55 votes

9/11 Truth for Dummies: Wrap Your Head Around One Thing

http://911explained.blogspot.com/2013/08/premise-official-st...

Premise, official story: a few floors at the top collapsed, starting a
chain reaction in which the collapse of each additional floor made the
total mass heavier, and driving it faster and faster toward the ground.
This is why the towers fell at virtual free-fall acceleration (virtual
as in 'very close to.') Free fall acceleration is the speed any object
falls through thin air to the ground. It is 10 meters per second, per
second (for every second an object is falling, it goes another 10 meters
per second faster. So a baseball falling for 3 seconds attains the
speed of 30 meters per second.)

Problem: Things that are heavier do not go faster than things that are
lighter, discounting negligible differences in air resistance. In a
vacuum, even a feather and a bowling ball would fall at the same speed.
The towers "fell" at the same rate as they would have fallen through
thin air. But steel, even soft steel, is thousands of times denser than
air.

Therefore, mass does not accelerate as it accumulates. In fact, it can
only go much slower than free-fall acceleration as it meets resistance.
This is common sense and what would have happened on 9/11 if the upper
floors of the towers had collapsed. The upper floors would have met the
resistance of floors below them, slowed down, and stopped. The mass
could not have fallen through steel at the same speed it would fall
through thin air.

There are many things wrong with the official story. You've heard them
all by now. Wrap your mind around this iron law of Newtonian physics, proven by Galileo,
and you will see that the collapsing mass could not have gone faster as
the mass got heavier. Therefore the official explanation for how the
towers disappeared so quickly is false.

Congratulations. You are no longer a dumbed-down American. You know
what the rest of the world which gets a science education in high school
knows: that the official 9/11 story is impossible. Not suspicious.
Not full of questions. But flat-out, physically IMPOSSIBLE.

By the way, the debate over whether heavy things fall faster than light
things has been going on since Aristotle. Galileo settled it. Galileo
also settled that the Earth goes around the sun. That's how far into
the Dark Ages 9/11 has taken us.

Proof that all objects of different weights fall to the ground at the same speed;

http://youtu.be/Z789eth4lFU

Ball and feather race in a vacuum:

http://youtu.be/ndFXXasM6ZE

9/11 story problem: Which 15 story block will hit the ground first?

Answer:

On 9/11 they both hit the ground at virtually the same time!

-If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...

-All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)

-It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!

-It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below.

---------

Resources

The real 9/11 report, the Toronto Hearings (NIST invited to participate and debate but it declined.) Here at Amazon.com

Colorado PBS Runs 9/11 Film Sponsored by 9/11 Families: Experts Reject Official Story, Present Evidence of Demolition

Military Officers Question 9/11

"What we know and don’t know about 9/11," by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan.

Firefighters for 911 Truth

Pilots for 911 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

911Research.net

"Who Did It? Technology of Autopilot/Remote Flight on 9/11, Motive, Means, Opportunity"

"911 Case Closed: Aerial Photo Shows Towers Were Exploded Outward, Did Not "Collapse"

The Easiest Way to Understand 9/11 Was a Demolition: Free-Fall

911: Shock and Awe Master Deed. Prosecute Giuliani.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Par for the course.

In my opinion NIST was given a set of facts in order to come to a certain conclusion not for political reasons, but because of money.

Wouldn't be the first time a federal agency succumbed to corporate pressue.

It gets better.

"Wouldn't be the first time a federal agency succumbed to corporate pressue."

Yes, we know ... the list of government wrong doing, cover-ups, influential people conspiring with government, police abuse, government sanctioned killing, politicians involved in scandals, corrupt agents or agencies involved in scandals, the industrial prison complex, the industrial military complex, the industrial spying complex, and a national debt never before seen in human history is too long to fit in one post but dammit ... sir you have completely crossed the line and gone to far if you are suggesting 9/11 could possibly include, directly or indirectly, any government wrong doing.

How could anyone think such an absurd, crazy, or silly thing. The United States government represents everything that is good in this world and it is also the greatest defender of human rights in all history. It is an outrage to any decent thinking person suggesting such lunacy!

How do you get liquefaction

through bedrock?
I was of the understanding that liquefaction occurred in swampy, sandy or drained ground.
How could enough liquid be forced up through bedrock to make the foundations of a 47 storied building "slip".
If the footings were spanning a void, wouldn't the liquefaction spill into the void before it took the footings out from under the building?
How does a point 2 earthquake cause liquefaction through bedrock?
Not even Christchurch City (NZ, built on a swamp and only 20.33 feet above sea level) gets liquefaction in a .2 quake.
Foot failing just sounds implausible.

The soil above the bedrock ...

where the pilings were ...

can experience liquifaction if enough force is applied.

Water does not have to be added to the soil for liquifaction to occur.

It is a common occurrence during an earthquake for liquifaction to occur.

If the earth was supporting the pilings in a buttress fashion, then the pilings would almost certainly fail if liquifaction occurred.

Additionally, pilings rest on bedrock. They are not achored to bedrock, typically. Depending on how close the pilings were to the void, they could have been shoved into the void, or the bedrock could have cracked and fallen into the void.

Footer failure due to liquifaction is the number one cause of structural failures in the US in earthquake zones when an earthquake occurs.

So you are saying they built a 47 story steel and concrete

skyscraper on soil, not bedrock???? Keep talking....

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

No ...

they built it on pilings that rested on bedrock.

So you believe Bldg 7

collapsed into a nice neat little pile, not touching any building near it, due to footing failure, right?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Yep.

That about sums it up.

Sure does!

sighs, moves on....

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Had a 6.3 in Christchurch NZ

lots of liquefaction, but no free fall of buildings (although many collapsed).
Why hasn't there been an investigation into why and how a 47 story building disintegrated in nothing more than a tremor?

WT7 was unique underground.

It sat directly over a void.

Pilings came in at an angle in an arch design to support the footers.

Geo techs would never sign off on this type of construction in an earthquake zone. Probably no where. The owner probably dismissed the goe techs and took personal liability on the design. Hence, that is probably why there was never a finding on this in the NIST report.

Additionally the expense is enormous.

Only in NYC would real estate prices be sufficient to justify the expense.

I call bull on this... If

I call bull on this... If they could have explained it with inferior construction practices they would have...

Who said anything about inferior construction practices?

Not me.

The solution they came up to span the void was nothing short of geniuos and it was sound engineering.

The only problem was that they didn't figure in the impact of 1 million tons of debris instantly impacting the surrounding soil.

A reasonable assumption was that this would never happen.

Yourself "Geo techs would

Yourself

"Geo techs would never sign off on this type of construction in an earthquake zone. Probably no where. The owner probably dismissed the goe techs and took personal liability on the design. Hence, that is probably why there was never a finding on this in the NIST report."

If you have ever read a Geo Tech report ...

You would understand.

There are always clauses in the report that negates liability on some portion of the design work when you are talking about a project of this scale.

There was a recent project in my home town that was a development on a river bank. The Geo Tech report didn't like the soil and required pilings and they still wouldn't sign off on it.

The local government jurisdiction used their engineers to do the special inspections and sign off on the work.

It was the only way for the project to move forward.

These things happen all the time.

Risks are weighed and decisions are made.

That is how it is done.

The sequential explosions at collapse....

...that were heard by witnesses and evidenced in the sound analysis do not match what you're describing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8

And please stop with the name calling.

When steel fails ...

there is a sound like an explosion. It also could have been concrete slabs hitting each other.

If the interior columns failed first, the floors could have failed next leaving the exterior columns in place for a period of time giving the impression that there was nothing wrong with the building.

Concrete slabs hitting each other in such a way..

...would imply resistance that was not present in the collapse of wtc7.

Please don't tell me you think THIS is the sound of steel failing and/or concrete slabs. The fireman even indicates it's explosion.

We gotta get back! Seven's exploding!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=related

Also, remember that when Jennings and Hess were going down the stairwell of wtc7 before the twin towers fell, there was an explosion that knocked them back to the eighth floor.

These explosions do not align with your explanation.

Those in that video ...

could be boilers exploding.

It was September (sorry, brain fart, I originally said November).

Natural gas explosions.

Firemen use explosives to put out certain types of fires.

Ever here an electric tranformer explode. They are rediculously loud.

I have no idea what it was, but more than likely, it was not from set charges designed to take the building down.

Like I said in my explanation, the visible part of the building may appear to be in free fall, but the interior could have been collapsing for a period of time without it being visible from the exterior.

Thanks

my first laugh of the day...... pointed arch piles, no bedrock......buttresses liquifying................. lmfao!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Sorry pal, but liquefaction

Sorry pal, but liquefaction doesn't equal "liquefying". This is why it's so easy to fool a bunch of people who want to believe something with a bunch of pseudo-science nonsense. PT Barnum would be proud.

Notice Ron Paul never talks about this nonsense? You know why? Because if you really care about liberty talking about this stuff hurts the cause. So people like you here don't really care about liberty. You care about your pet idiosyncrasy to the detriment of the rest of us. With literally thousands of other easily provable things to talk about to champion the cause of liberty, to choose 9/11 Truth means you're either dumb, or a shill.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Yep, this is what it means to be a dumb Amerikan now

Not talking about the biggest single mass murder on US soil and putting your head in the sand about all of the wonderful results of that successful false flag, makes you a great Amerikan? Ding Dong Denier!!!

Ron doesn't talk about it because of people like you, (You being like most of the sheeple) get over yourself!

Hurts the cause? Whose cause? Your cause?

I'd like to go back to pre-911, ain't going to happen because talking about it is taboo to morons like you!!!

PT Barnum is right, suckers are born every minute, stop being a sucker enabler and start telling people the truth, whether it is popular or not.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

"liquifying" ... Mr. Raceboy, Ira was quoting rhino.

If you're going to chide someone over use of that word, you might want to redirect your criticism to the one who made the statement. See rhino's post above.

More than likely there was a level of liquifaction that occurred and it caused the piles to slip off the bedrock or it caused the pointed arch design to fail due to the natural earth buttresses liquifying.

(bold emphasis mine)
http://www.dailypaul.com/299158/9-11-truth-for-dummies-wrap-...

laugh all you want.

The design of the pilings is public record.

The geo tech reports are also public record.

These types of failures occur quite often in earth quake zones.

Really,

There was an earthquake on that day too? hahahahahahahha

Why didn't all of the other buildings around 1& 2 falling into a neat little pile?

Why wasn't all of this wisdom you share with us in the Commissions report?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Did I say there was an earthquake?

I don't think I did.

These people don't know

These people don't know anything about geology or science in general. They just really want to believe something and they'll shape a bunch of pseudo-science to fit their beliefs. They don't care about liberty. They only care about themselves.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Really?

I make my living in geology.

Since you are such a smarty pants, what's your explanation for the complete collapse of bldg 7 but not bldgs 3,4,5, and 6? Those other buildings were built on bedrock that was different than 7???

Enlighten us with your scientific wizardry....

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Well then ...

you should probably know how and why liquifaction occurs.

Could you give us a quick lesson?

No, and

no!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown