How did Al Qaeda change the laws of physics on 911?

Question

Professor Steven Jones has actually tested steel samples from the towers, he definitely found thermate traces. The one major thing he did point out was 'yellow molten metal' flowing from the impact floors. Its on all the news footage so theres no denying it happened. Now the only material on earth that can flow yellow in a liquid state is thermate (Im no scientist but I would presume its the sulfur that makes it appear yellow.) Now Ive seen the videos, so have millions of people , most without realising what they were looking at. But Steven Jones is a very learned man, he studies things like this, and I believe what he has found is definite proof of thermate cutting charges. If you believe Bush's story or not you need to watch a free to air doco called "911 Mysteries" it offers up a multitude of reasons why 911 happened the way it did, most if not all of them scarily believable.....
The film maker Sofia Smallstorm cannot tell you that it definitely was an inside job, all she does is present the facts and once youve watched it you will start thinking....that much I can promise you.
And one more thing while Im here........the Bush apologists will always argue that the steel didnt need to melt to cause the floors to collapse, thats fair enough BUT. What they expect us to believe is that the support clips all failed at the impact floors which caused a pancake effect right??? Seems like a reasonable argument, even the official report tells us the floors pancaked. But there is one major flaw that they cant explain and Ill tell you what it is. For a floor to pancake it has to fall through space to hit the floor beneath it, this breaks the supports holding up the lower floor and so on (about 80 times till the mass reaches ground level.) now even if we give each floor an amazingly fast half second to travel through that space crushing all the support steel, girders, steel mesh, interior walls, office furniture etc, the real world time for the impact floors to reach ground level should have been around 40 seconds!!! (thats 80 storeys collapsing in a half second each!!!!
That plainly did not happen because THERE WAS NO PANCAKING!!!! The towers dropped within 14 seconds, almost as fast as freefal speed!!! And the only way that could have happened was by severing the 48 steel columns at the core, and probably severing the foundation steel in the basements also, there is no two ways about it.
The Bush apologists physics dont hold up to scrutiny, they dont hold up to critical analysis, and why so many videos all over the net showing survivors and firemen, cops and reporters all mentioning explosions inside the buildings?

Hey folks check Steven Jones for yourself. He is currently all over Youtube, all over the Scholars for 911 truth websites, this cat has done his homework .
Get a stopwatch and time how quickly the WTC buildings fell and do some basic research. Time all 3 building collapses, yes thats right 3 buildings fell on that morning in New York.
The towers fell within one or two seconds of freefall speeds. THAT is physically impossible unless the central cores (of 48 massive steel columns) were cut, and we all know they were cut because they were not standing after the fact. Some of you people need psychological help I swear, the number of morons out there who look with thier own eyes, yet fail to actually see whats happened its amazing.

Answer 1

I am a Democrat. I am no fan of George Bush, however the rant that you have posted is just plain crazy.

I think the second responder, George C. hit the nail on the head.

You only harm your cause when you post rants like this.

Rants like yours harm the credibility of the opposition to the Republicans and George Bush.

Your rant has a negative impact on all of the people opposed to George Bush, because it makes it easy for the Republicans to point to rants like your as examples of the opposition to Republicnas and George Bush.

(edit)

The analysis of the responder below me, is excellent.

.

Answer 2

Regarldess of all of the explanations of how WTC1&2 fell, the same arguments are not valid for WTC7. When the official-story-believers are confronted with WTC7 they can't use their "Well the planes where full of a lot of fuel which burned hot so that's why the steel was weakened" argument. The explanations have to change to the "it got hit by huge chunks of WTC1&2 so that's why it fell very neatly straight down" explanation.

Basically, the emotion which drives people to defend the official story is nationalism. Our leaders would never plan something like THAT. In fact the wrong people in power will murder MILLIONS and it's not just in foreign countries.
All people who beome government leaders are not all honest folks. Face reality for gods sake! A Hitler can't get into power here? A Pol Pot can't get into power here? A Stalin? A Pinochet? A Milosevic?
No. Immoral, selfish people can't get into power in america. That's beyond our comprehension, therefore that's impossible.

Answer 3

Wasup kuku...

I understand your frustration and the facts speak for themselves. We will simply have to wait 50 - 100 years to watch the truth of this horrible incident on the history channel titled "9/11 Declassified".

Do keep in mind though that Bush is merely a pawn in the game of world domination. He was chosen for this position because of his low IQ and simple minded interests.

But look at the bright side, he did initiate the mission to Mars program with NASA, hahaha.

Answer 4

Sorry George but jet fuel cannot burn at that temp in the open air. The asbostos was removed for health reasons and could not possibly have burned off. Undoubtly you believe in the deluded theory that Al Qeada members hi-jacked 4 planes and yada,yada,yada....I suppose Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman that killed Kennedy and Haliberton had no ties to Cheney.

Al Qaeda didn't have a part in that at all. The laws you speak of were installed and redefined in order to secure the road to the police state we have become.

Answer 5

You don't seem to be serving to us. Yes you serving to us in speakme. however within the floor you're no longer serving to us. besides we're combating Christians .. if we wish to it is going to no longer be difficult to do this.

Answer 6

Here we go again, the conspiracy theory again. You need to take time, watch a little discovery channel and see what it takes to bring down a building in a controlled explosion.

The impact of the airplanes blew off concrete and insulation around the steel structure. The fuel, burning, poured down hallways and shafts, burning at over 2000 degrees. Now, any welder will tell you steel begins to melt at 1500 degrees or so.

If you took a steel beam, stuck it straight in the air, put a Chevy truck on top, and heated the beam, it would soften and the weight of the steel and the truck would cause it to collapse.

In the WTC, once the weight began free falling, nothing could stop it until it got to ground.

Take some time, have a vacation and do some reading and watching educational sources and not the fringe wackos out there.

Answer 7

its amazing how much opinion based regurgitation there is regarding this question, flaming and the continuation of half truths, and outright propaganda do not answer the question, hopefully one or two of these links may help a few readers to comprehend what they are commenting on.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/120307mediascripting.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html

http://documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.567

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7.html

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v272123Jh7S3zXT

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm

http://rense.com/general30/iug.htm

http://www.total911.info/2007/07/scientist-to-sue-bbc-for-911-lies.html

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html

Answer 8

EX-PROFESSOR JONES LEFT ACADEMICS AFTER BEING PLACED ON LEAVE-WITH-PAY BECAUSE OF HIS CLAIMS ABOUT 9/11

Steven Jones, formerly a physics professor at Brigham Young University (BYU) is a famous critic of the “official” explanation of the collapse of the twins towers.

He wrote a “paper” which has never been published in an independent peer-reviewed journal. For example, he had it published on-line in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", which was co-founded by Jones himself. He also placed the paper on the BYU website

Jones has been heavily criticized because of this “paper.” Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty. The BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU, called Jones’ statements “very disturbing.”

See http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm to see how Jones was ripped apart by his own University.

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.

The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.

The review of Jones was abandoned when Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.

Here’s another paper Jones wrote:
"Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". In this paper, Jones claims that Jesus actually came to South America somehow.

In view of all of the above, you can safely assume that Jones' unusual theories of the collapse are not valid.

Some other points:
===================
GLOWING YELLOW-ORANGE STUFF:

The glowing yellow stuff coming out of the towers was either molten aluminum or molten plastic mixed with burning debris. The burning debris gave it the yellow-orange color.

From NIST website, point 11
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
=================================
THE TOWERS DID NOT FALL AT "FREE FALL"

The fall time was analyzed by NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) , which used seismic recorders & other techniques to measure the fall time. Their results:

1. The exterior panels took 9-11 seconds. They fell this fast because they were not impeded by anything & this is perfectly normal.

2. The inner parts of WTC 1&2 (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. This is far slower than a free-fall.

You can read this in NIST’s own words at Point 6 at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
==================
NIST REJECTED THE PANCAKE THEORY

You shouldn't criticise the pancake theory since no one is claiming that. You should read the NIST explanation before you claim what it says.

See movie by NIST “Impact to collapse" at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
==================
THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7 WAS NOT SURPRISING

Even though they were NOT hit by the jets, numerous buildings over a wide area were hit by debris from the collapsing towers and were destroyed.

This includes: The Marriott World Trade Center , 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (which wasn’t even in the WTC complex). The Deutsche Bank Building was also outside the WTC complex & was massively damaged, and was declared a total loss in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#Damage

As for WTC 7:
According to NIST "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." See http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

WTC7 was only 400 feet from WTC1. Since WTC1 is over 1300 feet tall, as they pealed away, the large perimeter columns from WTC1 struck WTC7 & many other buildings with terrific force due to their high starting position. Archival photos shows perimeter columns lying on the ground up to WTC7. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In addition, WTC7 was built straddling a Con-Edison substation. This meant that its walls had to carry a tremendous amount of force and were vulnerable to impact. In addition, WT7 contained numerous fuel tanks for generators, some holding 6000 gallons of fuel, & this contributed to its destruction.

Finally, at least 6 fires started in WTC7, each of which was described as “large” but there was no water to fight them. The fires were left to burn because the building started to lean and firefighters decided it was too dangerous to enter.

Workers testified that the east side slumped, then collapsed, pulling the rest of the building with it.

See NIST’s (National Institute of Science & Technology) description of the collapse of WTC7 at
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Answer 9

Your "facts" are wrong. They were debunked five years ago. In repeating them nearly verbatim (as if off the same 'songsheet') you show no original or individual thought process.

How embarassing for you....

Answer 10

Why do you wear a mask?