[Medium FormatPro]

I still to this day don't get how a bunch of men with box cutters could subdue whole planes of people

The 9/11 commission has even published a complete list of everyone that was onboard the planes. Take a glance at the Pentagon plane manifest; showing two (then) active special forces troops; one USMC recon, the other AF pararescue.

And btw at the time it was perfectly legalto actually carry boxcutters onboard any plane in america. Yet now americans are forced to carry the burden.

Does anyone out there know how much it cost for the (undeclared) was in Iraq and Afganistan? We'll also still be paying for it for many years to come.Let me reiterate that there are still many tens of thousand of civilian combat troops in Iraq - today. Quiite apercentage of that equipment that was used in Iraq is about falling apart at the seams. All while the united states' real enemies sat back on the sidelines and laughed their @ss3s off. To then, they were thinking - if america isn't capable of winning a war in Iraq; what makes them think they can hold off against us?

Yes, americans left with the tab. A majority of american soldiers will never be cared for properly at their veterans administration - as was promised when they enlisted or became officers. The level of care is so sub-standard that even people in prison in america receive significantly better care - no joke.

american left to wait in lines for security check-points - and have both elderly people and children hand patted down like children. After all it wasn't the fault of american citizens that allowed it to happen - or that may have allowed people through checkpoints with box-cutters. -And then somehow subdue many dozens of passengers. And to this day americans lose even fundamental rights - the american flag means nothing, the constitution/bill of rights also worthless. All overridden with items such as the Patriot Act - something that turns america into a militarized police state.


In regards to WikiLeaks; someone just does not get it. Someone that was already enlisted in the military here in america eventually elected to steal quite the number of documents that were somehow believed to be secured; and then hand them over to WikiLeaks, It has been both verified and proven that these are in fact genuine government documents.They come from the source - the government; and admit all kinds of things that our government has been doing - in the background, without any vote for many decades.

Also noting that a majority of the WikiLeaks documents have infact not been released yet. You'll never guess what kinds of interesting things this includes? Items such as 9/11 and the Bush connection!! Did I also mention that america financed Osama Bin Laden for how long?? It gets interesting when people thought to be our friends actually turn on america in a way like that.

I can understand fighters not being in range of NYC I guess. But the Pentagon? It's what 10 minutes probably from Andrews AFB by plane? Heck, even a helicopter with weapons some kind could have brought that plane down before it landed in the Pentagon. Forget the fighters. You can't tell me that they didn't have any number of planes or helicopters sitting at Andrews that might not have been able to do the job

But yes there were many planes that were in fact within range; ad clearly able to take down any commerical airliner. Sure it would have cost loss of life, but not at the levels that were seen during the second impact in nyc. Did anyone see the nearly fully fueld jet fighter crash in Virginia recently. The jet fighter had vented off some of it's fuel, but... At time of impact it was carrying a considerably amount of fuel, and guess what - impact in suburban area with no loss of life. And for commerical airliners in fact; please take a look at the periodic table and also elementary chemistry. A commercial plane that would have been shot down via air to air missle would in fact mostly burned up in the air. But there would have been debris as well.

I'm glad that someone else actually brought up helicopters and also their ability to shoot down aircraft. And these helicopters do exist in such as state as jet fighters as well; some are kept on constant/continual alert status. They are required by military regulation to be able to get up into the air well within five minutes. And guess what?? There were sme two dozen (oops sorry, actually only 23) military helicopters in a position to shoot down those planes.

That's also not including all of the ground based (ie - ground to air) weapons also in the area. Darn there's four sites in Pennsylvania alone; and five more generally around the nyc area.

And btw about the area such as Andrews and Langley AFB's... One cannot ever fly over them without seeing numerous types of fully armed aircraft - either today - or well before - or even during 9/11. It's always been that way. Again, I used to be stationed at Langley where by military regulation they are required to have a certain number of fully armed aircraft continually on duty, on ground, ready to go - in adition to ones that are kept flying - also all the time.

yet with a death toll like that..... it is pretty obvious who's losing

Again those numbers are innocent civilians. Those numbers also come from our united states government. So when america suffers losses of about some three thousand americans on 9/11; we must then declare an act of war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and then permenantly occupy that country.

americans killed well over 100k innocent civilians in Iraq and Afganistan. Great job! With all of our advanced and smart weapons one would also think that those weapons are somewhat accurate.

america has made more enemies since 9/11 (by items such as invading the wrong country) than it has ever had. america might be well overdue for payback - and it would be fully justfiable.

[MRRiley]

Not sure who the they is; would that be our united states government? Because if so; the united states has a proven track recond of near continual lies that have escalitated since WWII. Probably the government versions of lies peaked during the 60's; about the time of The Bay of Pigs, the entire Cuba incident, etc... But it still continues today. Our own government still claiming that we are done in Iraq; but please done't tell that to the many tens of thousands of civilian combat troops there. How about all of our secret prisons and also extraordinary rendition.

Is the united states government version of 9/11 a lie??

It's certainly not the truth. Even the 9/11 commission reports cannot even get it right. But then again, all of the american blood that was lost in Iraq - as a direct result from the claims that they were somehow mysteriously involved with 9/11 - all of that american blood lost for nothing

I think you have OD'd on the kool-aid...

[MRRiley]

If it was heading towards a major city like NYC, or DC? Yes. They could have flown those planes around Manhattan towards Newark or JFK (or Andrews AFB) and avoided their targets completely. Landed and made their demands. Should have. Any plane that's under the control of terrorists flying over a city with millions of people in it should probably be shot down. That's a horrible thought for the people on it and their loved ones, but how many people would not have died that day had they done just that? Shot the planes down in a less populated are before they ever got within range of their targets. I can understand fighters not being in range of NYC I guess. But the Pentagon? It's what 10 minutes probably from Andrews AFB by plane? Heck, even a helicopter with weapons some kind could have brought that plane down before it landed in the Pentagon. Forget the fighters. You can't tell me that they didn't have any number of planes or helicopters sitting at Andrews that might not have been able to do the job.

I still to this day don't get how a bunch of men with box cutters could subdue whole planes of people. Even if a gun was aimed in my face I'd still flight. There were still more of them than there were terrorists. If we all come at them they can only kill so many. As we saw with the brave people on the one plane they could and did get taken down. I could not just sit there and let a plane be flown into a large building like that, knowing that not only did it mean my death but that of potentially thousands of more people. Yeah, I'd have probably gotten myself killed trying but I'd have done something, raised a rallying cry, taken at least one of the f-rs out, something. Why not if you're probably dead anyway? At the very least maybe you could save a few other lives by doing it.

I'm not saying I don't feel bad for the people that died, nor do I blame them for being in that situation, I'm just saying I really don't get why they didn't put up more of a fight. They only reason I can think of is that they just didn't know till the last few seconds what was actually happening. That the hijackers kept the fact that they were planning a suicide mission from them. Clearly the hijackers on the one plane let that slip somehow. They must have...

Fighting back against the terrorists may make sense today, now that using the aircraft as a missile is conceivable. Before 9/11 the SOP for aircraft hijackers was "seize the plane, hold the passengers hostage, land somewhere and demand money." All of the passengers of the first 3 aircraft likely assumed that was the situation they were in. Far safer in that case to obey the hijacker's demands and wait for release or rescue. The passengers of the 4th aircraft, found out what was going on via cell phones and then did act just as you said you would (though bravado is easy from in front of your computer) and tried to retake the aircraft. They failed and lost the aircraft and their lives... but likely saved everyone in the Capital building (the target i suspect they were after rather than the much ballyhooed White House) so in a larger view, they succeeded.

Mike

[MRRiley]

In regards to WikiLeaks; someone just does not get it. Someone that was already enlisted in the military here in america eventually elected to steal quite the number of documents that were somehow believed to be secured; and then hand them over to WikiLeaks, It has been both verified and proven that these are in fact genuine government documents.They come from the source - the government; and admit all kinds of things that our government has been doing - in the background, without any vote for many decades.

