Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Afghanistan Fallacy Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_afghanistan_fallacy#28502 Post contents: To M. Nucci "I am convinced that the buildings actually would have collapsed the way they did. It is simple physics. Since the initial impact of the planes did not knock them over the only place for all that weight to go is straight down, the way gravity pulls." Unfortunately, your understanding of physics is erroneous. There are various aspects that indicate that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Perhaps the biggest giveaway is that of the three buildings that collapsed, one of them (WTC7) was not hit by a plane and suffered only minor structural and fire damage. You can find videos on the internet of the collapse of WTC7 and you will see that its collapse was exactly like that of a controlled demolition. I don't have time to go into everything but consider the following: 1. Never before nor since have steel-framed buildings collapsed completely because of fire. There have been various other examples of high rise buildings that have suffered much larger fires than occurred on 911 and yet their steel frame remained intact. Kerosene fires don't get hot enough to melt or seriously weaken steel, if they did, gas barbeques would be impractical. 2. The buildings didn't just collapse, they were pulverised. That is, much of the concrete was converted to very fine dust and steel beams were cut into sections. This requires an enormous amount of energy, quite unattainable from a mere collapse. 3. Firemen reported molten metal in the base of the towers for weeks after the collapses. Satellite imagery confirmed that the rubble pile had very hot regions. Molten metal is consistent with the use of explosives but not with a collapse. 4. The building collapses were total, concentric, and occurred at near free fall rate. That is, a section of the upper part of one of the towers was timed as reaching the ground only a little slower than if it had dropped through air. This implies that all resistance (ie the rest of the building below the upper section) had been effectively removed over a very short interval. If the buildings had collpased, upper sections would have encountered considerable resistance on their way to the ground. If the buildings had collapsed because of the impact of the planes, the collapses would have been asymmetric and would have only involved a section of the buildings (ie they would not have been essentially instantaneous total collapses). If you really want to get a grasp on what happened on 911 and why so many people know that the government story is pure lies, I would strongly urge you to purchase one of David Ray Griffin's books or have a read of this web site (be cautious there is a lot of disinformation (presumably government sponsored) about 911 on the internet) http://911research.wtc7.net/ Sent at: 2008 12 02