Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance – Albert Einstein
November 26, 2010
By Craig McKee
People who believe in the official government theory of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must find the laws of physics to be a real pain in the neck. They must hate it when these silly laws keep showing how their neat story of Islamic terrorism simply isn’t possible.
There are so many examples: the too-small hole in the Pentagon and lack of wreckage outside; the scattering of debris from Flight 93 over an area of several miles and virtually no wreckage at the crash scene; molten steel under the three World Trade Center towers that came down; the fact that fire was simply not hot enough to have brought down both of the twin towers; and that they couldn’t have been destroyed so quickly without explosives. And those are just the big ones.
There’s another aspect to the destruction of the twin towers that doesn’t get as much attention but that is huge when it comes to proving the fiction of the official theory.
When the destruction of the South Tower started at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.
The only way we didn’t have the top 34-floor section lying in a heap beside the tower is that it fell apart – or more to the point blew apart – at the beginning of the “collapse.” The reason we’ve let this fact slip by most of us is that the top of the building quickly disappears amid all the smoke and debris. We never see it again.
But here’s the most important point: Newton wouldn’t be able to reconcile this tilting top with the symmetrical descent that followed. With the top tilting at approximately 23 degrees, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? In fact, how could it exert any force at all? And how could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the destruction wasn’t symmetrical when it started.
Newton wouldn’t have bought it.
David Ray Griffin addresses this in his excellent essay, “The destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official account can’t be true” (You can find it in The Hidden History of 9-11, edited by Paul Zarembka. The tilting tower is discussed on page 91.) Richard Gage also analyses the collapse of the WTC, and deals with the south tower conundrum, in the film 9/11 Blueprint for Truth.
No matter which aspect of the towers’ destruction you look at, the conclusion has to be the same. Planes didn’t knock the buildings over, fire couldn’t have heated enough of the steel to cause a uniform collapse, and the so-called “pancake theory” (now discarded by the government) can’t explain how the building and most of its contents were literally pulverized into a fine dust. And had the towers actually “pancaked,” the destruction would have slowed as it got closer to the ground. That’s another of those laws of physics. As it is, the buildings came down as if there was almost no resistance at all.
There’s only one way that could have happened. Explosives. And lots of them.