Also noting that a majority of the WikiLeaks documents have infact not been released yet. You'll never guess what kinds of interesting things this includes? Items such as 9/11 and the Bush connection!! Did I also mention that america financed Osama Bin Laden for how long?? It gets interesting when people thought to be our friends actually turn on america in a way like that.

Of course they are real government documents. The government had to admit that in order to prosecute the little sh*t...

And if there had been any documents linking our government with planning, turning a blind eye to, or actually being behind 9/11 that would have been the fist thing Assange released.

And yes, we funded Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan... So it came back to bite us on the rear. No big surprise there. It happens to us all the time because we are willing to get in bed with one snake to get rid of another snake we hate more.

Mike

[D0n]

Again those numbers are innocent civilians. Those numbers also come from our united states government. So when america suffers losses of about some three thousand americans on 9/11; we must then declare an act of war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and then permenantly occupy that country.

americans killed well over 100k innocent civilians in Iraq and Afganistan. Great job! With all of our advanced and smart weapons one would also think that those weapons are somewhat accurate.

america has made more enemies since 9/11 (by items such as invading the wrong country) than it has ever had. america might be well overdue for payback - and it would be fully justfiable.

We have differing views on innocence.

sometimes the leadership reflects the will of the people....

go into any middle eastern country and start a "Wipe Israel off the map" rally.... see how much support you get... GENOCIDAL
go into any middle eastern country and start a "USA is the great satan" and see how many people stand up and say "all americans aren't evil, just a few criminals are responsible"... they lump us in together as INFIDELS.
Try preaching preaching peace in the region and see what happens to you: peace negotiator shot
Our militaries aren't there permanently...

the truth is if you want to be popular in the middle east, the easy way is to preach hatred, and there are a lot of popular mullas and clerics handing out weapons in mosques.

Now go there and draw Mohamed...

this much hatred is not my version of "Innocent civilians" when you see masses out chanting for blood, or as in the days immediately AFTER 911, out in the streets celebrating when they get blood....

It isn't about who's innocent, never was.. it's about who's interpretation of right and wrong can the world live with, and who get's the support of the general population.
So by your numbers, we did not make MORE enemies, we made a great deal of progress in reducing in numbers of our enemies. We killed the terrorists AND many of their supporters... try to remember... Bin Laden got all his money from building mosques in Saudi Arabia, and weapons from rogue states like iraq and libya, and operational bases in Afghanistan.. He was a popular guy back in the middle east.

and bin laden did not consider the people he killed on 911 "innocent civilians" but we do.... again differing opinions about who is innocent.

it is too bad so many people subscribe to Bin Ladens theology and politics... we pay for the oil... I wish the powers that be in the Middle east had bought food and infrastructure for their people instead of guns... but that wasn't my call. was it?

[Medium FormatPro]

Fighting back against the terrorists may make sense today, now that using the aircraft as a missile is conceivable. Before 9/11 the SOP for aircraft hijackers was "seize the plane, hold the passengers hostage, land somewhere and demand money." All of the passengers of the first 3 aircraft likely assumed that was the situation they were in

Not correct.

Let me say this one again... It is a quote from the Air Traffic Controller that overheard the group that overtook the first plane. The interview also appeared on the BBC, all throughout the European media; and had limited coverage here in america. It is also covered in Loose Change; a video interview.

In that interview that ATC (whom also has submitted sworn, notarized, and even passed lie detector results to the same); clearly states that less than two minutes after last hearing from the pilot; the atc heard we have your planes... This alarming info immediately forwarded all throughout the ATc network, and also immediately to Washington. The information was received in Washington well over ten minutes before the first impact; and far more time than needed to get any of the existing planes.

So how would they know which existing planes?

Could it be that all of the three had their transponders turned off, yet still remained as radar targets. All those targets having shown as losing their original flight paths;and staying far off that path for a minimum of one half hour. Also flying highly eratically, and close to their full speed capability. Get the idea??

Because all of the ATC on that day did. They tracked them via their limited radar; and some of them even watched as the planes literally hit their targets..


The version that the corporate owned american media and the united states government has sold the people is largely a lie. To the media and government; the story works as long as you don't look behind the curtain. But then again this is the same government that still wants america to believe that we rightfully invaded an innocent country.

The passengers of the 4th aircraft, found out what was going on via cell phones and then did act

Back before 2002 it was technically impossible to make a mobile call from an aircraft; minus the onboard phones that would normally be on a plane, but... Guess what - there were none ever installed onto that plane. Nor would the coverage maps for any mobile carrier cover a majority of the planes path.

And could someone please explain where the plane went? There was just a hole left in that part of rural Pennsylvania. Not much in the way of debris, only one black box recovered.

How's that one possible. I mean darn I've seen what was left of the Space Shuttle disasters (both of them, but for this i'm just refering to the one that occured during landing cycle over Texas). The Texas space shuttle incident left more debris even though it was going literally at ten times speed and almost twenty times altitude. Get the idea? Higher speed, more altitude, and far more debris. The plane in rural Pennsylvania; next to nothing in debris.

[D0n]

And could someone please explain where the plane went? There was just a hole left in that part of rural Pennsylvania. Not much in the way of debris, only one black box recovered.

How's that one possible. I mean darn I've seen what was left of the Space Shuttle disasters (both of them, but for this i'm just refering to the one that occured during landing cycle over Texas). The Texas space shuttle incident left more debris even though it was going literally at ten times speed and almost twenty times altitude. Get the idea? Higher speed, more altitude, and far more debris. The plane in rural Pennsylvania; next to nothing in debris.

let's see... two different aircraft... one designed to not burn up on re-entry from space, crash landing after having spent it's fuel...
the other made of light weight materials never intended to survive high heat, crashes and burns it's nearly full fuel tanks...

let's look at it this way....
a pile of abestos and a pile of wood shavings both get lit on fire.. why is there less debris from one pile than the other? hmmn.. I dunno..anybody else care to take a guess?

Big crater... means whole plane went into the ground + scorch marks... = burned debris and molten metal left over, I would not expect a debris field... if the plane had blown up in the air and rained down in pieces THEN I'd expect a debris field.

try throwing beer cans and beer bottles into a big bonfire if you want to see what happened to the plane fuselage...

---

Last edited by D0n; 05-25-2012 at 10:14 AM.

[Medium FormatPro]

Even though the NTSB is largely an american agency/group they are still sent all over the world to do all types of crash investigations; and not just plane crashes.

But in their many years of research they have also seen it all. All types of air speed, crash speed, fall from different altitude, fuel level at incident, etc... There are numerous factors. But also "all of these planes" are not in fact isolated incidents.

But the events of 9/11 are record breakers in many respects.

1. Only skyscrapers to ever fall due to any type of fire or explosion (besides controlled demolition) That's three buildings - the two largest twin structures plus building seven. And btw what caused building seven to fall? The 9/11 commission also did not cover that one properly as well. ALL major witnesses ever appeared, nor was their testimony even entered. That's because it is directly opposite that of the 9/11 commission report.

2. Lack of evidence "from planes". It's strange to state at the least that the two planes outside of the wtc incidents leave the least in debris. How much debris exactly? Both accident scenes by themselves leave less debris that the average corporate jet crash - even that of a private plane not much larger than a Cessna.Those two incidents still remain to date as leaving the least debris of any commercial accidents - even though there are many, many cases where the commercial planes traveled faster, higher, and with more fuel - and moe items.

3. Lack of access to the public and even to high ranking government officials. But that one is for another time. Lets just state that most of the 9/11 files are still to this date highly classified.


Also in relation to the photo above... Again I must bring p the physical properties of jet fuel. That a crash by a commercial jet with (eerrr) jet fuel on fire does not in fact burn that way. And btw just after that photo was taken the enviromental people (actually two agencies) showed up to test the ground for possible contamination converns and for the change that jet fuel got into the water, etc... BTW no jet fuel was ever detected; which means guess what?

I'll again state; jet fuel does not burn like that. But please don't take my word for it. That's also exactly what the professional emergency crews said after their short trip from Pgh's airport to the crash scene less than one hour after impact. To quote two twenty plus year fire science professionals; we've never seen anything like it.

[D0n]

Also in relation to the photo above... Again I must bring p the physical properties of jet fuel. That a crash by a commercial jet with (eerrr) jet fuel on fire does not in fact burn that way. And btw just after that photo was taken the enviromental people (actually two agencies) showed up to test the ground for possible contamination converns and for the change that jet fuel got into the water, etc... BTW no jet fuel was ever detected; which means guess what?

I'll again state; jet fuel does not burn like that. But please don't take my word for it. That's also exactly what the professional emergency crews said after their short trip from Pgh's airport to the crash scene less than one hour after impact. To quote two twenty plus year fire science professionals; we've never seen anything like it.

means it all burned? Means there is a first time for everything?

You Tube

You Tube

0:49 notice how much STEEL tanker was disintegrated? how much of the truck cab gone? this is from jet fuel.
thin aluminum from an airplane skin will melt long before a steel tanker will...
so what exactly are you saying Jet fuel doesn't burn? of course it burns. It is similar to diesel...

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Tanker-burning-on-Roanoke-highway-128273988.html

[jogiba]

Even though the NTSB is largely an american agency/group they are still sent all over the world to do all types of crash investigations; and not just plane crashes.

But in their many years of research they have also seen it all. All types of air speed, crash speed, fall from different altitude, fuel level at incident, etc... There are numerous factors. But also "all of these planes" are not in fact isolated incidents.

But the events of 9/11 are record breakers in many respects.

1. Only skyscrapers to ever fall due to any type of fire or explosion (besides controlled demolition) That's three buildings - the two largest twin structures plus building seven. And btw what caused building seven to fall? The 9/11 commission also did not cover that one properly as well. ALL major witnesses ever appeared, nor was their testimony even entered. That's because it is directly opposite that of the 9/11 commission report.

2. Lack of evidence "from planes". It's strange to state at the least that the two planes outside of the wtc incidents leave the least in debris. How much debris exactly? Both accident scenes by themselves leave less debris that the average corporate jet crash - even that of a private plane not much larger than a Cessna.Those two incidents still remain to date as leaving the least debris of any commercial accidents - even though there are many, many cases where the commercial planes traveled faster, higher, and with more fuel - and moe items.

3. Lack of access to the public and even to high ranking government officials. But that one is for another time. Lets just state that most of the 9/11 files are still to this date highly classified.


Also in relation to the photo above... Again I must bring p the physical properties of jet fuel. That a crash by a commercial jet with (eerrr) jet fuel on fire does not in fact burn that way. And btw just after that photo was taken the enviromental people (actually two agencies) showed up to test the ground for possible contamination converns and for the change that jet fuel got into the water, etc... BTW no jet fuel was ever detected; which means guess what?

I'll again state; jet fuel does not burn like that. But please don't take my word for it. That's also exactly what the professional emergency crews said after their short trip from Pgh's airport to the crash scene less than one hour after impact. To quote two twenty plus year fire science professionals; we've never seen anything like it.

Did you forget to take your meds or what ? Is this a joke or do you really think AA77 and UA 93 did not crash ? How many other buildings in world history were hit by wide body 767 commercial airliners fully loaded with jet fuel at 400mph ?

[Medium FormatPro]

The Windsor Building in Madrid burned for nearly two days on almost all its floors. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers and yet it didn't collapse.

As you will be aware, a C-130 hit a building in Tehran. Everyone on board (94 passengers and crew) are dead.

I waited and waited for the building to collapse like a house of cards.. {Because that's what happens if a plane hits a building ya know}... But as yet nothing of the sort has happened.


I have eleven other examples. As an example a plane signifcantly heavier and larger than the 767 mentioned, fully fueld, hitting at over 400 knots (it's not measured in mph). I can also mention many dozens of examples of fires that burned hotter and longer;some for days on end - building never collapsed. Anyone remember the highrise in Philadelphia??

Might I also point out Physics 202 as taught in any local community college. Try getting any building to fall down upon itself. The higher the building the harder it is to do. Also please note any news footage from 9/11. The planes did not in fact hit squarely at all. Yet both building fell upon themselves. But there's also building 7; how exactly did that one fall; also upon itself?

Something else to think about; it's called follow the money. You'll never guess what happens when one follows the money; all the money that traded through Wall Street that was "bet against" certain airlines and also certain companies located at the WTC - days before it happened.

[D0n]

The Windsor Building in Madrid burned for nearly two days on almost all its floors. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers and yet it didn't collapse.

As you will be aware, a C-130 hit a building in Tehran. Everyone on board (94 passengers and crew) are dead.

I waited and waited for the building to collapse like a house of cards.. {Because that's what happens if a plane hits a building ya know}... But as yet nothing of the sort has happened.


I have eleven other examples. As an example a plane signifcantly heavier and larger than the 767 mentioned, fully fueld, hitting at over 400 knots (it's not measured in mph). I can also mention many dozens of examples of fires that burned hotter and longer;some for days on end - building never collapsed. Anyone remember the highrise in Philadelphia??

Might I also point out Physics 202 as taught in any local community college. Try getting any building to fall down upon itself. The higher the building the harder it is to do. Also please note any news footage from 9/11. The planes did not in fact hit squarely at all. Yet both building fell upon themselves. But there's also building 7; how exactly did that one fall; also upon itself?

Something else to think about; it's called follow the money. You'll never guess what happens when one follows the money; all the money that traded through Wall Street that was "bet against" certain airlines and also certain companies located at the WTC - days before it happened.

the towers had two factors working against them..
factor number one..
they were lightweights with unusual construction methods...

The tube frame design using steel core and perimeter columns protected with sprayed-on fire resistant material created a relatively lightweight structure that would sway more in response to the wind compared to traditional structures such as the Empire State Building that have thick, heavy masonry for fireproofing of steel structural elements.[36] During the design process, wind tunnel tests were done to establish design wind pressures that the World Trade Center towers could be subjected to and structural response to those forces.[37] Experiments also were done to evaluate how much sway occupants could comfortably tolerate, however, many subjects experienced dizziness and other ill effects.[38] One of the chief engineers Leslie Robertson worked with Canadian engineer Alan G. Davenport to develop viscoelastic dampers to absorb some of the sway. These viscoelastic dampers, used throughout the structures at the joints between floor trusses and perimeter columns along with some other structural modifications, reduced the building sway to an acceptable level.[39]

the buildings were flexible and light, not the usual heavy and fire resistant steel girder and concrete firewall construction..
World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and factor number two:

and none of the buildings were designed to with stand earthquakes... like buildings in areas with more natural seismic activity like Japan..
but the impact of the planes did create seismic registering impacts and explosions...
the combination of both flexing and shaking could easily explain the way and timing of the towers imploding... it shook itself apart as it resonated after the impact....AND supports on the burning floors collapsed...a chain reaction...people reported the buildings swaying and shuddering... and the twin towers collapsing created enough seismic shaking to down the other buildings.

in other words... build yourself a tower of straws and cards (tubes and slabs bolted together) and shake it at the right frequency from a speaker and you'll see what likely resembles an implosion.. the explosion, the fire, the wind and the shock waves combined overloaded the structure. Plain and simple... if the towers had been designed differently, they would likely have stood...

the seismic activity recorded in NYC before the building fell, was in fact NOT controlled detonations, but rather the buildings themselves resonating and shuddering as the structures broke apart inside then collapsed...

New york didn't start planing for seismic events until well after the towers were built..

