View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

The Bottom Line Re: The 9/11 Twin Towers Collapse

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

The Bottom Line Re: The 9/11 Twin Towers Collapse

Postby Scepcop » 16 Jun 2015, 04:05

The Bottom Line Regarding 9/11

In case anyone is still on the fence about 9/11 or refuses to believe that it was an inside job, well here is the CORE CRUX of the matter for you to deal with:

All three towers collapsed at virtual FREE FALL speed. The twin towers came down at 11 seconds and Building 7 came down at 5.5 seconds. This fact can be seen in all the videos of the collapse. But this is not possible unless you destroy the BOTTOM FOUNDATION of the structures first. There's no way around this. The twin towers each weighed 500,000 tons, which is an official fact that can easily be verified on official sites. That's 500,000 tons of RESISTANCE! None of the official government models account for this 500,000 tons of resistance.

Even Peter Jennings and the mainstream media said that bombs had to be used too, on the first day of 9/11, before they were ordered not to say it anymore. On 9/11, Peter Jennings said on ABC TV News: "Anyone who's watched a building being demolished knows that you have to get at the UNDER INFRASTRUCTURE of a building to bring it down". The clip of him saying that can be viewed in any 9/11 truth documentary. Other reporters said that there were bombs in the towers too. One camera mounted on a tripod even showed the ground shaking 15 seconds BEFORE the collapse.

Bottom line: There had to be bombs or some type of destruction device UNDER the towers or at the bottom of it. Yes this means it was an INSIDE JOB. Whether the terrorists were real or not, either way, it had to have been partly an inside job. There's no way around it. NONE whatsoever. This is the ACHILLES HEEL of the official theory and none of the establishment whores have ever been able to explain it away.

And no, the towers were NOT hollow. That's a bald faced lie by Popular Mechanics. AE911Truth.org has obtained the official blueprints of the towers, which you can see on their website, and they clearly prove that they were not hollow. 500,000 tons is NOT hollow or empty air. Sorry. Think about this too: If a skyscraper or large building could be demolished by a few office fires, then the controlled demolition companies -- which take months to set up a controlled demolition to bring down a big building -- would be out of business wouldn't they? Gotcha!

Try this little experiment. Light the top of your table on fire. See if that will make your table collapse at free fall speed. No way. Top fires do not cause a straight down collapse at free fall velocity. You have to destroy the foundation of the table to achieve that. You'd have to cut the legs of the tables first, before it will collapse at free fall. Try turning on a gas stove range. Will the flames cause the range to collapse at free fall? No of course not. Fire at the TOP of a structure isn't going to cause a free fall speed collapse. There's NO WAY it can. Buildings have RESISTANCE and cannot fall like air unless its FOUNDATION is destroyed first. There's no way around this. It's elementary physics and logic and common sense. Very simple.

Checkmate. Game over. The official story LOSES and is DEBUNKED!

For more info, visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at: http://www.ae911truth.org
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: The Bottom Line Re: The 9/11 Twin Towers Collapse

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jun 2015, 08:15

If they fell at free fall speed, Scepcop, then you would not see beams and rubble falling faster than the building itself which you can clearly see for yourself including the ones on your conspiracy sites, . Thus, your free fall theory is wrong. Again. Sigh.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Bottom Line Re: The 9/11 Twin Towers Collapse

Postby FatFreddy » 01 Jul 2015, 00:11

If any viewers don't have the time to watch hours of video on this subject, just watch the summary at the 4:27:49 time mark of this video.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M


If you do have time to spend a few hours watching video, watch the above one and this one.

9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOQ5Vl9d0k
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: The Bottom Line Re: The 9/11 Twin Towers Collapse

Postby FatFreddy » 01 Jul 2015, 01:12

If they fell at free fall speed, Scepcop, then you would not see beams and rubble falling faster than the building itself which you can clearly see for yourself including the ones on your conspiracy sites, . Thus, your free fall theory is wrong.

The experts say that difference is negligible.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones/
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------
the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references
--------------------------------------------
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses
--------------------------------------------

911research.com/materials/wtc/towers.pdf
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------
The towers fell at near the
speed of a falling object
encountering no resistance.
Video recordings show both
towers fell completely in
about 15 seconds -- only
slightly longer than would
take an object to fall from the
towers’ roofs in a vacuum. But
unless the intact portion of the
building were demolished
before the falling portion
encountered it, it would have
greatly slowed (and in fact
halted) the fall, since the
energy to crush each story and
accelerate its mass downward
would have to come from the
kinetic energy of falling mass.
------------------------------------------

Start listening to this at about the 15:30 time mark.

9/11 Free Fall 2/19/14: Steven Dusterwald on the duty of engineers to speak out about 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcyEPjL_h8k
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: The Bottom Line Re: The 9/11 Twin Towers Collapse

Postby ProfWag » 04 Jul 2015, 19:43

FatFreddy wrote:The experts say that difference is negligible.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones/
(excerpts)

"The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
McIlvain, Ryan (December 5, 2005). "Censor rumors quelled". BYU NewsNet. Retrieved September 4, 2007.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest