START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
anonymous The Towers Fell Too Fast! August 08, 2006 7:51 PM

The WTC buildings collapsed at free the fall speed of gravity, 8.4 seconds (10 floors per second). To collapse at "Free fall" speed means that the falling building pieces had to crush concrete, shear steel bolts, and brake welds and fall just as fast as a rock dropped off the side of the building that hit nothing but air. Impossible without explosives. Each floor hit would have significantly slowed the fall! The South Tower (Building #2) fell after 1 hour; the North Tower (Building #1) fell after 2 hours.The Meridian Plaza burned fiercely for 19 hours and never collapsed. The Madrid fire in 2005 burnt for 24 hours looking like a torch and never collapsed. Yet Scientific American, October 2001 said "The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings..they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center"s  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 April 24, 2007 7:02 AM

The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at:

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds.
If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.

Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to  this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,72  [ send green star]  [ accepted]

CONTINUED... April 24, 2007 7:03 AM

.. = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with.  -
Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.

Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.

One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.

The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
CONTINUED... April 24, 2007 7:06 AM

Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.

When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.

Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.

It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.

Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar," thinking seems to be optional.

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?

More on the pulverization of concrete

Another absurd straw man is that they say Greening is saying the collapse weakened the steel. Nowhere in Greening's paper does it say the collapse "weakened" the steel. The massive potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the collapse and was MORE than enough to destroy the connections. No "weakening" of steel needed. The only weakening was on the fire floors which had its fireproofing blown off. This has NOTHING to do with Greening's paper.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 April 24, 2007 7:07 AM

...Reader contribution:

Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:

J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson.

 WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision.  One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.

Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.

I'd like to thank Slugman from Political Myths blog for his contribution.

This post was modified from its original form on 24 Apr, 7:08  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 April 25, 2007 5:19 AM

Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary arguments against

Presenting an uncluttered account of 9/11 inconsistencies is no easy task. The official account is so haphazard and full of holes, it's very hard to stay focused on one problem without being diverted into a string of related problems. With that in mind, try to forgive the following "rapid fire" outline:

We've got the "raging jet fuel theory" which (even if true) could have never generated sufficient heat to produce the molten metal found in all three buildings. In a logical world, we can't even begin discussing what caused the collapse of the buildings until we've identified what burned hot enough to create the molten metal. Why? Because whatever burned hot enough to create the molten metal is (logically) the most likely cause of collapse!

Another problem with the jet fuel theory (as we've already pointed out) is WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane or burned with jet fuel. Since it must be assumed something else destroyed WTC 7, it's reasonable to assume something else could have destroyed the North and South towers as well.

To date, FEMA has only been able to come up with a "Diesel Fuel Theory" for building 7. Check the maximum burn temperature for diesel fuel and you'll run into the same problem we ran into with the two towers; it is no where near sufficient to cause the molten metal found at the site. Furthermore, when addressing how diesel fuel might have contributed to the collapse of WTC 7, FEMA is on the record as saying: "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue."  The attacks took place in 2001. How many more years will it take?

Now is a good time for a logical question: - How long would it take FEMA to "resolve the issue" of what caused building 7 to collapse if they were allowed to consider explosives in the building? I'm betting they could have a universally accepted, reproducible theory in a day. From there it would only be a matter of figuring out how the explosives got into the building. (...gotta be easier than trying to figure out how to bend the laws of physics.)  

Another "theory" that has recently been put forward is debris from the North Tower cut into Building 7; knocking out a handful of supports on its south side. This theory also has multiple problems. First, there is no evidence to support it. Second, the North Tower literally fell on top of building 6, crushing a GIANT round hole out of the center of the building. Despite having a huge chunk ripped from it's core, the sections that weren't crushed remained standing and had to be brought down with explosives.

Diagram of WTC complex: Note in this picture 1 WTC (The North Tower) is almost directly against building 6 (6 WTC) whereas building 7 (7 WTC) is the farthest building away from both the North and South towers.

Here is a picture of Building 6 after having the North Tower fall directly on it. (Note the giant hole in the center of building 6. Also highlighted: Building 5 and the area where building 7 used to be.)


Third, and most importantly, IF the suggested damage to building 7 actually existed (scant evidence to support the assertion) and if it were sufficient to cause the damaged section to collapse, we would have seen a partial collapse in the area of the damage; not a symmetrical vaporization straight down into the buildings own footprint. -Isn't it absurd to suggest that a "few key columns on the south side of building 7 might have been scooped out by falling debris, causing it to collapse" when in fact we can all see that building 5 suffered exactly that kind of damage to its south side and yet didn't collapse? Or, how about this: I wonder if some "key columns" might be missing from building 6...(Again, here is a close up of the damage to building 6)

The trut  [ send green star]  [ accepted]

CONTINUED... April 25, 2007 5:26 AM

The truth, as evidenced by the pictures above (not to mention all known history) is steel framed buildings don't up and evaporate; even if you rip huge chunks out of them. A catastrophic failure does not a "global collapse" make. As a reference, compare these two buildings below (snapped off at the base in an earthquake) to what was left of WTC 7.

 And now, here is the picture of what was left of WTC 7(Click Here.) (Note: The two buildings above fell sideways with nothing but air standing between them and the ground, they impacted on their sides which is not their strongest angle structurally and yet they didn't disintegrate into a fine powder. Why?) -Forgive the cliche', but there is "something wrong with this picture."

While we're pointing out the obvious, how about an obvious yet unasked question: Why weren't explosives the first thing considered as the cause for the WTC buildings' collapse? Terrorists regularly use bombs to attack their targets, countless reputable eyewitnesses reported bombs going off, buildings have never collapsed in the manner witnessed on 9/11 without the help of explosives, and in 1993 explosives were successfully placed (by terrorists) and detonated in one of the same buildings that fell on 9/11! To have the government bend itself into an intellectual pretzel to make their "fire initiated collapse" theory stick (without spending any time looking into the more plausible theory) makes no sense whatsoever.

There are a few more important things to consider:

 Contrary to what the government would have you believe, all evidence points to relatively insignificant fires at the time of each building's collapse. Try to forget about the "jet fuel" that was endlessly drummed into your head; it means nothing. In the towers the jet fuel was irrelevant after 10 minutes (burned off) and in WTC7, it never existed. What we're dealing with are three high rise buildings that, according to the government, vaporized due to fire -

 For the sake of argument; pretend there had never been a high-rise fire before in the history of mankind. If that was the case, the "fire initiated collapse" of all three buildings would be harder to disprove. Even so; it's likely that some in the scientific community would challenge the theory; let's proceed under that assumption.  

Armed with a strong grasp of physics and knowledge of how heat affects steel, our scientific "debunkers" would have firmly rejected all three buildings disintegrated (at near free-fall speed) as a result of fire. To back their assertion, they would conduct a series of experiments where steel framed buildings were subjected to extremely hot "all-consuming fires" for hours on end. To be clear, the fires in these experiments would be intentionally stoked to maximum severity under ideal conditions; they would far surpass anything the WTC buildings had to endure.

-What if, at the end of their testing, the results read: "no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments -despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500 - 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in three of the tests-" Would anyone still accept the official account? Maybe some would still believe, but what if (for the first time in history) steel-framed buildings around the world suddenly started bursting into flames? -Instead of scientific "mumbo jumbo" the masses would get to see the affects of these fires first hand. They witness:

·        A fire in a Philadelphia high rise that rages for 18 hours, burning hot enough to break glass and gut 8 floors. Yet despite the severe conditions, a damage report concludes the steel support columns "continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

·        They witness a Caracas high-rise fire, it burns for 17 hours and completely guts the upper 20 floors. -the building remains standing.

·        Finally, they witness a high-rise fire like no other in Madrid Spain. The building literally burns like a torch (a TRUE "Raging Inferno") destroying it  [ send green star]  [ accepted]

CONTINUED... April 25, 2007 5:27 AM

(a TRUE "Raging Inferno") destroying it from top to bottom. When all is said and done, it takes more than 22 hours to extinguish the flames, the building is irreparably damaged, but it remains standing.

Would this knock the legs out from under the government's theory? -For all but the most dedicated followers, yes...

With that said, now would be a good time to reveal that each event I've just mentioned actually took place. From the scientific experiments to the individual building fires each is a legitimate historical fact. (-Save the chronology and certain aspects of the context, there is nothing "hypothetical" about any of the aforementioned.)

Rather than take the time to go through each of the cited examples, lets contrast the 22 hour, all consuming Madrid Spain fire (Below) with the 56 minute, barely visible fire of the South Tower on 9/11. If you haven't seen pictures of the Madrid fire, have a good look:

 The government has told us over and over again the South tower succumbed to the devastating heat of a raging inferno. -but as is the case with nearly everything we've been told, the evidence strongly contradicts their claim. -nothing to evince a blaze even remotely comparable to the true inferno above.

First, we've got multiple eyewitness accounts (from within the building itself) that describe anything but an inferno. Perhaps the most compelling account is that of a firefighter who, transmitting from the impact floor of the South Tower, radioed the following: "we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." If you didn't listen to it before, here is the audio. -moments after this transmission (with the fires at their lowest point) the South Tower collapsed.

Additionally, there is video and photographic evidence that proves the absence of a raging inferno. For instance, the thick black smoke seen pouring out of the South Tower prior to collapse suggests the fire was oxygen starved and on its way out-

Now, let's compare the extremely short lived and rather unimpressive "inferno" that allegedly vaporized the South Tower, to what the Windsor Building in Madrid Spain had to endure.

If ever a steel-framed building should have collapsed due to fire, the Windsor building was the perfect candidate. It had far less steel than the WTC buildings (limiting its ability to conduct / diffuse heat), it had FAR MORE intense fires to deal with, and it burned much longer. Additionally, the "core" of the Windsor building was constructed of steel reinforced concrete; nowhere near as durable as the enormous solid steel support columns of the towers and building 7. And yet, despite all of these disadvantages, it displayed amazing resilience.

For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.   

If the Windsor building had been an experiment to debunk the "sudden and complete collapse" of the WTC buildings, it would have to be chalked up as a great success for demonstrating the following;

1) The genuine difficulty of causing steel to fail in a building fire

2) What a fire initiated failure actually looks like, and

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

CONTINUED... April 25, 2007 5:27 AM

3) How less affected sections "hold up" under falling debris and how the CORE reacts to collapsing floor spans

Pretending for a moment the inferno was intentionally created to cause an observable failure, the logical expectations would have been:  

Slowly, individual sections of steel would lose their ability to "bleed off" the intense heat they were subjected to. As a result, their temperature would rise and their rated capacity to support weight would decrease; first by 10%, then 20%, 40% etc. By the time an individual supporting member had lost 70% of its rated capacity, it would begin to sag and twist. At around an 80% reduction that particular section would likely fail.

In the end, the overall expected failure scenario reads: A series of small partial collapses (isolated and occurring at different intervals over the course of the blaze) with the bulk of the building remaining intact. -NOT expected (or believed possible): an instantaneous failure of all weight bearing columns resulting in a symmetrical free-fall collapse.  And what were the results? See for yourself:

Of the approximately 10 separate partial failures, none of them had any affect on the core of the structure-This is amazing when you consider the severity of the blaze, the duration of the fire, and the inherent inferiority of its "reinforced concrete" construction. An excellent summary of the facts can be found here:

The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick.

In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar... -Note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires.

    * Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.

    * Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent 

Regarding the time it took for each partial failure:

Time       Collapse Situation

1:29        East face of the 21st floor collapsed

1:37        South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed

1:50        Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:02        Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:11        Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:13        Floo  [ send green star]  [ accepted]

CONTINUED... April 25, 2007 5:28 AM

2:13        Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor

2:17        Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:47        Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed

2:51        Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed

3:35        South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed-

3:48        Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor

4:17        Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building #7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.  (Source: 

If after all this, there's still doubt about whether or not the WTC fires were sufficient to completely level the far superior buildings, there are yet a few more things to consider...

Of the columns from the fire floors NIST studied, "only three columns had evidence the steel reached temperatures above 482 degrees Fahrenheit," and none of the examined core columns had evidence of reaching even that temperature.

Granted, 99.9% of the evidence (-evidence that could have easily settled once and for all what destroyed all three buildings) was quickly hauled off under armed guard and destroyed. -Nonetheless, we take what we can get and what we got matches exactly what we'd expect to find. IE: The video, photographic and first hand accounts all support a finding by NIST that none of their core column samples had reached even 480 degrees Fahrenheit.  

Now is a good time to remind ourselves of the scientific experiments conducted on steel-framed buildings mentioned earlier: "no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments -despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500 - 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in three of the tests- 

David Ray Griffin wrote an excellent piece on this topic and in it, he points out something very obvious but often overlooked: There is no evidence to support the government's "fire destroyed the building's" theory. -Not one feature of the WTC buildings' sudden and complete disintegration matches any historical reference of how large steel framed building's react to fire. By contrast, the WTC buildings exhibited at least 11 features that are consistent with the intentional demolition of a building.

Just one question: -Is there any logical reason why the much better theory, (with all its supporting evidence) has been vilified and ignored in favor of the lesser one?

A final appeal to Common Sense

If we ignore the impossibility of molten steel; the comparatively insignificant fires, the historical evidence, and the fact that WTC 7 was not struck by a plane there is still one remaining argument some try to advance regarding the towers. That argument is: "It was damage from the planes + the fires that triggered the observed collapse."

There are many angles we can attack this argument from. The most obvious is to point out the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Although the 707 is slightly smaller than a 767, it has a higher top speed. As such, a 707 traveling at top speed would actually hit with more force and do more damage than the planes that struck the towers.

The problem with the "obvious" response is it leaves too much wiggle room. It leaves the door open to silly arguments about fireproofing being dislodged, (read up on the Windsor buildings' "fireproofing" to crush  [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 April 25, 2007 5:29 AM

"fireproofing" to crush that argument) the circumstances under which designers expected a 707 would impact the towers, (some have argued the architects only planned for a collision if a plane was lost in fog and traveling at reduced speeds) etc, etc.

To rid ourselves of all these diversions and get right to the heart of what is wrong with the way in which the two towers collapsed, we're going to throw the apologists for the official theory a bone.

Better than dislodged fireproofing, super duper jet fuel, or miscalculations about plane velocity, we're prepared to offer up absolute and utter devastation. We're not talking about some bending or melting of steel, or a few knocked out columns in the planes path; we're talking about the complete vaporization of EVERYTHING in the impact zone. -Poof, gone!

In this case we'll use the North Tower for our example. We know that the North Tower was struck between the 93rd and 98th floor. Per our guidelines, we'll assume those floors were completely vaporized instantaneously. -If this were the case, what would we be looking at?

Working our way from the ground up we'd see a 93 story tower followed by 5 missing floors, and ending with an intact section measuring 12 floors high "suspended" above the 5 story gap. (Of course in the real world, a 12 story chunk of building can't "hover" above a 5 story section of nothing; but for the sake of making a point, we're going to leave it hang there for a minute.)

Right next to our tower we're going to use a crane to raise another 12 story section to the same height as the "hovering" 12 story section. If you're having a hard time visualizing all this, here is a picture of what we're looking at:

Simple question: If both sections are dropped at the exact same time, which section do you think will hit the earth first? Or maybe a better question would be: Who in their right mind could possibly believe the chunk of debris on the left (with the intact 93 stories beneath) would hit the earth at the same time as the chunk of debris on the right (with nothing but air to brake its fall?)

Even using our very generous "5 missing floors" scenario (where the upper debris can literally free-fall for approximately 60 feet) the debris will only achieve a speed of roughly 40 miles per hour before colliding with the remaining 1,116 + feet of structural steel below. -are we really to believe near free-fall acceleration through 1,116 feet of structural steel is possible?  

-Of course our "generous" 5 missing floors scenario isn't real. Those 5 floors WERE in the way and surely would have prevented the mass of falling debris from attaining anything near a 60 foot free-fall speed. Knowing this, cut the rate of descent in half (and multiply the absurdity of the governments' assertion by 5.)

For the scientists out there: What kind of Gs would the falling debris achieve at roughly 20 miles per hour? Better question: How many g's would be required to not only overcome the built in "5 times rated weight" redundancy of the supporting structure below, but permit the continued acceleration of debris as if it were traveling through nothing more than 1,116 feet of air?

