They are everywhere.You just describes what it's like to hang around a courthouse.
I have to ask... with your broad range of experience... Can you share some other buildings that have collapsed that fit the Pankcake Theory Model? I'd also be interested to see a couple of cases where high rises have collapsed from fire?
Just 1-2 examples of each would be fantastic...
I'm also interested why we are all so quick to discount the hundreds/thousands of eye witness accounts of firemen and workers who seen/felt/heard explosions before the collapse, during the collapse and after the collapse... from inside the building, outside the building and even underneath the bottom floor parking garage?
It appears that you don't have a clue as to the operations of ATC or NORAD. Of course a bunch of mishaps happened, hence why the attack was successful. Flights were not allowed to fly off course for more than an hour, more like 30-45 minutes at the longest. Yes planes were grounded and tracked "rather closely", as best they could. Do you even know how planes are tracked within the ATC system or NORAD? Do you know what a transponder is? Do you know what the terms primary target vs. secondary target means? If you had to google any of that, then you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are just making up fantasies about 9/11 to fit your conspiracy theories.1st I'll say that officially it seems that no one in air traffic control or NORAD had a clue of how to handle 9/11 because if the official telling of the story is true, a ton of mishaps occurred to make it possible. In my personal opinion... if you believe the official report, then by default you can not subscribe to a statement like "Particularly at a time when flights were being grounded and identified and followed rather strictly." If that was the case, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Flights were allowed to fly off course for more than an hour without any contact or interception.... Let me repeat that... 4 flights were apparently hijacked, one right after another and flown into high security buildings over a 2hour timespan and none were intercepted or even really tracked.
.
Google the 1988 Mexico City earthquake for examples of several types of collapse, then look at the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake aftermath photos. Those are mainly the ones I remember us seeing in training. Of course, the local certified structural engineer who was a Task Force member at the time could have been lying to us, and of course, the guy on the Task Force at the time who had been in Mexico City as a heavy equipment rigger could have been lying to us.
Incidentally, since the WTC towers were essentially exoskeletal, IIRC, does anyone have video of the supposed explosions that took out the lower levels? They would have had to take out the outer structure to facilitate the collapse. Of course, if you were one of millions of folks watching the collapse on television, all you would have seen was the structurally compromised floors collapsing, then the upper stories above them collapsing, and then the rest of the structure collapsing straight down as you would expect from a pancake collapse scenario. And I don't know about anyone else, but I think I remember debris from the upper floors cascading off to the side of the tower as it fell.
It appears that you don't have a clue as to the operations of ATC or NORAD. Of course a bunch of mishaps happened, hence why the attack was successful. Flights where not allowed to fly off course for more than an hour, more like 30-45 minutes at the longest. Yes planes were grounded and tracked "rather closely", as best they could. Do you even know how planes are tracked within the ATC system or NORAD? Do you know what a transponder is? Do you know what the terms primary target vs. secondary target means? If you had to google any of that, then you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are just making up fantasies about 9/11 to fit your conspiracy theories.
If you are looking for me to repost an article from the CIA director labeled "We landed flight 93 in Cleveland and swapped in a drone plane"... don't worry, I won't find one.
Again, I don't put a lot of weight into any no-plane theories (except for maybe the Pentagon crash which as reported is extraordinarily remarkable)... but I won't simply discount it because the government told me so. She asked for a little evidence, and I (as well as yourself to some extent) provided the possibility of it.
I think in a search for truth... exploring all possibilities is the best route.
That's interesting... Flight 77 was hijacked for 50min... flew off of radar for some 300 miles into the most secure airspace in the world after 2 planes crashed into the WTC. It then circled Washington DC without a single interceptor anywhere in the sky and then crashed into the worlds most secure building and the only visual evidence we have is a single frame of a white blip from a 7/11 across the street. Maybe you should re-think before you speak so bluntly
It truly is amazing footage. I'm quite amazed that this video only has 1400+ views. Thanks for sharing.
After reading through these 7 pages and watching the entire video the OP posted, I can say this thread has been "hijacked"...sorry for the terrible pun.
If (IF) the video evidence the guy shows in the OP is correct and was actually shown the way he present's in the video then he certainly raised some very valid questions. Non of which have been addressed in this thread. The video did not deal at all with how the buildings fell, or why they fell like they did...just what hit the videos and what we were shown.
I think some of the "camera tricks" the director of the video shows can most likely be explained by people who actually know stuff about digital photography/videography in 2001. I know nothing of the sort...however, when he was pointing out the different trajectories of the planes in the videos from very similar angles of view, that was suspicious as hell (again assuming he did not screw with the footage). The other thing that was really strange was the bridge in the background being 7.2 miles away or something like that and showing the footage played by several media outlets and how the bridge was related to the towers...there were several other points raised in the video about shadows and lighting and comparing frames of one video to another and how certain things didn't appear to "line up" as well as one would expect...Interesting points that I certainly haven't ever seen answered (not that I have ever really tried to look into them)
I've never put much effort into the 911 conspiracies except for the missile hitting the Pentagon theory. I always thought it just made sense a building built like the towers would fall straight down if the top portion was significantly weakened...Like I said the guy making the video did raise some interesting points I have never thought about and have never heard addressed before, but again I have never gone out of my way to look into these things.
maybe i should've said in the OP that i have a background in audio/video editing as well as Foley sound effects. i went to school for audio engineering in 1997. the technology to edit video "on the fly" has been around for at least decades. when i was in school, the A/V software cost upwards of $2000. now it's available to anyone practically for free. the biggest clues to me in this video are the fake sound effects added into the crash footage: reversed cymbal crashes, fake screams, etc. then of coarse all the discrepancies in the flight path itself. i appreciate someone finally watching the video and commenting instead of the usual nonsensical responses. thanks!
When someone manages to explain this: