movie "911 mysteries - demolitions"

[flexy]

you can look for "911 mysteries" on bittorrent or get it right off there:

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

I've seen a few docus where i didnt agree with SOME of the conclusions - this movie focuses solely on the demolition aspect


i can HIGHLY recommend this...NOT "just another 911-conpiracy thread"...but id' actually hear from people who saw the movie..eg. explain certain key-points pointed out in the movie.

Just a few (right off my head)

* towers fell in approx 9 secs which is as fast, even more, than FREE FALL speed eg. of a ball thru air.....and they fell at this speed thru hundreds of stories of STEEL. They argue this is physically impossible, eg. a "domino effect" would SLOW a fall...

* Building WTC 7 <---- which fell later that afternoon..watch the FOOTAGE of this building crashing down and explain !!!!

* mysterious power-outages weeks before 9/11 with strange people in the WTC, no security-cams etc. working for hours...people were told they're doing "cable upgrades"

* many INTERESTING eyewitness reports

* watch it, discuss



>>>
90minutes of pure demolition evidence and analysis, laced with staggeringwitness testimonials. Moving from "the myth" through "the analysis"and into "the players," careful deconstruction of the officialstory set right alongside clean, clear science. The 9/11 picture is not one of politics or nationalism or loyalty, but one of strict andsimple physics. How do you get a 10-second 110-story pancake collapse?
A moviethat might actually reach our complacent mainstream. No agenda. Nofinger-pointing. Just the facts and the "mysteries." Look at that. Think about this. A story of people: Willie Rodriguez's strange recollection of noises onthe 34th floor. Who was up there, bumping around? Scott Forbes'similar story, weeks before the towers fell. A story of blastingitself. Here's how shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall.
>>>

 

[Sable]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[herbiehancock]

Discuss............yeah, right.

And if you believe this crap, next you'll HAVE to believe that the planes that struck the towers were really holograms and the explosions from the "faked" planes were also rigged, and the passengers who "died" on the planes were also faked passengers, and their families were plants to further the conspiracy.

Also, I guess they killed all the demolition experts after they rigged the outer support structure with cutting explosives so none of them could "spill the beans", as it were.

You're right......the government set it all up.....faked everything and brought down the buildings themselves.

Of course, one flaw in the video is they keep comparing building demolition techniques used to bring down normally constructed buildings to the WTCs, which were anything but conventionally built buildings. The WTCs were more akin to being built like a banana, the support structure was the external lattice-work steel structure of the skin with a soft inner core with no support columns or the like. It's really not surprising that 25 stories of concrete flooring coming down on top of the soft center below just essentially peeled back and shredded the outer strutcure of the buildings rather quickly.

Oh wait....I do remember seeing cutting charges going off in sequential rings around the outside of the building just before they dropped.....NOT!

Keep your tin-foil hat on.....you really need it.

 

[bigredguy]

Originally posted by: herbiehancock
Discuss............yeah, right.

And if you believe this crap, next you'll HAVE to believe that the planes that struck the towers were really holograms and the explosions from the "faked" planes were also rigged, and the passengers who "died" on the planes were also faked passengers, and their families were plants to further the conspiracy.

Also, I guess they killed all the demolition experts after they rigged the outer support structure with cutting explosives so none of them could "spill the beans", as it were.

You're right......the government set it all up.....faked everything and brought down the buildings themselves.

Of course, one flaw in the video is they keep comparing building demolition techniques used to bring down normally constructed buildings to the WTCs, which were anything but conventionally built buildings. The WTCs were more akin to being built like a banana, the support structure was the external lattice-work steel structure of the skin with a soft inner core with no support columns or the like. It's really not surprising that 25 stories of concrete flooring coming down on top of the soft center below just essentially peeled back and shredded the outer strutcure of the buildings rather quickly.

Oh wait....I do remember seeing cutting charges going off in sequential rings around the outside of the building just before they dropped.....NOT!

Keep your tin-foil hat on.....you really need it.