Call 'em crazy, but these are some of the reasons why a growing circle of physicists, engineers, scientists, high ranking government officials and everyday citizens are rejecting the government's "fire initiated collapse" theory. Buildings don't magically disintegrate at free-fall isn't rocket science. -If it was only a matter of lighting a few strategic fires to bring down high-rise structures (into nice neat little piles) there's little doubt demolition companies around the world would be saving themselves a fortune (per demolition) doing just that.

In closing, here is a short clip of a "demo gone wrong." Note what happens when only PART of the structure is blown out from under the building.

Video 1 (.mov)        Video 2 (.wmv)

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

CONTINUED... April 25, 2007 5:30 AM

Exhibit C:
UPDATE: I haven't written "Exhibit C" because I've been waiting on evidence (now being verified) that will CONCLUSIVELY prove controlled demolition. Once all the evidence is in, I will be able to "condense it" into a few pages and wrap up this 1-hour guide. However, in the meantime, I'd like to direct you to the "long version." This is a peer-reviewed scientific analysis by Steven Jones (Former Physics Professor at BYU.) Compare the government's ridiculous assertions to a genuine scientific dissertation. 
CLICK HERE for "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

even when they suspected they were being lied to, nobody was held accountable. 

Working within this limited framework, the 9/11 Commission COULD NOT do its job. As such, its job has not been done. The truly independent investigation American citizens fought so hard to secure has yet to commence. In short: We're not demanding another investigation; we're still demanding the first one.

This point sums up the conflict between supporters of the 9/11 truth movement and those who deny its merit. In the end, the truth movement seeks a complete and unbiased assessment of ALL the evidence ignored by the 9/11 Commission. Additionally, it seeks the opportunity to rebut falsified claims with more plausible ones.  

On the other side of the equation, we have those in government (and their defenders) who seek to prevent a legitimate investigation into the events of 9/11. It seems the same people who've been "mistaken" so many times in the past are again demanding we forego critical thought and embrace blind faith. Once again, we're to trust they speak the truth without error.

Are these the same men who mistakenly linked Saddam to 9/11? The same ones who connected him to bin laden, to the anthrax attacks; to mushroom clouds and dangerous stockpiles of WMD? Are they the same men who claimed American Forces would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi Oil would pay for the war and overthrowing Saddam would bring stability to the Middle East? The same men who said the air at ground zero was safe to breath, detainees are not being tortured, and "wiretaps require a court order; nothing has changed, we value the Constitution."  

Turning a blind eye to the "mistakes" listed above is one thing. Turning a blind eye to the countless omissions and distortions in the official account of 9/11 is quite another. There is no greater threat facing this nation than the prospect 9/11 was "allowed" or actually "guided" by criminal elements within our own government. To dismiss this possibility out of hand is not only disrespectful to those who died on 9/11; it's disrespectful to t  [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 April 25, 2007 5:30 AM

to those who secured our right to challenge our government in the first place.  

 Prior to 9/11, I was painfully naïve. I had never heard of operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, or Operation Northwoods. I knew nothing of the cover up surrounding the attack on the USS Liberty; I knew nothing of the Gulf of Tonkin deception or the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor. I'd never heard of "false flag" operations, and I sure as Hell would have never believed "my government" would coordinate and participate in terrorist attacks against civilian targets. Sadly, I now know otherwise.

Today, I fully understand the danger of believing "our government" would never do such a thing. While it's true "our government" as a whole would not, those in the highest positions of power (with motive, means, and opportunity) would...and have. -Those who continue to insist otherwise are either ignorant (as I once was) or simply lying.

Knowing these facts, how can we justify allowing anyone to block our efforts? After all, if our suspects have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. -A truly independent investigation will only exonerate them. However, if a cover up has taken place and those responsible go unpunished; we will have guaranteed ourselves more of the same. We will have exposed our country to the greatest threat imaginable...we will have failed in our duty to defend this nation from ALL enemies; foreign and domestic.

I, along with millions of other Americans, refuse to let that happen. Our congressmen and women would be well advised to get on the right side of this issue. All positions against our Press for 9/11 Truth are untenable.

J. Plummer 9-10-2006

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct


This group:
ReOpen The 9/11 Investigation
29 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences