Thread: An interesting 9-11 video

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Quote by:

David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Date:

June 1991 Baden, Germany
Source:

Bilderberger Meeting, Baden, Germany

[quote:1g536chn]"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Quote by:

David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Source:

Sept. 23, 1994

Hope that answers your question, dyehard...[/quote:1g536chn][/quote]

yes, and it scares the hell out of me.

WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED



"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns BEGAN TO BOW OUTWARD the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour." (University of Sidney—World Trade Center, Some Engineering Aspects)


"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to BOW OUTWARD, the floors above them also fell. From the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.

"On this assumption he proposed that ‘the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to BOW OUTWARD and the floors above them to fall.’" Collapse of the World Trade Center From Wikipedia.

"The prolonged effect of high heat is likely to have led to THE BUCKLING OF THE COLUMNS, collapse of the floors, as well as to the shearing of the floors upon the failure of the joints." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN by Steven Ashley.

"Temperatures soaring from 1,000 to 2,000 degrees caused the steel columns around the tower facades TO BUCKLE. With their supports weakened, the concrete-slab floors plunged." From: ABOUT ARCHITECTURE.

All conspiracy theories aside, the final reason the Towers fell was because the vertical columns of steel could no longer hold the tremendous load above the impact area.

The World Trade Towers were unique in skyscrapers in that they had no internal steel framing as do traditional skyscrapers except for an inner core around the elevators. Totally unlike the Empire State Building, for example. The Towers were held up by two cones of light-weight, extremely strong vertical steel columns. One cone of columns encircled the elevator shafts while the outer ring of 244 vertical perimeter columns made up the exterior walls with the siding and windows attached.

This unique design allowed for many more thousands of square feet of interior office space. And it was a good system. These towers were so strong that they could have held several more times their own weight. But what caused the Towers to fall was the weakening and destruction of several stories of floor joists holding the outer walls perfectly vertical to the inner core. A combination of the plane impacts, explosions, and super-heating of the metals caused the floors to give way. With weakened interior floor joists, the outer walls began to buckle and bow outward, and when that happened the vertical strength became so weakened that the tremendous weight of the floors above started pan-caking on one another; floor after floor.



NO OTHER TOWER OR WALL COLLAPSE FITS ISAIAH’S PROPHECY

Continuing Isaiah’s prophecy:

"Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach [Heb: perets—‘a break, breach, breaking forth, gap’]
ready to fall [Heb: napahl—‘to fall, cast down, cease, die, fail, fall down, be judged, overthrow, overwhelm, perish’]
SWELLING OUT [Heb: baah--Margin, ‘bulge’]
in a HIGH wall [Heb: sagab—‘lofty, inaccessible, safe, strong, defend, exalt, excellent, high, to be too strong’]
whose breaking [Heb: sheber-- ‘fracture, ruin, breach, broken, crashing, destruction’]
comes suddenly at an instant [Heb: petha—‘in a wink, moment, quickly, unexpectedly’]" (Isa. 30:13).

Now a couple of things to consider:

Some might suggest that this is speaking of a high wall, or maybe a high wall of a tower, or a wall of some fortification, in which the foundation was "breached" or "broken" out, and hence the wall or fortification would fall.

Interestingly, when the Trade Center was bombed in the parking garage back in 1991, which blew a huge crater in the foundation, the tower did not fall; it did not collapse. Yet on 9/11 the breach was high in a high wall, and it did collapse.

I asked my wife what would happen in an ancient wall or stone tower in which some stones would brake out high up in the top of the wall? She said: "I guess the top of the wall or tower would fall off." Exactly! That wouldn’t cause the entire wall to fall down, but only that portion above the breach or breaking out.

If the foundation of a stone wall breaks out or gives way, it doesn’t "fall down," as it is already on the ground. The Hebrew suggests this fall of the wall starts with the "breach" falling, before the actual "wall" falls. Here is the word order from a Hebrew Interlinear:

Kphrtz [as-breach] nphl [one-falling].

Technically it is not "as a breach ready to fall." There is no word for "ready" in the text. Only "kphrtz & nphl" [as-breach one-falling]. So what is it that is actually falling that starts the collapse of this wall? It is the "breach" that is falling. The Concordant Literal Old Testament translates it "a falling breach."

But even if we stay with many translations which say that this is "a breach ready to fall," it’s still THE BREACH which is ready to fall, not the wall. It is the FALLING BREACH which causes the entire wall to collapse. And something cannot fall down unless it is first UP.

God is describing through Isaiah a great and high wall that will collapse because of a "FALLING BREACH" up on the wall. Now then, who has ever heard of a stone wall or tower falling down because some stones came loose or broke out higher UP on the wall. The breach would merely fall down and have virtually no effect on the wall beneath it. Yet with the World Trade Towers, in both cases, it was a breach high up on the walls that brought down the entire Towers. Just as Isaiah prophesied.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

I'll even give you a hint as to a question that cannot be plausibly answered by the official account that attributes the collapse to structural failure: look at the collapse times.

You must be psychic, Crocket.

That was going to be my next question.

Free fall speed means that the lower floors provided NO resistance to the collapse. I'm no engineer but somehow I don't think that's possible.

Okay, but if you have ever seen a building demolition (and I'm sure you have), then you know that instantly taking out enough steel to allow that sort of free fall would have required thousands of demolitions charges which would have been quite visible.

To my knowledge, there is only one way to instantly take out the supporting steel without those thousands of telltale charges or without a single or small number of huge charges that would have also visibly exploded structural materials beyond the walls of the structure. Only flash superheating that created a vertical vapor and smoke column could have accomplished that, and there's only one way I know of to accomplish such superheating. The problem for most conspiracy theorists is that such a means of demolition would not only NOT require premeditation, it would not be the choice means were the demolition premeditated by the government.

I have a few problems with the “inside job” and conspiracy theory
and for the reasons I have read on this post.
----who put this plan in motion without a leak?
----were there actually 19 Arabs on these planes and did they know that we knew that they were going to hit the buildings?
----the demolitions of buildings appear to fall from the bottom up and the WTC’s appeared to have fallen from the top down.
----I do not believe anyone associated with the Bushites know anyone smart enough to carry this out.
----this conspiracy thing seem like something from a James Bond or Science Fiction movie. A little too far fetched.
Someone had to have known exactly when these planes would hit the buildings and there would have been quite a visible explosion at the bottom of the buildings causing the collapse from the bottom.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

I have a few problems with the “inside job” and conspiracy theory
and for the reasons I have read on this post.
----who put this plan in motion without a leak?
----were there actually 19 Arabs on these planes and did they know that we knew that they were going to hit the buildings?
----the demolitions of buildings appear to fall from the bottom up and the WTC’s appeared to have fallen from the top down.
----I do not believe anyone associated with the Bushites know anyone smart enough to carry this out.
----this conspiracy thing seem like something from a James Bond or Science Fiction movie. A little too far fetched.
Someone had to have known exactly when these planes would hit the buildings and there would have been quite a visible explosion at the bottom of the buildings causing the collapse from the bottom.

You and I may actually agree on something. There is, however, one type of demolition that would have taken out the core supports first and caused the lower exterior to appear to remain intact as the building imploded from the top down as witnessed. The chance that this type of implosion was used is close to zero.