FLASHBACK: 1997 FEMA Manual Depicts AA 11 Impact Point At WTC 1 In Cross-hairs.
This FEMA manual often cited for its depiction of the WTC in cross-hairs, actually reveals upon closer examination nearly the exact impact point of American Airlines flight 11 with the upper north face of World Trade Center tower number 1.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO TERRORISM: SELF-STUDY
Explosive: As defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation, “a substance fitting into one of these two categories: (1) any substance or article, including a device, designed to function by explosion; or (2) any substance or article, including a device, which, by chemical reaction within itself, can function
in a similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion.
Explosive Incident: An event in which an explosives device is used as a terrorist weapon.
Nuclear Incident: An event in which a nuclear agent is used as a terrorist
weapon. There are two fundamentally different threats in the area of nuclear terrorism: (1) the use, or threatened use, of a nuclear bomb; and (2) the detonation of a conventional explosive incorporating nuclear materials.
Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDDs): A conventional explosive incorporating nuclear materials. Radiation In this self-study program, refers to nuclear radiation, not radiation as a type of heat transfer. There are three types of nuclear radiation: (1) alpha, (2) beta, and (3) gamma. Radiation is the cause of one of the six types of harm that can be encountered at a terrorist incident.
Thermal harm is the result of exposure to the extremes of heat and cold. Here
we will examine only heat, but cold can be equally harmful.
As you have learned elsewhere, heat travels by one of four methods:conduction, convection, radiation, and direct flame contact.
Radiation, as used in this section, refers to nuclear radiation, not radiation as a
type of heat transfer. There are three types of nuclear radiation that the first
responder should be familiar with: alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha and
beta radiation are found as particles, while gamma radiation is found in the
form of rays.
Alpha radiation is the least penetrating of the three, and is not considered
dangerous unless alpha-contaminated particles enter the body. Once inside
the body, alpha radiation will damage internal organs.
Beta radiation is more penetrating than alpha radiation. Beta-contaminated
particles can damage skin tissue, and can harm internal organs if they enter
the body. The use of PPE including SCBA willgreatly enhance the emergency responder’s safety when dealing with alpha or beta radiation.
Gamma Radiation: Gamma rays are high-energy, ionizing radiation that travel at the speed of light and have great penetrating power. They can cause skin burns, severely injure internal organs, and have long-term, physiological effects.
Incendiary Device: Any mechanical, electrical, or chemical device used
intentionally to initiate combustion and start a fire.
Incendiary Incident: An event in which an incendiary device is used as a terrorist weapon.
Irritating Agent: A chemical agent, also known as riot control agents or tear
gas, which causes respiratory distress and tearing designed to incapacitate. Common examples include chloropicrin, MACE, tear gas, pepper spray, and dibenzoxazepine.
In 1999 NORAD had drills of jets as weapons targeting the World Trade Center
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was “unrealistic,” NORAD and Defense officials say.
NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.
“Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft,” the statement said. “These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures.”
A White House spokesman said that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.
On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn’t anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.
On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it “too unrealistic.”
President Bush said at a news conference, “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”
The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were “hijacked.” Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.
NORAD officials have acknowledged that “scriptwriters” for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.
“Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response,” Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission.
“We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace,” Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander.”Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.”
NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers.
Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.
NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks. Both originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
|DFRC Movie #||Movie Date||Movie Description|
|EM-0004-01||December 1984||CID Aircraft crash landing|
|EM-0004-02||December 1984||Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) tail camera video|
|EM-0004-03||December 1984||Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) montage|
In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with
Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.
On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remote-controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a “go-around,” there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish.
This flight, called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), was the culmination of more than a year of preparation in a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene (AMK) in a so-called survivable impact. Added to typical Jet A fuel, the AMK was designed to suppress the fireball that can result from an impact in which the airstream causes spilled fuel to vaporize into a mist.
The plane was also instrumented for a variety of other impact-survivability experiments, including new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, cabin fire-proof materials, and burn-resistant windows. Crash forces were measured, and a full complement of instrumented crash test dummies was carried on the flight.
The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.
It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.
It was not exactly the impact that was hoped for, but research from the CID program yielded new data on impact survivability which helped establish new FAA rules regarding fire prevention and retardant materials. Although proponents argued that AMK prevented a hotter, more catastrophic fire during the CID, FAA requirements for the additive were put on the back burner.
9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda, without any detailed advanced knowledge on the part of any government agency. Proponents of these conspiracy theories claim there are inconsistencies in the official conclusions, or evidence which was overlooked. In a 2008 global poll of 16,063 people in 17 countries, majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks. 46% of those surveyed believed al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, 15% believed the U.S. government was responsible, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible. The poll found that respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al-Qaeda.
The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural failure due to fire. Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military. Possible motives claimed by conspiracy theorists for such actions include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as geostrategic interests in the Mideast, such as pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies. Other conspiracy theories revolve around authorities having advance knowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignoring or helping to assist the attackers.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and media outlets such as Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theories. The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.
|World Trade Center Building Performance Study (Hardcopy)||September 1, 2002|
|World Trade Center Building Performance Study (CD)||September 1, 2002|
|Cover and Table of Contents||1.43M||September 1, 2002|
|Executive Summary||76.78K||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 1. Introduction||3.67M||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 2. WTC 1 and WTC 2||5.04M||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 3. WTC 3||2.38M||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 4. WTC 4, 5, and 6||3.38M||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 5. WTC 7||3.52M||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 6. Bankers Trust Building||1.77M||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 7. Peripheral Buildings||3.35M||September 1, 2002|
|Chapter 8. Observations, Findings, and Recommendations||125.76K||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix A. Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings||794.20K||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix B. Structural and Steel Connections||793.90K||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix C. Limited Metallurgical Examinations||2.04M||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix D. WTC Steel Data Collection||2.23M||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix E. Aircraft Information||534.83K||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix F. Structural Engineers Emergency Response Plan||420.47K||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix G. Acknowledgments||81.30K||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix H. Acronyms and Abbreviations||41.58K||September 1, 2002|
|Appendix I. Metric Conversions||101.90K||September 1, 2002|
|FEMA 403 Presentation||6.46K||September 1, 2002|
|FEMA 403 Presentation||10.74M||September 1, 2002|