I saw the news some two hours ago (six hours after the event).

My first thought was what the hell am I watching - some movie ?!

Then I saw the 2nd aircraft crash in to what was obviously the World Trade Centre. Absolutely shocked. Shades of a Tom Clancy techno-thriller.

Even more shocking was watching the building collapse ?! Can an aircraft bring down both of the world's largest buildings ?

Surely someone set off a bomb in the building at the same time.

Everyone here at my work is shocked. So many people dead under such horrifying circumstances.

I am sure America's vengeance will be swift, deadly, and no quarter given.

And really I wouldn't expect any less.

No bombs or reports of bombs Sean. Just the structural frailties inherant in steel and concrete vs. a massive airplane.

They had a structural engineer on this morning who described it better.

-Andrew

This was surprising to me, too. I had thought that airplanes were just light metal craft. Granted, they're filled with aviation fuel and they can go fast. But they were able to bring down a massive modern structure like that? Weren't kamikaze aircraft in World War II notoriously ineffective? And didn't a bomber plow into the Empire State Building in 1950 or so, to little effect?

Obviously, a lot of it had to do with the fires burning unchecked for over an hour. I presume it just ate into the building long enough that it just collapsed. But my first thought was the same as Sean's: surely this was the result of something beyond just an airplane.

-Tom

I think it was that same structural engineer (or another) who said the WTC was designed with an aircraft collission in mind. He said the building's were designed, and it was not a well-kept secret, to be able to withstand an impact from a 707 and burn for hours with no significant weakening of the infrastructure.

Whoever did this knew what they were doing.

I think I heard one report today that noted they hijacked planes bound for western destinations specifically because of the larger fuel loads they would carry. I'm sure this would account for the massive explosions seen and the ensuing inability for the buildings to remain standing.

--Dave

I went to the boeing webpage for numbers:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767-300/product.html

That one weighs nearly a half-million pounds, and cruises at 530 mph. Even assuming it didn't hit it at full speed, that's an awful lot of force, even before the exploding 20,000-odd gallons of jet fuel.

http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8265

article entitled, why did they fall down

I think the amazing thing is that the half-million pound plane, sheering into the side like that, didn't cause the tower to wobble or tilt at impact. The structures both sort of collapsed on themselves, downward, which indicates that the tremendous heat and fire must've just weakened the whole thing on the inside. Of course, the way they fell was better, imagine if they'd fallen on their sides from the impact. Dominoes with the NY skyline.

I've also heard that parts of ground zero are 3 feet of financial documents. Also, only 2100 wounded are accounted for... that leaves 8,000-20,000 possible dead.

I'm numb after today.

-Andrew

Here's some good reading on it:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/11/collapse_background/index.html

And more if you're interested in whether or not these terrorist pilots were skilled:
http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8270

Both Slate and Salon, are proving invaluable in terms of offering different perspectives to the typical news coverage we're seeing.

-Andrew

One more on why the towers collapsed as they did.

http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8265

I was always under the impression that kamakazes were very effective, *if* they actually hit their target.

A B-25 hit the Empire State building in 1945. One of the engines continued through the building to hit a penthouse on the other side, the other engine severed the elevator cables, causing the elevator to fall 1000'. The elevator attendant survived. (They were talking about this on the radio this morning.) I don't remember how many casualties there were, but it happened on a Saturday, which mitigated things.

I'm glad someone looked up the numbers on the 767. My books are limited to military aircraft. I ran the numbers, and a 500,000 lb aircraft travelling at 500 mph, would have something like 4 billion ft-lb of kinetic energy. A 3000 lb car travelling at 60 mph would have about 350,000 ft-lb of kinetic energy. Even with all of that energy, those buildings stayed standing until the fires weakened the structure.

Am I a sick person for having thought through that just now?

I've been watching this all day, and am very afraid of what the final death number will be. There's a pretty good chance that no one in the second building really knew what happened when the first building was hit, and so no evacuation was started before the second plane hit. If you do a little quick math: 50,000 people in the towers, so @25,000 each. The 2nd plane hit almost exactly 2/3 of the way up the building, cutting off any chance of escape for those above. 25,000/3=@8,300 right there. A guy that made it (barely) from the 90th floor of the 1st building said it took him 90 minutes to get out. The 2nd building went after what? About 40 minutes?

Also, so far as the building being made to take a hit from a 707-remember that the WTC was designed in the 40's and 50's. They had no idea that we would have 757 (not 767, I think) wide-body jets moving at 500mph then. The terrorists didn't have to be especially careful about the plane they took-a long-haul flight is almost always going to be a 757 these days. The rest is Einstein impact= mass times velocity squared, plus the mass of fuel involved. It's tragic, but I'm thankful those towers held out as long as they did. At least some people got out. Now the rescue workers are paying a horrible toll. I'm not a hateful man, but I have a pain now that I can't really describe, and a desire for retribution in a really big way.

I guess all this just highlights how well the World Trade Center was built. The hour or so that each building held up after the impact saved thousands of lives.

-Tom

Yeah, a few of the networks are acting all shocked that the WTC collapsed. As if we should have a rational expectation for buildings to stay up after planes hit them.

Yeah, the planes didn't need to make the entire building collapse; if even a single floor gave way, the weight of the rest of the building above would do the rest. Which is apparently what happened.

They keep quoting the designer as saying that he designed it to withstand the impact of a 707. Well, it did survive the impact! A lesser building would have folded like a house of cards on impact, and I would bet that the criminals expected the plane to knock the building over or immediately collapse it. However, the building took the hit, and as Tom noted, that saved thousands of lives.

They were both 767s that hit the towers. One 757 hit the Pentagon, the other crashed near Pittsburg.

I worked at American Airlines for a time. The size of those planes is mind-boggling. You don't get a good feel for it sitting inside them. They're massively huge. And the first one that hit has been tracked/estimated to have hit at 300MPH. That's a lot of speed.

The second tower collapsed fifty-five minutes after it was hit, but I've heard reports that people started leaving (don't know how large-scale, but SOME people were leaving) shortly after the first one was hit, but before the second tower itself was hit.

It's obvious that this was VERY well-planned. Consider that the first tower was hit much higher-up, and stood for about an hour and a half. The second, hit about half-way, didn't last an hour. These pilots knew what they were doing.

How does this happen? I know people that work in routing at AA. I don't know how two planes can veer so severely off-course without somebody doing something. That's one answer I haven't gotten yet.

Is this all real?

"I know people that work in routing at AA. I don't know how two planes can veer so severely off-course without somebody doing something."

Well, what the hell are you gonna do? Make some phone calls, try to radio the pilot, and then what?

Personally, the person I'd least want to be today is the F-16 pilot who pulled the trigger on the Pennsylvania jet. (speculation, unknown if it was a shoot-down or crash)

But nobody knew. I know that there's not much that could be done, but I'm shocked that nobody knew anything was amiss. I haven't talked to all of them yet, but...none of them knew anything was up.

My theory on the downed plane is that it was either one of the pilots or a brave passenger. After all, the hijackers were only armed with box knives. I can fathom myself standing up to someone with one of those -- especially if I had fifty other passengers backing me up.

Or, maybe it was a pilot, in the midst of the hijacking. I recall hearing that the pilot asked for a re-direct for DC shortly before the crash (hey, I just heard it again, just now), so the pilots were still alive, and probably flying, just minutes before. My bet is, that pilot saved lots of lives by downing the plane himself.

Just heard that one of the flight attendants on that flights contacted AA HQ with the seat number of one of the hijackers. Someone will have a name soon, if they don't already.

My theory, and this is only a theory, is that the terrorists crashed it because they were, well, late.

According to some reports the Pentagon plane circled the area some 3-4 times before crashing. It crashed AFTER the first WTC crash. And before the second one.

I'm speculating that maybe this was all on a time table and the fourth plane crashed because it was too late and too off target to become the fourth timed crash... due to circumstances we can't know until we get that black box.

Anyway, that's only speculation.

-Andrew

Christ, CNN has an even *worse* video of the second plane impact that they're running.

"How does this happen? I know people that work in routing at AA. I don't know how two planes can veer so severely off-course without somebody doing something. That's one answer I haven't gotten yet."

They apparently shut off the transponders, which send back data, I guess. They were still tracked by radar, but it takes the flight controllers a little longer to react to that.

As I posted in another thread, it looks now like the downed plane may have been downed by the passengers.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

They have a button in the cockpit that they push in the event of hijacking, too, and I know that at least one of the planes -- the one that went down, maybe? -- actually got the report, but...Well, what can you do?

---

Quote:

CNN has an even *worse* video of the second plane impact that they're running.

---

We stuck up a bunch of the video links on www.poenews.com - news dealing with men sticking their penises in things just doesn't seem that funny today.

I hate this feeling. Powerless, tired, sick of watching it but not seemingly able to do much else. Seeing the video of the people jumping just makes me sick.

By the way, some moron posting from an australian goverment agency was mocking and taunting the us in the omm message boards, classy.

Keep seeing putin pledging support, I bet he hopes we blow the hell out of afganastan.

Chet

Just an overall state of the nation evaulation:

From http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091201howard.column :

'Thousands of others had died. "I've seen several bodies go in," NBC's Robert Bazell reported from outside St. Vincent's Hospital, where some victims were being given last rites on the pavement.'

I don't remember where I originally read the description of the original event, but seeing the words 'last rites on the pavement' brought up the mental image of priests giving last rites to multiple people at a time back in '41. The Washington Post editoral page is calling for blood; they're actually angrier than today's National Review, if you can believe it. The LAT is publishing an ex-CIA director's editoral that "revenge is a dish best served cold." Every newscast I've seen hasn't bothered to edit out the people screaming "oh shit" when the planes strike the buildings.

There's two aircraft carriers anchored in NY harbor and a guided missile frigate patrolling Elliot Bay here in Seattle, which hasn't happened since WWII.

This isn't Pearl Harbor, but it's close. I hope we blame the right people. It's not going to be pretty.

Might be a good idea to drop the Air Command 3 banners for a while too.

"Might be a good idea to drop the Air Command 3 banners for a while too."

Feh. I think the blank, black front page says enough.

"This isn't Pearl Harbor, but it's close. I hope we blame the right people. It's not going to be pretty."

More people died yesterday than in the Pearl Harbor attack itself.

They anchored the carriers? That doesn't figure. carrriers can't actually DO anything while anchored.

Then again, they were reporting "5 battleships" off the coast yesterday, too.

"They anchored the carriers? That doesn't figure. carrriers can't actually DO anything while anchored."

"Then again, they were reporting "5 battleships" off the coast yesterday, too."


This is more for the feeling of safety they provide the public than military effect. Hard to feel safe in NY when terrorists are crashing jets into your tallest buildings.

I like what John McCain said in a recent speech...

"May God have mercy on their souls, because we won't."

- Raife

---

Quote:

My theory, and this is only a theory, is that the terrorists crashed it because they were, well, late.

---

I no longer believe in my "late" theory David, not with the reports of passengers rushing the terrorists. But to play advocate a second, I figured they crashed where they did because they wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being shot down.

Lame, I know.
Nevermind.
-Andrew

"I figured they crashed where they did because they wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being shot down."

According to the Boston Herald's (?) article on cell phone communications from the hijacked planes, United Flight 93 crashed because the passengers managed to wrest control of the plane from the hijackers.

I think if the hijackers still had control of the plane, they would have at least plowed into a house or something.

Fuckers.

-Tom

If any of the pilots or passengers, through thier cell phones got word of what was happening, and that is very likely since Flight 93 was still in flight an hour after the first attacks, I can see the passengers attempting to regain control of the plane. Unfortunately I believe that in the stuggle to regain control the plane went into an uncontrolled dive at low altitude and could not be recovered in time.

But that is just my theory.

Jeff

---

Quote:

Fuckers.

---

I don't understand how the third plane was able to crash into the Pentagon. Rumor has it the plane circled dangerously close to the White House. I don't get this. It had been almost an hour since the first plane hit the WTC building; about forty minutes previous the second plane had hit, erasing all possibility that what had happened was an accident.

Knowing that planes were being crashed into America's buildings, how could the air over DC not have been thick with Air Force protection? I could almost understand this if the Pentagon had been hit first. Almost. But it was third.

I guess I just assumed that in normal circumstances it would be impossible for an aircraft--commercial or non--to reach the White House. Given we were in a state of national emergency, how was that airspace left unprotected?

"The response of the Federal Government across-the-board has been...I believe, magnificent." Atty. Gen. Ashcroft

-Christien (Amanpour)

"Might be a good idea to drop the Air Command 3 banners for a while too."

When I heard the authorities referring to the aircraft maneuvers as the acts of "trained pilots," I had a really creepy feeling that someone in the media was going to suggest that they had learned to fly using Microsoft Flight Simulator or something. James Fallows did write a good article for Slate about the piloting, though.

http://slate.msn.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8270

"I guess I just assumed that in normal circumstances it would be impossible for an aircraft--commercial or non--to reach the White House. Given we were in a state of national emergency, how was that airspace left unprotected?"

First off, after the plane was hijacked it was rerouted to the airport right next to the pentagon (I forget the name). At some point after this the transponder was turned off. Therefore the air traffic controlers could not determine the exact location of the plane since it was flying at such a low altitude.

When it turned towards the pentagon, and the airport next to the pentagon it would be hard to make the call as to the intentions.

And one last thing.. Since the plane was already in downtown DC proper shooting down the aircraft does not eliminate your problem. You would still have falling debre and a very dangerous crash of the remainder of the the aircraft given the low altitude.

Jeff

That airport would be Reagan National. I head the plane actual re-routed to DCA (Dulles International) in Virgina.

One of the talking heads on CNN said that the plan was probably trying to hit the white house, but couldn't, because that type of plane isn't designed for that kind of manuevering. So, as a last-ditch target, they hit the Pentagon instead. They figured that the White House and Capitol had been targeted, and that the White House plane hit the Pentagon out of desperation. The Capitol plane crashed when the crew attacked the hijackers.

Of course, it's speculation, but it makes sense to me.

Bruce:

"When I heard the authorities referring to the aircraft maneuvers as the acts of "trained pilots," I had a really creepy feeling that someone in the media was going to suggest that they had learned to fly using Microsoft Flight Simulator or something."

Eurogamer:

"Meanwhile the first inevitable news reports linking the terrorist attacks to computer games have emerged, with Britain's Sky News suggesting earlier this afternoon that the terrorists could have used software such as Microsoft's Flight Simulator games to practice flying to other cities and crashing their planes into buildings. Needless to say this is pure speculation, and we are disappointed to see certain sensationalist elements of the mainstream media once again linking video games to a terrible tragedy."

So there's been speculation how the terrorists could have learned so much about operating an aircraft. No one's being sensationalist except Eurogamer for jumping up and whining about how misunderstood gamers are.

Goofballs.

-Tom

"So, as a last-ditch target, they hit the Pentagon instead"

This is only more proof that these pilots were extremely talented. Did you hear that the plane crashed into the Pentagon, a six story building (a mere six stories), without striking or bouncing off the ground? And that it struck almost perfectly?

Not to mention the two that managed to slow down, lose elevation, find the WTC, visually, then speed up to an estimated full speed and strike a small mid-air target. Each hit the side of the building at the center. They didn't clip, or bounce off, or anything. They were enveloped by the building like, as one journalist said: "They were flying into a hanger on that floor."

Imagine that sort of precision being a last ditch anything and you'll get a sense that MS Flight Sim had little to nothing to do with the skill of these pilots.

So far as Eurogamer goes, what? Are they staffed with a licensed Killologist now?

-Andrew

Bub's right. If there's anything I know from 10-ish years of flight simming, it's this: it's hard to put a real airplane's nose in one particular place.

In terms of precision, hitting the Pentagon was essentially the same as landing.

-Tom

CNN (I'm starting to feel like a talking head myself, eesh) said earlier that all four of the terrorist pilots were licensed commercial pilots. This wasn't amatuer hour.

Two things, tho: I'm thinking that they weren't used to the sheer size and sluggish handling of the jumbo-jets. That explains the failure to hit the white house. Also, I heard that the pentagon hit wasn't square. It hit just slightly short. Still a good feat: the pentagon is fairly well surrounded by apartment complexes that are taller than it is. Last, I don't think the second jet at the WTS hit square. It veered before it hit, to get a more square hit, and looked to me like it shaved into the corner a little. I'm betting that had something to do with the speed of collapse on the second tower.
Sorry guys. I seem to be reaching a lot, trying to fill in the holes. Maybe that's how I'M dealing with this, by trying to be analytical.

I dunno. They circled the Pentagon for ahwile, like they were waiting for something. I agree -- how the heck could no one spot them or try to do something? But, regardless, I think that they could have hit the White House. Who knows why they didn't. Maybe they knew that the President wasn't there, so they were weighing their options. Maybe the plane that crashed was headed for the White House, and the reports were wrong. I dunno.

But they knew what they were doing. Of that, I'm certain. They weren't just trained on a flight sim on the PC. No doubt about that.

Tom mentioned in another thread the sheer psychological success that the WTC represents. One plane... boom... all eyes on the buildings. 2nd plane... boom... on camera. Then they both fell and people like me, who've sort of had a love affair with the WTC when it was the "Tallest Buildings in the World" and when King Kong looked lovingly up at the moon between them and thought of home in a generally bad 1976 film that I loved when I was five.

Now there's a hole, like a missing finger or two in NYC, which I'm finding harder to cope with than the massive loss of life.

The Pentagon was horrible too, and the hit on the Military I'm sure feels good for them, but imagine what waking up today and finding no White House would be like psychologically. No White House. No Lincoln Bedroom. No artifacts. No Oval Office. History... gone. Why do I find that idea more painful than 800 Pentagon dead?

Not to mention the fact that we'd be short a Vice-President, National Security Advisor, and First Lady...

But the fact remains, despite heroism, despite it all, there's a hole in the most famous skyline in the world right now. One that can't be filled.

That said I look forward to the new World Trade Center Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Pataki sort of announced today. Giulani promised the WTC would rise again.

-Andrew

'But, regardless, I think that they could have hit the White House. Who knows why they didn't.'

They probably overshot it. I saw somewhere they flew over it, and then did a 270 degree hard turn before hitting the Pentagon.

It's pretty obvious, if you think about it, that they intended the plane that hit the Pentagon to strike the White House, and the one that went down in PA (it was heading directly towards DC) for the capital building. They're the two most effective terrorist targets.

I'm not convinced. I heard that they circled the Pentagon several times before hitting. If they wanted to hit the White House, why didn't they do that instead of circling and then crashing into the Pentagon? I agree that the White House and Capitol building are the two most obvious targets, and wouldn't be surprised if the plane that crashed was headed for one of them. I also wouldn't be surprised if we find out at some point that they had every intention of hijacking one more plane, and take it to the White House, or Capitol. The Pentagon is a good thing for them to hit, though. Especially if you consider the timing -- "We'll hit the WTC, then give them just enough time to be gathered around a meeting table in the Pentagon...Then, we'll hit the Pentagon." Makes sense to me. I've heard a lot of the same reports you guys have, but they haven't yet convinced me that the plane that hit the Pentagon wasn't meant to hit it. Maybe I'm wrong -- and I guess we'll probably find out in the weeks to come...

I heard -- and this may just be rumor, as I didn't heard the actual news report, but somebody claims to have heard one -- that they have reason to believe that as many as four more planes were intended to be hijacked. I believe it.

Also, I heard that the Empire State Building was evacuated because they found a bomb in it. Not likely to be placed by "terrorists," but more likely just some yo-yo who though this looked like a good opportunity...Anybody else hear that? I just heard it from a co-worker.

Frankly, the only time I had a sigh of relief was when I heard all the planes were accounted for and none of our historical landmarks, those that represent our freedom like Independence Hall, The White House, The Washington Monument, The Statue of Liberty...had survived. It would be infinitely more difficult to hit some of those buildings such as Independence Hall...but they would have been truly irreplaceable historically.

In a way though...those targets would have represented significantly lower loss of life which would have been more than welcome. Even one life lost is one too many. We need to honor those on the fourth plane as heroes. They saved something from being destroyed. For that they should be commended with this country's highest honor.

--Dave

"as many as four more planes were intended to be hijacked"

I heard this early that morning, then again later that night. But I heard it second hand both times and havne't seen it on the news, so I wonder.

"heard that the Empire State Building was evacuated because they found a bomb in it."

Yes, this happened. The commentator mentioned something so obvious that it's just chilling: you can call a bomb threat in from anywhere in the world. You would just call the 911 operator and report a threat in any well-known building.

re: Simulators. Here's a pretty good article from Newsweek about how simulators could have figured in to the flight training of the terrorists. Granted we're not talking about games on the pc (I don't know how you sim-lovers refer to flight sims, so if "games" is the wrong word I apologize) but about professional training sims, but it is an interesting bit of information.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/628036.asp

-Christien (Amanpour)

Michael Crichton did a novel, Airframe, I think it was called, where he described some of the hassles of flying a modern passenger jet. Apparently, if you don't know how to compensate for some of the automatic stabilization functions, the ride can get unpredictable.

Given the damnable accuracy of the WTC hits, though, I wonder if it was skill, or the fact that the PA and Pentagon planes weren't 767 models that contributed to their (relative) failure.

Dunno about that, Kazz. The cockpits of the '57s and '67s are virtually identical, and they fly almost exactly the same, considering the size differences. I would guess the rate of success of failure more due to the individual pilots' abilities than the planes they flew.

It's know that several of the hijackers were experienced pilots, though, but I don't know what degree of experience they had...

"I wonder if it was [pilot] skill, or the fact that the PA and Pentagon planes weren't 767 models that contributed to their (relative) failure"

I know you know this Murph, but I'm going to repeat it anyway:

In the case of PA, it's pretty clear failure was the result of the heroic passengers.

I was having a conversation with someone about how this was so much like one of those cheap Bruce Willis action flicks, and the person I was speaking with reminded me that in real life there were no heros to save the day.

Not true, not true at all. Those boys on the PA flight were incredibly heroic. I truly hope we, as a nation, commemorate them somehow.

"I know you know this Murph"

Meant to say kazz, actually.

"Not true, not true at all. Those boys on the PA flight were incredibly heroic. I truly hope we, as a nation, commemorate them somehow."

Yeah. Rather amazing turn of events that they figured out what was going on, too.

I heard today that someone's wife told him over th cell phone about the WTC.

One lady said that her husband said "They're gonna run this plane into the ground. We've gotta do something." And when she protested, he said "We can't let them run this into the ground."

I'm all confused, now...I thought the passengers took it down, but this guy (at least, based on the recollections of his wife) seemed to think the terrorists were going to crash it into the ground, and he was trying to stop it...

"I'm all confused, now...I thought the passengers took it down, but this guy (at least, based on the recollections of his wife) seemed to think the terrorists were going to crash it into the ground, and he was trying to stop it... "

My guess is he meant to say they were going to crash it into a target, but didn't know what the target would be, so he just said something generic, like ground.

Or they attacked the terrorists, were winning (box-cutters vs. angry mob, that seems likely) and the terrorist pilot opted for the ground option.

I'm sure the passengers were trying to take over the plane and then, hopefully, land it.

-Andrew

It was announced that they recovered the cockpit voice recorder and that it seemed to be intact, so we may find out for sure on this one.

Negative, Jason. The only voice recorder recovered was from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Each plane has two boxes: one records conversations and sounds in the cockpit, the other records data from the instruments. So far two of the data collection boxes have been recovered (one from PA, the other from DC) but only one of the voice recording boxes (DC).