short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

Anyone care to answer my question from earlier on today:

"Considering whoever set the explosives were part of a mass conspiracy to make this appear to be soley a terroist act, and who needed to have the melted steel and weakening structure of the WTC story to back them up, why wouldn't they take down the buildings in the order they were hit?"

El_Kabong wrote:

no, you pulled that from the depths of your ass

again,

i never said he was placed in charge of NORAD, just they stripped NORAD of the authority to send fighters to intercept planes that are hijacked, deviate from their flight path or won't respond to radio


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Fry#CJCSI_3610.01A

As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.

Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

You are only looking at certain areas of the order and leaving out some other stuff. You have to look at the whole picture. Not pick and choose.

"but perhaps that’s because you’re not seeing the full picture. In particular, what the earlier document said. So, here’s the wording of the July 1997 document:

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf

And for easy comparison, the June 2001 document that “profoundly changed intercept procedures”:

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

So what’s changed?

#1, the statement that the NMCC “will monitor the situation” has been dropped. Seems odd, as it’s hard to believe they would do anything else, but in any event, as long as they deal with requests as they arrive then there’s no issue here.

#2, there’s a new exception of “immediate responses as authorized by reference D” (see the 911research quote) to this rule, therefore under some circumstances the new regulations require less approval than the old.

#3, Previously both “requests and proposals” for assistance required approval, now it’s “requests” only. Doesn’t seem to be a significant change.

#4, “DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking)” is replaced by “DOD assistance”. This appears to do no more than remove a little redundancy, in that we already know from the beginning of the paragraph that this is about assistance for a hijacking.

And, ah, that’s it, at least with this paragraph: no evidence here that the new regulations affected the 9/11 response, at all.

We don’t think the other changes in the document would have done so, either (the paragraph we’ve highlighted is the one that gets all the attention), but for thoroughness we’d recommend you check both documents out for yourself. The 1997 version is at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf , and the June 2001 version is at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf ."

MakingWaves wrote:

You can't say things like the President and his staff deserve to die in a public forum and not expect Secret Service or others to keep an eye on you. That is their job.

yeah, but this was said after the fact of his circumstances. His premise wasn't to kill the US gov't from the onset. This is his conclusion from his treatment. He still works for the government

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That really does nothing to clarify or prove anything. It could have been a matter of discretion of the person who "pushed the button" at the time so to speak and what they deemed logical.

So were explosives, not thermite, used to bring down WTC 1 & 2 in your opinion??

MakingWaves wrote:

Don't go back to this pull crap. All that meant was for them to pull back and leave the area.

Where has that been clarified on the record?

The guy says the "order to pull was given then we watched it fall". Not the order to pull was given and the building fell unexpectedly sometime afterwards.

onelongsong wrote:

explosives will never cause metal to melt. the heat is not held long enough. during an explosion there is a flash of heat. the only explosion ever shown to melt metal is a nuclear reaction; and even then it was at ground zero. so anyone with the slightest knowledge of explosives knows the damage was not done by explosives.
people reported "poofs" in the upper floors of #7. this is expected when the foundation is compromised and the structure begins to fail. just watch videos of earthquakes to prove this.

So you think fire did that?

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, but to me saying the order to pull makes more sense when used to pull back. they probably would have said the "order was given to bring the building down". Again, the logical explanation would be it means to just pull back. Also, from what I have read the term "pull" in demolition does not mean to blow up a building, or implode a building.

I've gone both sides on this too many times to count. Ultimately, it's inconclusive.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

And what of other older buildings that have remained standing due to fire?

There wasn't structural damage done to them by planes flying into them at very high rates of speed. And before you say it, there was structural damage done to #7 which is why the combination of fire and structural damage will bring a building down.