New Video: 9/11 Mysteries

My mistake, I thought he was supporting the video's theory.

I meant to say the video's theory.

Sorry, it's hard to remember that each of you believe in a different theory about how it went down. I guess it's a mistake to assume that since all of you are defending the video, that you actually agree with it.

Leftbehind, your pulling stuff out of thin air now. The video give an example of how demo crew did a demolition by putting explosives on every OTHER floor, and in the basement.

look you have yet to quote ANYTHING from the video. Give ANY proof of any of your claims really, other then the seldom time where you link to 911myths.com which is hardly a credible source. Yet you have the nerve to call my theories gapped and say Im ranting?

This coming from the guy who needed proof that Robertson said what he said in the video.

Right.

Please show me how 911 myths was wrong about that being the 78th floor and how the 78th floor was not at the bottom of the burning area.

Just because you disagree with a source does not make it less credible.

And yes I believe Robertson over Demartini about the design of the building because Robertson helped design the building.

If that's silly to you well, I don't know what else to say.

BTW, I'm not making claims, I am responding to the claims in the video. Please show me which claim I make that I fail to back up.

Robertson said what he said.

The fires were not "90 minutes of smoke" by any stretch.

Sounds like bombs, does not prove explosives.

There were no volcanoes under the WTC.

Did I miss something?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
This coming from the guy who needed proof that Robertson said what he said in the video.

Right.

Because you clearly misquoted him and twisted his words. I show you that he in no way did he say a lowly fueled airliner anywhere in the interview. Did you ignore that too?

Please show me how 911 myths was wrong about that being the 78th floor and how the 78th floor was not at the bottom of the burning area.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said 9/11 myths isn't a credible source. If NIST said it, link to NIST from now on. 9/11 myths is some guys opinion about the "myths" of 9/11. Not a credible source.

Just because you disagree with a source does not make it less credible.

Im in journalism, I have to know what a credible source is and what isn't. 9/11 myths isn't. There is no credibility behind the maker of the site or anything like that. NIST has established credibility (to an extent), thus is what you want to link to, not 9/11 myths.

And yes I believe Robertson over Demartini about the design of the building because Robertson helped design the building.

If that's silly to you well, I don't know what else to say.

Im not saying don't believe robertson. Just take it into consideration that 1. DeMartini is also an architech and knows the design of the building because he was in charge of construction inside it. 2. Robertson never said anything about it NOT being able to take multiple hits. He just says we built the towers to be able to be hit anywhere on the building and withstand it. He says that they were not incharge of how to protect it from the fire the fuel would cause, not that they designed it for a plane of low fuel.

Originally posted by Valhall
Right O...

And while I wouldn't even know what perfect looks like, I would have appreciated it not containing errors that have been known for well over a year now.

Why is that such a sticking point for me? Because this issue is THAT important.

Val,

Mistakes are always made and in further productions and/or reproductions they can get covered. If we get the producer for an interview here, you can fire away with your questions...

I think everyone is looking at this all wrong from an engineering stand point. I have browsed the posts on here over the last few days and a lot of people seem stuck on the fires and the fact of their size and whatnot.

The structure itself is two seperate entities supporting equally spaced platforms (floors) divided into three groups with sky lobbies inbetween each group of floors.

The outer structure, called a tube is a structural element in and of itself. The inner core is built like a conventional skyscraper with post and beams, like a grid. Each structure is seperate and integral in and of itself, so if one is compromised the other still stands and each one should be considered seperately. The floors between have no bearing on the integrity of the tube or the core. Either the core or the tube has to fail first for the floors to give way completely. If the floors give way first, like the official account, then the tube and the core is never affected. It is as simple as that. There is no other circumstance to cause a total collapse by the floors themselves to pancake. The tube itself is a free standing structure and would stand as is without the core or floors. The core would stand by itself by the same design, so the floors have nothing to do with the collapse. The pancake theory is a crock.

The official account says the floors failed and pancaked atop another all the way down. If this were true, the core and the tube would still stand. It would be like dropping a stack of quarters down through a pipe.

Originally posted by Valhall
I haven't ever heard any one suggest every floor on the towers was rigged with explosives.

Which brings up...

What exactly is the unofficial story? Instead of wasting a lot of energy trying to debunk the official story, why not clear up the unofficial story. How did those bombs magically plant themselves? Who magically planted those bombs? Since no building has EVER been demoed like that, how did "they" know the building would fall? Since demos take precision, how did the bombs survive all the impacts and explosions of the planes yet remained in the exact spots the needed to be to cause the building to collapse? Since those buildings were not designed to withstand planes that large and planes have never been purposely slammed into buildings that large, what makes someone an expert on what's "supposed" to happen?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Valhall
I haven't ever heard any one suggest every floor on the towers was rigged with explosives.

Which brings up...

What exactly is the unofficial story?

The unofficial story is where there is no lies with anything. Just deal with the fact that the official story sucks and help find the real story.

See Official Story and Real Story.

Have a nice day.

I forgot to make a point about something. Read below.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
How did those bombs magically plant themselves? Who magically planted those bombs? Since no building has EVER been demoed like that, how did "they" know the building would fall? Since demos take precision, how did the bombs survive all the impacts and explosions of the planes yet remained in the exact spots the needed to be to cause the building to collapse? Since those buildings were not designed to withstand planes that large and planes have never been purposely slammed into buildings that large, what makes someone an expert on what's "supposed" to happen?

And no steel building was ever taken down by fire either, you point in that jibber is exactly what again?

Anyway I am not going to go over the whole jet fuel is blabla and steel melts at blabla degrees cause we heard it before. Just making a point here.

Ohh and how did that happen, its easy Silverstein acquired the buildings 6 week prior to 9/11.

In that 6 weeks alot of "odd" work was going on in the towers.

Therefor well you get what we saw on 9/11, a nice neat pile of buildings. Not 1 or 2 but 3.

Oh and ThatsJustWeird before you get all mean at me for my statements all I have to say is. How did WTC 7 fall again?

No the deisel was recovered.. All of it was actually. stated by FEMA and NIST.

So how did it fall again?

[edit on 9/23/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 9/23/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird


What exactly is the unofficial story? Instead of wasting a lot of energy trying to debunk the official story, why not clear up the unofficial story. How did those bombs magically plant themselves? Who magically planted those bombs? Since no building has EVER been demoed like that, how did "they" know the building would fall? Since demos take precision, how did the bombs survive all the impacts and explosions of the planes yet remained in the exact spots the needed to be to cause the building to collapse? Since those buildings were not designed to withstand planes that large and planes have never been purposely slammed into buildings that large, what makes someone an expert on what's "supposed" to happen?

Why are you wasting my time asking me to explain some one else's theory?

Going to try wading in here. I will avoid the current debate, if for no other reason than I am not as versed in it to begin with.

The first of my contentions with the vid is the issue of the smoke itself. Black smoke is typically a sign of a POL fuel source. While white-grey, again as a rule of thumb, is a marker of either a wood fire or one that has lines on it. To see black smoke issuing out of the towers is not that surprising. Think how of all the plastic in a modern office building. You can try this yourself. Take a plastic sandwich bag and ignite it. Tell me what the color of the smoke is.

Another thing I have not heard mentioned is the relationship of airflow. What was the cfm of air draw in the affected areas? We know that the towers were a pressurized environment. With a massive hole in its side how much air was getting to the fires? You have to have three components to a blaze: Air, Fuel, and Ignition source. Two are already covered so that leaves air. Increasing the amount of oxygen to a fire will increase its temp (eg. blast furnaces).

One last point is the issue of the visible fires. I would expect any fires closest to the windows to be the first to consume their fuel. They would have been the fires with the most readily available air sources. The pictures of the Madrid fire were a bit misleading. The towers were engulfed during the day. While the Madrid fire was also burning during the day, the images shown were from the night. Had we seen the towers burn at night I would suspect we would have seen the flames more readily apparent.

Other than that, I thought the vid was pretty good. I am still on the sidelines about the whole thing, but I am keeping an open mind.

Originally posted by Valhall
Why are you wasting my time asking me to explain some one else's theory?

Nothing in my statement was directed at you. I used your quote because it brought up a point...
Sorry if you misunderstood.


thich....you're doing exactly what these videos are doing and exactly what I was talking about. Pretend the official story doesn't exsist. Now come up with a plausable explanation of what happened.

I'll only address a couple things in your post
1.

Therefor well you get what we saw on 9/11, a nice neat pile of buildings

Absolutely nothing about the collapses of the WTC were "neat"

2.

Oh and ThatsJustWeird before you get all mean at me for my statements all I have to say is. How did WTC 7 fall again?

Why would I get mean? I only asked questions.
And YOU tell me how WTC 7 fell.

NO I am not doing what the video is doing. I am using common sense. and research.

What we DO know.

We know that no steel structure in the history of mankind has ever fallen due to a fire.

We know that Jet fuel isn't hot enough to cause a fire hot enough to bring the buildings down.

Also would like to add. some people like History Channel claim that the jetfuel burned up within 15 to 30 seconds after the plane crashed.

We also know that physics wasn't a normal thing on 9/11. It seemed that everything World Trade Center (add number here) was destroyed in some way.

We also know that if you add blocks together and they fall, they don't fall straight down. The reason I am bringing this up is because of this image here.



If you look at a set of blocks, and one falls over, they would fall to the left or right, depending on how they decide to fall.

This image shows that the top part of the tower decided to fall one way. All of a sudden it decided to fall straight down. Why is that?

We also know that people who know what they are talking about stated bombs were being set off in the buildings. This has been stated a million times and has been overlooked.

We also know of some FDNY personal that was on the 79th floor I believe stated that they had sporadic fires and that they only needed 2 hosed to knock it down.
Meaning that the fire wasn't as bad as we thought it was. and as we saw the fires aren't as bad as say...
this.






I would believe this building to fall in collapse before the towers ever would have.

Then we have a demo expert state that he thought WTC 7 was an actual demo.
www.youtube.com...

So its not thinking the official story is non existent. Its finding the bs when it stinks to hell and back.

Even FEMA or NIST couldn't reproduce the results of 9/11 on their computer models.

So come on man, you actually think those buildings fell because of fire. that's just plain out gullibility.


[edit on 9/23/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 9/23/2006 by ThichHeaded]

I think this video is pretty good, it's definateley not "proof" of anything definitive. But, it certainly is a good thing to have friends / family to watch just to get them thinking for themselves, ya know, shake them from complacency...

The media provides too much as it is...

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
Going to try wading in here. I will avoid the current debate, if for no other reason than I am not as versed in it to begin with.

go for it!

The first of my contentions with the vid is the issue of the smoke itself. Black smoke is typically a sign of a POL fuel source. While white-grey, again as a rule of thumb, is a marker of either a wood fire or one that has lines on it. To see black smoke issuing out of the towers is not that surprising. Think how of all the plastic in a modern office building. You can try this yourself. Take a plastic sandwich bag and ignite it. Tell me what the color of the smoke is.

ok I know a plastic bag will give off a bunch of it. But I have personal experience that if you burn a pile of paper, pictures, and other office items, it may burn black initially, but you would be a bit surprised.

I was younger and accidently did it in my basement (no carpet or anything, still stupid though) and alot of the stuff burned black, but the smoke pretty much filled the house, it was like fog. It was a tint darker then fog as well. Light grayish. It was very unexpected.

Another thing I have not heard mentioned is the relationship of airflow. What was the cfm of air draw in the affected areas? We know that the towers were a pressurized environment. With a massive hole in its side how much air was getting to the fires? You have to have three components to a blaze: Air, Fuel, and Ignition source. Two are already covered so that leaves air. Increasing the amount of oxygen to a fire will increase its temp (eg. blast furnaces).

hmm I dont know actually. I would imagine that since it blew out on both sides, it would increase the air flow. Yes though, if you blow on a fire thats been going, the embers will increase the temperature. When you build a fire, you start with fuel and small things to burn. You add more larger things as you get it started. you DONT blow on it untill after the fire is started. if the pressure was any real significant flow, it would be more likely to put out the fire then increase it. It couldn't have been too pressurized.

I think that the pressure was low and the wind was probably the best help toward the fire. the wind combined with the pressure would probably be too much and put the fire out. For anyone that said there was no wind, thats a bid hard to believe at 78 floors high. could be though. I dont believe the pressure would last long either though. would it take 90 minutes for the buildings to fill?

One last point is the issue of the visible fires. I would expect any fires closest to the windows to be the first to consume their fuel. They would have been the fires with the most readily available air sources. The pictures of the Madrid fire were a bit misleading. The towers were engulfed during the day. While the Madrid fire was also burning during the day, the images shown were from the night. Had we seen the towers burn at night I would suspect we would have seen the flames more readily apparent.

why would you assume that? the ones that are near the walls get the most air flow. they get more oxygen, and that at least keeps the embers going which usually keeps the fire going. so long as there is materials there they would be most likely to be on fire. You would be more likely to see flames at the window, since the fire would stay lit easier. The Madrid fire was fully engulfed because the time it had to build. that was the point. It built to that size, and thats why it was such a violent fire. The damage shows how much the madrid fire was as far as fire goes. It completely burnt every floor above it. It was not misleading because everything but the steel got burned up in the fire. Thats a full force fire plain and simple.

Other than that, I thought the vid was pretty good. I am still on the sidelines about the whole thing, but I am keeping an open mind.

I dont think I answered the questions well. the first question i can only answer with personal experiences of fire and that link from before about smoulder fires create think black smoke in large amounts.

second question is a good question which I dont have any answer for. I have no info on the pressure or how much air flow it would create.
'
third question i stand by my answer. The madrid fire ended with all the stories above completely burnt, and that shows how large that fire was in comparison to the WTC fire which was not engulfing all the floors above it and such.

Is there seismographic data for the flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania which can be compared to the plane hits on the 2 towers? I am wondering if the boom of the plane hits covered up larger explosions within the buildings & comparing seismographic data could be one way of comparing plane hits.

Originally posted by grimreaper797


Because you clearly misquoted him and twisted his words. I show you that he in no way did he say a lowly fueled airliner anywhere in the interview. Did you ignore that too?

That's exactly what he said. A plane running out of fuel. The video says it too. I guess agree to disagree.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said 9/11 myths isn't a credible source. If NIST said it, link to NIST from now on. 9/11 myths is some guys opinion about the "myths" of 9/11. Not a credible source.

So, even though it's factually correct, it's not a credible source?

O K

Im not saying don't believe robertson.

Actually that's exactly what your saying when you say DeMartini was correct, they can't both be right.


And it looks like they were both wrong about the building being able to take hits from Airplanes. Much like the people who built the "unsinkable" titanic. Or should we only believe the people who said the titanic was unsinkable and then conclude that it was bombs planted by the gubmint that sunk the titanic.

that's supposed to be the motto here...almost nobody lives up to it.

Originally posted by aquadude
that's supposed to be the motto here...almost nobody lives up to it.

I think they stopped that motto a yr and a half ago when everyone just likes to trash everyone else.

Anyway.......

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I didn't say it was wrong, I said 9/11 myths isn't a credible source. If NIST said it, link to NIST from now on. 9/11 myths is some guys opinion about the "myths" of 9/11. Not a credible source.

So, even though it's factually correct, it's not a credible source?

O K

Yet again wrong.

Next on the list.

prisonplanet.com...
The website first refutes claims that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment meant to demolish the building by quoting Silverstein's spokesman.

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Having established that there were firefighters in Building 7 and that those firefighters had to be "pulled" from the building, the website concludes that,

"There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out." (Again note the serious case of plural amnesia).

And yet in the second paragraph of the page the author claims that, "Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them." (another error).

So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?

To repeat Silverstein's spokesman, "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires."

Popular Mechanics, which is cited by the Debunking 9/11 website in its links section, also quotes NIST in saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?

Bold is the point.

[edit on 9/24/2006 by ThichHeaded]