WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Ask the moderators; I've reported atleast 6 or 7 posts to them.
”
by quoting me and stating that you expect no insults you imply that i have insulted you.
so post the links where i have insulted you scott.

I'm sorry I gave you that impression. The posts I'm thinking of came from 2 people: shaman_ and Read-Only. In several of the posts in question, I actually mentioned that I had reported them; they're both aware of the fact that I did so; no clue as to whether the admins actually got wind of the reports though. There was only -1- time when an admin (James R) actually stepped in; it was in regards to a post from John99. Apparently he'd included a song which had some lyrics which could be construed as threatening. I hadn't even noticed that bit, I'd only noticed that he'd been insulting. Apparently you have to actually imply you're threatening someone before a moderator will step in around here.

However, I think that the formal debates forum may be somewhat better. There, both sides agree on the rules of the discussion; in my first debate there, I made sure that certain insults were off limits; it seems to be going fairly well so far .

 

[scott3x]

I have all the papers I took off the yacht in a small cardboard box. Cracking the box releases the toxic smell that washed over lower Manhattan that day, taking me back to that moment.

The 'in case of damage' sounds very interesting; I, for one, would like to know it in its entirety. However, due to the toxicity in the papers, you may want to consult someone in regards to how to properly handle them.

I still have never released any of the photos I took that day.

You might consider doing so. They may have valuable information that could help people to discern the truth of what happened that day.

The only other item I have is the flag that was flying on the yacht. It went to half-mast about 15 minutes after the jet went into the South tower, probably making it the first flag to do so that day. My father was given the flag later that year and keeps it at his house in Colorado.

The flag that became famous for flying over the rubble was stolen off of the boat two slips down from the one I was captaining. Firefighters broke into the rear glass doors and stole a lot of stuff off the yacht, slept in the beds, trashed the heads, etc... There was also a ton of looting by rescue workers and firemen, since there really wasn't anything else to do.

Sorry to hear that. Was it because they were denied access to the site? I remember hearing about firemen making a protest because they weren't allowed on the site for a given amount of time.

 

[scott3x]

The Windsor tower vs. the WTC buildings

This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 1020 in this thread.

True. The top part of the steel reinforced (as opposed to steel framed) perimeter did not, however.

? Because it was steel! ? You are making some puzzling distinction between steel framed and steel reinforced.

I don't understand what's so puzzling about it for you. But perhaps it would be best to once again refer to 9/11 Research's article on the matter:
The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these were a fraction of the dimensions, and spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 5

The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

* The lack of a sprinkler system
* Incorrect installation of spandrels
* The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

The issue here is that, from your own favourite article - “Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete” Somewhere you are confused I think.

Sorry, but the confusion is all yours. If you don't yet get what it's trying to say from the quotes I've put up, by all means, read the article in its entirety.

What you don't seem to understand is that the steel reinforced perimeter collapsed precisely because it was mainly composed of concrete,

What are you talking about? The concrete remained while the steel collapsed.

The concrete -core- remained; while fire can produce spalling in concrete, the core, as the main load bearing component in the Windsor tower, wasn't going to be taken down by the fires. The concrete -frame-, however, was fairly weak; a little steel wasn't going to hold it together. 9/11 Research explains:
* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
* Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

with a bit of steel to reinforce it. This differs radically from a steel framed building.

That’s right, they are more susceptible to fire, particularly is the fireproofing is removed.

Yes, steel is more susceptible to fire without fireproofing. NIST would -like- us to believe that the fireproofing was removed in the case of the twin towers. The evidence, however, simply refuses to cooperate. In the case of the Windsor tower, however, the upper third didn't have fireproofing on it to -begin with-, so there's no arguing that it didn't have it on. Mix that with the fact that the frame was concrete, with only some thin steel to reinforce it, mix in a intense, long duration fire, and you have a recipe for disaster. It's worthy of noting, however, that even with all the weaknesses that the Windsor tower had and that the WTC buildings clearly didn't, it -still- only partially collapsed, and only gradually at that. The core was only made of concrete (thus susceptible to spalling), and yet it didn't collapse at all.

IF the WTC had the same concrete core it probably wouldn't have stood long enough to have tenants.

The Petronas Twin Towers are mainly concrete scott.

I'm not saying that a concrete core can't hold up big buildings; the main issue is that the Twin Towers are decidedly bigger then the Windsor Tower.

The WTC was a much bigger building then the Windsor tower and thus required a much stronger core.

But the core was concrete and handled the fire better than the damaged steel of the WTC did.

Sure; but the Windsor tower didn't have to deal with explosives .

The WTC core was a concrete one,

No, it wasn’t.

After what was said by Headspin and Tony, I believe you may be right here. However, as 9/11 Research made clear, a concrete core would be more susceptible to fires, not less.

reinforced by steel beams; a tube (concrete core) within a tube (of steel beams).

No. The ‘tube’ was steel box columns not concrete. There was concrete in the floors.

Alright, even 9/11 Research says it was a 'tube within a tube'. My guess was that the inner tube was the elevator shaft walls and such and the outer one was the steel box columns.

 

[leopold]

I'm sorry I gave you that impression.

no problem. glad you cleared it up.

 

[scott3x]

Ascertaining what constituted the 2 tubes in the Twin Towers

This post is in response to Tony Szamboti's post 1075 in this thread.

Wait, neither I or the anonymous source ever said that the columns were concrete- the idea was that there was a concrete core surrounded by steel columns. That may be wrong as well, but I just wanted to set the record straight on what I actually said.

They couldn't pour concrete in the rolled wide flange I-section columns and it is unlikely that they filled the box columns. I think there would have been a concern about damaging the welds on the box beams which occurred every three floors. They also didn't need any additional compressive strength as the stress on both the core and perimeter columns from gravity was approximately 11,000 psi and the yield strength of the core columns was 36,000 psi or above. The yield strength of the perimeter columns varied from 36,000 psi to 100,000 psi depending on where they were located. The reason for these higher strengths of some of the perimeter columns was bending resistance to take wind and seismic loads not gravity loading.

No, I didn't meant that they did that- my impression is that the author meant that the concrete elevator shafts and stairwells made a type of core. Even 9/11 Research says that there was a 'tube within a tube'. Up until now, my guess had been that the elevator shafts/stairwells was the inner tube, and the box columns was the outer one. Ofcourse, perhaps they meant that the box columns was the inner tube and the perimiter columns was the outer one; this seems to be what you're implying. It would seem to make more sense, as many have said that the 100% steel framed perimeter columns were fairly strong.

 

[scott3x]

I'm sorry I gave you that impression.

no problem. glad you cleared it up.

 

[scott3x]

Compelling reasons why 9/11 was an inside job

This post is in response to JDawg's post 64 in the hypocracy of our drug laws thread, in the Ethics, Morality and Justice Forum.

I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons for moving the WTC collapse thread over to Architecture and Engineering. However, the administration doesn't believe so and ultimately, that's what counts here. As an aside, what do you mean 'the argument about the buildings or the cellphones'?

Well, I've asked the same questions everyone else has. Without getting too much into it, there has been a lot of junk science used to qualify the conspiracy theorists' position. For instance, the idea that the buildings fell the way they did. People--not physicists or engineers, mind you--claim that the buildings fell in a manner that could not have been accomplished any other way than through controlled demolition.

First problem with that is the people making these claims are not engineers or physicists, nor do they work in engineering, nor have they ever been a part of a controlled demolition.

Some physicists and engineers -do- say that it couldn't have been accomplished in any other way. Steven Jones, who was a respected physics professor until he decided to openly disagree with the official story, has written a fair amount concerning why controlled demolition is only explanation that makes sense. And, aside from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which currently boasts a total of 564 Arcitecture and Engineering professionals, as well as 3168 other supporters, we actually have a mechanical engineer who's written a few papers and co-authored others in this very forum- Tony Szamboti.

The group that studied the wreckage of the buildings was an independent group, as was the Popular Mechanics study.

The Popular Mechanics study has been thoroughly debunked by 2 sites, 9/11 Research and prisonplanet.com.

I have no reason to doubt the group that first investigated the wreckage...

I've personally found reasons to not just doubt their investigations, but to believe that they were half-baked farces, as Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief stated in a well known article called $elling Out the Investigation.

I see no reason why two independent groups (one of whom volunteered to do the study with no prompting from the government) would lie to protect the government.

Sometimes people with insufficient data and a penchant for trusting the government can come to false conclusions...

Most of these theories were forwarded by Truthers, and I've seen the people who made the video saying with confidence that no one could have used cellphones on those planes to contact their loved ones. That claim is patently false, as anyone who has been on a flight with their cellphones can testify.

That claims is outside the domain of even this thread . Anyway, I'm not sure of the answer to the above.

 

[Balerion]

Some physicists and engineers -do- say that it couldn't have been accomplished in any other way. Steven Jones, who was a respected physics professor until he decided to openly disagree with the official story, has written a fair amount concerning why controlled demolition is only explanation that makes sense. And, aside from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which currently boasts a total of 564 Arcitecture and Engineering professionals, as well as 3168 other supporters, we actually have a mechanical engineer who's written a few papers and co-authored others in this very forum- Tony Szamboti.

Forgive my ignorance, but I have yet to hear from one engineer on your side of the argument that has inspected the materials first-hand. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, every engineer and/or architect who has "researched" the event has done so through watching news clips. That's not research. You need to be down there on the ground.

The Popular Mechanics study has been thoroughly debunked by 2 sites, 9/11 Research and prisonplanet.com.

I've seen it, and I'm very unimpressed. The 9/11 "research" team, as usual, does their research via videotape (not that PM didn't) and only cling to trivial details, circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove anything. Case in point is the part about Van Romero. The website is clinging to what he said as he first saw the collapses, where he mentions that it looks like it was brought down by explosives. Again, remember that Van Romero has only ever witnessed the collapses on film. He has never handled or inspected the wreckage. He was simply commenting on what he saw on film. And when he elaborated, he was called a liar by the website.

It's the standard Conspiracy Theorist MO: Take things out of context, and if they change their story even slightly, accuse them of lying. The website also sees some sort of importance in Romero's job, as if that has anything to do with anything.

And then there's the whole "steel buildings never fail from fire" argument, which is weaker than an anorexic smurf. Yes, we have yet to see a steel building fail due to fire. But consider this: We've yet to see a steel building survive the full force of a 737 impact and fire. The only two instances we have of that are the Twin Towers, both of which fell.

I mean, use your head. The plane itself tremendously weakened the structure. It also seems to have destroyed (or effectively weakened) the fire-prevention systems in the elevator shafts (which would explain why that guy in the basement heard, felt, and even saw the effects of the fireball coming down the elevator shaft), and then burned hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. It's ridiculous how Truthers, when they bang the "it failed from fire" drum, completely forget that the fucking things were hit by AIRPLANES, TOO!

I've personally found reasons to not just doubt their investigations, but to believe that they were half-baked farces, as Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief stated in a well known article called $elling Out the Investigation.

Another paper-thin argument skewed to fit the Truther agenda. Mr. Manning mentions the spray-on fireproofing, and I'm glad he did, because (and perhaps it was too soon to know when this was written) we know now that the majority of the fireproofing was blown off during the impacts. And here's what Mr. Manning doesn't ask, among his myriad of questions: "Were these the first high-rises to be impacted by fully-loaded 737's?" The answer to that question would have been yes.

Sometimes people with insufficient data and a penchant for trusting the government can come to false conclusions...

PM did more research on the things that mattered than anyone aside from the government...perhaps moreso, since the first 9/11 report found that the funding for the attacks "wasn't important"...but we know why that is. It's because the funding came from Saudi Arabia...our ally.

But to your point, the same can be said about those on your side. People with insufficient data (read: Everyone on your side of the argument) and have a penchant for mistrusting the government, and a penchant for conspiracy theories, can come to false conclusions.

That claims is outside the domain of even this thread . Anyway, I'm not sure of the answer to the above.

You can trust me on this. Even before airlines installed technology to make cellphones more reliable (this was post-9/11) you could use your cell on a flight. It wasn't always the best connection, and you could drop a call, but you could use it.

Anyway, I thought this post was supposed to show me compelling reasons...?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Forgive my ignorance, but I have yet to hear from one engineer on your side of the argument that has inspected the materials first-hand. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, every engineer and/or architect who has "researched" the event has done so through watching news clips. That's not research. You need to be down there on the ground.

.
Do "You need to be down there on the ground." to know that a skyscraper must support its own weight through its entire height? Do "You need to be down there on the ground." to know that the people who designed the buildings had to figure out how much steel to put on every level?

Is the physics of skyscrapers supposed to be as complicated as rocket science? The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. There were no electronic computers. The NEUTRON had not been discovered yet.

How can LAYMEN not figure out the importance of knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of a >400,000 ton skyscraper supposedly destroyed by a <200 ton airliner? JEEZ!

It's a conspiracy between the steel and the concrete.

Forgive my ignorance,

NO!

psik

 

[leeray666]

I have yet to hear from one engineer on your side of the argument that has inspected the materials first-hand.

Steven E. Jones is a physicist which has examined and is continuing to examine the materials first-hand. You also have to understand that most of the material was disposed of before investigations could take place. I'm sure a lot of the engineers from AE911Truth would love to examine the materials first hand, but I'm not sure if they would be authorised. Besides, why the emphasis on engineers?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, every engineer and/or architect who has "researched" the event has done so through watching news clips. That's not research. You need to be down there on the ground.

Down there on the ground? Do you really? What does that say about all those people researching the cosmos? Does Stephen Hawking need to be within a black hole in order to study it?
A lot of information can come about through studying videos of the event. You can see the collapse in slow motion for a start and you can see the finer details of what actually happened throughout the collapse.

The 9/11 "research" team, as usual, does their research via videotape (not that PM didn't) and only cling to trivial details, circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove anything.

If through studying the videos you can ascertain that it was physically impossible for the top of a building to destroy the bottom, then that is not circumstantial and it goes a long way to proving some other factor must have been involved.

The website is clinging to what he said as he first saw the collapses, where he mentions that it looks like it was brought down by explosives. Again, remember that Van Romero has only ever witnessed the collapses on film. He has never handled or inspected the wreckage. He was simply commenting on what he saw on film. And when he elaborated, he was called a liar by the website.

I'm sure 9/11research isn't clinging to anything. 9/11research concentrates on evidence. If he said two different things at two different times, it will be noted. Though they aren't clinging to this fact. There's a lot more evidence there that supports the use of explosives.

It's the standard Conspiracy Theorist MO: Take things out of context, and if they change their story even slightly, accuse them of lying. The website also sees some sort of importance in Romero's job, as if that has anything to do with anything.

The standard conspiracy theorists MO? Like there's a standard conspiracy theorist?
The website doesn't make Romero an important feature. There is only one page out of probably thousands on that site which addresses his comments.
And for the record, it wasn't a slight change in story. He explicitly stated

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,"

And then ten days later:

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,"

But again, I don't think anyone is clinging to this information as any kind of evidence.

And then there's the whole "steel buildings never fail from fire" argument, which is weaker than an anorexic smurf. Yes, we have yet to see a steel building fail due to fire. But consider this: We've yet to see a steel building survive the full force of a 737 impact and fire. The only two instances we have of that are the Twin Towers, both of which fell.

Did both planes hit the same area of the buildings? No. Yet both buildings fell straight down in the same manner. The lighter tops destroying the heavier un-damaged lower structure. Just because we saw - for the first time - 737 impacts and fires affecting buildings, it does not automatically mean they are what brought them down.

I mean, use your head.

OK

The plane itself tremendously weakened the structure.

Evidence please.

It also seems to have destroyed (or effectively weakened) the fire-prevention systems in the elevator shafts (which would explain why that guy in the basement heard, felt, and even saw the effects of the fireball coming down the elevator shaft), and then burned hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse.

Come on, where's the evidence?

It's ridiculous how Truthers, when they bang the "it failed from fire" drum, completely forget that the fucking things were hit by AIRPLANES, TOO!

I'm sure we're all aware of that too. Just provide the evidence on where you believe the structures were damaged due to the impact. Then you can provide the evidence supporting the fires weakening the rest of the structure.
While you're at it, you can also provide some evidence that supports the hypothesis that the top destroyed the bottom.

Another paper-thin argument skewed to fit the Truther agenda. Mr. Manning mentions the spray-on fireproofing, and I'm glad he did, because (and perhaps it was too soon to know when this was written) we know now that the majority of the fireproofing was blown off during the impacts.

EVIDENCE? You know the fireproofing was dislodged? How do you know? Where's the evidence?

And here's what Mr. Manning doesn't ask, among his myriad of questions: "Were these the first high-rises to be impacted by fully-loaded 737's?" The answer to that question would have been yes.

The answer is no. The planes were not fully loaded.

PM did more research on the things that mattered than anyone aside from the government...perhaps moreso, since the first 9/11 report found that the funding for the attacks "wasn't important"...but we know why that is. It's because the funding came from Saudi Arabia...our ally.

Did they? Do you believe them? You place your faith on those that are historically linked to the term 'Yellow Journalism'. Go on, look up the term. You will find Hearst publishing at the heart. Popular Mechanics is a Hearst publication. However, if you would like to produce their findings, their evidence, please do so. I'm sure someone here will take a look at it. If it hasn't already been picked apart at some point.

But to your point, the same can be said about those on your side. People with insufficient data (read: Everyone on your side of the argument) and have a penchant for mistrusting the government, and a penchant for conspiracy theories, can come to false conclusions.

OK. Yes, there are some who are (not on our side) convinced that the government were involved, who also state that planes did not hit the buildings, or that mini nukes were involved etc. There are not just two angles, two sides going at it here. Let's just concentrate on the collapse and the evidence it provides.

You can trust me on this. Even before airlines installed technology to make cellphones more reliable (this was post-9/11) you could use your cell on a flight. It wasn't always the best connection, and you could drop a call, but you could use it.

Well, for a start I can't trust you. I can't just simply take your word for it.

Evidence is needed.

 

[leopold]

.
Do "You need to be down there on the ground." to know that a skyscraper must support its own weight through its entire height?

this statement is false.
the midpoint of a skyscraper needs only support the mass above it, not the entire building.
ONLY THE BASE must support the entire weight.

 

[leopold]

Steven E. Jones is a physicist which has examined and is continuing to examine the materials first-hand.

steve jones, to my knowledge, was NOT at ground zero collecting evidence.
there is a BIG difference between examining evidence that someone says came from ground zero and examining evidence that you know for a fact came from ground zero.
this same argument can be applied to the red/ gray chips that were found in two apartments. the ONLY thing we can say for sure about them is that they came from two different apartments, we can't even link them to ground zero.

i also believe that steve jones has lost his job because of his claims.

 

[leopold]

due to psikeyhackrs questions to me regarding the documents i have i went through my shitload of burned CDR's.
i've managed to find a deleted thread that me and stryder have been looking for and i also found an interesting webpage i've saved concerning 9/11.
this page was a discussion with the buildings designer and he has made some very interesting comments concerning WTC 1 and 2.
i am more convinced now than i ever was in the official story.
what are these comments?
well at the top of the page is this notice:
NOTE: This article is meant for the informational purposes to the design community and friends of Leslie Robertson. It is not to be published, reproduced, or quoted publicly without the expressed written consent of both Mr. Leslie Robertson, LERA Consultants, and Mr. Christopher M. Hewitt, Penn State University.

 

[leeray666]

Oh, you've got some new information. Which you can't share with us...

.. Oh, but how do we know it was a discussion with the buildings designer? Were you there?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Do "You need to be down there on the ground." to know that a skyscraper must support its own weight through its entire height?

this statement is false.
the midpoint of a skyscraper needs only support the mass above it, not the entire building.
ONLY THE BASE must support the entire weight.

.
Definitely looks like a reading comprehension problem to me.

What do you think this means?

a skyscraper must support its own weight through its entire height

In a 110 story building the 100th level must support 10 above. The 90th level must support 20 above. The 80th level must support 30 above. etc., etc. All of the way down the building. This is why I say we should know the TONS of STEEL on every level.

Now Johnny do you comprehend the OBVIOUS?

So you choose to think I said the 90th level needed to be strong enough to hold the weight of the entire building? Win the argument by deliberately choosing a stupid intrepretation. Brilliant debating tactics. BORING! So you think I have been continuously asking about the distribution of steel and concrete for what?

psik

 

[leopold]

.. Oh, but how do we know it was a discussion with the buildings designer? Were you there?

i posted the source didn't i?

 

[leopold]

.
Now Johnny do you comprehend the OBVIOUS?

i don't have to tolerate this type of BS from you or anyone else.
i will not respond to any more of your posts.

 

[psikeyhackr]

due to psikeyhackrs questions to me regarding the documents i have i went through my shitload of burned CDR's.

.
ROFLMAO

I only asked about the NCSTAR1 report. Considering its size and difficulty to download and significance to this issue it made no sense to me for you to not know whether or not you had it. If you had it you would have to know. So I concluded you did not even know what it was. Which says a lot about how much you know about this subject and what information is important to it.

You just expected me to be impressed by a shitload. OK, so you have a load of shit. That is what the NCSTAR1 report is. But I figured out that that is what it is.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

i don't have to tolerate this type of BS from you or anyone else.
i will not respond to any more of your posts.

.
EXCELLENT!

psik

 

[swivel]

Sorry to hear that. Was it because they were denied access to the site? I remember hearing about firemen making a protest because they weren't allowed on the site for a given amount of time.

They looted because they were humans in an anarchic state of lawlessness and surrounded by temptation. They were taking laptops and camcorders and one rescue worker had a child's backpack stuffed with steaks that he stole from a deli. Another had a roll of cash, presumably from a register.

It was bad for only the first several hours, before people got their heads back on straight. On the Jersey side, Liberty Landing Marina was unable to accommodate my 74' yacht, so I had to dock at a restaurant across the way. We rushed to a nearby store to grab as much water as we could before our next run across the Hudson, and there was a guy blocking the parking-lot entrance with a front-end loader (he was parked sideways across the parking lot and using the bucket as a movable barrier).

The dude was yelling at us to go grab our guns and get ready for war. He was acting crazy, telling us there were planes dropping all over the country and we had better get our "soft" asses ready for WWIII. It was just a zany situation. Nobody had a fucking clue what was going on or what needed to be done. The Coast Guard got on Ch. 16 and told those of us helping people out to clear the area, but they didn't have enough boats to pick up the slack.

They shut the Hudson down while I was across from Liberty Landing and I needed to get to Chelsea Piers, where the owner's other yacht was. It took many calls and lots of begging, but finally, on 9/12/01, I was allowed to go up the Hudson, the only private yacht to do so that day. I had CG boats on both sides of me with guns ready, just in case we tried anything.


The most bizarre sequence of events occurred the night before. My best friend was up from South Carolina visiting me. We went to the Yankee game the night before, on 9/10/01. We had great seats, but the game was rained out. We sat in the stands for over an hour while the officials hemmed and hawed. Disappointed that I had a visitor and no Yankee game, we were walking back through the WTC on the way to North Cove Marina and decided on a lark to go up to Windows on the World for a drink.

One of the other yacht crews was up there and I struck up a conversation with their engineer, a bloke from Australia. We were in front of the glass, looking down at the city, and I had my head up against the window. I told the guy that it would be crazy if one side of the base gave away right then, because we would tumble down like a domino on the next building, and the next, and so on. He laughed and told me that it would be impossible to make the building fall over sideways, and we argued about that for a little bit. I was convinced you could topple the building like a tree and he was saying that the building lacked the internal rigidity to "hinge" at any point of its length, and the only way it could come down was STRAIGHT down. I left the conversation thinking he was not a smart engineer.

On the night of the 12th, back at Chelsea Pier, we went to a restaurant to mourn those that died and celebrate our getting out of there alive with all of our respective yachts. I saw the engineer and rushed over to him to see if he remembered our conversation and he said that he could think of nothing else. It really shook him up.

My friend, a big Yankee fan, was a mess. I gave him a baseball that I caught at a previous game and wrote on it: Americans 0 - Terrorists 2 and gave it to him. He gave me a Yankee T-Shirt in return.

Hmmm. I haven't talked about this stuff much. It's weird how much comes back, how cathartic it feels. For a long time I could not stop reacting to the sound of jets overhead. I would have an automatic panic attack.