I never really understood how people bought into the demolition story when the WTCs support structure was more or less an exoskeleton. I remember watching a special about how they were the first large office buildings to offer large conference rooms without pillars because of their unique structure, but that the sacrifice was really narrow windows.

So how do you blow up the external support structure without anyone noticing?

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: bigredguy

Originally posted by: herbiehancock
Discuss............yeah, right.

And if you believe this crap, next you'll HAVE to believe that the planes that struck the towers were really holograms and the explosions from the "faked" planes were also rigged, and the passengers who "died" on the planes were also faked passengers, and their families were plants to further the conspiracy.

Also, I guess they killed all the demolition experts after they rigged the outer support structure with cutting explosives so none of them could "spill the beans", as it were.

You're right......the government set it all up.....faked everything and brought down the buildings themselves.

Of course, one flaw in the video is they keep comparing building demolition techniques used to bring down normally constructed buildings to the WTCs, which were anything but conventionally built buildings. The WTCs were more akin to being built like a banana, the support structure was the external lattice-work steel structure of the skin with a soft inner core with no support columns or the like. It's really not surprising that 25 stories of concrete flooring coming down on top of the soft center below just essentially peeled back and shredded the outer strutcure of the buildings rather quickly.

Oh wait....I do remember seeing cutting charges going off in sequential rings around the outside of the building just before they dropped.....NOT!

Keep your tin-foil hat on.....you really need it.

I never really understood how people bought into the demolition story when the WTCs support structure was more or less an exoskeleton. I remember watching a special about how they were the first large office buildings to offer large conference rooms without pillars because of their unique structure, but that the sacrifice was really narrow windows.

So how do you blow up the external support structure without anyone noticing?

You should read up on the actuall make up. the core collums were the load bearing structure

 

[kingtas]

I bet you believe the images of the towers on fire with satanic faces in the smoke was authentic, as well.

 

[sswingle]

So is this another Loose Change? I'll probably watch it just for the hell of it though.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: bigredguy

Originally posted by: herbiehancock
Discuss............yeah, right.

And if you believe this crap, next you'll HAVE to believe that the planes that struck the towers were really holograms and the explosions from the "faked" planes were also rigged, and the passengers who "died" on the planes were also faked passengers, and their families were plants to further the conspiracy.

Also, I guess they killed all the demolition experts after they rigged the outer support structure with cutting explosives so none of them could "spill the beans", as it were.

You're right......the government set it all up.....faked everything and brought down the buildings themselves.

Of course, one flaw in the video is they keep comparing building demolition techniques used to bring down normally constructed buildings to the WTCs, which were anything but conventionally built buildings. The WTCs were more akin to being built like a banana, the support structure was the external lattice-work steel structure of the skin with a soft inner core with no support columns or the like. It's really not surprising that 25 stories of concrete flooring coming down on top of the soft center below just essentially peeled back and shredded the outer strutcure of the buildings rather quickly.

Oh wait....I do remember seeing cutting charges going off in sequential rings around the outside of the building just before they dropped.....NOT!

Keep your tin-foil hat on.....you really need it.

I never really understood how people bought into the demolition story when the WTCs support structure was more or less an exoskeleton. I remember watching a special about how they were the first large office buildings to offer large conference rooms without pillars because of their unique structure, but that the sacrifice was really narrow windows.

So how do you blow up the external support structure without anyone noticing?

You should read up on the actuall make up. the core collums were the load bearing structure

Wrong, both the core and the perimeter were gravity load bearing. Traditional buildings are built with a grid pattern with interlocking beams. This is not the case with the WTC, which had the exoskeleton (perimeter) and the core, everything else was supported by trusses. As soon as one major portion of that puzzle went missing the structural integrity of the whole system failed.

Ever put together furniture? Notice how some furniture isn't strong until you put the last couple pieces in, then they can withstand a lot of weight? Same deal here, the individual pieces depended on interlocking connections to make a very strong structure. Once that interconnectedness was removed, the structure as a whole became much weaker.

It didn't help that the core was also more densely packed than other buildings, thus it could be harmed within a smaller area.

