9/11 in 5 Minutes: Video

a reply to: Bigburgh

Nope. Marvin Bush, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the day to day security at the WTC. He was on the board of a company that installed security systems. A company, that had to be excused from their role as a contractor for the WTC when their company was unable to comply with its contract. They ended up as a subcontractor. The WTC, had its own security department AND the PAPD. The normally assigned bomb dogs were at the Complex that day and one of them was killed in the collapse. Your "facts" are severely flawed.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: AnteBellum
The trade canter was designed to withstand a major fire. Open plan as they call it, no intermediate columns to impede floor/office space. It had a central structural core and a perimeter structural support system that tied both together using trusses. Think of it like this, if you place a board across two stacks of bricks then load weight onto the middle of the board the board will deflect down. But also the bricks will deflect inward where they touch the board at the top. Replacing this all with a metal system, then heating it up and dumping the rubble of a jet on top, greatly increases the elasticity of the metal, causing even more deflection. Once one floor was compromised it was over. When structurally designing a building you start at the top and work your way down, as for loading conditions.

Building 7 was structural different - simple steel construction with a curtain wall I believe, without details it's hard to tell but most likely it is. Most demolition crews use as little explosives as possible to exploit the design used on the buildings there trying to bring down, but it all depends on the design. Gravity has no problem pulling everything down you just have to know where to start. In building 7's case taking out columns 58-81 would pull everything inward, then down, all else that would need to be done is cut some of the perimeter columns like chopping down a tree to help it along.

Sorry I'm rushing, If I did a bad job explaining something please let me know.

Those were cold joints all the way down the tower. Nothing 5 floors below the impact was damaged. Considering path of least resistance, why didn't the top section eventually work is way off to the side where there is little to no resistance in that direction? Instead of following this rule, the top section decided to instead plow it's way through hundreds of feet of cold steel joints and concrete.


What pancake theory describes is how if I tossed my 5 year old up in the air and tried to catch him I would be reduced to a pile of bones with my flesh and skin turned to dust.

Maybe I read your example wrong but isn't your example of a board laying across bricks excluding the central columns?

LOL I honestly couldn't tell if your backing up the official claim or arguing it. 1&2 sounded like you believe the Discovery Channels bubble-gum explanation using pancake theory but in #7 it sounds like you believe the building had some help coming down.

And in your post you prove you don't understand pancake theory. It's to do with loading. If the next set of columns can't support the load they'll give way. And so on and so on. In structures that's called progressive collapse. What you tried to describe with your five year old is only applicable if all joints in your body can't resist the load placed on them. They'd fail.

The path of least resistance is actually vertically downward. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 550c, 90% at 800c. Jet A-1 burns at roughly 1000c. Heck, a candle can be over 750c. The steel doesn't need to melt, that point is much further up the scale, it just needs to lose its load bearing capacity. That's day one in a structures classroom. It's a testament to the architects and engineers that the building survived that long.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: AnteBellum
The trade canter was designed to withstand a major fire. Open plan as they call it, no intermediate columns to impede floor/office space. It had a central structural core and a perimeter structural support system that tied both together using trusses. Think of it like this, if you place a board across two stacks of bricks then load weight onto the middle of the board the board will deflect down. But also the bricks will deflect inward where they touch the board at the top. Replacing this all with a metal system, then heating it up and dumping the rubble of a jet on top, greatly increases the elasticity of the metal, causing even more deflection. Once one floor was compromised it was over. When structurally designing a building you start at the top and work your way down, as for loading conditions.

Building 7 was structural different - simple steel construction with a curtain wall I believe, without details it's hard to tell but most likely it is. Most demolition crews use as little explosives as possible to exploit the design used on the buildings there trying to bring down, but it all depends on the design. Gravity has no problem pulling everything down you just have to know where to start. In building 7's case taking out columns 58-81 would pull everything inward, then down, all else that would need to be done is cut some of the perimeter columns like chopping down a tree to help it along.

Sorry I'm rushing, If I did a bad job explaining something please let me know.

Those were cold joints all the way down the tower. Nothing 5 floors below the impact was damaged. Considering path of least resistance, why didn't the top section eventually work is way off to the side where there is little to no resistance in that direction? Instead of following this rule, the top section decided to instead plow it's way through hundreds of feet of cold steel joints and concrete.


What pancake theory describes is how if I tossed my 5 year old up in the air and tried to catch him I would be reduced to a pile of bones with my flesh and skin turned to dust.

Maybe I read your example wrong but isn't your example of a board laying across bricks excluding the central columns?

LOL I honestly couldn't tell if your backing up the official claim or arguing it. 1&2 sounded like you believe the Discovery Channels bubble-gum explanation using pancake theory but in #7 it sounds like you believe the building had some help coming down.

