergone a new type of fire proofing which was put on twice the recommended level, so these were not flloors which were vulnerable to fires.

Do you think the builders of the towers designed them so they wouldn't withstand a run of the mill office fire?

One of the great myths about the twin tower fires and still peddled by some, is that the fires were intense. Long after the interest of many in the twin towers had died down, NIST released its report stating there were no intense fires and the fires at best were run of the mill office fires, in areas which had been very well fire proofed. And in no way could the inner core have been touched significantly if at all by the fires, while the rest of the fires burned out in most places after 20 minutes.

There were no intense fires in the twin towers, nor were there in WTC7, its a myth and a fiction, which has not been supported by facts.

By the way, in anticipation of you calling me a strawman again, when in reality the only strawman in this debate has been you, from your bible on the twin tower collapse, the NIST report, pgs 176-177, it is stated that NIST found out of 170 areas examined on 16 outer steel columns, only 3 columns showed evidence that the steel reached temperatures over 250 degrees celcius, and the same was found on only 2 core columns.

In other words only a small fraction of the hundreds of supporting steel outer and inner columns of the twin towers showed signs of temperatures over 250 degrees celcius.

By the way, do you think the previous head of NIST's fire science division is a strawman too?

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/pri...ef_of_nist.htm

I have a feeling everyone who challenges 9/11 orthodoxy will be called a strawman by you, even though that orthodoxy is farcical in nearly all aspects as are many of its main supporters such as you.

[quote=Lthse;1505149]The next aspect is when ATC knew there was a problem and why it took so long to scramble interceptors.What you have failed Lthse, is highlight any area in which the Military or ATC did not follow procedure. I have, and these were attempts to shorten the response time, which in the case of NORAD would have resulted in a longer response time...

Lets not try to cherry pick the evidence shall we?

Try again...

What question am I not anwering, is this your tactic to just keep suggesting I'm not answering questions?

No, they had to control four cockpits for an hour and twenty minutes. Yes it would be easier to control the cockpit than the passengers but that doesn't make it probable and once again it allows vital information to be passed to other planes.

You are making the assumption that they did know!!! And that that's what really happened and not that the plane was shot down.

That's a fair point but it still doesn't address the probability of it not happening and it still doesn't address the threat of being intercepted and shot down, there's no way they would've known this wouldn't happen. They didn't cut off communication and again this was the first 'hijacking'. Furthermore they didn't produce any guns or make threats about having a bomb.

That's right knives and fake bombs

How do you square this with what supposedly happened on flight 11, here we see passengers resisting the hijacking. First you have to assume that the passengers aren't going to resist while three people are being stabbed and looking for the keys to the cockpit, then you have to assume that the whole event took place in a matter of seconds, not giving enough time for a resistance to take place before they all get into the cockpit. Again only knives, no guns or fake bombs. Also how does this compare with your assertion that the coach passengers on Flight 11 hadn't a clue what was happening?


this is not a link to the hijacking.



Eh no, you forgot to mention bomb threats again...

and resistance from a passenger.

Again you have to assume that flight 175 was hijacked and secondly that they knew that flight 11 was hijacked. You also have to assume they knew how flight 11 was hijacked. Flight 175 was asked to look out for flight 11 there's no account of them being warned or given any information about the supposed hijacking.



How about making sure the cockpit doors are locked and that the keys are hidden? or how about being extra precautious of the event occuring and keeping staff near the cockpit? and yes looking out for people of ME extraction, so they lose the element of surprise?

are you now saying it was being tracked?

absolute crock of sh1te!!!

[/quote]

Sorry, thats not even worth refutation as its clear sophistry from start to finished.

God, you really don't know what a strawman argument is do you?

What where those samples used for? Since they couldn't identify the actual structural members for the affected floors, what do you expect???

That the columns some distance away heated up to 250 degrees C? Whats does that mean for the affected steel columns?

Thats very interesting. Do you know what John Quinterre actually thinks? Well he contradicts you because he thinks that NIST underestimated the fire load by up to a factor of 4

Personally John Quinterre is wel qualifed to have his own opinion.

Which he states here.

So basically you have posted as supporting evidence, somebody who contradicts you.


Well done you!

All you've written, basically is completely undermined by the very article you posted.

This querstion...

Saying they are both 'highly likely' is ****************************************. are you saying its equally likely?

No. you avoided answering the question...

And which planes got that vital information? One I seem to remember...

Errm assumption? Well we have several phone calls, which is more than you've got. Assumption? No. Drawn from evidence. Anyway, you're the one claiming that the Passengers would rise up and cease power... which they did in UA93 case.

Suddenly THATS impossible, but its impossible that Flight 11 pilots wouldn't have. Joined up thinking is not your forte is it?

What not happening?

How many Hijacked planes have been shot down? How many have been escorted within the first hakf an hour of being hicjacked?

Really? No way? I guess its just pain dumb luck that they managed it for 3 planes...

Sorry, they didn't make any threats? What do Hijackers normally claim to have? Incidently, I surprised to you claim that they didn't make threats about having a bomb... incidently one of the Flight Attendents thought they did. Whose to know that they didn't?

What better way to keep passengers quiet?

Yeah. Some Hijackers claimed to have bombs to pacify the passengers. Pretty easy to claim. Whose going to call their bluff? You?

So they managed to take over the plane? Where the Terrorists in 'coach'?

Knives where heavyily used in the Hijacking it refers to.

So lets get this right... Every successful hijacking claimed that they had bombs. They didn't but nonetheless. What are the passengers who think they are being hijacked going to think? You already have one attendant who thinks they might be a bomb, why is anybody not going to think that they have a bomb?

No... you whole argument hinges on two things.

A) That a panicky air stewardness did not mention a bomb.
B) That the passengers would not think that there was a bomb.

And because of A&B, the passengers would rise up and storm the plane.

Good one.

Good reasoning there Sherlock.

Jesus Christ, you do like to Cherry pick don't you? Nice to see you already forgotton about the passenger in Business class being stabbed. The man was ex Israeli Special Forces. There's your resistance, and there he's dead...

Flight 175 was hijacked...

UAL 175: Yeah. We figured we'd wait to go to your center. Ah, we heard a suspicious transmission on our departure out of Boston, ah, with someone, ah, it sounded like someone keyed the mikes and said ah everyone ah stay in your seats.

I think they knew...

Which is my point. Crapping hell, where is your joined up thinking? ATC is dealing with a Hijacked Aircraft, why are they suddenly going to tell every single Aircraft in its airspace and out to beware of hijackings??

So the ONLY time that near simutaneous Hijacking has claimed to have taken place was 9/11... And so below you expect ATC to now warn of such a threat...

Keys which the attendents have? Keeping staff near the cockpit? Didn't Antendents get stabbed in Flight 11?

Are you now saying you can not understand simple english?

You're an idiot...