Posted on 08/12/2002 12:50:43 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
But then I'm an optimist...
I was at ABQ that morning, having arrived at the airport just when the announcement of no flights was made.
There was a TV van out front and three Albuquerque police officers, and maybe 100 people around.
No attempt was made to secure the airport thereafter for the purpose of keeping on the ground there, any teams of terrorists.
No police checkpoint, nor even one patrol car, at the exit had been established to check peoples' faces --- the news media van would have been a great asset for filming all departing parties.
Do you base that on the conclusion that the plane impacted at the location of the waterlines and all the waterlines were located in one place?
The reason I ask is because the two different towers were impacted in two different locations.
IIRC, this was the flight that was bound for Denver. Again, IIRC, speculation was that their target was Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
No, it means that the sprinkler systems on the floors actually hit were rendered inoperative. F = M*A and all that.
In a word, sabotage. Kathleen Harris, the woman who gave out false licenses in Tenn, was killed in a highly suspicious car fire. Her car was seen with the passenger compartment fully involved in flames BEFORE it crashed. Fire fighters said the fire was strange in that it kept reignighting.
Some sick f really likes to burn people.
One such tie emerged on Wednesday, 19 September. At least four people being sought in the terror investigation, including one now in custody, were booked on one or more flights on the 22nd leaving San Antonio. Some were headed to Denver; others were continuing to California.
Besides all that, what would be the downside of investigating the unlicensed plumber Sakhera Hammad's connection to the world trade center?
Consider these guys all walked on the driver's license fraud. What was the motivation for burning their co-conspirator Ms. Smith alive with gasoline in Odtllah's car if all that was involved was a 4 month time served sentence ? What is the downside in interviewing the owner of the non- existent Denko Mechanical and asking Mr.Davidenko why he provided a letter to the court explaining Hammad was his employ with the alias Sergio Denko. Why not ask Mr. Davidenko who hired his non-existent company to work on the sprinkler system in the WTC with unlicensed Muslim plumbers days before 9-11?
Seriously, Poohbah, none of these questions interest you at all?
Your explanation requires that the pipes be exactly as strong as the rest of the main supporting structures in the towers.
Newsflash: they weren't.
Fair enough. Still you have no interest in why the Hammad cousins were in the WTC?
Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
We have two possible explanations for the WTC sprinkler system failing: the first is that the impact of each plane ruptured the pipes in the impact regions. This is a simple explanation. It is supported by reports of water flowing down the fire escapes--i.e., the sprinklers came on, but the water did not reach the fires because of the ruptured pipes.
The second possibility is that the Hammad cousins, who were apparently unlicensed plumbers, were able to perform an act of sabotage that, if detected prior to aircraft impact, would warn one and all that the building was targeted for some sort of attack. This violates the most basic OPSEC considerations, increases operational complexity (and thus risks failure of the enterprise), and is probably unnecessary (a fully loaded 767 is much more than the buildings were designed to withstand).
The first problem is that such an operation violates Al-Qaeda doctrine. Al-Qaeda has a well-deserved reputation for excellent operational security. Your theory disregards that fact.
Really. Remember how Project Bojinka was stopped? Yousef and his buddies set their Manilla hotel room on fire building the bombs for the airplanes. All the plans including a plan to assasinate the Pope were found on a laptop.
That was in 1995. And Al-Qaeda learned from that little fiasco. Their OPSEC improved considerably right afterwards.
Still you have no interest in why the Hammad cousins were in the WTC?Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
We have two possible explanations for the WTC sprinkler system failing: the first is that the impact of each plane ruptured the pipes in the impact regions. This is a simple explanation. It is supported by reports of water flowing down the fire escapes--i.e., the sprinklers came on, but the water did not reach the fires because of the ruptured pipes.
The second possibility is that the Hammad cousins, who were apparently unlicensed plumbers, were able to perform an act of sabotage that, if detected prior to aircraft impact, would warn one and all that the building was targeted for some sort of attack. This violates the most basic OPSEC considerations, increases operational complexity (and thus risks failure of the enterprise), and is probably unnecessary (a fully loaded 767 is much more than the buildings were designed to withstand).
Interesting conjecture, but you still haven't addressed his point. Why were the Hammad cousins in the WTC under demonstrably bogus cover prior to 9/11?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.