And in your post you prove you don't understand pancake theory. It's to do with loading. If the next set of columns can't support the load they'll give way. And so on and so on. In structures that's called progressive collapse. What you tried to describe with your five year old is only applicable if all joints in your body can't resist the load placed on them. They'd fail.

The path of least resistance is actually vertically downward. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 550c, 90% at 800c. Jet A-1 burns at roughly 1000c. Heck, a candle can be over 750c. The steel doesn't need to melt, that point is much further up the scale, it just needs to lose its load bearing capacity. That's day one in a structures classroom. It's a testament to the architects and engineers that the building survived that long.

The steel below the affected floors was cold. 50% strength when heated is moot. The steel was cold below the impact. The structure below the impact has been holding the rest up for decades and was not affected by the collision. If supports from the section above were removed in instant the force slamming down on the bottom would be much greater than it's dry weight. I get that. But that would require the heat to be spread perfectly even across all joints in order to achieve a perfect snap.

The condition your describing would cause a lot of twisting and buckling before it all let go. Film crews on the ground would pick up the audio from that since it would be mostly high frequency sounds. You didn't hear anything did you? It would be quite obvious. New Jersey would have heard the creeking and twisting.

What you describe did not happen. The floor went "poof" in an instant.

a reply to: AnteBellum

EVERY SINGLE LOW LEVEL COLUMN WOULD HAVE HAD TO FAIL AT THE EXACT SAME TIME FOR IT TO FALL WITHOUT BANKING IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER. 

If you believe that about #7, why not #1 & #2? The construction was different but the same principle would apply. #1 & 2 came down perfectly straight and uniform. I don't compare it to a demolition, it just looks like it was blown up from just below the impact. Heavy explosives would only need to be place every 10 floors or so to keep the speed of collapse that we say.

There was never a witness to say it sounded like a steel structure was failing. All the witnesses ever said was that they heard explosions.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: AnteBellum
The trade canter was designed to withstand a major fire. Open plan as they call it, no intermediate columns to impede floor/office space. It had a central structural core and a perimeter structural support system that tied both together using trusses. Think of it like this, if you place a board across two stacks of bricks then load weight onto the middle of the board the board will deflect down. But also the bricks will deflect inward where they touch the board at the top. Replacing this all with a metal system, then heating it up and dumping the rubble of a jet on top, greatly increases the elasticity of the metal, causing even more deflection. Once one floor was compromised it was over. When structurally designing a building you start at the top and work your way down, as for loading conditions.

Building 7 was structural different - simple steel construction with a curtain wall I believe, without details it's hard to tell but most likely it is. Most demolition crews use as little explosives as possible to exploit the design used on the buildings there trying to bring down, but it all depends on the design. Gravity has no problem pulling everything down you just have to know where to start. In building 7's case taking out columns 58-81 would pull everything inward, then down, all else that would need to be done is cut some of the perimeter columns like chopping down a tree to help it along.

Sorry I'm rushing, If I did a bad job explaining something please let me know.

Those were cold joints all the way down the tower. Nothing 5 floors below the impact was damaged. Considering path of least resistance, why didn't the top section eventually work is way off to the side where there is little to no resistance in that direction? Instead of following this rule, the top section decided to instead plow it's way through hundreds of feet of cold steel joints and concrete.


What pancake theory describes is how if I tossed my 5 year old up in the air and tried to catch him I would be reduced to a pile of bones with my flesh and skin turned to dust.

Maybe I read your example wrong but isn't your example of a board laying across bricks excluding the central columns?

LOL I honestly couldn't tell if your backing up the official claim or arguing it. 1&2 sounded like you believe the Discovery Channels bubble-gum explanation using pancake theory but in #7 it sounds like you believe the building had some help coming down.

And in your post you prove you don't understand pancake theory. It's to do with loading. If the next set of columns can't support the load they'll give way. And so on and so on. In structures that's called progressive collapse. What you tried to describe with your five year old is only applicable if all joints in your body can't resist the load placed on them. They'd fail.

The path of least resistance is actually vertically downward. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 550c, 90% at 800c. Jet A-1 burns at roughly 1000c. Heck, a candle can be over 750c. The steel doesn't need to melt, that point is much further up the scale, it just needs to lose its load bearing capacity. That's day one in a structures classroom. It's a testament to the architects and engineers that the building survived that long.

The steel below the affected floors was cold. 50% strength when heated is moot. The steel was cold below the impact. The structure below the impact has been holding the rest up for decades and was not affected by the collision. If supports from the section above were removed in instant the force slamming down on the bottom would be much greater than it's dry weight. I get that. But that would require the heat to be spread perfectly even across all joints in order to achieve a perfect snap.

The condition your describing would cause a lot of twisting and buckling before it all let go. Film crews on the ground would pick up the audio from that since it would be mostly high frequency sounds. You didn't hear anything did you? It would be quite obvious. New Jersey would have heard the creeking and twisting.

What you describe did not happen. The floor went "poof" in an instant.

Not true again. The steel work was subject to an instantaneous impact loading of the equivalent of ~9% of its structure, and in the other ~20% of its structure. These aren't calculated uniformally distributed loads.
The steel doesn't need to slowly buckle and twist. It's taking the loading, then it can't, then it fails. There are pictures of sagging floor trusses. You're expecting noise but I would question why you think everyone should hear it. I don't doubt that the steel failing created noise, I just don't expect everyone in new Jersey to have heard it.
It also wouldn't require an even distribution of heat. You said 50% at 500c was moot, no it isn't, its a scientific fact. There was a central core which carried most of the loading, heat this and watch it lose strength, the only way for it to go is vertically downwards.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: AnteBellum

EVERY SINGLE LOW LEVEL COLUMN WOULD HAVE HAD TO FAIL AT THE EXACT SAME TIME FOR IT TO FALL WITHOUT BANKING IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER. 

If you believe that about #7, why not #1 & #2? The construction was different but the same principle would apply. #1 & 2 came down perfectly straight and uniform. I don't compare it to a demolition, it just looks like it was blown up from just below the impact. Heavy explosives would only need to be place every 10 floors or so to keep the speed of collapse that we say.

There was never a witness to say it sounded like a steel structure was failing. All the witnesses ever said was that they heard explosions.

How many of the witnesses have heard a 110 storey steel structure collapsing before. You ever crushed concrete or steel or wood? Sometimes it goes quietly, sometimes it explodes noisily. The situation was beyond unprecedented. The majority of the people in the area on that day have little to know knowledge of the destructive properties of materials, they are in a super high pressure, very alien situation. I would happily debate the likelihood of witness statements being very confused that day, especially if you are asking for technical details.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

IMO the point of the attack was to fly jets into the building, the fact that it collapsed was only a bonus to those that arranged it.
In reality we can go back and forth forever on this but we both agree something else was at work here. That's the important part.

Now for the hard part, who and why? Proof?

Nothing I heard so far makes complete sense yet. In many ways I think their plan is still in motion.

a reply to: AnteBellum

It seems you are researching this topic, might I suggest you look into pictures and videos of the building of WTC 1 &2.
There you will see a steel core that just could not telescope into itself going down at nearly free fall speed, without some type of help.

I can only say this...a lot of weird things happened that day. I do believe that it was allowed to happen. How deep that rabbit hole goes...well...I'm sure it goes pretty deep.

What I will say, though, is that on that day someone who was watching the TV who was in the military(with all of us who were stunned by what we were seeing) said that they knew it was Osama Bin Laden. So, the fact that people would guess that it was masterminded by him, is not strange. He was a regular soldier, and not a general, or even an officer, as far as my memory serves.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The help was the shearing effect of floors above pulling down as the weight above pulled those down. Almost like pealing a banana if the skin was attached to the edible part, it would rip the fruit out with it. Due to gravity and tons of debris it all just got shredded in downward fashion.
But again I think the conspiracy is still valid regardless, Building 7 did not fall by itself and if that part isn't true, someone has some explaining to do.
Hopefully we won't have to see this happen again to fully understand the truth.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The help was the shearing effect of floors above pulling down as the weight above pulled those down. Almost like pealing a banana if the skin was attached to the edible part, it would rip the fruit out with it. Due to gravity and tons of debris it all just got shredded in downward fashion.
But again I think the conspiracy is still valid regardless, Building 7 did not fall by itself and if that part isn't true, someone has some explaining to do.
Hopefully we won't have to see this happen again to fully understand the truth.

Building 7. So you think explosives brought that down. What fantastic luck that the building was struck and severely damaged by falling debris from 1 and 2. If that hadn't happened, how would they have destroyed it then? Would they leave it and quietly sneak back in and remove all the carefully hidden charges? Or blow it up regardless? This is where it gets tricky.
There are so many quotes from firefighters talking about the serious damage and the fires. There are lots of pics of the building seriously under way with fire. There are picks of a large gouge running down the facade. If it hadn't have been for all these things, then maybe you'd have a point.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Why don't you read the previous posts I wrote and then watch demolitions of all different types, on different structures, specifically tall buildings. Pay especially close attention learning what all the demolition crews are trying to prevent and ultimately gets paid big bucks for doing it correctly. Then try to make the same conclusion.

A.) If the building fell from damage it would have fallen partially and from the top down or from the section that received damage. Also it would have shifted to the one or more side(s) quite a bit more.

B.) There were 3 main central core support systems, they failed at the same time. Then all the perimeter support columns failed at the same time also - at ground level. The building went straight down - the entire thing. If it was a partial, facade or 'cave-in' I would change my mind, but it wasn't.
C.) If you were standing at the top floor looking out a window you would have watched(alive) the entire building fall down. The building collapsed top-down, not like a building that collapses from weight or damage(just look at the difference in the way the TT's fell). Someone pulled the legs out from under this building at all critical points at the same time. Play the lottery much?

a reply to: AnteBellum

It is building seven that is the first domino in the conspiracy, if that building was planned, then by pure logic the whole thing was planned. Back in 2006 when I realized this, was when I stopped believing the OS. But I believed it 100% until then. Some said on 9/11 they new things weren't right with the OS, I never felt that that way, it took me 5 years.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Why don't you read the previous posts I wrote and then watch demolitions of all different types, on different structures, specifically tall buildings. Pay especially close attention learning what all the demolition crews are trying to prevent and ultimately gets paid big bucks for doing it correctly. Then try to make the same conclusion.

A.) If the building fell from damage it would have fallen partially and from the top down or from the section that received damage. Also it would have shifted to the one or more side(s) quite a bit more.

B.) There were 3 main central core support systems, they failed at the same time. Then all the perimeter support columns failed at the same time also - at ground level. The building went straight down - the entire thing. If it was a partial, facade or 'cave-in' I would change my mind, but it wasn't.
C.) If you were standing at the top floor looking out a window you would have watched(alive) the entire building fall down. The building collapsed top-down, not like a building that collapses from weight or damage(just look at the difference in the way the TT's fell). Someone pulled the legs out from under this building at all critical points at the same time. Play the lottery much?

I have read them and I'm asking you for a hypothetical. If the building hadn't been damaged at the bottom corner, if it didn't take damage in a large gouge down the face, if it hadn't burned for 6 hours, would the building still have been 'destroyed'? Its lucky that those first three things happen otherwise it would look like someone planted explosives (again, with nobody noticing) and demolished it. However, it had taken damage at the corner, there was a large gouge on the face and it had burned out of control for 6 hours. Why go to all the trouble of crashing planes into three buildings when you could cause as much damage as they did in Oklahoma with a massive truck bomb?

Conspiracy theories don't have to abide by the rules of logic.
They only have to survive a couple of one liners.

I do like the line of questioning of what would they have done if parts of 1&2 had not gouged 7.
But this is one of those questions they won't answer because it falls outside the rules of logic.

Always wondered why a single photo has never been released of the Pentagon plane before it hit. That security video is an embarrassment.

To me thats the most damning evidence that the official 9/11 story has serious 'issues'

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

My experience is very similar to yours, it was seven that changed my mind.


a reply to: scottyirnbru

The way I see it and it is an opinion, is that the plan was to crash 2 jets into each building; tower 1 & 2. The fact they fell was incidental, the fact Building 7 was pulled is a mystery to me also but either out of desperation or something else it was.
Why would they do this?
I've heard all the same stories you've had and in complete honesty, don't believe anyone has nailed it to date. The best strategic planners tend to roll with the punches and exploit situation on a real time basis. At times I am an acting project manager being an architect, I find myself doing this to my advantage, on job sites nearly every day.
I don't have all the answers or am even trying to say I do, but the fact that that one little thing, building 7 was demolished, leads me down a path that makes me scrutinize the whole event. I don't think a missile hit the pentagon and I don't think the USA was involved in this, I stray to believe they let it happen for their own agenda gain but at the last minute a contingency plan went into action that caused a mistake or two to be made.
I hope in the future we can all see the truth in this matter and if I am wrong I will be the first to acknowledge it. But given so much is at stake here, I mean ALL of our futures, our families, our children, everything we grew up loving and believing to be true, makes me keep looking.


a reply to: devilhunter69

The Pentagon uses a different type of defense system, one similar to Langley, in which they don't consider an outside event a threat to any great degree. There are other measures in place, the video systems in this case were only used for documentation, not security. On the inside a whole other world existed and the closer to the center the more checkpoints one would have to navigate. A redundancy system on steroids on top of all the underground stuff we don't know about makes it the most secure building in the country. To bad they didn't have a missile defense system in place at the time. . . you can guess they do now though!

originally posted by: devilhunter69
Always wondered why a single photo has never been released of the Pentagon plane before it hit. That security video is an embarrassment.

To me thats the most damning evidence that the official 9/11 story has serious 'issues'

Lowest bid from a private contractor. What do you expect?
They certainly were not expecting to be attacked from the air.
What do you bet the security video system was 10 years old by 2001?
Remember the old Sony Beta systems where they recorded 1 frame per second? Inside the tape looked like a kid was playing with the pause button.

No conspiracy. Just lack of forethought.
Remember this is the same government that couldn't get water to Katrina victims.
But let a ball player get caught with steroids and it's senate hearings!
These buffoons couldn't pull a booger without a photo op.

I came up with funny some funny symbolism to take a crack at debunking apollo 11.


www.zerohurt.blogspot.com...

Then put it in the space section.