9/11 in 5 Minutes: Video

originally posted by: AnteBellum
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!

That doesn't answer my question. If the building had not been damaged considerably by debris and fire would they still have 'blown it up'? Its a real bit of 'luck' to the planners that all this happened otherwise they'd surely need to sneak in and remove all these carefully planted explosives. If the building had no damage or fire you'd have a point, as it is, its ridiculous. It didn't magically topple over. Damage to structure both on the face and in a corner, long unabated fire, collapse.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

I thought you read my previous posts on this, here it is again:

As for Building 7 it was without a shadow of a doubt in my mind deliberately demolished with a 'plug and play' demolition setup. Federal building not open to public scrutiny, everything was in place to accept explosives well in advance to Sept. 11. From the videos I've seen they kept everyone out until they snapped in place the explosives to pre-wired systems. Made a cut here and there and 'boom'! (directional explosives or thermite would of been invaluable here, if they used it) I even remember from the jaded History Channel Movie they play every 9/11 they had a security guard in the lobby after the first tower fell, WTF, why would they need that for? A 110 story building just fell next door to you with another on it's way, but he needed to stand guard and watch the lobby in Building 7, Yeah right!
If it took 10 minutes to set one explosive charge(24 core columns), 1 guy = 4 hours or 2 guys = 2 hours plus cutting time which by looking at the plan only needed to be done to about 6 columns on the perimeter(I'd have to look at the collapse of Bld. 7 again to see how it fell to make a better determination). What I'm trying to say is 3-4 guys could have done this if there was existing access to steel columns and demolition wiring system already in place in about 6 hrs, with time to spare.

As for your question to "would they still have 'blown it up'?" I have no idea! I don't know why they blew it up to begin with.
They didn't need to sneak in and 'remove' explosives because there wouldn't be any to remove if they chose not to demolish it. The demolition wiring in place before 911 would not look any different from the other thousands of miles of wire being the only tangible evidence. Most buildings contain all wiring neatly tucked away in wire chases and raceways and even then it's pretty chaotic.
I suggest you look at videos of steel buildings on fire, charts and information pertaining to these situations also. Not that in a universe with infinite possibilities that this could not happen, but I am an architect and have had to watch and read all this material from one time to another. Fire alone will not take down a steel building, they are by designed to resist fire, engineers and architects have had 100 years of experience in knowing what NOT to do, especially in a Federal building which everything is 'beefed' up. The fact that some part of the building was damaged would mean that location would have collapsed downward. Look at the video this didn't happen, the building failed at ground level on all sides, by all columns interior and exterior, at the same exact time.

a reply to: AnteBellum

The fact that some part of the building was damaged would mean that location would have collapsed downward. Look at the video this didn't happen, the building failed at ground level on all sides, by all columns interior and exterior, at the same exact time.

Look at other videos.
You will find a different angle where the center penthouse starts falling before the outside walls.

a reply to: samkent

I have seen those. The center falls inward(just like if the core columns were taken out) then the rest follows. This follows the demolition standard, pull the building inward on top of itself to minimize debris outward. I've watched so many videos of this now it's starting to bore me. If the roof collapsed the top would collapse the building down, to street level. This isn't what happened the building went down just like it was being 'pulled' into the ground. Again top floor windows remained intact until the last moment, it just doesn't work that way.
Can we just agree to disagree on this?
Convincing the masses is not a job I wanted, yet I find myself arguing this issue when my stance from the beginning was to look into future events. As all this relates to the whole 911 issue, it's now just 'water under the bridge'.

a reply to: AnteBellum

Can we just agree to disagree on this?
Convincing the masses is not a job I wanted, yet I find myself arguing this issue

I will agree to disagree.
But you don't need to convince the masses. They believe the OS.

The general belief in conspiracies was delt a big blow a couple of years ago when Harold Camping was wrong and Nibiru never came. People finally got a grip. They caught on that the crap they read on the internet was really crap.

It will be interesting to see how much coverage the 911 conspiracy gets this week.
I'll bet less than last year.

look at how all the shills have managed to slap the term "truther" to anyone who questions the offical story.

quite clever actually. psychological warfare. making the sane look like nut jobs.

a reply to: SkuzzleButt

look at how all the shills have managed to slap the term "truther" to anyone who questions the offical story.

Shills?
Another fairy tale the conspiracy crowd believes in.

Notice how I don't label people with derogitory terms such as shill or truther.

a reply to: AnteBellum

Ok. So the sneaky devils had all the time in the world to lay all these charges and set up all the detonation devices, luckily everything that happened (which you believe happened as per the official story with regards 1 and 2) went exactly the way the planners devised.

In your following post you state the windows remained intact until it hit the ground. There is a multitude of firefighter and police reports, direct statements, that the building was sagging, twisting, shedding cladding and shattering windows before itggave way. I have watched the same videos as you, I've seen the exact same things. I've read the police and fire fighter statements. To me, you've abandoned logic at this point. You believe that 1 and 2 collapsed as per the official story but that 7 was a lucky accident that he planners managed to exploit.

a reply to: SkuzzleButt

*eagerly awaits cheque through door from nefarious shadowy organisation*

a reply to: scottyirnbru

I don't think they thought the TT's were going to fall down, just get heavily damaged.

There is a multitude of firefighter and police reports, direct statements, that the building was sagging, twisting, shedding cladding and shattering windows before itggave way. I have watched the same videos as you, I've seen the exact same things. I've read the police and fire fighter statements.

Not abandoning logic, just haven't seen those reports. I said earlier I really haven't followed this to any great degree except from an arch. standpoint until recently. I was like you until I couldn't make sense of Building 7 which only happened about a year or two ago. Will look and get back to you. . .

I am curious how else anyone was planning to replace those towers. Are they not too tall to implode? Too tall for a mobile crane to lower a chiper down floor by floor.

Those planes hitting those towers were a lucky shot for any future development there. No developer could afford to demolish the existing building for new development anf keep the price/sq' competitive.

Lucky shot if it wasn't the plan. The lease holder was PAID for the demo rather than billed for it.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

They aren't too tall for anything. You dismantle how you build. Strip building out, remove lift shaft cap, install tower crane, design climbing shutter (like lift shaft shutter but in reverse), lower from floor to floor dismantling as you go. Concrete out, steel out, descend, repeat. It wouldn't be easy but it's entirely possible.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

They aren't too tall for anything. You dismantle how you build. Strip building out, remove lift shaft cap, install tower crane, design climbing shutter (like lift shaft shutter but in reverse), lower from floor to floor dismantling as you go. Concrete out, steel out, descend, repeat. It wouldn't be easy but it's entirely possible.

Your not the first to make it sound like a cheap and easy task. The crane you mention would have to be built into the tower. Starting around the 80th floor or where ever the last elevator bank start. The cranes were placed from the crane below it so I dont know how you figure you dismantle the way it was erected. Sure the assembly is in reverse but getting the cranes up is not. You need the crane below to build the one above and since the building is in the way I don't see how that is possible.

Give me one example of a 100+ story building being dismantled. Sure it is possible but not at the price that would allow future development. The city or state would have to subsidize the demo in order to make the new project affordable.

The only time I have seen a building come down the way you mentioned is when a single crane can reach the top. I have never seen a building that had a crane built in part way up been dismantled in this fashion. Can you give an example?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Tallest building ever demolished: (What a coincidence!)

The Singer Building, New York City
Height: 612 feet, 47 stories
Completed: 1908
Demolished: 1968 – to make way for One Liberty Plaza.
Interesting fact: For a very brief period, the Singer Building was the tallest building in the world, until 1909 when it was surpassed by the Metropolitan Life Tower.

Not even half the size.
The next time I see a demo crew I have to ask this question, "What's the tallest you would do?"
Their has to be a cutoff at some point vs. cost, safety and effectiveness.
Awesome question!

a reply to: AnteBellum


If you find out I would love to know. Just trying to picture all that debris falling neatly into a footprint... that would be impressive to say the least. I am in Vancouver B.C and here I am not even sure that we are allowed to CD buildings. I have never seen it happen. I did watch them chip down the tower across the street from the one I was building at the time. It took a while. A floor a week just for the concrete pillars and slab not including glazing, abatement, interior wall and ceilings and mechanical. A floor a week AFTER the building was stripped down to concrete.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I can't show you that because it's never happened. I believe the laws in new york are such that they wouldn't be able to rebuild with the same square footage thus the buildings keep getting repurposed. Its never happened because none of the buildings have needed demolished. Just because you can't see the engineering possibility doesn't mean it can't happen. Look at the millau viaduct. Climbing shutters on tapering towers the ended up within 3mm of their proposed location. The engineering would solve that problem. I have great faith in humans to solve the issue.

I think the answers lie in the money trail. Everything in five years prior really needs a good sifting through.

The group that was the biggest threat with their supposed hacking skills and was likely closest to pulling any remaining data that may still have existed and exposing to wikileaks had somebody sell out and got shut down in fairly short order. Of course they're most well known for their diversionary tactics and vandalism, as that was the most publicly exposed part of what they were doing... Anyhow...

