Here is a post from blog contributor Adam Taylor proving that the collapse rates of the WTC buildings were consistent with controlled demolition.
I've read the NIST report, and the speed of fall of the buildings was the clincher for me. All of the other evidence is tirelessly debunked, but if everyone could just be educated on the irrefutable, near-free-fall of the buildings, we could make more progress.
I have an electrical engineering degree, but I still had to take Statics and Dynamics.
Here is something I posted on a science blog (of all places!) where the CT/debunking argument typically raged:
I can understand why so many are fooled on this topic. I actually had doubts (you know, anything is possible...) and I took Statics (equations of bodies at rest) and Dynamics (equations of bodies in motion) to get my degree. Then I read the NIST report on WTC7. It's a computer model, worked backwards to explain the fast fall. It's hypothetical. And they admit free-fall for a time. I had to look up the equations of free fall (with air resistance) on wikipedia and nasa.gov. The equations are specifically for acceleration without structural resistance. That means NO resistance of "upper part of building crashing into lower part, then building collapses into its footprint".
Applying this to the twin towers, all the floors below the plane impacts had resistance, had to be impacted by mass from above, for the official story to be true. "Pancaking", or the "zipper" theory require some structural failure, and that adds time. There is simply no way the twin towers collapsed by structural failure, the resistance HAD to be removed somehow. We don't know by whom, or how exactly, but there are grains of truth among the CT strawmen that are put up. Some people, like me, reluctantly admit that there's more to 9/11 than the official story because physics demands it. Others understand it intuitively, because the video of the buildings collapsing looks just like a controlled demolition, just doesn't look right for a gravitational collapse by structural failure. For us, there's no going back to the lie. I wish the official story were true. I also know this country will never be united under a lie. It's a lie of omission, because the NIST Report ends at the initiation of collapse, and doesn't explain how the floors below impact fall like they had no resistance.
Thanks for your website,
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Email from an Engineer in Phoenix
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog often tries to downplay the credentials of the members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and other individuals in the truth movement. This email I received shows that even electrical engineers take classes relevant to the issues.
at 7:12 PM
Labels: 9/11 debunked, 9/11 speed of fall, 9/11 truth movement debunked, Architects Engineers for 9/11 Truth, collapse rates 9/11, controlled demolition 9/11, debunking strawmen, free fall 9/11, science blogs
I saw a bio one time that stated a bio is for other people to lie about you, as opposed to an autobiography where you lie about yourself. So here's who I am according to some other people, take it with a grain of salt. :) http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/who-i-am-according-to-other-people.html Blogs I'm the Founder of, Blogs I Contribute to, Sites I'm Friendly With: http://debunkerbusters.blogspot.com My FindAGrave.com Profile: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=mr&MRid=46999453 My Grandfathers: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/02/my-grandfathers.html