04-11-2012, 08:35 AM
Physics doesn't lie: tilting south tower gives away demolition of Trade Center
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4082[/ATTACH]
Craig McKee ♦ November 26, 2010 ♦
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance Albert Einstein
By Craig McKee
People who believe in the official government theory of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must find the laws of physics to be a real pain in the neck. They must hate it when these silly laws keep showing how their neat story of Islamic terrorism simply isn't possible.
There are so many examples: the tiny hole in the Pentagon and lack of wreckage outside; the scattering of debris from Flight 93 over an area of several miles and virtually no wreckage at the crash scene; molten steel under the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed; the fact that fire was simply not hot enough to have brought down both towers; and that they couldn't have fallen so quickly without explosives. And those are just the big ones.
There's another aspect to the collapse of the twin towers that doesn't get as much attention but that is huge when it comes to proving the fiction of the official theory.
When the South Tower started to collapse at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Newton's law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.
The only way we didn't have the top 34-floor section lying in a heap beside the tower is that it fell apart or more likely blew apart at the beginning of the collapse. The reason we've let this fact slip by most of us is that the top of the building is quickly disappears amid all the smoke and debris. We never see it again.
But here's the most important point: Newton wouldn't be able to reconcile this tilting top with the symmetrical collapse that followed. With the top tilting at approximately 23 degrees, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? In fact, how could it exert any force at all? And how could all of the building's 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the collapse wasn't symmetrical when it started.
Newton wouldn't have bought it.
David Ray Griffin addresses this in his excellent essay, "The destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official account can't be true" (You can find it in The Hidden History of 9-11, edited by Paul Zarembka. The tilting tower is discussed on page 91.) Richard Gage also analyses the collapse of the WTC, and deals with the south tower conundrum, in the film 9/11 Blueprint for Truth.
No matter which aspect of the towers' collapse you look at, the conclusion has to be the same. Planes didn't knock the buildings over, fire couldn't have heated enough of the steel to cause a uniform collapse, and the so-called "pancake theory" can't explain how the building and most of its contents were literally pulverized into a fine dust.
And more than anything else, there's no way the pancake theory can explain the buildings coming down at near free fall speed. Any experts I've read on the subject have said that as the top of the building crushed each floor, the collapse would have slowed down. That's another of those laws of physics. As it is, the buildings collapsed as if there was almost no resistance at all.
There's only one way that could have happened. Explosives. And lots of them.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4082[/ATTACH]
Craig McKee ♦ November 26, 2010 ♦
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance Albert Einstein
By Craig McKee
People who believe in the official government theory of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must find the laws of physics to be a real pain in the neck. They must hate it when these silly laws keep showing how their neat story of Islamic terrorism simply isn't possible.
There are so many examples: the tiny hole in the Pentagon and lack of wreckage outside; the scattering of debris from Flight 93 over an area of several miles and virtually no wreckage at the crash scene; molten steel under the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed; the fact that fire was simply not hot enough to have brought down both towers; and that they couldn't have fallen so quickly without explosives. And those are just the big ones.
There's another aspect to the collapse of the twin towers that doesn't get as much attention but that is huge when it comes to proving the fiction of the official theory.
When the South Tower started to collapse at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Newton's law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.
The only way we didn't have the top 34-floor section lying in a heap beside the tower is that it fell apart or more likely blew apart at the beginning of the collapse. The reason we've let this fact slip by most of us is that the top of the building is quickly disappears amid all the smoke and debris. We never see it again.
But here's the most important point: Newton wouldn't be able to reconcile this tilting top with the symmetrical collapse that followed. With the top tilting at approximately 23 degrees, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? In fact, how could it exert any force at all? And how could all of the building's 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the collapse wasn't symmetrical when it started.
Newton wouldn't have bought it.
David Ray Griffin addresses this in his excellent essay, "The destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official account can't be true" (You can find it in The Hidden History of 9-11, edited by Paul Zarembka. The tilting tower is discussed on page 91.) Richard Gage also analyses the collapse of the WTC, and deals with the south tower conundrum, in the film 9/11 Blueprint for Truth.
No matter which aspect of the towers' collapse you look at, the conclusion has to be the same. Planes didn't knock the buildings over, fire couldn't have heated enough of the steel to cause a uniform collapse, and the so-called "pancake theory" can't explain how the building and most of its contents were literally pulverized into a fine dust.
And more than anything else, there's no way the pancake theory can explain the buildings coming down at near free fall speed. Any experts I've read on the subject have said that as the top of the building crushed each floor, the collapse would have slowed down. That's another of those laws of physics. As it is, the buildings collapsed as if there was almost no resistance at all.
There's only one way that could have happened. Explosives. And lots of them.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass