|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
 Posted - 09/16/2001 : 06:12:18
|
As devastating as Tuesday's attacks were, we can at least say that they were far less destructive than they might have been.
1. The fourth airplane was headed toward Washington, but crashed. We may never know if that was due to the pilot's incompetence or to a passenger and/or crew uprising, but in any case, the only loss of life was the airplane's occupants.
2. All four airplanes were carrying less than half the number of passengers they might have been.
3. The attack on the Pentagon could have hardly been better aimed to minimize the destruction and loss of life. It happened to hit a section of the building that was recently renovated. This was fortunate in two respects: it was still not fully occupied, and the renovations included some post-Oklahoma City anti-terrorist measures, such as Kevlar membranes in the outer walls, which reduced the damage considerably. As a result, over 99% of the Pentagon's occupants escaped unharmed (though 1/3 of the building was damaged).
4. The World Trade Center towers withstood the initial impacts and stood for nearly one hour (second impact) and an hour and forty-five minutes (first impact). This allowed thousands to escape. While the loss of life is mind-boggling, it might have been four times worse had the towers collapsed promptly.
5. If the towers had collapsed on impact, they might have toppled, spreading destruction over a much larger area. As it happened, there was time for occupants of surrounding structures to evacuate, and when the collapse came the force on the structure was gravity alone, ensuring a near-vertical implosion that was largely confined to the area immediately around the towers.
Of course, there were some unfortunate aspects, the most obvious being that the attack plan was not uncovered in advance. Further, it was (in retrospect) a serious mistake to undertake firefighting and rescue operations in the doomed towers, or at least not to pull them out earlier. However, this lapse is quite understandable given the shock and confusion in the wake of the attack. I was watching the events on television from hundreds of miles away, but I was too stunned to realize the towers were certain to collapse, until I saw it happen. Those on the scene, I'm sure, had far less chance to think clearly and take the appropriate action.
Overall, and regardless of any faith we may profess, we can all be thankful that the catastrophe was not far worse. Cold comfort to those who have lost so much, I suppose, but it's at least something.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 06:30:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All four airplanes were carrying less than half the number of passengers they might have been.
I think that this was done on purpose. It's much easier to control 50 passengers than 200.
Greg.
|
 |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 07:27:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
All four airplanes were carrying less than half the number of passengers they might have been.
I think that this was done on purpose. It's much easier to control 50 passengers than 200.
Greg.
You're right; I hadn't thought of that...
OTOH, it may have been a secondary effect. The hijackers bought their tickets at the last minute (possibly to avoid any computer cross-checking of their IDs), which means they couldn't have selected a fully-booked flight.
Whatever the reason, it did help reduce the loss of life.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 13:12:13 [Permalink]
|
You know, I have wondered if that plane that didn't make it may have been intercepted. If it was, wouldn't it be best to leave the explanation as it stands now rather than have some pilot identified as the guy that shot it down? Sure it's probably not the case and I'm sure investigation would turn up evidence of that if it happened but is there a chance that the government might try to keep that quiet? I really have no idea, of course, I'm just wondering aloud.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 15:42:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know, I have wondered if that plane that didn't make it may have been intercepted.
Cheney revealed today that Bush authorized the use of missiles if the plane refused to land, but that the interceptors were still 60 miles away when flight 77 crashed. Whether you accept this depends on your attitude toward the government. Personally I think they'd tell the truth about this, because there's not much "upside" to trying to conceal it.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 16:21:58 [Permalink]
|
Considering that 40,000 people worked at the World Trade Center, the news that there were only 5000 casualties came as something of a relief. But when you come right down to it, in the event of 5000 murders, saying we should take comfort in the fact that it could have been worse is kind of ridiculous.
As for speculation that flight 77 might have been shot down by American interceptors, that is worse than useless. Even if it were true, what exactly would their alternative have been? Besides, shouldn't a skeptic, as a rule, require at least some shred of evidence before engaging in idle speculation?
Edited by - espritch on 09/16/2001 16:25:08
Edited by - espritch on 09/16/2001 16:27:43 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 16:48:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know, I have wondered if that plane that didn't make it may have been intercepted. If it was, wouldn't it be best to leave the explanation as it stands now rather than have some pilot identified as the guy that shot it down? Sure it's probably not the case and I'm sure investigation would turn up evidence of that if it happened but is there a chance that the government might try to keep that quiet? I really have no idea, of course, I'm just wondering aloud.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
It requires an Executive Order to bring down a civilian airliner. Without that Executive Order no pilot would bring it down. Regardless, the 50 some who were on the aircraft v potentially thousands - what would be your choice?
Despite that - supposedly there was a witness (I have only heard this once) that says it was fine then headed nose first into the ground.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 18:16:16 [Permalink]
|
Yeah I know it was idle speculation. I thought. I made that clear and acknowledged how useless it was. I absolutely agree that if there was an opportunity to bring one down there's no question on what to do. It would have had to have been done.
There would be substantial physical evidence anyway. All kinds of residues and such.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
