As pointed out in http://www.ae911truth.org/ , and photographs on http://911research.wtc7.net/ like these, that show that the WTC towers were pulverized into dust in mid air, and that they did not FIRST fall to the ground and then throw up dust.

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

Is there anybody willing to argue that these pictures are "faked" or that people did not see what is represented in those pictures in their own eyes?

Hell NO!

Now that is out of the way, what does this EVIDENCE mean?

If our "hypothesis" is that the towers fell down from a plane or fire weakened structure under their own weight, is correct then they would have fallen according the the laws of MECHANICS like every other falling body, right?

Is that not common sense, is there anyone willing to argue that is not what we see when building "fall" down from a weakened structure from earthquakes?

<link>

<link>

<link>

Therefore the WTC towers building materials COULD NOT break into pieces in mid air, yet alone into turn into dust, until they collided with something else after falling some distance, or else threw already made dust up off the ground, right?

Since the EVIDENCE shown by the pictures DOES show the WTC towers building materials breaking into pieces in mid air, and turning into dust, BEFORE collided with something else after falling some distance, and BEFORE threw already made dust up off the ground, then the hypothesis that the WTC towers "fell" under their own weight must be WRONG, right?

Therefore we must pick a different hypothesis, unless we believe that the laws of MECHANICS, were not in play on 9-11 in NYC, and only a person so "scared" of that 9-11 could be an inside job would believe such an INSANE idea that the laws of MECHANICS can be turned on and off!

Hmmm, what could turn INTACT 110 story concrete and steel towers and their CONTENTS into dust in mid air, in the same 10 second time that it would take a ball dropped from their roof to free fall to the ground?

Duh - EXPLOSIVES what else!

Anyone with the slightest bit of "critical thinking" ability like Columbo, Matlock, Ellery Queen, Sherlock Holmes, Baretta, Starsky & Hutch, Kojack, or any other detective along with the EVIDENCE of the pictures in the above links can only come to the same conclusion.

At first I thought it was STUPIDITY that was stopping people from understanding, but after time I realized that this thought only applied to a very small percentage of the people who believe the "official lie".

I now understand that it is people's "fragile" psyches that allow them to IGNORE this EVIDENCE in the photographs and try to use the SILLY idea that not believing that these EXPLOSIVES could have been secretly planted (the conspiracy) out weights the EVIDENCE of the towers turning to dust in mid air!

It is sort of like a person having pictures of the deceased with bullet holes, but calling the idea that the deceased was shot a "conspiracy theory" because that person could not image how the shooeter secrectly got in position to take the show!

It's called buckling. Much like your knees give out when your lightheaded, a building buckles too. These pictures show evidence of a weak point in the tower upon its collapse, not an "explosion". Explosion means to blow out. I see a tower buckling in.

Your conspiracy theories are sheer lunacy. The towers started collapsing at the impact site, then the rest of the tower fell from the top down. An explosion would've started the collapse from down bottom first.

It's been eight years...isn't it about time you stop talking out your ass?

Quick question... have you ever seen a pressure test done on concrete? Its a big press that squishes a concrete brick or ball. Once critical pressure hits, POW, it pulverizes... not just cracks down the middle. Dust is ejected laterally, fragments, etc. Hmmm... could it be that as some structures failed the remaining weight of the upper towers finally hit critical pressure, pulverizing the cement columns causing them to "explode"? Could the weight of the falling upper sections as it fell down hit instant critical pressure on the cement supports below? Boom, boom, boom, all the way down as each cement column/structure (only 2-3 floor high for each piece... you don't pour one 100 floor tall cement column) pulverizes from the impact of the uppper sections falling on it???

penguin15:

It's called buckling. Much like your knees give out when your lightheaded, a building buckles too. These pictures show evidence of a weak point in the tower upon its collapse, not an "explosion". Explosion means to blow out. I see a tower buckling in.

Your conspiracy theories are sheer lunacy. The towers started collapsing at the impact site, then the rest of the tower fell from the top down. An explosion would've started the collapse from down bottom first.

It's been eight years...isn't it about time you stop talking out your ass?

I have a degree in Mechanical Enginering and I KNOW what buckling looks like, and I KNOW what the law of conservation of momentum is, and I KNOW what the compression strength, of concrete is and the, tensile strength of steel is.

I repeat visit : http://www.ae911truth.org/

And they EXPLAIN to people such as yourself not schooled in engineering in why your post is WRONG, because it does not explain how a "fall" can create the pulverization and TRAJECTORY of the building materials.

I could try to explain all the reasons why your are WRONG, but due to time constraints I will point out the biggest flaw.

If you dropped a 1 slug mass piece of concrete from the top of a 1400 foot WTC tower it would free fall to the ground in about 10 seconds, and hit the ground with only 320 pounds of force according to the law F=MA.

The compression strength of the strongest concrete is 25,00 pounds per square in and the norm is 3,000 psi and the weakest is still over 1,000 psi.

So if a drop from the very top off a WTC tower would not create enough of a force to compression fail a small 1 slug mass of concrete, how the hell could all of the concrete in the lower floors which fell a far less of a distance COMPRESSION FAIL!

Never mind that it is IMPOSSBLE to pulverize concrete into a fine power by COMPRESSION FORCE anyway, since it requires ABRASION FORCES.

Nevermind that a the plane hit in the middle of the building and the pulverization started at the top.

Neevermind that if the building collasped floor by floor the law of conservation of momentum would require that the time taken for the roof to hit the ground would br far MORE than the same tiime that a ball would free fall off the roof.

It find if funny that NO ENGINEER not even the government's own NIST will go on record and write a report that explains the collapse and pulverization with out violating the law of conservation of momentum, and the law of conservation of energy, yet all these people who do not have an engineering degree like myself, THINK they can explain it!

I repeat - unless you can write a Nobel prize award winning thesis as to how the hell momentum was not conserved and that the potential energy in a building is enough to COMPRESSION FAIL its materials, your are just another UNEDUCATED person talking about a subject that you know NOTHING about!

cycleboy81:

Quick question... have you ever seen a pressure test done on concrete? Its a big press that squishes a concrete brick or ball. Once critical pressure hits, POW, it pulverizes... not just cracks down the middle. Dust is ejected laterally, fragments, etc. Hmmm... could it be that as some structures failed the remaining weight of the upper towers finally hit critical pressure, pulverizing the cement columns causing them to "explode"? Could the weight of the falling upper sections as it fell down hit instant critical pressure on the cement supports below? Boom, boom, boom, all the way down as each cement column/structure (only 2-3 floor high for each piece... you don't pour one 100 floor tall cement column) pulverizes from the impact of the uppper sections falling on it???

Yes I know how concrete compressio tests are done because I did them during the course of earning my mechanical engineering degree.

But do you know that for the strongest concrete to COMPRESSION FAIL that it takes 25,000 pounds per square in between two flat faced pieces of steel in a press?

But do you know that for normal concrete to COMPRESSION FAIL that it takes 3,000 pounds per square in between two flat faced pieces of steel in a press?

But do you know that for weekest concrete to COMPRESSION FAIL that it takes 1,000 pounds per square in between two flat faced pieces of steel in a press?

But do you know that according to Newtons law F=MA the concrete on the top floor of the WTC if allowed to free fall to the ground will only hit with 320 pounds of force?

But do you know why is it important that the the test sample be trapped between two flat pieces of steel in order to compression fail it?

You see the actual conditions of a building falling will NEVER COMPRESSION FAIL a piece of concrete because it would have to be "trapped" between two things harder that the concrete and not be allowed to move and fly out!

The WTC nor any other building does not fall in such a manner that the any concrete floor ESPECIALLY and UPPER FLOOR could be exposed to that moch force across its ENTIRE face and by held still long enough for that force to be applied!

Besides eve if such a MIRACLE could happen that would trap the failed concrete so that it could not be blown out in a cloud anyway!

I repeat - visit http://www.ae911truth.org/ and explain in engineering terms what the hell that none of us with engineering degrees and the government's own NIST cannot explain.

How the hell was the law of conservation of momentum and the the law of conservation of energy allow a building to COMPRESSION FAIL the way the WTC towers did under their own weight?

If you can explain that my friend, you will win the 2009 Nobel prize in Physics, for invalidating the law F=MA, and your discover will make every building ever built have to be condemned, because they wlll COMPRESSION FAIL at any minute under their own weight!

I repeat - NOT a single engineering trade journal has ever published a paper than can EXPLAIN how the WTC could have failed in the way that it did under the influence of its own weight!

If you cannot fill in blanks in the following sentence, you simply do not have the EDUCATION to understand why engineers KNOW that the WTC was exploded.

The ______ of the ______ and the ______ on a static structure are ____.

The above sentence is the foundation of static mechanics and it explains why it is IMPOSSIBLE for a building to COMPRESSION FAIL under its own weigt.

What is sad is that you don't need to be an engineer to understannd but only have the "common sense" to know that the top of a building "falling" does not turn into dust in mid air when the structure is weakned in the middle, but that the top will BREAK off and fall at the middle weakened structure point!

You say you are an engineer, but have you ever seen what is involved in bringing down a building? Even relatively small structures require a huge investment of manpower, planning, material, time and knowledge. So we have to bring down a structure as big as a WTC tower, and we're going to do this secretly, while the building is still occupied, with existing manpower. HMMMM. How are crews of men going to infiltrate a structure with it's own security force, drill into walls, plant TONS of explosives, wire it all together and not be seen by anyone while doing this. I SWAG a guess at a project big enough to bring down ONE tower, much less TWO would take months. You claim to be a mechanical engineer, but how realistic is it that you could put together a crew of men to take on a project this large and not ONE of them feels guilty or remorse at killing fellow Americans and speaks up afterward. Maybe they were all killed by another top secret crew of murderers who don't think twice about killing several dozen fellow Americans. Maybe it was crew of rogue foreign mercenaries with large structure demo experience, and then they were all killed by robots whose memories could be erased.

The logistics involved in project of this magnitude, much less keeping it all secret afterward makes the whole conspiracy theory nonsense. Use your head, who would take on a job like this. How would you interview potential operatives. Quit thinking in terms of "if it could be possible" and start thinking about the nuts and bolts of who would do the work and how they could pull it all together and then keep it a secret FOREVER without anyone spilling the beans.

The most unbelievable aspect of the whole thing is that the US government, in all it's inefficent and bloated glory could be behind the whole thing and pull it off so flawlessly. You should watch more SciFi channel it's much more realistic.

Yes, common sense might help: explosions, such as dynamiting a bridge , produce mostly chunks, not dust. Also, it is not necessary to have the structure hit the ground to produce "pulverisation": if the middle of the building is removed, and the top part starts falling, there is nothing unreasonable about mid-air pulverisation. And about "explosions" these buildings were held together with "High Strength Bolts", strong enough to clamp pieces of steel together almost like welding, when these are stressed failure, I don't think it's unlikely that they would make a large "bang", especially in groups, as would be likely. Finally, who can believe that there is any group of anybody who is competent enough to keep all this a "secret", especially given the risks? disigny

Re: 9-11 Is Different Evidence Exists Unlike Other Conspiracies
by penguin15

It's called buckling. Much like your knees give out when your lightheaded, a building buckles too. These pictures show evidence of a weak point in the tower upon its collapse, not an "explosion". Explosion means to blow out. I see a tower buckling in.

Your conspiracy theories are sheer lunacy. The towers started collapsing at the impact site, then the rest of the tower fell from the top down. An explosion would've started the collapse from down bottom first.

It's been eight years...isn't it about time you stop talking out your ass?

A few questions for ya.

Since when do hydrocarbons fires produces tons of molten steel as found at ground zero SIX weeks later despite the Fire departments best efforts?

If this is true and hydrocarbon fueled fires melt steel then why do steel companies spend all that money on blast furnaces?

Also if a steel framed building can be brought straight down into its own footprint at free fall speed by hydrocarbon fueled fire then why do demo companies spend all that money putting explosives into buildings? Why not use a match?

Real scientists, engineers and Architects understand that the official conspiracy theory is impossible to believe because they understand physics that is why many of the leaders of the 911 Truth Movement are degreed engineers and scientists.

Re: 9-11 Is Different Evidence Exists Unlike Other Conspiracies
by cycleboy81

Quick question... have you ever seen a pressure test done on concrete? Its a big press that squishes a concrete brick or ball. Once critical pressure hits, POW, it pulverizes... not just cracks down the middle. Dust is ejected laterally, fragments, etc. Hmmm... could it be that as some structures failed the remaining weight of the upper towers finally hit critical pressure, pulverizing the cement columns causing them to "explode"? Could the weight of the falling upper sections as it fell down hit instant critical pressure on the cement supports below? Boom, boom, boom, all the way down as each cement column/structure (only 2-3 floor high for each piece... you don't pour one 100 floor tall cement column) pulverizes from the impact of the uppper sections falling on it???

The "Institute of National Standards 7 Technology" do not support the "Pancake theory". They are the officail body investigating 911.

You support a theory that our government does not.

Even the government knows that the Pancake theory does not hold water.

Right from Nist's web site:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

At one time NIST did support this theory but a peer review by many scientists and engineers convinced them this theory was not plausible.

Thought you should kknow this.

Here is the link where I quoted NIST:

<link>

Was going to give you a "recommend" but the button is no longer there. Been off Slate for awhile. Got tired of the spammers.

Found the button.

Criticalthinkerr, do you also hold a degree in CAPITALIZING CONSTANTLY to make your points? Because it makes you seem like a TRUE EXPERT.

generico:

Criticalthinkerr, do you also hold a degree in CAPITALIZING CONSTANTLY to make your points? Because it makes you seem like a TRUE EXPERT.

LOL! How true, how true.

So if explosives were responsible for pulverizing the concrete, how many tons of explosives were planted in the WTC?

Seriously, why would the conspirators put enough explosives to pulverize the concrete instead of just enough to bring down the building? What would be the point of that? If their plan was to fool people into thinking the fire brought it down, why would they pulverize the whole building?

Why would they go through all that trouble, spend all that time, increase the risk getting caught, just so they could bring down a building in such a way that geniuses like you would immediately recognize as not physically possible from a mere plane impact and fire?

Do you think they went out of their way to ensure that people like you would recognize their handiwork? Really, let's think about this. Either (1) You're completely wrong, or (2) You're right and the conspirators planted way more explosives than necessary to bring down the WTC, thereby dropping all the clues you and the other geniuses need to show that it was an inside job. It's like they wanted to be caught!

please post exactly how you get to 320 pounds of force so that I know you're not just copying shit from another website.