"In cities, earthquakes by themselves don't cause the major loss of life; collapsing buildings do," Jacob said. "And New York City was built mostly without quakes in mind."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol20/vol20_iss19/record2019.18.html
watch the videos on youtube.. you'll hear the buildings creaking as they swayed and you'll hear and see the shuddering before the collapse, but what you don't see or hear is the loud popping and crackling sounds you'd expect to hear from a controlled demolition... watch some of those on youtube as well.. no dynamite explosions, just buildings breaking apart from the inside and shaking the ground as they resonated before collapsing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance

Failure of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Main article: Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)
The dramatic, rhythmic twisting that resulted in the 1940 collapse of "Galloping Gertie", the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge, is sometimes characterized in physics textbooks as a classic example of resonance; however, this description is misleading. The catastrophic vibrations that destroyed the bridge were not due to simple mechanical resonance, but to a more complicated oscillation caused by interactions between the bridge and the winds passing through its structure — a phenomenon known as aeroelastic flutter. Robert H. Scanlan, father of the field of bridge aerodynamics, wrote an article about this misunderstanding.[2]
[edit]Other Examples
Collapse of Broughton Suspension Bridge (due to soldiers walking in step)
Collapse of Angers Bridge
Collapse of Königs Wusterhausen Central Tower
Resonance of the Millenium Bridge
Evacuation of the 39-story TechnoMart commercial-residential high-rise in Korea (due to a Tae Bo class, 2011)

also look up oscillation...

[magkelly]

It's not bravado if you're actually prepared to do it. I was there for the first WTC bombing. I missed being in just the right place and time to be killed that one by sheer dumb luck. I went in just a bit early for breakfast, took a train I didn't normally take, put my normal routine ahead of itself by a few moments, otherwise I probably wouldn't even be here typing at you. Several times I've been in situations where someone was unexpectedly threatening me or there was a major emergency and I didn't just sit there. I've put men intent upon doing things to me that I didn't condone into the hospital. I've been in situations where my safety and that of the children in my care were being threatened. I kept my head and I got us out of there. When one of my parents had a stroke a while back I was the one who stepped in and did what had to be done, got us to the hospital, and who calmly gave out all the necessary info. There have been other instances. I've been threatened at work and I've been stalked. I've been very, very scared, but unlike most people I don't freeze when I get into a dangerous situation. I have a very cool head when it comes to situations like that for some weird reason. When most people panic I go into survivor mode. I start thinking up ways to outsmart and take down the person threatening me. I'm not too sure that's a healthy reaction in terms of my psyche but it's definitely kept me alive a few times....

[Medium FormatPro]

Well DOn has ne of the best perspectives on this thread so far. Thank you for pointing that one out, and i'm also presently researching that one, but have yet to draw on conclusions just yet.

Ironically the shools involved include Columbia;the same Columbia mentioned in your (DOn's) article link, along with CMU (not official yet) and two other schools. One of the largest programs ever used should show the before, during, and afterwards of the entire thing - and it does include such factors as those mentioned in DOn's posting, basically many parameters such as (generally) audio frequency.

Interestingly enough this "effect" was caught by at least five seperate cameras; two video, two still, not sure about the rest.

[D0n]

while you're researching.. look up the NYC subway system... I think in Japan they use special dampers under buildings that are built over subways... to cancel out resonance... no such dampers in the twin towers... think of it this way... look at a set of speakers with bass ports.... the subway beneath the towers may have amplified any resonations.
Subway Operator Recalls 9/11 Cortlandt Street Stop Rescue - NY1.com

At 8:46 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, motorman Joe Irizarry was driving an “R” train into the Cortlandt Street subway stop in the shadow of the World Trade Center towers. Seconds later the first plane hit.

Irizarry said he knew something was terribly wrong.
NYC Subway Motorman Joe Irizarry Reflects On 9/11 -- The Day He Was Thrust Into A Heroic Role
“It actually shook my train,” Irizarry said.

Bass reflex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
now scale it up to the size of a subway... sounds promising does it not?

You Tube

You Tube