Films and unanswered questions about 9/11 and NWO

[Winston]

This is a chilling documentary. If you watch it, you'll never see the US government the same way again. It's very well researched and backed up with a ton of sources.

Terrorstorm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dYWP9AOGBo

And here is his other hit film "Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9zHkv8uSU

BTW, if you haven't seen the latest version of "Loose Change", the most popular 9/11 truth film, here it is. It's a great film made by three bright college age students who have a passion for the truth. In this latest version, their presentation is far more fair and balanced, and they raise scores of unanswered questions, such as why the FBI confiscated all the videos of the plane that hit the Pentagon that were captured by the Sheraton Hotel and a gas station across the street, and refuse to release them, except for one that shows nothing but a white speck.

Loose Change Final Cut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk7htWPF874

[Winston]

BTW, here's something more credible than Alex Jones and a bunch of college kids making a film.

There is now a group of 600 professional architects and engineers that claim that the official version of what happened on 9/11 to the twin towers is impossible and contradicts the basic law of physics. They are called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", and their website is at:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

They have a 2 hour video presentation by their director Richard Cage which you can see on their site or on google video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6903609314

It's very scientific and professional.

[Winston]

Here's another mega film by Alex Jones. Now this one is REALLY REALLY farfetched. I don't know whether to be scared or laughing.

Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0i4sJqHPUk

The part about Eugenics is chilling like a horror movie.

The thing is, if all those things were true, then why would they let Alex Jones run around freely exposing them? That doesn't make much sense.

[Winston]

Unanswered questions about 9/11:

1. Why is it that several reporters who went to the crash site of Flight 93 said they saw a crater but that NOTHING was there and NOTHING was around? How does a plane just disintegrate into nothing like that? Doesn't that only happen on Star Trek? I saw the media clips where they said that. It was true.

Sure they presented some photos of the wreckage of Flight 93, but anyone can fake those or photoshop them. But the point is, how come the reporters who were PHYSICALLY THERE IN PERSON didn't see any wreckage of any kind? I can show you the clips if you don't believe it.

2. How come the FBI confiscated all video that showed the plane that hit the Pentagon? They took the videos from the Sheraton Hotel across the street and the gas station as well. Why won't they release them to the public? That's not suspicious to you?

They only released one from a security camera but you cannot see a plane in it, just a white streak.

3. If the wings came off of the plane when it hit the Pentagon, as the official report said, then where are the wings? Why did they disintegrate?

4. It's a fact that back in 2001, cell phones did not work above 2000 - 3000ft. So how did the calls take place from those onboard the planes, which were at 30,000 feet and above?

How come the FBI changed its story. First they said the calls were cell phone calls, then they said they were air phone calls?

5. How can the twin towers and building 7, which was never even hit, collapse at free fall speed? Structures that collapse due to fire do not collapse at free fall speed right? That's not a natural collapse. Plus, steel framed buildings have never collapsed completely due to fire, and you admitted it too.

And what happened to the steel beams inside the twin towers? Why did they vanish?

So far, every attempt to replicate the steel framed towers falling at free fall speed due to fire with miniature models in controlled environments have failed.

6. How come 7 of the 19 hijackers have been found to be still alive? Doesn't that prove that the original story was a sham?

[Cyrus]

Wu

I am really dissapointed you're falling for the 9/11 truthers.

To say that planes didn't actually hit the towers means that my friends uncle didn't actually die on one of those flights.

You're losing objectivity. You can make an incredibly detailed argument to support that the moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't change facts. To say that tens of thousands of people are lying to propagate what is basically another "Jew conspiracy plot" is giving way too much cred to human intelligence and deviousness.

Come on, Wu. Get a grip.

[Winston]

Wu

I am really dissapointed you're falling for the 9/11 truthers.

To say that planes didn't actually hit the towers means that my friends uncle didn't actually die on one of those flights.

You're losing objectivity. You can make an incredibly detailed argument to support that the moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't change facts. To say that tens of thousands of people are lying to propagate what is basically another "Jew conspiracy plot" is giving way too much cred to human intelligence and deviousness.

Come on, Wu. Get a grip.

W: Dude, you haven't read any of the links above or seen any of the videos. No one is claiming that planes didn't hit the towers. And only a small minority believe that Jews were involved. Whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not is what is in dispute.

What about all those unanswered questions above?

The dispute is whether the totality of the evidence, facts and circumstances fits the official hypothesis of a conspiracy between 19 hijackers, or the inside job hypothesis that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition by inside forces.

Why don't you watch some of the videos above, like Loose Change Final Cut? You should not automatically deny something just because it doesn't fit into your views, but listen to what they have to say first. Don't make up your mind in advance. That's not what a truth seeker does. Listen and examine all the facts before making your conclusions. That's all they're asking of you.

FYI, the truthers are not all crackpots. They include many scientists and engineers and academics.

[Winston]

BTW, you should see that new Angelina Jolie movie "Changeling". It shows you what officials do to whitewash a conspiracy when the facts don't add up or there are gaping holes. They deny, invent bizarre improbable explanations, and persecute anyone who doubts them.

[Winston]

Cyrus,
Here is a video presentation by "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", a group of 600+ architects and engineers. Here they will explain why the official pancake theory of how the twin towers collapsed is scientifically impossible, and why Building 7 could not have collapsed due to fire. (If this was all bunk, why would 600 architects and engineers think there's something to it?)

Part 1 of 13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs

Just watch and consider the facts, then make up your mind.

Is that so hard?

Even NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) admits they have trouble finding evidence to explain the official hypothesis, but they must nevertheless, since it's their job. So they will juggle whatever numbers and stats that they can to do so. But independent pros like the above group can see through such tactics.

[Mr S]

America is currently not what the fonding fathers ever envisioned it to be. It is more like a modern version on the Roman empire, instead of controlling countries by force we use intimidation and economic policies to control and dominate the globe. The government and people behind it will do many shady things to stay one step ahead of the rest of the world, and they don't care who gets in the way. I would say at the turn of the twentieth century with the rise of industrialization and the elites becoming wealthy off of what all that brought, America has been being steered onto a new global course, one not for the sake of its people, but for the glory of a minority elite. I think sometime this century there will be a final confrontation with the elite who run things behind the scenes for control of the future destiny of mankind. This will be an apocalyptic battle between good and evil. I think this is why there are a lot more spiritual happenings going on in the world and the dense matter dark elites realize their time is running out to complete their master plan for world domination and control. There will be a spiritual battle within the next 25 years to determine humanity's long term fate and destiny.

[Winston]

BTW, here are some books by the top expert on 9/11, David Ray Griffin

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions



Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

[Winston]

Cyrus, can you explain all these sources and reports by scientists and structural engineers?

http://www.amazon.com/review/ROWTNU046K ... ssionsNRPB

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel...
From the Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

Physicist Jim Hoffman's work regarding the energy required to produce the North Tower's dust cloud...
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dust ... ev3_1.html

Physicist and architect Dave Heller adds further support...
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

75 page PDF by Steven Jones as used for his presentation at the Idaho State University physics department, Sept. 1, 2006.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume ... rtment.pdf

That PDF in Jones presentation has quite a wealth of information in it. Where was PM when Jones gained the unanimous support of 61 other scientists at BYU in his first presentation on the physics surrounding building 7? In my opinion, Jones and his students and colleagues are doing a great job.

Here's the "simple proof" page, showing regard for the speed of the collapse of the towers in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. For those who don't know it, a massive, welded structural steel core doesn't just fall without converting momentum in the process. Someone has to provide a great deal more energy to explain this.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... index.html

(That overall site I also find quite in-depth and excellent. Certainly more extensive than this book!)

For a good list of peer-reviewed, open-access articles on the topic, check out the Journal of 911 Studies.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com

Call this an argument as you like, but I will continue to contend that PM hasn't really gotten into debunking those physical phenomena surrounding the WTC collapses that continue to baffle the scientific community. In fact, NIST is still struggling with trying to figure out what happened to building 7 that afternoon. My story hasn't changed for the past 18 months. The physics revolving around the WTC collapses produces compelling data that is only (to date) supported by the hypothesis where controlled implosion demolition adds the necesssary energy to produce what we saw that day. PM's work is a bit roundabout and certainly doesn't address what I consider to be the most important, outstanding evidence. Alas, I am thankful for it's less relevant contributions in assisting to weed out some of the more vague and far-reaching theories.

