http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm Excerpts from link above: Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen. Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire. How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example. A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city. An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball. The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse. As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof. The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds. It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down. Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all. This proves controlled demolition. We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned. A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire. But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire. Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways. If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame. If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case. How it was done. The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition. There was more "magic" at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were seen on the TeeVee. The events of 9/11, summarized. Taken all together, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly were a collaborative venture of the Israeli and US governments. Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school in Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one researcher. A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves as art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the Arabs as they moved about the country. The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis played in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever was planned? It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these Arabs were opposed in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It would be very interesting to question the Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight students. At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers, they might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot should have quickly been foiled for two reasons. First of all, the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with remote-controlled flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the hijackers. Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet fighters to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are reported. These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an airliner cannot hope to match them. For these reasons, the Arab hijackers' mission should have been an ignominious failure. These measures (as well as pre-9/11 airport security measures) have been effective enough that hijacking has rarely been a problem for many years now.
RWF , I have written to you elsewhere but am now thinking that in light of this OP , you are not aware in detail of E P Heidner . Your OP drifts into insignificance once you have read his research findings . Quite the most mind numbing writing I have found on the Internet . Ever . Jason ,I am a Doubting Thomas but I get the impression you have taken a final view on the whole matter . Heidner takes the whole subject in a completely new direction and onto a new planet ( not literally) , and whatever final conclusion you reach , you will be hard put to find a more detailed and better researched piece of work .It reminds me of Deep Throat all over again . You will get more intellectual satisfaction from researching his work than reading 95% of the garbage posted on this Dumbo Forum . imho .
'Remote control flight computers'?......honestly? Is that the best truthers can do?,gee youd figure that the hijackers would have pulled the breakers on these so called 'computers' Lone Gunmen strike again!
Lies don't matter to truthers. Even when they are shown specific lies that they can't refute and have to make up rather pathetic excuses for the "author", they STILL pretend the source is credible. As I've said time and time again, the truth does not matter to truthers. It doesn't matter how much they have to lie to push their agenda. It doesn't matter who they have to hurt or who they have to blame. ALL that matters to them is to treasonously attack America. Reminds me of the terrorists.
Okay...so what constitutes "credible" exactly? How to I identify "credible" information when I see it. There must be some criteria I can use to instantly recognize it like you seem to be able to do. Please guide me to that criteria, and I'll try and use it. Thank you.
If someone points out lie after lie by the source and you can't defend the lies and have to try and make up excuses which you STILL can't defend.... I would call that a non-credible source. Wouldn't you? Well, obviously not because your posts still pretend DRG is the second messiah who can do no wrong. I'm not concerned though. Truthers have no credibility to begin with, so it really can't do them any harm to use non-credible sources.
Okay...so insults aside, how do I recognize accurate, true information when I see it? So, if I can find obvious lies in a report, then it isn't credible...is that what you're saying? A lie negates the source, or not?
If a source has a proven lie in it that nobody can defend and the source makes no attempt at correcting the lie, I would call that source non-credible. Now, since you think anything said by the government is a lie, I can already tell you're chomping at the bit to claim the 9/11 commission report is a lie. Truthers are so predictable.
Since you brought it up, the very people that conducted the inquiry called it something other than the truth. In effect, they excused themselves from the omissions or inaccuracies claiming it wasn't their fault. (more or less). So, then are you saying a lie is okay, so long as there's an explanation to go along with it? Or should a lie discredit the source entirely? Which is it....SPECIFICALLY?
Good God man. Why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over that has been debunked a LONG TIME ago. http://www.debunking911.com/index.html Have you read sources from BOTH sides and find your source more credible and believable? If so, that's fine, I'm just wondering.
It would have been nice if you had posted a link, but thank you nevertheless for passing this along, it was a worthwhile read this afternoon.
Also, controlled demolition would have never been used to take down the WTC. It would have been disassembled. Too much collateral damage if it were CD'd.
