9/11 physics

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 ...

Correct, uniform acc. does not mean that there was no resistance at all. But it DOES mean that the upward force was (about 66%) LESS than the force needed to support the body’s static weight. Since the undamaged tower below could support the static weight (plus much more), what made it all ...

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...

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 addre...

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 ...

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

The average acceleration for WTC7 the decade before 2001, was zero. And on average, for the prior 1000 years, WTC 7 never existed. But its not the average acceleration that matters; its the instantaneous acc. that is key. The fact that it fell free for about 100 feet means that there was no ...

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 ...

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 ther...

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. ...

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, Th...