September 11th; does anyone else think it was suspicious

[Sailt2]

Now we can see clearly why funding education is so low. We are treated like stupid fools. Worst, if we think deeper about why this "hood wink" by the government might happen.

 

Any science teacher, architect, structural engineer, welder & metalegist would know that structural steel will not be weakened to even near failure by burning jet fuel, it does not burn hot enough. Even if the buildings burned for week (or untill the fuel was consumed), the structural steel core/spline would still be standing. If you obseerve the smelting of steel. you will not be able to miss the key factor on making steel melt ... time time time!!!! Visit a welding shop and ask to observe (with safeety glasses) steel being welded. Better yet visit a steel manufacturing plant making structural steel shapes. You will see "red hot" steel bring rolled into various sizes and shapes They are bright red but still not hot enough to melt. It takes considerable time to heat up steel and then it does not burn. Concrete which was pulverized into the dust to small enogh particals to be breathed in by firefighters, is "fire proofing", 4 inches is rated by UL as 4 hour fire protection. The building construction type was "fireproof", the sprinklers were to exstinguish burning contents, not the structure. To virtually instantly melt structural steel is impossible. If it could be meakened or melted by jet fuel, how could it be used to power the jet engines, they would just melt and puddle on the tarmat. If you watched a welder heatup steel to weld, you would realize it would take thousands of welders weeks to cut through the largest, thickest steel columns. The towers imploded at one floor per second. Uniform explosions were visible at each floor on the many videos.

 

Yes. It can be truefully said that the planes hitting the buildings caused the collapse, however, jet fuel did not cause the buildings to implode. The fire triggered the built in implosion system. If you can accept that, the next logical question is WHEN??? The logical anser is - when it was built in 1973 or there abouts. Then WHY? The only answer that allows me to sleep at night is that it was built in as a safety system. If the building(s) ever were subject to toppling, in addition to all the people inside, thousands of other humans would be killed who were in the path of the toppling would also be killed. Sooo bringing the building down was a humanitarian act. And, the question WHO installed the computer controlled implosion system. The only source for thermite then was the military. Speculation that the system was installed to fake a cause to start a war is not supported by this writer. The BIG LIE is undertandable to prevent panic. The truth could cause manny many many highrise buildings to become vacant for public fear. further, the real estate interest would be devestated. Who else, I can't imagine that the computer system that controlled the implosion was not given approval by the Mayor and the President.

[Sailt2]

Now we can see clearly why funding education is so low. We are treated like stupid fools. Worst, if we think deeper about why this "hood wink" by the government might happen.

 

Any science teacher, architect, structural engineer, welder & metalegist would know that structural steel will not be weakened to even near failure by burning jet fuel, it does not burn hot enough. Even if the buildings burned for week (or untill the fuel was consumed), the structural steel core/spline would still be standing. If you obseerve the smelting of steel. you will not be able to miss the key factor on making steel melt ... time time time!!!! Visit a welding shop and ask to observe (with safeety glasses) steel being welded. Better yet visit a steel manufacturing plant making structural steel shapes. You will see "red hot" steel bring rolled into various sizes and shapes They are bright red but still not hot enough to melt. It takes considerable time to heat up steel and then it does not burn. Concrete which was pulverized into the dust to small enogh particals to be breathed in by firefighters, is "fire proofing", 4 inches is rated by UL as 4 hour fire protection. The building construction type was "fireproof", the sprinklers were to exstinguish burning contents, not the structure. To virtually instantly melt structural steel is impossible. If it could be meakened or melted by jet fuel, how could it be used to power the jet engines, they would just melt and puddle on the tarmat. If you watched a welder heatup steel to weld, you would realize it would take thousands of welders weeks to cut through the largest, thickest steel columns. The towers imploded at one floor per second. Uniform explosions were visible at each floor on the many videos.

 

Yes. It can be truefully said that the planes hitting the buildings caused the collapse, however, jet fuel did not cause the buildings to implode. The fire triggered the built in implosion system. If you can accept that, the next logical question is WHEN??? The logical anser is - when it was built in 1973 or there abouts. Then WHY? The only answer that allows me to sleep at night is that it was built in as a safety system. If the building(s) ever were subject to toppling, in addition to all the people inside, thousands of other humans would be killed who were in the path of the toppling would also be killed. Sooo bringing the building down was a humanitarian act. And, the question WHO installed the computer controlled implosion system. The only source for thermite then was the military. Speculation that the system was installed to fake a cause to start a war is not supported by this writer. The BIG LIE is undertandable to prevent panic. The truth could cause manny many many highrise buildings to become vacant for public fear. further, the real estate interest would be devestated. Who else, I can't imagine that the computer system that controlled the implosion was not given approval by the Mayor and the President.

[John Cuthber]

First off, we heard you the first time.

"Any science teacher, architect, structural engineer, welder & metalegist would know that structural steel will not be weakened to even near failure by burning jet fuel,"

and your evidence for this is what exactly?

I have personally worked steel by heating it to red hot. If the flames from the jet fuel were not at least red hot they would not have been visible.

People report seeing flames (and the video supports this).

 

The flames were clearly hot enough to soften steel.

 

 

"you will not be able to miss the key factor on making steel melt ... time time time!"

Bollocks.

The melting point of water is zero degrees C, hotter and it melts, colder and it freezes. Time doesn't enter into it. The same is true for steel.

I can burn steel in seconds with a candle flame as long as the steel is thin.

"They are bright red but still not hot enough to melt."

No, but they are soft enough to roll into shape. That's the point. Did you think they heated the stuff to red heat because they liked the colour?

 

"If it could be meakened or melted by jet fuel, how could it be used to power the jet engines"

Because the structural parts of jet engines that take the brunt of the flame are not made of steel but from so called super-alloys. Even then they need to be cooled to stop them melting.

These materials are very expensive so they don't build skyscrapers out of them.

 

You may have a point about poor standards of education, but you seem to be looking in the wrong direction.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And, the question WHO installed the computer controlled implosion system. The only source for thermite then was the military.

I'm fairly certain that anyone with a small amount of chemistry experience and some sort of grinding device could produce thermite at home in a few hours. I've played with it in high school classes.

[mississippichem]

I'm fairly certain that anyone with a small amount of chemistry experience and some sort of grinding device could produce thermite at home in a few hours. I've played with it in high school classes.

 

true, a five year old can do his reaction. It's just iron oxide (rust) and aluminum chips maybe with a magnesium fuse. Some people talk about "nano-thermite" being in the WTC's but that's just "really finely ground thermite".

 

Any science teacher, architect, structural engineer, welder & metalegist would know that structural steel will not be weakened to even near failure by burning jet fuel, it does not burn hot enough. Even if the buildings burned for week (or untill the fuel was consumed), the structural steel core/spline would still be standing. If you obseerve the smelting of steel. you will not be able to miss the key factor on making steel melt ... time time time!!!! Visit a welding shop and ask to observe (with safeety glasses) steel being welded. Better yet visit a steel manufacturing plant making structural steel shapes. You will see "red hot" steel bring rolled into various sizes and shapes They are bright red but still not hot enough to melt. It takes considerable time to heat up steel and then it does not burn.

 

Sailt 2, see post #4 This issue has already been addressed. The iron doesn't have to melt or burn. It only has to undergo a phase transition in order for the building to collapse.

[D H]

Now we can see clearly why funding education is so low. We are treated like stupid fools.

You are correct. The 9/11 wacko movement, along with the birthers and creationism, exemplifies the fact that our education system does generate stupid fools.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm just curious; am I the only one who finds the World Trade Center bombing more than a little suspicious?

Absolutely not. But you might have noticed that this has already been placed in the speculations subforum... It's a topic which I believe is just not open for discussion. Not if you disagree with the official story.

 

And even if we would discuss it - what's the point? You want to prove that the USA faked an attack, killed 3000 people, started a war, scared its population and deliberately reduced the freedom of its population?

In the theoretical case that you succeed in proving that... What would happen next? Revolution? National shame?

 

Sometimes it's better not to be sure if a lie is indeed a lie or not.

Yes, despite being a scientist, I honestly believe this. I don't see a good outcome even if this thread were to succeed.

