NEW - VIDEO, A VIEW FROM A BOAT

One thing that always bothered me. Let's say the "official story" about the attacks being the work of Islamic terrorists. After all they had tried, once before, to bring down the World Trade Center - and failed.

So, why did they only use one plane for each of the towers? IIRC they towers had been designed with the possibility of an aircraft strike in mind. A B-25 had actually flown into the Empire State Building back in 1945. There was always the possibility that one plane might not do the job. It would give a higher chance of success, if both aircraft were directed at a single tower.

They must have been pretty sure both towers would be brought down.

Or maybe they weren't. I remember initial reports from that time that said bin Landen was as surprised as anyone that both of the towers were brought down.

Just my $0.02

a reply to: ConspiracyMax

Logistics

Original plot by KSM (Khalid Sheik Mohammed) was to hijack and crash 12 aircraft at once (Operation Bojinka)

Bin Laden realized it was too ambitious, the recruiting of the hijackers, obtain visas and get them in country and train both the hijackers and the one who would fly the plane , and getting money to the hijackers would be too difficult

The shear number of participants would compromise operational security and expose the plot

He modified the plot to 4 targets - World Trade Center Towers (Towers of the Jews aka Money) , Pentagon (Tower of War) and Capitol Building (Tower of Law) would be much more manageable

As for the B25 into the Empire State Building - the 757/767 impacts would be 100 times the impact of the B 25

Also the World Trade Centers were of totally different construction than Empire State Building - they were basically hollow tubes, whereas the ESB was a riveted steel skeleton with a heavy masonry exterior of cut stone - different reactions to the impact

a reply to: firerescue

All interesting and valid points. However, it kind of re-enforces my point. Using two planes to attack a single WTC tower would have increased the odds of that tower being brought down. Assigning one plane to a tower raised the possibility the neither tower would be brought down. You'd think they would hedge their bet, so to speak and concentrate their attack on a single tower.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Never liked the 9/11 conspiracies. They all seemed like stages of acceptance conspiracies.

Cool video. New angle. I now get why one stairwell was left unsevered for all 6 people that got to it above the impact zone.

He almost missed, definitely banked at the end and hit it right of center. That coupled with this video answer my questions.

a reply to: Degradation33

Yes UNITED 175 banked at last second - hijackers made a screaming dive from 29000 ft in about 6 minutes almost 1 mile per minute descent rate building up a lot of speed in process

The hijackers had to bank to hit the building or risk missing it Struck South east corner of building

Stairway A - the farthest from the impact point was spared the stairway doglegged around the elevator machinery as the
78th floor was a "sky lobby" where the express elevators stopped and people would take "local" elevator which stopped on each floor

a reply to: neutronflux

No flame recorded on 9/11,ever reached temperatures,to even remotely question the integrity of any of the steel on any of the buildings on.9/11 9/11 was a thermal dynamic impossibility

That is not an opinion,its a thermal dynamics fact.
And to a moral certainty no fire weakened the 6 inch thick core columns. (that is 100% impossible )
Or every gas grill made from 16 gauge steel with a very controlled flame,even more controlled then any flame in any NYC building that day, would turn into a molten pool of steel.

Any latices steel structure is designed to spread the load and dissipate heat.Now scale time!!

So Twin towers,took around 4 years to build and they held them selves up just fine up until the fateful day.
That is 4 years of energy from human to mechanical put into those buildings,energy in energy out.
each floor was one acre full of concrete and 1 inch rebar.So that is 110 acres 44 hctar of concrete and steel X2 210 acres 85 hectar(not counting buildings 3456and 7 all destroyed that day)

We can all agree so far.
So How long would it take, for any of you to destroy just one of those acres of concrete and steel ? And i will be generous,you can use anything you want to destroy it.
How long would it take for you to feel the heat from end to the other,from just one of the, one inch think pieces of rebar in factory length of 24 foot(7.4 meter) i will be generous again you can even use a cutting torch.Hint on both test, dont hold your breath.

There was metric tons of molten metal falling from the building(energy in energy out) I work in the metal industry. From a manufacturing,perspective,I am 6G certified,work with 100amp plasma cutters,cutting torches ,welders,casting(melting steel and pouring it into a mold and turn it to any shape you can imagine),lathe turning milling cnc machining
I am familiar with metal,in every stage of its cans and cants.

Metal under no circumstances, stays molten without some form of energy source being applied,and once the energy source is removed it begins to solidify.So a free fall of a thousand feet in the air nothing can remain molten from any energy source that day,other then a chemical reaction of some kind or something that reaches temps greater then a plasma cutter which is 5500 degrees far.(25,000 cels) ,no jet fuel or anything burning that day.could have created slag on any of the metal

find out what made the slag on this 6 inch thick beam,(not from a cutting torch the slag is on the outside,they would have had to be standing inside of it to make the slag do that)and I imagine you will find answers to what really happen
The only thing fire did that day was kill a bunch of people in one of the most horrific ways possible.

i.pinimg.com...

a reply to: BBF521

Your gas grill does not have to hold up a 110 story building with all the intendent structural and tenant loads

Also your gas grill does not have to resist wind loads over 100 mph which threaten to topple the building over

So if fire can not weaken steel columns why do all the steelwork need to be protected from fire

Why do builders have to devote considerable time and effort coating the steel in concrete or masonry to protect them if the steel will not heat up to a point where it will fail under load ??