Still seems fishy that everything hit was a location of recordkeeping. Also the buildings didn't burn that long before going down, and there was reports of stuff in previous months relating to "unscheduled building maintenance" that did seem fairly odd. Not to mention most other aircraft-building collisions in historical records usually lead to a partially burned out structure rather than a full collapse, with surrounding structures recieving no or minimal damage.

Everyone hates the conspiracy aspect... But if you were in a position to profit from an upcoming series of conflicts, had a lot of incriminating stuff relating to market manipulation you wanted to get rid of, had the connections to pre-rig with a demo crew, and had the ability to call a paramilitary mercenary group under the guise of some religious doctrine send their lowest lackeys to put on a show before the fuse was set...

Of course that sounds really horrible... But if it's true, it puts the real perpetrator as lower scum of the earth than Osama was portrayed as. Not just responsible for the 3000 at WTC, but at the cost of our troops and untold people in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Problem is, how can it be proven?

I wanted the OP to know that this thread, and it's short video, had a huge impact on me. Even though i have subscribed to serveral bizarre conspiracy theories based on my research, including present day alien/extra dimensional visitation, I had never given the 9/11 conspiracy "the time of day" until I watched this short video. I falsely, I believe, considered thr 9/11 conspiracy the domain of nutbags.

However, this short video peaked my interest. I did not realize there was so much to this conspiracy. I have now been researching 9/11 for about four months, give or take, and I have become convinced that if this was not MIHOP then it was LIHOP, on the part of our government. To be honest, I lean to a vast conspiracy, involving factions within the United States, and abroad, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunately, they did a reasonably good good of ensuring deniability. But, there are too many coincidences, random facts, and too much inside testimony for me to ignore. I am at the 98 percent level on this, and it has changed my world view, and darkened my mood.

So, step carefully. If you don't want your mind blown, by all means do not look into this conspiracy. However, if the truth matters to you, I would recommend investing 5 minutes in the short video, to see if your interest and curiosity are peaked.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I did not realize there was so much to this conspiracy. To be honest, I lean to a vast conspiracy, involving factions within the United States, and abroad, particularly Saudi Arabia.

And no one talked . Yea right.
The president can't even get a BJ without the world finding out and you believe everyone involved can keep the secret.

Don't forget wives and family members are going to ask where all the (hush) money came from.
Also NY had the death penalty back then so all parties involved would be eligble for the needle. Are you going to wire up a building for demo with simply a promise from the upperlings that they won't divulge your name?
Extradition would not be a problem in the case of 911.

This conspiracy has not gained any traction in 13 years because it's all smoke and mirrors.

a reply to: samkent

I disagree. There is a lot of evidence that makes the official conspiracy theory suspect. Here is but a smidgen, a baker's dozen.

1. You can start with a History of lies and false flags from our own government. Further, a somewhat similar plan, "Northwoods" was rejected by JFK's Administration.
2. Add the unliklihood of three steel framed buildings, let alone one, toppling down.
3. Evidence that Building 7 was demolished. This includes eye witnesses, the statements of the building owner, and the fact that it free fell for 2.25 seconds. I don't buy the symmetrical collapse as approximately 49 columns failing at once. The fact it was reported in the news media prior to it collapsing adds to the story.
4. The stated desire to enter the Middle East, specifically Iraq, which was planned prior to 9/11. This desire is reinforced in the neocon paper "Project for a New American Century".
5. The evidence, eyewitness and visual, to key demolition aspects on the twin towers, including plumes, vertically ejected beams and materials, the fact that this took place below the "so called pancake effect".
6. The curious pre-911 option trading in UAL, and Soloman Brothers, among others.
7. The Pentagon attack, which left a considerable absence of material indicting a 757, along with the fact no clear video was ever provided.
8. The lack of visual evidence that the hijackers actually boarded these planes, and the curious Dulles video, which seems to be taken at the wrong time of the day.
9. The evidence indicating that some of the hijackers trained at US military facilities.
10. The fact the FBI never charged Bin Ladin, and in fact said in 2006 they had no good evidence against him. Also, the suspicion that his admission video is not Bin Ladin (darker hair, different shaped face) but a CIA double.
11. Documented CIA media control (Mockingbird, the Webb case, the Washington Post, etc...).
12. The missing 28 pages, alluding to Saudi funding for 9/11, having never been released.
13. The comments of many on the commision, including the co-chairs that this was, in fact, a White House cover up.

You will, no doubt, respond with data and quotes from the "Official Conspiracy Theory". With the history of government lies and conspiracies, some very well documented and proven, I don't believe, for a second, that your data makes all of this suspicion go away. You are on shaky ground if you hold the 9/11 reports as gospel.

I am not going to argue with you. Have the last word. This time. I am working on a very succinct paper on this, and I will share when I complete in a few days.

Cheers.