|
WORLD
TRADE CENTER COLLAPSES
On 9/11/2001,
the World Trade Center towers collapsed at near free-fall speed.
In other words, the tops of the buildings crashed through the
rest of the buildings in about one second more than they would
have taken to crash through thin air. Even the 9/11
Commission acknowledged that this was the case.
As the towers
fell, the concrete in the structures, along with all of the
office contents (e.g., carpets, desks, ball point pens,
computers) were pulverized into a fine powder, and this powder,
along with steel beams from the structures, was powerfully
ejected outward from the collapsing towers. These facts
are also undisputed.
The official
explanation that has been offered for the fast rate
of fall is that the undamaged floors below the impact zones
provided essentially no resistance as the great weight of the
damaged floors pancaked down onto them. However, if the
undamaged floors provided essentially no resistance in the fall
(or if the floors weren't "pancaking", which is what
the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- NIST --
now says) then what would be the source of the energy to pulverize
concrete and building contents and to eject steel beams and
other debris hundreds of feet outward?
Or, to put it
the other way around, if the collisions of the floors released
enough energy to pulverize concrete and other materials and
contents into dust and to forcefully eject steel beams, wouldn't
these collisions have slowed the collapses of the towers
to speeds far slower than free-fall speed? Is the
pulverization and powerful ejection of material (absent the use
of explosives) evidence of very strong resistance from the
undamaged floors, and isn't such resistance incompatible
with the near free-fall speed of the collapses that was
observed? Some researchers have referred to this problem
as the "resistance paradox".
One explanation for the pulverization and ejection of material is
explosives used in a controlled demolition. This is compatible
with the near free-fall speed of the collapses and also
compatible with the other ten characteristics of the
collapses that, according to many, were observed: sudden
onset, completely vertical fall, total collapse, sliced steel,
pulverization of concrete and other materials, dust clouds,
horizontal ejections, observed series of demolitions circling
the structure – “demolition rings”, sounds of explosions,
molten steel.
A good review (10/07): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDKa1Q1GwTQ
To watch an
M.I.T.-trained engineer explain the collapses, see: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
Here is a
letter from a physicist suggesting that the official explanation
of the collapses is absurd:
http://www.rense.com/general73/phy.htm
A basic discussion of the physics involved:
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
For a detailed
analysis of the collapses by a Physics Professor, see: "Why
Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D, at http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
An analysis of
the NIST report on the collapses: http://rense.com/general74/nist.htm
A review of the
testimony of firefighters relating to explosions:
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
An analysis of the energy deficit to create the observed
pulverization of WTC1:
An analysis of the inadequate momentum transfer to
collapse the building by pancaking
A critique of the previous paper, and a response to
that critique
An analysis of the initial movements of WTC1 --
explainable only by controlled demolition
If you are assuming
that the suggestion of government complicity in any
aspect of 9/11 implies an impossibly large
government conspiracy, consider these
points.
more
articles
more
|
