physicsandreason

The role of the scientists is to provide forensics that cannot be debunked. Nano-thermite cannot form from the steel/plane in precise stoichimetric ratios in a more orderly state, as that would violate entropy laws. It would be like claiming a bullet found in a car was formed by the copper wires and battery lead. To dismiss this evidence is about as smart as a chief investigator ignoring critical lab results. There is a reason why many are trying to discredit nano-thermite; don’t help them.

EXCELLENT! Thank you so much for putting this wonderful music video together!

My hats off to Rena and Pam, for this remarkable ride for truth and justice! And to Asst. Chief Glen Staheli, for discussing the issue, having the courage to look at the evidence presented, and encouraging a real investigation.

Perhaps this is one more reason why all the government studies after years of investigation, millions of dollars and thousands of pages, never could explain the actual “collapse mechanism” of the towers, and just “assumed” it was inevitable.

Obvious explosions - or maybe an example of an ever elusive strange phenomenon called the “50% pile driver gravitational effect” (only one half of the floors blown out, followed the rest), never before seen or explained.

Good job. The only way that the force of a falling body can exceed its static weight,(which IS a force =mg) is to have that falling body decelerate. Force associated with the decel is added to the body’s weight. The total force imposed is dependent on how fast it decelerates. So the KEY is deceleration without it the total force < its own weight.. The towers didn’t decelerate. They accelerated meaning they could not impose a larger force on the underlying structure than when static.

Good job. The principle you are demonstrating, Newton’s 3rd law, is absolutely correct regardless of material. Prof. Bazant does not address this or the problem the tower uniformly accelerating with no” jolts” as it fell. What would be interesting is to see a repeatable experiment by those who support the official story clearly demonstrating Dr. Bazant claims.

Kindly refer back to my third comment about experiments, not words. Simply gather all those experts on jref, and conduct some basic experiments that address the source of the sulfur, the uniform acceleration of the towers, the partial freefall of 7, the source of the iron spheres, the fall of the spire, what cut the core columns at the 60th floor of 2, and a few others. Surely with all that brain power someone there can prove it...by experiment. Otherwise, I am unconvinced. Bye.

Funny how the President of Iran wants a real investigation, yet those friendly with Israel do not. One would think that those that support the official story would WANT to prove beyond any doubt that "the Muslims" were behind this tragic event. How very odd.

The Friends of Israel doth protest too much, methinks.

Good Job. And as you well know, the NIST "theory" that the molten metal from WTC 2 was some sort of mix of Al and office furnishings has also been proven to be experimentally false. That molten metal was steel or iron...meaning that the official "story" of 9/11, is wrong.

“the cap fell at 0,63g not at g - so there was a deceleration.” No - .63g is a rate of acceleration, not a deceleration. Velocity always increased; impossible with a gravity driven collapse. With a gravational collapse (verinage) , there are clear, measurable decelerations. NIST never addressed this. You can debate forever using only words, but I wont. But you will get my attention if you can demonstrate your theories with an experiment, as I outlined to BrokenAeroVT.

There are multple white flashes that are evident, particularly at the corners. Its my oipinion that the corners of the towers were a problem since they were naturally stronger and needed special attention. I think Gordon Ross had it prety well figured out years ago as to how they brought the towers down. Go to video.google and watch his presentatiion he gave in London for more explaination about the corners.

Good job guys! You could be the " truth group" for 9/11 and make it big.

Sage Advice. I shall discount all non peer-reviewed work, including everything by NIST, Mackey, Bazant, Greening and of course your video. Galileo, Einstein, Feynmann and many other papers are also in question. Sorry to bother you with unresolved issues. If you can lower yourself long enough to to watch some experiments you might want to check out parts one and two of "9/11 Experiments: collapse vs demolition."

We shall agree to disagree. Enjoy your reverie.

Take care.

1, Yes, they sped up. Get it? They constantly sped up the instant before vs the instant AFTER it hit each floor. Watch the Chandler video. 2. NIST did model the WTC 7 "collapse" but didn't model the tower collapse. Why not? 3. Read the four papers in the video. Then think. Why wasn't there any jolt and why did Bazant says that the upper "block" would NOT crush itself when it clearly does. It does not matter what the material is made of, it MUST slow down for a moment.

Well done! Thanks for showing this to me from my recent "9/11 experiment" video.

What I want to work on next is to create something like you did (and like my wood block drop) that will just barely support a vertical load statically. Then , drop the same same load to see if it decelerates.

Its always fun to watch the comments and name calling, but no one is stepping up to the plate with their own experiment that demonstrates the official "theory" that matches what we observed on 9/11.

Most engineers are simply unaware of the EVIDENCE and most are not "conspiracy theorists". But once shown the EVIDENCE, (not theory), most engineers understand that something is fundamentally very wrong. That's why more and more are signing up on AE911Truth. Once they study the EVIDENCE, They see that the official story does not fit the EVIDENCE. There is a reason that there is no organization called "AEthatsupportNIST. Regardless, physics is not a popularity contest.