[Marat]

A milder version of what you envision if the whole story were to come out has already occurred. The whole country knows now that the attack on Iraq was based on a misrepresentation which was required to allow the old Wolfowitz Plan to be piggybacked onto 9/11 to generate a fake reason for realizing American imperialist ambitions in the Middle East, justifying continued funneling of tax money from the people to the military-industrial complex, and as a bonus, limiting civil liberties in the U.S. as part of the administration's pre-existing law and order agenda. But incredibly, after discovering that the whole trillion-dollar plus outlay for the Iraq invasion, plus the thousands of American lives lost, plus the destruction of Iraq and hundreds of thousands of its people, was based on a self-serving lie by the Bush administration, the U.S. population has just shrugged and polls even still show that many Americans think Bush was a good President. If the population accepts that, would it be so much more disruptive if they were now also to discover that the U.S. government deliberately destroyed the WTC as a causus belli?

[Ringer]

Actually if you look at Bush's approval rating from 2005 to 2009 he has not once had a positive approval rating. So the public hasn't accepted anything about him being a 'good' president.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Twinbird24]

The fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types. For virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C. This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. It is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.

 

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate.

 

So how is it that the WTC fell with such high speed in under 3 hours, straight in it's own footprint? It just seems hard to believe that fire alone could have caused this. And what about all the eye witnesses that reported hearing multiple explosions, even before the first plane hit? And why did the 9/11 commission completely ignore the hundreds of survivors, professionals, first responders, firefighters and police who reported numerous secondary explosions at all levels of the twin towers?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Twinbird24

[Bignose]

Any science teacher, architect, structural engineer, welder & metalegist would know that structural steel will not be weakened to even near failure by burning jet fuel, it does not burn hot enough.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/national/main2740065.shtml

 

Here's a bridge that collapsed because burning gasoline weakened the steel in the bridge. These aren't that terribly difficult conditions to have occur.

 

Or maybe this bridge collapse is a conspiracy too?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Twinbird24: You could try reading the NIST report (or at least the executive summary), or even the summary I wrote earlier in this thread, to learn how the collapse worked without melting the steel. NIST has run fairly extensive computational simulations of the collapse as well.

 

!

Moderator Note

Twinbird: Also, stop plagiarizing your posts. It's fairly obvious.

[Twinbird24]

LOL yes it's very obvious, here is the link: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

 

I've read through some of the NIST report information, I remain skeptical. I've watched hour long movies that explain this "conspiracy" theory, and am still watching more, it just makes sense like this.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You apparently haven't read much of it, since it addresses many of your concerns.

[michel123456]

After informing myself about conspiracy of 9/11, I came to the impression something has not been explained.

When such an event arise, like airplane highjacking, governmental authorities (like FBI, CIA, and others) immediately work on the case. It means that "war on terror" began even before the airplanes hit the towers. All informations related to the event must have been classified right from the beginning. The information collected have naturally passed through authority approval, and any information suceptible to help the terrorists or harm the U.S. has been removed. It is always the case in a state of war.

 

The expression "war on terror" did not came from nowhere, but from a well informed attorney in the oval office. In time of war, laws change.

It must also be clear that any terrorist action is accompanied by a message, usualy a written text, or a video, explaining the reasons of the act, describing the ennemy, and justifying the act. It is well known from the authorities and when such an event occur one of the main concern is to intercept and destroy the message or to change it radically. And as far as I know that has been succesfully done in the 9/11 case. In fact, as simple individuals, we have no information coming directly from the terrorists, we have only information distilled by auhorities. And this may be a cause of conspiracy theories: yes of course you have not access to the whole story, you are in state of war.

 

As for the discussion of the collapse of the towers, I am an architect, and I am not surprised. Metal buildings are not fire-proof. There is no need for the steel to melt, it has been stated before. I may say that I saw in almost real time on my tv screen the planes crash into the towers, and I was surprised that the towers resist so well to the tremendous impact. And one must know that even without the presence of fuel, a common fire is very very destructive.

 

Here is

, you may found several others.

Remember, without tons of fuel spread everywhere....

[John Cuthber]

"The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."

Which part of "This issue has already been addressed. The iron doesn't have to melt or burn. It only has to undergo a phase transition in order for the building to collapse. "

did you not understand?

 

"The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C"

Demonstrably false. All you need is a lit candle and a thin bit of copper wire.

 

Do you realise that saying things that are not true on a science website is more likely to hinder your cause than to help it?

 

"It just seems hard to believe that fire alone could have caused this."

I think we have already heard the argument from incredulity a few times.

You should stop using it now because it just looks a bit silly.

[Twinbird24]

(I must split up my post into two)

 

Yet more people who do not believe this "official" 9/11 story:

http://world911truth.org/90-percent-of-germans-do-not-believe-official-9-11-story/

 

Here is another website, more scholars who "supporters endeavoring to address the unanswered questions of the September 11, 2001 attack through scientific research and public education."

http://stj911.org/members/index.html

 

"Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. "

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

 

"There has been a high-level governmental lying about what happened, and what didn't happen, on that day."

There are a number of things that remain unanswered about 9/11: http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2010/09/911-questions-remain-unanswered

How did building 7 fall? It was not hit by a plane, the other buildings did not fall on it, how did this 47 story steel building crumble into such a tiny pile of rubble?

 

Here is some interesting footage:

Something being ejected from the tower.

 

And what about the links I posted early about eye witness reporting explosions before any planes even hit?

 

"A NIST fact sheet at http://wtc.nist.gov? , states:

 

“Some 200 technical experts — including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia — reviewed tens of thousands documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.”

 

The conclusion of the NIST investigation was:

 

• The impact of the aircraft into the towers severed and damaged support beams, dislodged fireproofed installation and widely dispersed jet fuel over several floors.

 

• The jet fuel ignited, reached temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, and weakened floors and columns to the point where floors sagged and pulled perimeter columns inward.

 

• The bowing inward of the perimeter columns led to the failure of the two towers.

 

According to NIST investigators, the towers experienced no “pancaking” or other evidence of demolition.

 

And according to NIST, “WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse.”

 

But according to Cole, NIST and other existing reports fall short of investigating and detailing what he said were the “three of the largest structural failures” of buildings."

More can be found here: http://stj911.org/blog/

 

And what about NORAD?

"The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth."

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kwl7hC3hq8

 

And here is a list of other anomalies that happened on 9/11: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/topanomalies.html

It includes: NIST disingenuously evaded calls to test for explosive residues.

and: NIST avoided the core issue of the 'collapses'

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The NORAD complaints are kind of silly. The link argues that the F-16s weren't traveling at their top speed, but if they did, they'd be out of fuel before they reached the airliners. Afterburners suck.

 

NIST can hardly be expected to test for explosives, since they were dealing with a collapse caused by airliners.

[Twinbird24]

Why do you just ignore almost everything I posted? The NORAD complains aren't silly, read the rest of the "complaints" and watch the videos, read my entire post, then respond.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I did read the entire post. Many of the points have been previously addressed, and I hate the conspiracy theory movement's propensity to make everything into a dramatic video instead of writing out an explanation properly. (This applies to every other conspiracy as well -- they're always videos.)

[mississippichem]

I did read the entire post. Many of the points have been previously addressed, and I hate the conspiracy theory movement's propensity to make everything into a dramatic video instead of writing out an explanation properly. (This applies to every other conspiracy as well -- they're always videos.)

 

It's easier to surpass logic and reason with a video by evoking emotions in the viewers. 911 was a traumatic experience for us Americans, and it's easy to get people suspicious over an event surrounded by so much hype.

[rigney]

It's easier to surpass logic and reason with a video by evoking emotions in the viewers. 911 was a traumatic experience for us Americans, and it's easy to get people suspicious over an event surrounded by so much hype.

 

Purely speculative on my part, but had those planes hit only the upper two or three floors, chances are there would have been serious structural and fire damage and the deaths at that level confined to those upper floors. Had it happened that way, I doubt if neither building would have collapsed. But since I have no idea of how much 20 to 30 floors of one of those buildings weigh, I cant be certain. So, when 6 or 8r floors are wiped out below twenty to thirty intact ones standing above them, well, buildings aren't erected with the idea of withstanding the impact of an almost "vacuum drop". When those floors buckled, you had 20 to 30 floors free fallng through that void. Someone on the BBC had a short video of the progressive sounds of the progressive dropping floors that brought the buildings down, I just cant find it again. But watch this and thank of even ten floors, falling into and through an emptiness of 60 to 90 feet or more of what should have been those destroyed and burned out floors. No explosives would have been needed.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615#docid=-5860825099435530591

Edited January 24, 2011 by rigney

[dragonstar57]

@rigney you seem to say that you think the towers fell as the official explanation says they did but your video says that it was blown up by bombs in the elevators.

(note: I do not believe in any 9/11 conspiracy but...)

i would like explained how the WTC tower 7 fell.

i saw a explanation of how tower 1 and 2 fell

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

and such a explanation would be helpful for tower 7.

if fire alone is not enough to destroy a insulated steel building what was it that damaged the fire proofing?

some form of seismic shock wave from the WTC tower' 1 and 2s' collapse?

perhaps there is some unknown chemical *perhaps in computer monitors* that is explosive/flammable that could have contributed to the fall of 7?

it does not seem "suspicious" but it does seem odd.

Edited January 24, 2011 by dragonstar57

[Twinbird24]

I did read the entire post. Many of the points have been previously addressed, and I hate the conspiracy theory movement's propensity to make everything into a dramatic video instead of writing out an explanation properly. (This applies to every other conspiracy as well -- they're always videos.)

 

Not all the points have been previously addressed, let me make them clear:

 

1) The collapse of building 7, no planes hit it, nothing fell on it, it just randomly caught fire and collapsed into a small pile of rubble (controlled demolition style) within a few hours, and fire alone cannot cause this.

 

(note: I do not believe in any 9/11 conspiracy but...)

i would like explained how the WTC tower 7 fell.

i saw a explanation of how tower 1 and 2 fell

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

and such a explanation would be helpful for tower 7.

if fire alone is not enough to destroy a insulated steel building what was it that damaged the fire proofing?

some form of seismic shock wave from the WTC tower' 1 and 2s' collapse?

perhaps there is some unknown chemical *perhaps in computer monitors* that is explosive/flammable that could have contributed to the fall of 7?

it does not seem "suspicious" but it does seem odd.

 

Even this person wants an explanation for this (although he is unwilling to accept that it was obviously a controlled demolition that brought it down), but his theories that a seismic shock wave caused by the collapse of the first two WTC towers is ridiculous. I've never even heard that before (building 7 was designed to handle more than what would be caused by this relatively small shock wave, if it was even produced). The theory about the computer monitors bringing down building 7 is also silly. You don't even have any evidence or sources to back up these claims!

 

2) The eye witnesses that heard several explosions, even before the first planes hit, and why several eyewitness accounts weren't included in the "official" (flawed) commission report.

 

3) The visible explosion at the WTC (video) before the building started to collapse.

 

4) Why do 90% of Germans not believe the "official" 9/11 theory. Why are there so many architects and engineers that don't believe this theory either (more than the 200 or so that where involved in this NIST report)?

 

Also, why do you only pick out a small part of the NORAD story, about the F-16s and their speed? Why don't you address all of it? Like how so many things failed on that day, when NORAD has practiced intercepting airliners before, with 100% accuracy in the past, but not in this specific day. No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases.

 

I don't see any problems with videos (I don't find them dramatic), the ones I've posted (and hour long ones I've watch in the past) provide lots of information. Also, the videos that support the "official" 9/11 theory are just as equally "dramatic." This "conspiracy" theory has been written down as well (not just videos), there are articles on it everywhere, even books, and scholarly articles as well!

Edited January 24, 2011 by Twinbird24

[rigney]

@rigney you seem to say that you think the towers fell as the official explanation says they did but your video says that it was blown up by bombs in the elevators.

(note: I do not believe in any 9/11 conspiracy but...)

i would like explained how the WTC tower 7 fell.

i saw a explanation of how tower 1 and 2 fell

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

and such a explanation would be helpful for tower 7.

if fire alone is not enough to destroy a insulated steel building what was it that damaged the fire proofing?

some form of seismic shock wave from the WTC tower' 1 and 2s' collapse?

perhaps there is some unknown chemical *perhaps in computer monitors* that is explosive/flammable that could have contributed to the fall of 7?

it does not seem "suspicious" but it does seem odd.

 

I supposedly made a negative remark that got me a couple "red squares", demerits if you will; and just don't want to go there again. But no, I will not argue with those who believe it was a conspiracy. Their thoughts are as valid as mine theorizing what happened on that day. But to blame our government for the act of this terrorism, is not rational to me. And building #7 collapsing, I honestly believe was the result of trauma and shock experienced when the towers fell on 9/11. Edited January 24, 2011 by rigney