Fire protection is rated in number of hours it will protect the steel - 2 hours is considered the minimum

This gives time for the people inside to leave and the fire department to arrive and put out the fire

This assumes that no fanatics will ram a airliner through the building destroying the elevators and stairways hampering access, destroying the standpipes supplying water to the sprinklers and fires suppression systems and blowing off the fire protection exposing the steel

Fire protection at WTC was deficient both in thickness of the material covering the steel and that it was easily dislodged

Strangely passports had being found on 9/11 intact.
Nothing of the ordinary.

a reply to: ConspiracyMax

Exactly they used Islamic terrorists based as a false pretext excuse for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq.

Iraq to which had nothing to do with 9/11.

13+ years
Still there are no new videos coming out of pentagon.

Makes you further ask questions doesn't it? when considering you only two videos, one blurry video, with some strangely boxes placed right in front of the security cameras at the pentagon?

Metal under no circumstances, stays molten without some form of energy source being applied,and once the energy source is removed it begins to solidify.So a free fall of a thousand feet in the air nothing can remain molten from any energy source that day,other then a chemical reaction of some kind or something that reaches temps greater then a plasma cutter which is 5500 degrees far.(25,000 cels) ,no jet fuel or anything burning that day.could have created slag on any of the metal

a reply to: BBF521

A thermal lance, a metal pipe filled with aluminum and magnesium rods, it is lit by a acetylene torch and burns at 5000 F

The torches will leave a slag residue on the cut

There are numerous pictures of iron workers cutting away steel columns using these torches

If you search you can find them

Strangely passports had being found on 9/11 intact.
Nothing of the ordinary.

a reply to: vNex92

They also recovered copy of flight manifest from inside American 11 and mail from the cargo hold on the street

Funny how the conspiracy loons fail to mention this ..........

a reply to: firerescue`

yes a thermal lance can cut,but that is not what made the slag on 9/11
The fire did not weaken any of the steel.believe what you want,no fire weaken any steel on 9/11 and fire will never ever bring down any building in the manner on 9/11.
torches leave slag on the backside of the cut not the flame side.i have 2 massive cutting torches i use Every day no need for a video.
And the lower half of the buildings where designed to hold itself up and had for many many years,the top of the building crumbling would not ever make the rest of the building crumble,but you know that and are being willfully disingenuous with all your statements.

a reply to: BBF521

Static vs dynamic loading is what caused the building to crumble and collapse

Static (non moving loads) against dynamic (moving loads) Can demonstrate this yourself

Put a bowling ball or similarly heavy load on your foot , now raise the ball up to chest level and drop it

See the difference .........

Whan the floor failed at the impact point and all that mass above it began to fall because of gravity it smashed the floor underneath which was unable to sustain the forces and collapsed into floor beneath it and again and again picking up more mass and speed as it fell until crashed all the way to the ground

a reply to: firerescue

we will agree to disagree. on that point.

a reply to: BBF521

And this is what happens when plane come in contact with relativity small beam compared to the beams in the twin towers.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: firerescue

Consider the average particle size of the million tons of WTC debris on the Fresh Kills landfill plus the dust cloud visible with the naked eye from the space station.

Consider the energy required to reduce the solid building materials to particles of that size in the length of time evidenced in numerous videos.

Weep.

a reply to: BBF521

Aree you familiar with the KEEL BEAM - it runs the length of the aircraft and forms the structure which supports the passenger cabin and floor of the cabin

How about the WING SPARS in each wing which form the structure of each wing and support the fuel tanks and jet engines

Both are massive in order to have to necessary strength

Further the external shell of the WTC was composed of beams in 10 ft sections called trees , 3 beams were joined together by welded spandrel plates , each 10 ft section was then bolted together to form the external shell

The aircraft impact snapped the welds/bolts on the beam trees much like a picket fence

a reply to: firerescue

keep telling your self whatever you need to help you sleep at night.
I can knock holes in a planes fuselage with a 22 ounce framing hammer.No plane severed any core column beams,Or the beams under the aluminum cladding.
And even if a plane was capable,the hole created was like punching a hole in a screen,just scaled up.The screen does not collapse in on itself . it spreads the load to surrounding beams.
This is all been discussed,years ago. You are wasting time on ideas that simply in the real world cant happen.

What created the slag on the 64 core column beams that were clearly cut with something of massive energy.
Fire didnt do it,the planes didnt do it.We are not talking about 16 gauge steel. 1 inch thick box beam cladded in aluminum ground to top outside ring, core 64 box beams 36 inch x 18" 6 inch thick.
Do even actually understand the amount of force it would take to sever just one of those beam? Do you really?

Just one beam,Front side of the beam 6 inch thick 18 inch wide,first it has to cut through that,then it has to cut through the sides 2 sections 36 inch long and 6 inch thick,then it has to cut through the back side ,18 inch wide and 6 inch thick.Nothing on any plane can cut through,48 inches of 6 inch thick steel. let alone 64 of the
And the ridiculous claim of a fire ball down the elevator shaft weakened the core columns,Can only be proclaimed by someone,completely unaware of scale or thermal dynamics ,or purposefully being intellectually dishonest.

From all your comments,its clear you are either one of those.

a reply to: firerescue

And some more scale The towers were 210 wide 300 feet between them 210 more feet So 210 feet 300 feet and 210 more feet.and the flame in videos reach several hundred feet past each tower.
in the pic below the size of the fire ball would fill 3 or 4 football stadiums to the brim. most of the jet fuel was consumed on impact

www.biography.com...