See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 and the Evidence
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070326_evidence.htm
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2007-03-27 12:26:54 by Peetie Wheatstraw
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 3089
Comments: 178
Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story. Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin. At the outset, Griffin points out that the reader’s choice is between two conspiracy theories: One is that Muslim fanatics, who were not qualified to fly airplanes, defeated the security apparatus of the US and succeeded in three out of four attacks using passenger jets as weapons. The other is that security failed across the board, not merely partially but totally, because of complicity of some part of the US government. Griffin points out that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11. What we have are a report by a political commission headed by Bush administration factotum Philip Zelikow, a NIST report produced by the Bush administration’s Department of Commerce, and a journalistic account produced by Popular Mechanics. Various scientists who work for the federal government or are dependent on government grants have issued speculative statements in behalf of the official conspiracy theory, but have not produced meaningful evidence in its behalf. The relevant skeptics of the official story are approximately 100 independent researchers consisting of experts and professors whose careers have required them to deal with evidence and its analysis. Their individual contributions to 9/11 analysis can be found online. Griffin has undertaken to absorb the arguments and evidence for the official account and the arguments and evidence against it. In his latest book, which has just been released, he presents the case for the official account and its evidential failure. Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official story. Setting aside the 25% of the public that is so uninformed or uninvolved as to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack, leaves 39% of the public who believe the official story. However, this 39% is essentially relying on the mainstream media’s endorsement of the official story. Griffin believes, perhaps naively, that truth can prevail, and it is his commitment to truth that has motivated him to shoulder the enormous task. Everyone who believes in the integrity of the US government or the Bush administration will find Griffin’s book to be disturbing. Readers will have to confront such issues as why US authorities seized the forensic evidence resulting from the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, the attack on the Pentagon and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania and prevented any forensic examination of any part of the 9/11 attacks. Despite widespread belief that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the evidence we have is a suspect video declared to be "bogus" by Bruce Lawrence, perhaps the leading American expert on bin Laden. The US government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden’s responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the US government had no evidence to deliver; thus the invasion of Afghanistan. The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing. The report succeeded because people accepted its assurances without examination. Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself. There is not space in a review to present the evidence Griffin has mustered. A few highlights should suffice to alert readers to the possibility that the Bush administration has lied about more than Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below. Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced. NIST’s final report stated that of the steel available to it for examination, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius" (482 degrees Fahrenheit). The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform. Steel begins to melt at 1,500 degrees C or 2,800 degrees F. Temperatures of 250 degrees C would have no effect on the strength of steel. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires do not produce temperatures sufficient to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires in the towers lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it is impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition. Griffin provides quotes from firefighters, police, and tenants, who heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. Such witness testimony is generally ignored by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Molten steel was found in underground levels of the WTC buildings weeks after the buildings’ destruction. As everyone agrees that the fires did not approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5,000 degree temperatures. The possibility that explosives were used remains unexamined except by independent researchers. Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face. For example, the evidence that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon is the government’s claim to have obtained from the wreckage enough bodies and body parts to match the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew. Simultaneously, the absence of passenger luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections--indeed the absence of a 100,000 pound airliner--is attributed to the vaporization of the airplane due to the high speed crash and intense fire. The incompatibility of vaporized metal but recovered flesh and blood stood unnoticed until Griffin pointed it out. Another striking inconsistency in the official conspiracy theory is the difference in the impact of airliners on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. In the case of the Pentagon, the emphasis is on why the airliner caused so little damage to the building. In the case of the WTC towers, the emphasis is why the airliners caused so much damage. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated. In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to plan an attack on Iran, to curtail constitutional protections and civil liberties in the US, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government’s version of the 9/11 conspiracy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-126) not displayed.
.
.
.
#127. To: Minerva, critter, ALL (#120)
Now Minerva, I didn't insult critter. In fact, just the opposite. I noted that he must be much braver, much less driven by money, and put country, truth and justice much farther ahead of livelihood, than do the millions of evil, moronic, moneygrubbing American scientists and engineers who haven't said one word about explosives bringing down the WTC towers.
Gathering intel for your handlers?
Are you just an asshole who insults people for the fun of it?
#128. To: BeAChooser, Nostalgia (#126)
Did you post at LP or FR under a different screenname?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#129. To: Minerva, ALL (#121)
It means I'm not going to answer a stupid question which has no relevance to the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers. You go ahead and play your "I-hate-jew" card all you want, Minerva. It isn't going to change the facts one iota. Whether I'm jewish, christian, hindu, buddhist, agnostic or whatever ... the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers are not going to change. Your charge is simply a red herring to avoid facing the truth.
2. Are you a Jew?
"Is that relevant to the issue of whether Griffin is lying or not?"