---------------------------------------

There was a fellow by the name of Van Romero contracted by the DoD for the study of terrorist acts such as slamming planes into buildings who felt upon first viewing these collapses that they resembled controlled demolitions.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/ret ... omero.html

And then, there is demolitions expert Danny Jowenko who, after seeing the wtc7 collapse video for the first time says he's quite sure that's what it was...

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/699

And then there is a pair of structural engineers, Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider, both professor emeritus in their discipline, who chime right in, saying, "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"...

http://911blogger.com/node/2925

I have seen what the engineering community has done, time and again, in response to raising interesting points about the engineering and the physics of 9/11. Time and again, I typically receive blase responses. The psychology of this is not insignificant. It takes time and work to actually get these people to sit down and roll up their shirtsleeves. And even then - even after presenting compelling data, they still have a tendency to drift away from it. Considering internally planted explosives makes people imagine huge networks of conspirators and their heads reel. The psychology is the most significant aspect of this thing.

But now, watch how Michael Shermer of Scientific American, makes precisely the same error in logic as does this book by PM...

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

From article:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 0&colID=13

And he goes on...
"For example, according to http://www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F."

And then he twists wtc7.net's case just like PM! Notice how while we do have plenty of evidence to show pooling molten metal in the rubble, along with strong evidence of boiling iron for months afterwards, the counterargument is twisted into saying that the steel does not need to melt in order for the building to collapse. I didn't see Mr. Shermer explain the heat required to liquify the steel. Did you?

Time and again, this is what happens. People don't actually look deeply into it these things with an open mind and open eyes. As far as what you suggest, you will also find that most of the structural engineering and demolition community doesn't even know that building 7 went down that day.

When you attack Steven Jones, you attack a better man, imo. If you would look at the contents of the 75-page document, you would see material that stands for itself. What you might also want to note is that we're referring to the presentation material for his lecture at the ISU physics dept (silly!) Show it to anyone, and ask for it to be refuted, if you dare. I think it makes quite an excellent point about how the source you cite from this book, prof. Richard Furehan, appears to have glossed over the topic of thermite reactions without really thinking it through. Happens all the time. Really rolling up the shirtsleeves and looking seriously into these things is what Shermer at Scientifc American appears to also have not done, as I have attempted to explain to you.

I don't doubt that you may have your beliefs about what did and did not happen that day, or perhaps that you may have to struggle with what all is implied by what may or may not have happened that day. It's all hundred thousand foot level grandiose and abstract reasoning, and typical of just not rolling up one's shirtsleeves and going into it.

For more evidence of liquified steel, check out this esteemed fellow's work, measuring the nano-particles produced for months after the collapses of the WTC, indicating boiling iron...

Professor emeritus Thomas Cahill...
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... read=88436

Spend a little time at 911research.wtc7.net, which is a larger source of information than this book. There are essays to be found there, by qualified physicists as well. Check for more papers here...
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
and here...
http://www.st911.org

And here's a real fun response to Shermer's article at wtc7.net...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html

p.s. Actually, Prof. Jones work is peer reviewed. Just read the bottom of the page at worldtradecentertruth.com. What you may also find is that there isn't anything peer reviewed in this book.

----------------------------------------------

How about the long list of highly qualified engineers who all supported the pancake theory, which has now been done away with? I don't suppose you have much to say about the devastating EPA fiasco where so many qualified personnel following 9/11, where they turned their backs on the toxic clouds those collapses produced. Or will you say that that is just another conspiracy theory? How about the official statements to the effect of saying that they cannot explain the preponderence of dust or the speed of the collapses? Again, these are highly qualified people.

"I don't believe fires caused the initiation of the collapses"
Interview with Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=108
---
"Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1"
(and "Reply to Dr. Greening", same topic)
Mechanical Engineer Gordon Ross
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
---
"A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory"
Professor of Mechanical Engineering Judy Wood, PhD
Find link here: http://www.st911.org
---
"This is controlled demolition... A team of experts did this"
Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko
http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/699
---
Same report by Danish demolitions expert Bent Lund
http://www.bt.dk/nyheder/artikel:aid=67849/ (Danish)
---
"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts"
Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction
http://911blogger.com/node/2925
---
"WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"
Jörg Schneider, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction
http://911blogger.com/node/2925
---
"Why Did Iron Boil in the Rubble of the World Trade Center?"
Professor emeritus Thomas Cahill
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... read=88436
---
"The North Tower's Dust Cloud"
Jim Hoffman (physics)
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dust ... ev3_1.html
---

Other names from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Member List:
Full Members:
Doyle Winterton, BES degree. Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering
Grant Williams, Commercial construction with emphasis on seismic and structural engineering
Jean-Pierre Petit, Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering
Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Leonard Olds, Professional metallurgist, Colorado School of Mines
Frank Legge, Ph.D., Chemistry, Solar Track Pty Ltd.
Jack Keller, Civil Engineering, Irrigation Engineering, Agricultural Engineering
Andrew Johnson, Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering
Greg Jenkins, PhD., Physics
Bruce R. Henry, Mathematics
Bill Hammel, Ph.D. Physics at U. Wisconsin
David Griscom, Physics of optical materials, Materials science and engineering, Author/co-author of nearly 200 publications
Derrick P. Grimmer, Physics, Alternative energy
Ted Elden, Architect
Steven Jones, Ph.D., Physicist
Kenneth Kuttler, Mathematics, BYU

Associate Members:
Frank Carmen, Physics PhD (BYU)
Patrick Gallagher, Mechanical Engineer
Eric Hermanson, Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering
Nick Hull, Particle Physics
Spero Larres, Physics and Mathematics
Michael Maguire, Mechanical engineering, Aeronatutical engineering
Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk, Physics and math
Ted Muga, Structural engineering
Leonard Olds, Professional metallurgist
RC Oliver, Jr., Chief Engineer
Kevin Ryan, Former Site Manager for EHL, a division of UL
Tom Spellman, Civil engineering, architecture
Ken Wrenn, Civil Engineer
Wayne Young, BS Civil Engineering

You'll also notice a couple BYU fellows in the above Scholars for 9/11 Truth list.

Van Romero's initial article is quite direct. More than a week later, a number of changes come to pass. Van Romero's story is completely reversed. And I will quote Romero directly, to avoid any confusion... "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse ... It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points."

If you would go to page 16 of Jones presentation, you can see pics with the following text...
"BYU experiment (May 2006): orange-yellow-hot steel cup pouring out liquid aluminum (silvery) onto pre-heated rusty steel plus gypsum and concrete: No exothermic reactions seen. (Empirical evidence against liquid-aluminum + rust reactions)"
Exothermic reactions don't just happen. Just look at the experiments! Get ahold of Furehan and ask him to take a look at this. In fact, the entire 75-page paper has alot of hands-on work being done in it. I still say that many of these consultants on the topic are hanging around at the 100,000 foot level and not really rolling up their shirtsleeves.

I have consulted with a local engineer, and we'll get back to it, but from the conversation so far, it would require pressure to melt the steel without having the necessary temperatures. I don't mind considering the temperatures a debatable issue. I do, however, appreciate the fact that Jones has secured samples from two different sites from pieces of the WTC, and in his presentation, shows a variety of elements indicating superthermite. All very interesting things to consider, if we could just do something about the fact that NIST has avoided peforming a couple of simple tasks....
Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
"...The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.""
"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

The line of inquiry I am most interested in is something I haven't seen PM touch, and if you want to see it, you can check my web page, at
http://www.geocities.com/markgmeyers/911.htm

Looks like you've got your opinion, and I've got mine. Good luck!

[Winston]

Whoa, check out this long eloquent rant on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myth ... SRSWZ50Q6D

First, I'd like to point out that there are 475 arch and eng's who disbelieve the government's conspiracy theory. The government has only a handful of such professionals formally advocating the official myth. I repeat this: There are fewer than a hundred professionals who have formally signed onto the NIST theory. AE have 500. There are 140 military officers, many pilots, many ex-NORAD personnel, some quite central. They have risked, and even sacrificed careers, to publicly state that they do not believe the government Conspiracy Theory, using terms like hogwash, the dog that won't hunt, and a white-washed farce. There are hundreds of intelligence personnel, former FBI and CIA who absolutely believe that rogue government elements are complicit in 911 and lying to the American people. There exist dozens of members of the European Parliament, the Japanese Parliament, the Russian Chief of military command, the President of Egypt, and the President of Italy, all of whom have made statements on record that the government Conspiracy Theory is an out and out lie. Several members of the US Congress have made career risking statements that the government Conspiracy Theory is false. Most of the members of the 911 Commission made statements that the CIA and White House severely obstructed their investigation. And this is a mere fraction of the authoritative voices. I'd really like to share a few of these statements. There are thousands of them.
Over half the population of seventeen major countries, such as Germany, China, Japan, no longer believe the U.S. government Conspiracy Theory. 23% of Germans, a notably well-informed citizenry, directly blames the United States government for a false flag attack. As of 2006, Seventy five million Americans think it likely the government was involved, and twenty million are certain of it. Seventy five million is one fourth of the population, more than voted for George Bush. No matter how this fool tries to paint it, this is no nutty fringe conspiracy. This is the American and world citizenry finally waking up from its long spell of 911 shock and awe.

There are so many problems with the NIST account. It's scientifically absurd. It requires a chain of highly unlikely, if not impossible, events. If any of them fails, the entire collapse fails.
For example, and this is far from an inclusive list:
* NIST needs a free fall of the top part of the tower onto the bottom, but the account directly contradicts this because the steel weakens. They said the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel. But their account would make the top sag down. That is the meaning of the word they used: weaken. They did not use the word vanish, though the successive account requires it. It's a direct contradiction built into their argument: the steel both weakens from the low level fire and suddenly vanishes to institute free fall. Which is it? It cannot be both. Hence - NO COLLAPSE. It's easy to show.
* We'll just skip the fact that, by NIST's account, the fire didn't even become hot enough to weaken the steel and we'll skip the fact that the fire was visibly not a hot one by the lack of flames and the thick smoke. No collapse, as far hotter skyscraper fires demonstrate. No skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, except on 911.
* And we'll skip the fact that, by NIST's account, the much softer aluminum only violated the integrity of the solid steel structure by at most 25% and that it was built to withhold at least four times tolerances, really, up to twenty times, at least according to lead engineer Frank DeMartini (died on 911), who also said the towers could take multiple aircraft collisions. Watch the video on you-tube.
* Let's also skip the MIT estimate that sufficient fireproofing could not have been removed by the airplane because it would have needed to turn entirely into shotgun pellets aimed directly at all the diversely located steel frame. Of course, then it could not have severed ANY inner columns.
* Let's also the skip the total lack of NIST testing, except for the steel heat test which directly contradicted NIST conclusions. It showed that the metal would not have softened under a far hotter fire than NIST claimed occurred! Not incidentally, that's when they stopped the scientific process of laboratory tests and relied solely on complex computer modeling. (The recent financial debacle has a similar failed history, ironically.)
* So, let's give them the easily demonstrated free fall perjury so that we can show how, at every stage, their argument is nonsensical. NIST has the top transfer a shock into the bottom to rupture the steel below. Logical enough, until you visualize it with some detail. The concrete flooring simply gives way to the steel as it smashes through. The lighter pieces of cross-member steel would intersect and break one after another, arresting collapse over a few seconds. This has been empirically shown in shipyards. There would be no sudden, single impact which their theory requires to rupture the lower connections. To attain it, the steel needs to strike top severed beam to bottom severed beam for virtually all 248 beams. Without that, NO COLLAPSE. Considering the beams are only 1/1000th the surface area, it's impossible. And we see in the North Tower videos the steep angle of the top as it falls. There was no sharp impact, only a gradual edge-on crush. NO COLLAPSE. The arrest would take four or five stories at a maximum. The math is simple, which is why we have nearly 500 architects and engineers and they have fewer than 100.
* Okay, now we've given them the impossible free fall, the ridiculous sharp shock, so progressive collapse all the way to the ground is inevitable? That's what they say without further analysis. Their model, unbelievably, stops right there with those very words. It's patent crap passed off as science. We should be a little skeptical here, considering. The sharp shock transfers all of the energy into the top floor of the lower section so that it ruptures. We'll skip the fact that they used the standard tolerance and ignored the actual four times (or greater manufacture). If they had used the actual strength, the steel, of course, would not break. But the real sin here is that they ignore both elastic and plastic deformation, standard calculated properties of structural steel which absorb tremendous energy. I mean they're really desperate with their evasions, if you want to examine it using a tool they ignored called logic. These properties transfer the energy throughout the steel structure, as such structures are designed and have been shown to do over and over. Steel has a wonderful ability to absorb energy, like a truck spring. There would be no rupture at a single point because the energy is diffused throughout the entire ninety stories, as per ACTUAL PHYSICS and actual experimentation. But we have NIST physics, or alternate universe physics. It's really out there. It just makes no sense. Again, the NIST account fails at a sixth point? Is it seven? I've lost count.
* Why not take this sharp shock account even further? Would all the energy be transferred into the bottom, as NIST needs? Well, if you like physics, then what happens is that the energy, by the still valid laws of Newton, divides between top and bottom. Again, NO COLLAPSE.
* The account also requires, by logical extension, the sharp shock to repeat every floor for ninety floors. But this makes no sense. Does it bounce, then fall back ninety times, requiring several minutes to collapse? No, it aggregates after the initial psychosis-induced free-fall. No series of shocks equals NO COLLAPSE. It's just absurd the way they explain it.
* Fine, let's allow this series of physics defying miracles which runs contrary to the video records. The collapses occur at near free fall speeds, according to NIST up to fifteen (?) seconds. Why don't we give them twenty, or even thirty, just for fun. First, the breaking of steel and pulverization of ninety thousand tons of cement absorbs many, many times the amount of energy available from the standing potential, which is all the energy NIST has. But we'll skip that and do a playful visualization game. Let's pretend the floors are floating in space, without the steel, which is essentially the NIST scenario. We'll visualize a set of seventeen, because that's the top section of the North Tower. As each set of floors falls and combines with the floors below, the inertial frame takes effect. It's high school phyics. So each doubling of mass halves the speed. The equation isn't too complicated. Even under this scenario with no energy absorbing steel or cement pulverization, the inertial framework alone requires a full forty-five seconds to reach ground.
* There are perhaps ten points here? I could make many more points, such as the violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states that an asymmetry increases over time. Straight down collapse is impossible. It is a root law of physics. It isn't optional, despite the NIST approach. The government's alternate universe theory fails if even a single link in this chain fails. It's cartoon physics, like Wil-E Coyote or something. And it happens twice! There are plenty more points. This is actual physics. It's easy, easy, easy to prove. That's why NIST refuses to debate Richard Gage and his team. They actually refuse a debate. AE truth are willing anytime, anywhere, to debate them. Nist refuses.
* Then, of course, you have building 7, which took 7 years to get a report on. The original FEMA account says `Our principal theory, collapse by fire, is highly improbable.' And that's where they arrive at, seven years later. The ludicrous idea that a single steel beam out of hundreds in a 47 story building, weakened enough to allow a free fall, straight down collapse. There is literally NO RESISTANCE from over a hundred structural steel beams. It's beyond belief! And what about the numerous accounts of molten metal, the video records of it, and the hundreds of video records of firefighters and survivors who speak of multiple explosions and a controlled demolition? They just ignore it all, and a whole lot more evidence.

[Winston]

Here's an interesting clip of the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before it actually happened!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

That's awfully suspicious. CNN did the same thing. But of course they're going to say "it was a little mistake". What else can they say? Isn't that what you would say if you were in their position too?

[Winston]

Here's another excellent film with hundreds of shocking irrefutable facts about 9/11. It's very gripping.

9/11 Coincidences

Part 1 of 19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw