Bin Laden - Page 21

[BeckyBird]

Monkey's Mom, that is awful news, but thank you for sharing the link.

(I was going to make a humorous post, but in light of the recent news, I won't make jokes.)

This is puzzle piece #2, to add to piece #1 (Bush brother security company)

• The most important Government Action which led to the success of the

          9/11 destruction inside USA was the change in NORAD hijacking protocol

          before 9/11.    ****Changed 3 months before 9/11****

What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.

Uhhhhhh, all I'm going to say is do some research on Rumsfeld for yourself. Not going to say anything bad about him.

[BeckyBird]

Piece #3

Testimony of Norman Mineta, former Secretary of Transportation. Eyewitness to orders given by Dick Cheney on 9/11, NOT to shoot down the plane headed for the Pentagon. Why did Cheney give these orders?

This is his official testimony, taped on C-SPAN....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlM8Sui6-X0

Here is an interview with Mineta.  Please please please I beg all of you to watch this video! You can't just label us all "conspiracy theorists" when members of our own government are testifying in favor of these theories!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE

[BeckyBird]

Piece #4........

The Norman Mineta testimony, shown in the above post, was OMITTED from the final 9/11 Commission Report.

In ANY murder case, why on earth would you leave out witness evidence, even if you thought the witness were wrong? His word against Cheney''s I guess. Since Cheney was the Vice President, that automatically means he is of superior morals, and would not lie.

Even If they thought Mineta were wrong, that was no reason to omit his testimony.

Edited by BeckyBird - 5/13/11 at 11:39am

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom 

Steel melts at a certain temerature. 1800 degrees, if I recall correctly. The average fire is going to maintain somewhere in the low to mid hundreds of degrees. Of course there can be flashes or hot spots that could reach into the low thousands.

I did not recall correctly. Jet fuel can get up around 1800 degrees. Steel melts up around 2750 degrees.

Which just makes the whole thing all the more mystifying--a 2,000 degree difference between typical office fire and enormous steel damage resulting in collapse.

BeckyBird, thanks for the info. I'm interested to look at that further.

Mineta also said in another video that he was on the phone with the FAA tracking the Pentagon plane, was the conversation he overheard with Cheney (described in the testimony) happening at the sime time? I wasn't clear on that. And even if he was wrong about Cheney (or lying or whatever), was the FAA informing other folks? (Do we even know?)

[Amatullah0]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Monkey's Mom, that is awful news, but thank you for sharing the link.

(I was going to make a humorous post, but in light of the recent news, I won't make jokes.)

This is puzzle piece #2, to add to piece #1 (Bush brother security company)

• The most important Government Action which led to the success of the

          9/11 destruction inside USA was the change in NORAD hijacking protocol

          before 9/11.    ****Changed 3 months before 9/11****

What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.

Uhhhhhh, all I'm going to say is do some research on Rumsfeld for yourself. Not going to say anything bad about him.

what was the change?

[BeckyBird]

Monkey'sMom, that is a good question, and I don't know the answer. That is something I would like to know as well. Time to start digging!

As for the change in procedure, this is what I found:

"the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames. Mr. Rumsfeld claimed at a previous commission hearing that protection against attack inside the homeland was not his responsibility. It was, he said, "a law-enforcement issue." Why, in that case, did he take onto himself the responsibility of approving NORAD’s deployment of fighter planes?" New York Observer(06/21/04)

Again, I can't tell you what I think of Rumsfeld, so you should just research him and make your own opinion :) I find it difficult to believe Rumsfeld, especially since this recent interview. He claims he had never heard of Building 7. What? I don't believe that for a minute! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns-reMDq1iw

And, whether you love or hate Aspartame, you have Rumsfeld to thank. (Research the way it was approved for human consumption, and how they knew it was hazardous before approving it.)

[happysmileylady]

When talking about why things were done the way they were done that day and in the days following, I think we need to remember what had happened.

On the morning of 9/11/01, FOUR commercial jets were hijacked.  FOUR.  That alone had never happened before.  From a security standpoint, that alone is a big priority, figuring out how that many planes were hijacked at basically the same time.

Two of those planes were intentionally flown into two of the biggest buildings in the US, buildings over 100 stories tall.  Again, has never happened before.  Rescue plans didn't cover that sort of thing.  They were simply unable to rescue many people, before the towers came down, there were people that rescue workers already knew could not be saved.

One of those planes was intentionally flown into the pentagon.  One of the most important buildings to the defense department.

Al-Queda claimed responsibility for it.  Believe them or not, they claimed it.

Every single plane in the US was grounded.  Every single one.  Every single airport was refitted with new security measures.  Have you ever been at the airport when one or two flights gets cancelled?  Imagine that chaos times every single plane in the US.  Every flight headed to the US was prevented from landing in the US, so flights were rerouted to Canada, Mexico, some turned around and headed back where they came from.  People were stranded all over the worldSome planes were low on fuel.  I have heard that some pilots, low on fuel, also claimed they had been hijacked, just to be able to get on the ground fast, due to their fuel situation.  I can't substantiate that, that's just something I had heard.

Rumors were flying everywhere, despite or maybe because of this day and age of immediate news and live video and such.  Some people thought the Sears Tower had been hit.  People thought more planes had been hijacked.  People thought the White House had been hit. 

Power was out in many places in NY.  Thousands of people were missing.  Phone lines were overloaded and communications were difficult.  Many businesses in the area were damaged and or destroyed. 

And then, in November, another plane crashed in NYC.  The first thought is of course that it was terrorism, and Al-Queda claimed it too, but it was later discovered to be pilot error.  But I don't think it can be dismissed when talking about the whys and hows of the investigation, since clean up and investigation were still going on when it happened.

Now, with all that going on, with the massive recovery that has to take place from all that...I think it makes perfect sense for the collapse of a building known to be damaged as a result of the two larger buildings coming down, to be relegated to low priority.  There was so much else that was just more important.  There was SO SO SO much going on that day and in the months afterwards.  If mistakes weren't made and if parts weren't skipped over...THAT would be the weird thing. 

[monkey's mom]

I get all that. It was a chaotic and unprecedented event and time, for sure.

But for me, I can't get past the fact that the bare minimum of what we do in normal crime scene, building failure, hi-jacking events was not done. The bare minimum. Again, FOR ME (well, and hundreds of experts in these fields, some of whom participated in the gov't analysis), it is really quite shocking given how vital this information is to our national security. Our government said it was "outfoxed" and totally taken by surprise.....how could we not want to dot every i and cross every t to figure out how that happened and to prevent it from happening again? 

At a minimum it points to a level of incompetence and lack of leadership that is extraordinary. If workers at the site--in the burning wreckage and chaos--were able to number and catalog the pieces of steel in the order they recovered them, how could our government not had the wherewithal to set them aside and do the kind of forensic work that would tell them almost exactly what happened? Versus, arrange to have them shipped halfway across the globe for recycling. Have we done the introspection to see what went wrong with all these blunders? I don't know. Did people lose their jobs? Again, I don't know the answer to that.

Building 7, by the way, was not badly damaged by debris. The official reports claim as much and the videos show some damage, but not significant. Other Trade Center buildings were hugely damaged by debris--like, ripped in half damaged. And completely gutted by fires. But they still stood. Truly, it was highly, highly unusual for that building 7 to have fallen.

[monkey's mom]

This is an interesting article from Worcester Poly Tech ("widely recognized as the home of the world's premier program for research and education in the field of fire and fire protection engineering.")

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html 

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel 

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.  

and

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community. 

So it seems that some forensic testing was initially done and the findings were highly irregular. This was early on, it seems, in the post-analysis process. But even these guys were saying, "Maybe it's acid rain." But it was *something* out of the ordinary. Was this really just dropped from here? What I'm finding seems to point to that. That at this point the steel from all the sites was recycled and not examined. Does anyone know?

[monkey's mom]

Very interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html 

NY Times: A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TOWERS; Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall

By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 25, 2001

Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide. 

[snip]

In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. 

[snip]

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. ''I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling,'' Dr. Mowrer said. 

[snip]

National organizations charged with addressing building and fire safety issues have sent letters urging the federal government to invest as much as $15 million a year to study the vulnerability of buildings to terrorist attacks and possible changes to fire and safety standards.

''There is an urgent and critical need to determine the lessons to be learned from these events,'' reads a letter from the American Society of Civil Engineers, dated Nov. 15. 

####

This is a very good article and well worth the read, imho. Lots of questions and concerns raised.

[monkey's mom]

This NIST Metallurgical Study

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf 

indicates that they did have recovered pieces of steel from Bldgs. 1 and 2 (236 pieces or 25-50% of the total steel used, according to them), but no steel from Bldg. 7.

All very interesting.

[BeckyBird]

Thank you for the articles, Monkey'sMom! I will bookmark the links to read later. I also have some information on the steel from Building 7, and I'll try to make a post either late tonight or tomorrow morning.

Ok, now off to finish the movie I started watching last Friday.....maybe I can finish it this time without falling asleep lol!