That means "yes" in Hebrew.
#130. To: BeAChooser (#129)
Didn't I warn you about ass cancer, heeb?
#131. To: Critter, ALL (#123)
Actually, Steven Jones had NO knowledge or education in structures, demolition, and hadn't done any macro-world physics for over 30 years. And for the record, he RESIGNED from BYU and specifically stated that he was NOT forced out. Kevin Ryan's letter was filled with disinformation about the NIST results and UL tests and the reason he ended up unemployed is that a water treatment expert shouldn't go making claims about subjects he knows nothing about ON UL STATIONARY. Then you are up the creek, since you use the things they design and make every single day. And again, you must be special to not be subject to the same influences. And there must be something about American macro-world physicists and structural engineers that makes them incapable of doing what so many other whistleblowers whose livelihood depends on the government have done countless times in the last few decades ... and with far less at stake.
Ask Profesor Jones what happens when you use your knowlege and education to debunk the official fairy tale. You end up unemployed.
Ask Kevin Ryan what happens when you point out that NIST was misrepresenting the results of UL tests. You end up unemployed.
By the way, most of the experts you speak of in some way shape or form earn their living off the government tit.
#132. To: Critter, ALL (#125)
Of course not. He exists. He said WTC7 was a controlled demolition ... based SOLELY on watching a few video clips that a conspiracist like you provided him ... without telling him the event took place on 9/11, that the building was on fire for many, many hours before it collapsed and that the building was leaning long before the collapse. Now are you going to pretend that his theory isn't that Silverstein decided AFTER the planes hit the towers to bring down WTC7 rather than have to repair it? Are you going to pretend that he didn't say WTC 1 and WTC 2 looked nothing like controlled demos? If you agree with him about WTC7, do you agree with him about the towers too? Hmmmmm, critter?
Hey dipshit, you still haven't addressed the fact that I showed you a demolition expert that thinks building 7 was a controlled demo. You going to pretend that he doesn't exist now?
#133. To: BeAChooser (#132)
If one building was a controlled demo, they all must have been demos.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#134. To: Critter, ALL (#133)
Yet your demolition expert said WTC1 and WTC2 were definitely NOT demos. So is he now a moron too, critter?
If one building was a controlled demo, they all must have been demos.
#135. To: BeAChooser (#134)
If one is, they all are. He may mean that that the towers weren't a "controlled" demolition in the classic sense. They weren't. They couldn't be without it looking way too obvious. But 7 was a classic controlled demo, and all I have to do to prove that the official fairy tale is a lie, is prove that one of them was controlled demo.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#136. To: Critter, ALL (#135)
Is that a new law of nature? Shall we call it Critter's Law? So you think he was parsing his words when he said that? ROTFLOL! And he just failed to mention the word explosives in the context of what collapsed the two towers? Yet for so long the conspiracy movement INSISTED they show the classic signs of a controlled demo. In fact, I believe many in the movement still do say that. One of them being Griffin. So are you disagreeing with Griffin now too, critter?
If one is, they all are.
He may mean that that the towers weren't a "controlled" demolition in the classic sense.
They weren't.
#137. To: BeAChooser (#126)
The fact that you're an obnoxious asshat isn't reason enough?
There must be some reason you are so passionate in your hatred of me.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#138. To: BeAChooser (#136)
They may show signs, but the towers weren't "classic" controlled demos. I have always said that, or at least since I realized how words can be misconstrued.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#139. To: BeAChooser (#129)
You could have just said "Yes, I am Jewsih". Why are you so verbose all the time?
Whether I'm jewish, christian, hindu, buddhist, agnostic or whatever ... the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers are not going to change. Your charge is simply a red herring to avoid facing the truth.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#140. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#136)
The three buildings were all too obviously brought down onto their own foootprint by controolled demolition - as evidenced just by a stopwatch. You can't change that, BAC, you stubborn asshole! Common sense doesn't require a degree.
#141. To: Minerva (#139)
BAC won't deny being queer, either. (He knows what he is!)
#142. To: BeAChooser (#129)
Do you eat that smelly fish that comes in the little round jar?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#143. To: SKYDRIFTER (#140)
If they could lie about the War in Iraq and the Media would promote it and then help cover it up. Then these SAME people could be lying about 911 with the media covering it up as they cover up all things related to Israel. We KNOW they lied about Iraq and we KNOW who made the fabrications. We KNOW what country they have dual citizenship with and which same country has been caught spying on the US (though unreported by the MSM) twice both before and after 911. We KNOW the Mossad lived next door to said hijackers and was caught filming and celebrating the WTC attacks. Connect the dots. 911, Iraq, and PNAC Where do all the Roads lead? No not the nwo/illuminati/pope/lizards it leads to ISRAEL. and ISAREL is going to start WWIII and attack Iran, Syria and Lebanon. If we don't do something. You konw WHAT happened on 911
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#144. To: Minerva, skydrifter (#139) (Edited)
I think it's a Jewish guilt thing...excuse me...a homo Jew guilt thing.