A lot of people also think that you have to melt metal to destroy it. All you have to do is break the weak bonds betwen it's atoms by exciting it (heating), whereby the metal stresses and fails. Thus, it doesn't have to reach melting point.

Finally, many thing that there was a "free fall" in 9 seconds. The upper parts of the building did in fact free-fall in 9 seconds. However, many pieces of information show that the core fell for more than 20-30 seconds. It's hard to tell that sicne there was so much dust and debris.

Remember that this building was built unlike any other building in history. It's floors were not in the x-section interlocking design like traditional buildings. To quote MIT civil engineers.

Some 60 tons or more of jet fuel could have easily caused sustained high temperatures of 1,500ºF and higher. Under these conditions, structural steel loses rigidity and strength. The resulting failure of the 2-3 floor system at the site of impact sent the 30 to 25 floors above free-falling onto the 80 to 85 floor structure below. The enormous energy released by this collapse was too large to be absorbed by the structure below. That impact may have ultimately caused the explosive buckling, floor after floor, of the WTC towers. Similar to a car crash in a wall, the towers crashed into the ground with an almost free-fall velocity.

25 floors in a free fall is what? 25% of the building? So you have a quarter of it's weight and a whole crapload of mass rushing down, what resistance could there be?


People need to stop this stupidity. It happened, it's real. No bombs, just planes, fuel, combustable material inside, an a unique building structure. Get over it.

 

[NetGuySC]

I am still waiting for the collaspe of the bldg 7 explanation....there was no 60 tons of jet fuel, no inpacts from jetliners, just some fires on a couple floors. Yet the building collasped from corner to corner. This also makes me wonder why the federal building in oklahoma city didn't collaspe even though half of it was blown away, yet building 7 totally collasped.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
I am still waiting for the collaspe of the bldg 7 explanation....there was no 60 tons of jet fuel, no inpacts from jetliners, just some fires on a couple floors. Yet the building collasped from corner to corner. This also makes me wonder why the federal building in oklahoma city didn't collaspe even though half of it was blown away, yet building 7 totally collasped.

So, one situation is a perfect predictor of another? Seriously guys, every building is designed differently, this isn't apples to apples. I haven't studied B7 much, but I have heard that significant load-bearing supports were heavily damaged by rubble.

 

[Al Neri]

<puts on tinfoil hat>
...
<pulls up a cooler>
...
<takes out the lawn chair>
...
<breaks open a beer>
...

this should be good!

 

[Pastore]

The idiocy of people about these theories makes me fear for our future.

 

[NetGuySC]

Pleases show me another 47+ story building that has collasped from a fire. Other than the twin towers of course.

.
I am not saying i believe Bush did this, i amn just saying i have some unanswered questions

 

[BAMAVOO]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
<puts on tinfoil hat>
...
<pulls up a cooler>
...
<takes out the lawn chair>
...
<breaks open a beer>
...

this should be good!

No, this should be locked as the OP can't honestly believe this crap.

 

[LeadMagnet]

If you belive that stuff then you should read this blog and view video

 

[Queasy]

Individual Congressman can't keep their sexual proclivities a secret and we are supposed to believe that a massive conspiracy that would require hundreds of people can be kept secret for this long? I'm sorry...I just don't believe they are that smart.

 

[BAMAVOO]

By the way, I was going to turn the OP on to a good job in the Nashville area. After reading his stupid thread here, I wouldn't give him a lead for any job near me.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
Pleases show me another 47+ story building that has collasped from a fire. Other than the twin towers of course.

.
I am not saying i believe Bush did this, i amn just saying i have some unanswered questions

Sigh, what don't you people get. NO OTHER BUILDING WAS BUILT LIKE THE WTC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Seriously, you guys need to take some rudementry lessons in how they build buildings. Usually they stack beams on top of eachother in cube-grids. The WTC was *NOT* designed like that. It had two support structures. The core and the perimeter. Everything in the middle was small beams that were NOT load bearing for the read of the building.

Thus, you can't possibly compare any other building fire to this one. What is so damn hard to understand about that?

 

[Greenman]

A 747 with thousands of gallons of fule on board hit a tall building, there was a fire, the building fell. That really is what happened.
It doesnt require hundreds of people being involved. It doesn't require bombs being placed in the building. It doesn't require a coverup.

It frightens me that so many people feel the need to blame the Feds for this.

 

[Sc4freak]

Originally posted by: flexy
* towers fell in approx 9 secs which is as fast, even more, than FREE FALL speed eg. of a ball thru air.....and they fell at this speed thru hundreds of stories of STEEL. They argue this is physically impossible, eg. a "domino effect" would SLOW a fall...

9 seconds is fast, but not impossible.

The world trade centre towers 1 and 2 were both 420 meters tall. Acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Earth is 9.8m/s^2. That means, every second the speed increases by 9.8m/s. After 9 seconds, and assuming no resistance, an object would accelerate to 88.2m/s^2. Displacement of an object with a linear acceleration and no resistance can be given by the equation: 1/2a*t, where a is acceleration and t is time. Substituting the information in, the distance covered of an object dropping at Earth gravity without resistance in 9 seconds is approximately 396.9 meters.

Given that 25% of the tower was falling, that's a distance of 315 meters to cover, and that means the acceleration downwards on average was about 70m/s^2, 18m/s^2 lower, or about 20% dampening of acceleration due to resistance and other forces.]

Given that this was a gigantic, straight section of tower moving straight down, I think that 20% is rather reasonable. Its probably possible to roughly calculate the drag due to air, but without more information (such as the exact shape of the tower, and the force of hitting other parts of the tower) it is impossible to exactly calculate it.

Besides - all of this is irrelevant. If a bomb was exploded there, the tower would be affected in exactly the same way when moving down as it would if hit by a plane and began to fall. The speed of the towers falling is independant of the means used to cause it to fall, since the only factors are Earth's gravity, and the resistance caused by air and impact force from hitting the rest of the tower. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the entire thing was computer generated, which of course is rediculous.

 

[Unheard]

Make the stupidness stop. Haven't we had enough of the OMG911AH0AXBUSHKILLEDEVERYONEFORHISOILTHIRST!!!!111!!1one!!1eleven!1!!

 

[SparkyJJO]

:roll:
I'm sick of consipiracy crap. If you still want to beat a dead horse a million times take it to P&N please....

 

[timosyy]

Originally posted by: Sc4freak
9 seconds is fast, but not impossible.

The world trade centre towers 1 and 2 were both 420 meters tall. Acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Earth is 9.8m/s^2. That means, every second the speed increases by 9.8m/s. After 9 seconds, and assuming no resistance, an object would accelerate to 88.2m/s^2. Displacement of an object with a linear acceleration and no resistance can be given by the equation: 1/2a*t, where a is acceleration and t is time. Substituting the information in, the distance covered of an object dropping at Earth gravity without resistance in 9 seconds is approximately 396.9 meters.

Given that 25% of the tower was falling, that's a distance of 315 meters to cover, and that means the acceleration downwards on average was about 70m/s^2, 18m/s^2 lower, or about 20% dampening of acceleration due to resistance and other forces.]

Given that this was a gigantic, straight section of tower moving straight down, I think that 20% is rather reasonable. Its probably possible to roughly calculate the drag due to air, but without more information (such as the exact shape of the tower, and the force of hitting other parts of the tower) it is impossible to exactly calculate it.

Besides - all of this is irrelevant. If a bomb was exploded there, the tower would be affected in exactly the same way when moving down as it would if hit by a plane and began to fall. The speed of the towers falling is independant of the means used to cause it to fall, since the only factors are Earth's gravity, and the resistance caused by air and impact force from hitting the rest of the tower. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the entire thing was computer generated, which of course is rediculous.

Originally posted by: flexy
careful deconstruction of the officialstory set right alongside clean, clear science.

I lol'd.

 

[Pastore]

Since when did ATOT fill with architects?

 

[murban135]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
Pleases show me another 47+ story building that has collasped from a fire. Other than the twin towers of course.

.
I am not saying i believe Bush did this, i amn just saying i have some unanswered questions

Please show me a building hit by a commercial airliner that did not fall.