Need a footage, 911, structural flaw or...?

Question

A Que. about 911 and WTC's structural was posted few days ago and it's got deleted!! now. There was one of the answers that got my attention. It's a 1,1/2hr video that's narrated by a female and includes the structure, interviews and if some explosion had occurred and......I just saw 10min of it and don't remember the add. or any one's name. So if any one has such a video or if i get lucky the original sender, sees my posting, i will be pleased to see that. THANX !
By the way, every body is welcome to give me their inputs in this regard. JUST SEARCHING FOR TRUTH !

Answer 1

It is called 9/11 Mysteries and you can watch it on google video. Thank you for looking for the truth, there are not many like you out there.

Answer 2

Ok, look...

First of all, I did professional implosive and explosive demolitions for 12 years. I am also a certified sturctural welder (meaning I am qualified to, and have, build large structures such as the WTC towers. I have first-hand knowledge of what is required to erect and demolish large structures.

I'm also a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, having earned the Bronse Star for Valor in Combat. I love my constitution and country with all of my being. I'm not someone who feels guilty about being an American. Nor do I believe that this country is so screwed up that it's beyond saving.

I don't want ANYONE to believe anything that I say. I WANT you to check out EVERY SINGLE point I am about to make.

That being said, I feel absolutely no reservation is saying the following: The official story about how 2 planes destroyed all 7 buildings in the WTC complex is physically impossible.

It's not the "tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy wackos" saying this. Dr. Steven Jones of the Department of Physics of Brigham Young University is saying the same thing. Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) the company that tested the steel before it was erected is saying it. Professional pilots are saying that the official story is impossible (pilotsfor911truth.org). Lt Colonel Lankford (Ret.) formerly of the U.S. military language school in San Diego, CA has gone on record stating that the official story doesn't work. The BBC interviewed and/or received confirmation thru official channels that at least 10 of the 19 "suicide hijackers" WERE STILL ALIVE after 9/11.

As for the "pancake collapse" theory, the National Institue of Standards and Technology (NIST) can't even wright a physics program to duplicate the total collapse. They wrote 16 different programs and were only able to make the buildings collapse in one of them and only then after the parameters were set at least twice as high as anything observed or recorded on the site. Even then, the NIST couldn't get their simulation to collapse the 47 box columns which comprised the central cores of towers 1 and 2. Think I'm full of crap? Go look at the PBS "Nova" special about the collapse of the towers and watch the graphics supplied by the NIST. THE NIST'S OWN SIMULATION LEAVES THE CENTRAL CORES STANDING.

Further in regard to the "pancake collapse" theory; if you talk to anyone who has any understanding of what a pancake collapse is, you will learn that the towers fell entirely too fast to be that form of destruction. Without going into a huge explanation of all of the physics involved, it all comes down to this: the buildings fell at free-fall speed - impossible for a pancake collapse. Towers 1 and 2 fell in around 8-10 seconds each. The absolute fastest that a true pancake collapse could have occurred in 110 story sturctures is 38 seconds, and that is assuming that the ENTIRE sturcture is compromised (they weren't, not even close). The government wants us to believe that the buildings fell 4 times faster than is physically possible.

Finally, there is building 7. It was a steel frame structure which had been hit by debris. It had been built in 1984-1985 and was much more modern than the towers. It had fires on floors 7 and 12 only. And yet it fell within its own footprint at near free-fall speed in classic controlled demolition profile. Even the "9/11 Commission Report" (9/11 Omission Report is more like it) doesn't even TRY to explain the collapse of building 7.

NO steel-frame building had ever before, and never since has, collapsed due to fire. And yet, on 9/11/01 THREE such buildings collapsed.

We are being LIED TO, people. I, for one, will NOT stand for my elected officials lying to me. I, and many others, DEMAND an independent, non-governmental investigation into the events of 9/11 and the prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, all of those who had forknowledge of and/or allowed, promoted, or facilitated the MURDER of over 3,000 American civilians.

Answer 3

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives.

“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”

Moore adds to the counter demolition theory.

“Implosions are initiated by weakening structural members with explosives,” he explains. “The steel in the WTC buildings was weakened not only by the crash but by the intense heat from the jet fuel fire. Thus, instead of explosives, fire was used to weaken the steel. Once the steel gave, the weight of the upper floors collapsed onto the lower floors, thus creating a domino effect. As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire.”

“We think the idea that the collapse was essentially a free fall is incorrect,” comments Dr. Louis F. Geschwindner, PE and professor of architectural engineering, Pennsylvania State University. “The part of the tower above the zone of plane damage started down when the remaining strength at the damage location was exceeded. The structure below provided upward resistance but not enough to overcome the progression of failure directly under it.

“As the failure propagated down, the failed elements added to the mass acting downward, increasing the load incrementally as the mass traveled down. This pattern occurred all the way down, increasing at the rate of gravity.”

Answer 4

Do you have any idea how many thousands of people would have to be involved in such a plot? These conspiracy theorists have way too much time on their hands.

The Discovery Channel has an excellent video on the subject of how the WTC was brought down BECAUSE JETS FLEW INTO THEM AN EXPLODED.

Answer 5

try www.theblackvault.com I thought I had seen a movie clip there about that. If you want to look a little deeper, try and find pre-911 aerial photos of the Pent. Look at the corner of where the Pent. was hit. If you can find any photos, they have seemed to disappear. See if you notice anything different about that corner than any other corner. Hint: find photos of the trajectory of the "aircraft" that hit that corner then compare.

Answer 6

I watched the Towers go down on 9-11. I have friends who were there working very close to the site. It was the planes that caused the collapse. If you want to learn more about how this could happen, study the way earthquakes make buildings "pancake". .

There is a lot of deception by conspiracy mongers who literally sell their ideas. Please don't buy into this crap!!!

Answer 7

try google video site
key in "terrorstorm"
or 911 Press for truth

Answer 8

Stop wasting your time on mindless consipracy theories. Two planes brought down the WTC.

Answer 9

Truthfully, how hard is it to see that great big plane hit the side of the building??