He won't deny being queer either.
You could have just said "Yes, I am Jewsih".
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#145. To: BeAChooserstein (#129)
We are only joking with you. I hope you don't take it seriously.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#146. To: BeAChooser (#136)
I guess all those firemen were unqualified to speak to what they heard, is that your line, BAC? Are they too non-expert to be considered credible?
#147. To: BeAChooserberg (#136)
Are you off the net for Passover?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#148. To: Critter, ALL (#138)
David Griffin published an article insisting that you are wrong ... that the collapse of the towers has all the characteristics of a classic "controlled demolition". http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=2 Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?
#149. To: BeAChooser (#148)
No. He is right. I did a quick scan of the aricle since time is tight right now, but I didn't find the exact quote that he said it contained "all" of the characteristics. However, there are only two characteristics missing from the towers collapses: Starting from the bottom, and containing the debris field to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. The characteristics he does mention were indeed part of the tower collapses.
Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#150. To: Critter, ALL (#149)
Yet he said WTC1 and WTC2 were "controlled demolitions". You claim they aren't.
"Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?"
No. He is right.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#150)
Who pays you to post here?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#152. To: Dakmar, ALL (#151)
Same people as you?
Who pays you to post here?
#153. To: BeAChooser (#152)
The freemasons? Wow, those cats have really branched out recently. How much do they pay you?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#154. To: BeAChooser (#150)
That's not exactly what he said. You are misquoting him here.
Yet he said WTC1 and WTC2 were "controlled demolitions". You claim they aren't.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#155. To: Dakmar (#153)
Damn, Grand Lodge keeps increasing our dues, but I didn't know..... What the hell, I'm only a 32nd Degree; what would I know, right? The freemasons? Wow, those cats have really branched out recently.
#156. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#148)
I'm involved with a group setting Griffin's upcoming appearance in Seattle; anything you want me to ask him, BAC? Are you saying Griffin is wrong ......
#157. To: IndieTX (#144)
I understand they are routinely coming out of the closet, these days. Another sect, I assume. I think it's a Jewish guilt thing...excuse me...a homo Jew guilt thing.
#158. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#129)
You got something straight, for a change. Less than 20 seconds to collapse - on their own footprint = "...controlled demolition!" Damn, BAC, there's hope for you, yet.
.... the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers are not going to change.
#159. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#156)
Sure, SKYDRIFTER. Ask him to join us at 4um so he can explain to all why he LIED so many times in his book. I'll be happy to go over the specifics with him personally. You tell me when he will be available here. And if he won't do that, just ask him how long it took the WTC towers to collapse ... in seconds. Tell us his response.
I'm involved with a group setting Griffin's upcoming appearance in Seattle; anything you want me to ask him, BAC?
#160. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#158)
Why is 20 seconds a magic number, SKYDRIFTER? Why not 30 seconds? Or 40?
Less than 20 seconds to collapse
#161. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#158)
Or 19? Or 18? Or 15? Or 11? Why 20?
#162. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#158)
From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M. At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.156 (The above is from the govt report on 9/11.) The following is from: http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml. http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml Observations from 9/11 On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real) But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. (see first part of article here) That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air. But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years. Air can't do that. Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a collapse should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever? Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close! Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Free-falling from WTC heights The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. But that can only occur in a vacuum. Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source) Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height. Conclusions In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met: * The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
pulverized -- actually dissociated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#163. To: Fish Breath (#161) (Edited)
He studied it for a long time. He decided that "20" was the number most likely to get under your skin.
Why 20?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#164. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#162)
http://physics911.net/closerlook Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking,”which is the official theory. The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually. As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was. This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren’t hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance? Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t. And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards. Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#165. To: robin (#162)
* The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11. excellent (isn't it amazing the EVIL entity doesn't realize how stupid it looks with its splitting of hairs and it questions the credibility of this forum?)
In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
#166. To: christine (#165) (Edited)
Also, don't miss that it was the govt report itself that claimed WTC1 fell in 10 seconds. The 9/11 truthers claim closer to 14 seconds, but the laws of physics still hold that this was not a natural gravitational fall.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#167. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#160)
It is a generic number which is valid but escapes your bullshit psyops nit- picking. Any figure posed to date amounts to a free-fall. OR, do you have a particular figure which you would commit to? C'mon, BAC, you deceitful ashole, you! Got a figure? C'mon! Why is 20 seconds a magic number, SKYDRIFTER?
.
.
.
Comments (168 - 178) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest