WTC MIToo Momentum Interference Test

Just remember Van Romero of NMTech's first response, and then the lukewarm "retraction"...and "peer-review" has been exposed for the scumbaggery that it truly is.

The building appeared to have only collapsed on the out side leaving most of the core still standing. It's hard to say for certain because the camera pans away and conveniently doesn't return. Patents are not Prof of anything but ownership. No reason to rewrite physical law quite yet.

The problem with American academic science is that most of it is paid for by the government.  Scientists are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them. Government grants are awarded by committees called "study sections". It is a common lament among scientists that even one enemy on a study section committee is enough to destroy a promising career. Questioning 9/11 makes many enemies, as any 9/11 skeptic knows all too well.

@Skeptic121

That is the really strange thing about 911.

This is really such a simple physics problem that it goes all of the way down to the grade school level. Mathematics is used to make physics unnecessarily complicated. There aren't any PHYSICS CONCEPTS involved in 911 that plenty of grade school kids could not understand.

The scientists make themselves look like idiots by not talking about the distribution of steel in skyscrapers. Of course the politicians are also.

atleast we Physicist know the truth. Great work.

@waqasanees ....just as ClimateGate shows that SOME Physicists who (presumably) do know the truth are quite able to distort the same truth, they're willing to fake and fudge the data, and sign their incredible names to exactly the fraudulent results their Funding Bankster demands.

HINT: ....keep your eyes on UA175... just as Einstein "never believed and axiom", that solid-looking Boeing becomes a mere computer generated image when I google "september clues" ;-)

The fireball is Pure Hollywood

That building obviously did not have a steel frame. You can tell from the instant the pieces were pulled away with the cables.

You have no way of knowing how much the building was deliberately weakened before the cables pulled the sides off.

this particular demolition technique was patented in Europe (patent 1 082 505), and in the patent it says this technique can be used on "ANY type of building, regardless of height," and "it is NOT required to weaken the structure of the bulding." Secondly, this vid clearly shows that the weight of an upper part of a building is absolutely sufficient to crash through and destroy the floors below it...and the way the debris fell looked eerily similar to the collapse of the WTC towers.

If you are not going to provide quotes from the source and a link then don't hand me this "so and so said crap"

It was the top 13% of the north tower that started too fall. Why don't we have the distribution of steel in the buildings after EIGHT YEARS? Skyscrapers must be designed to sway in the wind so the steel has to be designed to handle that.

That short building is in no way comparable.

@psikeyhackr - Damn straight - the buildings, at the higher floors, were subject to hurricane-force winds DAILY...just remember the fable of the tree and the blade of grass.