The tilting south tower gives it away

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.


  1. Craig opens up his item above with a list of moments from that now infamous September day in 2001 and claims that each of them is impossible as described by the official account. Apparently physics doesn’t lie, or more accurately, to quote a famous interstellar Scotsman, “You cannae break the laws of physics”. Wording aside, Craig’s meaning is right, the laws of physics are set and everything that we mere humans attempt to do must obey those laws.
    Craig’s item goes on to explain why, in his view, the laws of physics mean that WTC1 could not have collapsed in the way it did. Craig’s understanding of these laws of physics leave him with the conclusion that only planted explosives could have brought down the South Tower in that manner.
    Craig invokes Sir Isaac Newton and the law of the conservation of momentum in his bid to make his point. However, he fails to explain what that law is and why he thinks it applies. Its almost as though he’s taken the idea from somewhere else and not made the effort to actually understand it.
    This site ( describes this law as “The total momentum in a closed or isolated system remains constant. An alternative of this is the law of conservation of angular momentum”. The key phrase here is “in a closed or isolated system”. Make a note of this as it will be returned to later.
    What that law means is that once the top of the South Tower had started tipping, it could not have stopped unless an external force acted on it to stop that tip. Craig would have readers believe that the top should have fallen over the edge. His conclusion is that the only possible explanation for an external force is explosives. The practical problems of the timing of these explosives, how and when they were placed and why they were not upset by the close proximity of fire for close to an hour will be left to the reader’s imagination.
    Craig goes on to state that the top of the South Tower tilted at 23 degrees, no source is given for this number.
    Google searches for the South Tower tilt bring up several hits:
    • This truth denier link ( says 15 degrees
    • this one ( says 23 degrees;
    • this link ( gives two numbers 8 degrees to the east and 4 degrees to the south.
    • Several more pages agree with a south and east tilt but give no numbers.
    • 22 degrees is mentioned here (
    • 25 is mentioned here, again no mention of direction, just the angle.
    • Elsewhere its implied that as much as 40 degrees has been speculated but no results were found that actually claimed that number
    Certainly 40 degree seems too high and 8 degrees seems too low. What wasn’t clear on any of the pages found was how the claimed numbers were derived.
    Given that the aircraft impact on the South Tower was at the south east corner of the building and that’s where the first visible movement in the collapse originated; it is certainly reasonable that the tilt was on two angles rather than just one.
    As the corner dips the whole of the upper section tilts to the south east. Craig never mentions that the tilt originates at this corner, instead invoking Newton again and claiming that the long dead scientist would not be impressed with how the building collapsed. Disappointingly, Craig makes no effort to explain why that would be true; instead he relies on readers to believe he is right, except he isn’t.
    What about the gravity?
    What has not yet been mentioned is the fact that gravity was acting on those top floors from the moment they were constructed. Before the moment of impact, those floors were being held up by the intact structure of the building, essentially overcoming the force of gravity. Almost one hour after the impact, the remaining, weakened steel supports gave in and the collapse started. From that moment on, gravity would pull everything downwards, the only direction in which it will act on an object; down means through the rest of the building below.
    But what about that tilt?
    Craig would have everyone believe that the tilting top floors should have gone over the edge and fallen on the streets below. Remember the conservation of momentum description from above? The angular momentum of the top could not have stopped unless there was another force was acting it. That other force is gravity.
    The top floors of the South Tower were not stationary in space when they were tilting; at the same time that they were tilting, they were also falling. The tilt started because the south east corner (the corner that took the plane impact) weakened to the point of failure first and dipped. That area of failure means the supports in that section of building was no longer capable of holding up their share of the weight above. This share gets distributed to the neighbouring supports, which in turn brings them past their capable limit so they too fail. The result is a very rapid, progressive failure of all supports as the weight of the top floors gets supported by fewer and fewer columns. All this happens within the time it takes the top section to make that dramatic tilt.
    The progressive failure of all the supports effectively means that the top floors are unsupported dead weight sitting on floor sections that are incapable of supporting this weight. The pancake collapse has started and gravity has full grip of everything and its coming straight down.
    This image (taken from a truth denier website) shows the violence going on between the supported and unsupported sections of the building; What is shown in the sequence of four images is that the tilt increases in each frame. At the same time the tilted section is also falling downwards and being broken up. Note how it did not ‘blow apart’, as Craig put its, rather it breaks up as it impacts against the building below, each section of building conspires to destroy the other as they crash together.
    The original page for the image linked above ( claims the angle of tilt does not change between images two and three. The images are small and low quality but using a straight edge to check there is actually a change in angle between images two and three. Its not as much as the change between one and two so the law of angular momentum implies that there is another force acting on the top section. Take another look at the images and check the size of that top section; notice how it is smaller in each frame. That is the result of gravity pulling the top floors down into the still standing lower building and destroying them both in the process. The mass of tilted building gets less and less. This is the external force acting on the object and changing it, this explains why the law of conservation of angular momentum does not apply.
    If Craig is to invoke a law of physics that requires a closed or isolated system to work then he really needs to ensure that he is using it to describe a closed or isolated system. The tilting top floors of the South Tower do not constitute such a closed or isolated system due to the fact that those floors are falling and being reduced to rubble while the tilt is in action.
    In his closing paragraphs Craig makes two more claims about the final moments of the south tower.
    The first is that it was a “uniform collapse”. Craig doesn’t expand on what he means by that, it is assumed that he means the floors failed uniformly all the way down. That is, the whole of each floor failed together and the building neatly collapsed floor by floor uniformly. If Craig means something else then he is going to have to make that clear.
    Watch the following 15 second video, (it is the first video on the following page of videos Pay special attention to the final few seconds; watch the edge of the building that is closest to the camera. A part of the outer shell of the building falls away after the top has dropped out of sight. Does that match the description of “uniform collapse”?
    This late falling section of building is a clue as to what is going on out of sight in the dust. Rewind to the start of the clip and watch what happens to the tilting top as the collapse starts. The top twists away from the camera as it falls, this twist moves the bulk away from the edge that is seen falling a few seconds later. What this shows is that the top section weight was not evenly pushing down on the floor area below. Its weight was shifted to the side that corresponded to the direction of tilt. With nothing pushing down on the edge of building facing the camera it was momentarily left behind as the rest fell away from it.
    In his final paragraph, Craig claims that the dead weight of the building pushing down on the floors below would have meant a slowing down of the collapse and makes reference to the impossibility of the “near free fall speed”.
    The thing about a collapsing building (whether by controlled demolition or not) is that it goes from stationary to moving (which means you have to have acceleration). In the initial stages, as gravity overcomes all remaining supports, there is only one thing that can happen to the collapse speed, it will increase. From standing to falling requires an increase in speed. Quite how you slow down a stationary object will have to remain a mystery for now.
    This near free fall speed is not explained further by Craig; how near to free fall the collapse went is not specified and no reference is made to what was expected. There is no attempt to explain why it would be significant. Does Craig actually understand what he is writing about or is he simply regurgitating oft repeated arguments in the vain hope that more volume is the same as more accurate?
    While its not explicitly said, its assumed that Craig mentions this near free fall speed because it is considered as evidence for explosives and that a natural collapse could not have been that fast. The problem is, speed of falling is dictated by gravity and not by the medium that facilitates the collapse. All other things being equal, it doesn’t matter if you remove the supports by explosive or by overloading; the stuff above is going to hit the stuff below at the same speed.
    The final speed that the collapse reaches will be dictated by how fast gravity wants to pull it down less how much resistance the floors below offer. The first floor to collapse had over 30 floors of unsupported building above fall onto it, there was no chance of it holding that weight up and any resistance it could offer up will be pretty much instantly overcome. As each floor is overcome, the weight of unsupported debris will increase; conversely debris falling over the side will reduce the weight pressure on the remaining floors. In order to arrest the collapse, the amount of weight would need to be reduced to a level where the next floor to take the impact is able to offer up enough resistance to make a difference.
    Given that the collapse was slower than free fall speed, its obvious that the floors offered some resistance. After all, no resistance would have meant free fall speed. Once momentum has been established the fall will continue until it meets something strong enough to withstand it. In this case it was the ground.
    Each floor failed because it was impacted with more weight than it could hold up. To explain the collapse does not require any magic, imaginary physics or even explosives.
    Craig’s failure to apply (or understand) the concept of a closed system puts him in good company and his argument is similar to the creationists’ failure to understand closed systems in the context of entropy, as described here: Failure to comprehend the concept of a closed system will result in miss-application of certain laws of physics, which is exactly what Craig has done in his posting.

    1. Dear Mr. Limey,
      As probably your one and only subscriber, I see that your grasp of physics as it applies to 9/11 has not improved any from December of 2010 until today September 2011.
      Without equations, your grasp of physics is all hand-wavy, and even pseudo in nature. As such, I’m not going to waste my time within your internal “fluff”. I’ll go right to your conclusions.
      Mr. Limey wrote in his conclusion:

      Given that the collapse was slower than free fall speed, its obvious that the floors offered some resistance. After all, no resistance would have meant free fall speed. Once momentum has been established the fall will continue until it meets something strong enough to withstand it. In this case it was the ground.

      Had the vertical supports and floors offered continual resistance as expected by an intact structure, the demolition would not have been (slightly) slower than free fall. It would have been significantly slower than free fall, if not arrested outright at some point in the upper floors.
      Your entire “momentum” sentence is misleading and ignores significant factors, including ejection of material laterally and pulverization of content, both of which reduce the momentum and left-over energy to affect the lower portion of the towers.
      Momentum is defined as mass times velocity and is conserved during both elastic and inelastic collisions:
      P = M1 * V1 + M2 * V2 = (M1 + M2) * V3 {inelastic}
      P = M1 * V1 + M2 * V2 = M1 * V1′ + M2 * V2′ (elastic; V1V1′, V2V2′}
      The theory of the alleged pile driver rests on inelastic collisions, whereby mass is accumulated with each collision and V2=0.
      For the sake of understanding and discussion, I’ll step readers through the real physics in a simplified fashion that purposely does not take into consideration all factors observable in the collapse or known to be inherent in the structure. The simplified physics will debunk your assertions, which will be even more in error once those more complex mechanisms are brought into the equation.
      Let’s make the following assumptions:
      (a) The upper block had a mass M1.
      (b) Each individual floor had a mass M2.
      (c) The alleged plane impact (or weak) point was 20 floors from the top. Thus, the starting “pile driver” M1=20*M2 (or M2=M1/20).
      (d) Each individual floor was hanging in mid-air without any support below it. (e) Distance between each floor (to make the math easy) 9.8 meters. [Actual distance was probably 1/3 of that.]
      (f) The over-design factor in the static weight that any given level N can support is 2*Mass(110-N) [although I think is was bigger than this.]
      D is distance (between floors)
      g is gravity [9.8 m/(s^2)]
      V0 is initial velocity (V0=0)
      t is time
      D = (1/2) * g * t^2 + V0 * t
      9.8 m = (1/2) * [9.8 m/(s^2)] * t^2
      Solve for t to find out how long it took M1 to free-fall the spacing of one floor into M2.
      t=2^(1/2)=sqrt(2)=1.414 s
      Derivative of acceleration at a point in time is velocity:
      V1 = a * t = 9.8 * 1.414 = 13.8 m/s
      Thus, before hitting M2, M1 reached a velocity V1=13.8 m/s.
      M2 is stationary, so its velocity is V2=0. Thus momentum P before impact is:
      P = M1 * V1 + M2 * V2 = M1 * V1 (because V2=0)
      Conservation of momentum in this very ideal example of an inelastic collision (masses combine rather than bounce) says:
      P = M1 * V1 = (M1 + M2) * V3
      Re-arrange terms and plug in for V1, you get:
      V3 = V1 * [M1/(M1 + M2)] = (13.8) * [M1/(M1 + M2)]
      Because M1 & M2 are greater than zero, the new velocity V3 of the combined mass has to be less than the initial velocity V1 which was equivalent to free-fall. Similar calculations can be performed for subsequent levels, plugging in a newly calculated velocity of the combined & growing mass at impact with that level.
      In this ideal world with floors of mass M2 just hanging in the air, we can further assume that the starting “pile driver” M1=20*M2 (or M2=M1/20) under the premise that one of the alleged airplane impacts was 20 floors from the top.
      V3 = V1 * [M1/(M1 + (M1/20))] = V1 * [1/1.05] = V1 * (0.95)
      In this ideal world example, we see quantitatively how the speed of the pile driver hitting a floor M2 hanging in mid-air slows down slightly from its previous free-fall velocity.
      However, M2 was not just hanging in mid-air. Using the assumed over-design factor of 2, the vertical support offered by the steel shell and the inner core at level M2
      Force(M2) = [Over-Design Factor] * M1 = 2 * M1
      In order for floor M2 to fail, V1*M1 has to also be greater than 2*M1. In this example, it is. However, the momentum equation needs to be updated to account for the consumption of energy in smashing floor M2 and its supporting structures.
      P = M1 * V1 = (M1 + M2) * V3 + [2 * M1]
      V3 = [(M1 * V1) – (2 * M1)]/[M1 + M2] = [V1 – 2] * [M1/(M1 + M2)]
      V3 = [(13.8) – 2] * [M1/(M1 + M2)] = (11.8) * [M1/(M1 + M2)]
      V3 = (11.8) * [M1/(M1 + (M1/20))] = (11.8) * [1/1.05]
      V3 = 11.23 m/s < 13.8 m/s = V1
      Thus we see after impact with the first M2 floor taking into consideration the supports under M2, that velocity of the pile driver M1 should be measurably less than the velocity of free-fall at that point.
      The ejection of content laterally reduces the mass of M1 to M1′. Also the Force of material ejection must be accounted for in the momentum equation P in a manner similar to the over-design factor. More importantly, the force of content pulverization is another massive energy sink that also gets inserted into the momentum equation P in a manner similar to the over-design factor.
      P = M1 * V1 = (M1 + M2) * V3 + Force(M2) + Force(ejection) + Force(pulverization)
      V3 = [(M1*V1) – Force(M2) – Force(ejection) – Force(Pulverization)]/[M1’+M2]
      Revisiting my assumptions, if the assumed static-load over-design factor is low and a higher factor is employed, the resulting V3 will be reduced further. Similarly, using more accurate floor spacing will factor in by reducing the available M1*V1 energy at impact with floor M2.
      Anyway you slice the above, the destruction of the towers should have been measurably and significantly slower than free-fall. It wasn’t.
      Mr. Limey wrote:

      Each floor failed because it was impacted with more weight than it could hold up.

      This is actually mal-framed. This assumes that the “accumulating pile driver” went through the sequence: “(gravity) accelerate down the distance of one floor; slow down upon impacting new floor; (gravity) accelerate down the distance of another floor; …”
      In reality, the outer shell and inner core offered continual support and resistance to collapse (not incremental at each floor). Thus, the mass in the middle and edges didn’t even have the advantage of repeated periods of (gravity) accelerating down the distance of one floor. Only stuff between the core and edges might do that.
      Thus it is pseudo-science to say “each floor failed.” No, the inner core and outer-structure seemingly failed because supposedly:
      M1*V1 > Force(M2) + Force(ejection) + Force(pulverization)
      Yet, how could we even have a sufficient V1 from falling, unless something removed the continual support within the core and edges? In fact, they did such a good job of support removal, collapse speed is slower than but close to free-fall.
      Mr. Limey wrote:

      To explain the collapse does not require any magic, imaginary physics or even explosives.

      The imaginary physics (or pseudo-science) that you speak of must be your own.
      Explaining the collapse does require using real physics and real observation of the event. You state: Given that the collapse was slower than free fall speed. How much slower than free-fall speed was it? Observation proves that it was slightly slower than free-fall, while real physics suggests that it should be significantly and measurably slower.
      It wasn’t. Thus, real physics returns to those equations and the observations. It says in order for collapse speed to remain fast (near free-fall), energy would have to be added to negate the energy sinks represented by:
      [Force(M2) + Force(ejection) + Force(pulverization)]
      How do you add energy to this system, Mr. Limey?
      Not just explosives will do it. DEW will do it, and without too many tell-tail audio decibel signatures of detonation that your heroes of NIST confidently stated weren’t present. How do you power DEW? Maybe a mini-cold-fusion or mini-nuclear reactor were deployed like a portable generator. This would then match measurements of radiation signatures that didn’t match known nuclear weapons but still suggest nuclear type activity.

    2. Here is a continuation of the discussion with Mr. Limey and another science-challenged “yes-man” to Mr. Limey’s blog. I don’t quote them in their entirety; just enough to get the errors in their physics across.
      Dear Mr. Hopkins,
      If the following statement from you was meant to put my position into your words, it misses the mark.

      The towers fell due to a structural failure of the steel. Both of you agree on that. One of you thinks it is because of the heat of the fire, the other because of controlled explosions. Either way, the collapse is going to be identical, as the structural failure is identical, even though the cause is different.

      I do not agree that the “towers fell due to a structural failure of the steel.” This implies that it was shoddy workmanship or design that caused the inevitable demolition. The steel and structural elements were moved out of the way, timed such that the demolition happened at slightly less than free-fall.
      If I am the other to which you refer, I do not believe it was “controlled explosions”, because this implies explosives. Controlled demolition? Yes. The mechanisms of destruction do matter, because they exhibit the depth of the deceit.
      Your statement that “the structural failure is identical” for controlled demolition and heat of fire structural failure is completely inaccurate and wrong. Please review the simple physics that I provided again. You see, if the heat of the localized and small fire some 70-90 stories up was the only initiator and source for the demolition, everything happening below the initiation level must adhere to the basic laws of conservation of energy and motion. As such, it could not have progressed below the initiation level at near free-fall speed while at the same time pulverizing content and ejecting content. It did, however. Thus, energy was added.
      Mr. Hopkins wrote:

      You can’t drop 30 stories of skyscraper onto the remaining 60 stories from a great height, and expect it not to crush like a coke can.

      To paraphrase on the old expression, your response to an order to “jump” should be “how high?”
      I say, my response to the notion of “drop” is “how far should it drop?” To be very generous, let’s say the alleged airplane took out 3 or 4 floors completely. Let’s say the alleged heat of the fires caused the steel to fail uniformly and suddenly to allow for the “dropping” of 30 stories a distance of 4 floors, meaning they fell at free-fall. The outer steel shell and inner-core below the initiation point would have offered continuous resistance to the energy of the falling mass. For the sake of discussion, the energy of the 30 stories falling 4 stories might have exceeded the over-design factor of static resistance at that upper level (floor 80) maybe even down to floor 70 or 60. Between that resistance and the observed pulverization of the content of each floor, it should have slowed the demolition down. It didn’t. Doesn’t mean the physics is wrong. It does mean energy was added that NIST isn’t copping to.
      Or to use the analogy of the Coke can. Stack up 7 Coke cans (with or without Coke). Take 4 additional cans (with or without Coke) and stack them up. You may use tape to make each stack rigid. Take the stack of 4 cans and hold them a height of n=1 Coke cans above the stack of 7. Drop them. Results? Repeat for (n=n+1) Coke can heights between the lower and upper stack before dropping. I believe Jonathon Cole did a similar experiments using blocks of cement blocks and blocks of ice.
      The point, Mr. Hopkins, is that if you drop 30 stories of skyscraper onto the remaining 60 stories from a great height, you can expect it not to crush like a coke can [with a foot on it]. The upper block of n stories might destroy itself into n stories below. Stop there.
      Here are a couple points of fact that Physics Teacher David Chandler discovered regarding those upper 30 stories that you’ve been duped into thinking was a cohesive block. Those upper stories disintegrated into themselves (like an accordian, like a foot on a Coke can) before the lower edge of the demolition progressed, say, 3 floors below the initiation level. The speed that the roof-line fell to the initiation level was 1/3 the speed of gravity. Doing the physics, the implication is that the structure within that 30 story block lost (suddenly and uniformly) 2/3 of its structural strength. That doesn’t happen with fires. That 30 story block was no longer a cohesive block to act like a pile driver on the remaining structure. Ergo, no 70 or 80 stories of crushed Coke cans could be possible… unless excessive amounts of energy is added.
      Mr. Hopkins wrote:

      If you’ve gone to all that trouble of flying aircraft into buildings, full of aviation fuel, then why go to the hassle of impoding them as well?

      Thinking too small, Mr. Hopkins. You’re not seeing the big picture which included the fact that twin towers were under-occupied white elephants with asbestos problems that would have been monumentally expensive (billions) to fix or demolish conventionally, assuming permits would be issued. As it happens, the new owner insured them against terrorist attacks in the Summer of 2001 and then argued in court afterward that they were two terrorists events, so payout should be two-fold. Thus, for like $50 million in investment, he was effectively paid over $3 billion (may be low) to get his white elephants removed… without permits, without damaging the bathtub underneath that held back the Hudson, or without blocking 3 of the 7 subway lines. That is a pretty hefty return on his investment with which to build the new WTC.
      WTC-7 needed to be destroyed because it held SEC records on ongoing investigations that conveniently simply went away, probably as promised by President Bush and his father to their backers. WTC-7 also held offices of the FBI and CIA, so it was probably a damn secure building. NIST confirms that its demolition had the anomalous feature of over 100 feet of visible, measurable, undeniable free-fall. Its demolition sends a message.
      WTC-4 had gold vaults below with billions more than the reported billions. They did recover some of the gold. It wasn’t in the vault, though. It was loaded in the back of a big truck under the complex and was missing its driver, who obviously got word to abandon it.
      Other than the alleged victims from the alleged plane at the Pentagon, the only victims working in the newly remodeled wing that got damaged were the Office of Naval Intelligence who had ongoing investigations into the $2.3 trillion in unaccounted for DoD transactions that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of on 9/10/2001. The ONI records and investigators were wiped out. That certainly sends a message.
      Why go to all that trouble of allegedly flying aircraft into buildings?
      Shock-and-awe, baby! Shock-and-awe.
      Part of the ruse is to get the public to think “it could have been me on one of those planes! … Sure, next time I fly (take a train, or bus), I’ll surrender my dangerous nail clippers, I’ll take off my shoes, I’ll let a stranger take nude photos of me or feel my junk.” The 300+ pages of the USA PATRIOT Act (yes, it was an acronym) was written, ready, and waiting for 9/11 and passed in a patriotic knee-jerk vote just over a month after 9/11, which also had significant events like an Anthrax attack against two Democratic members of Congress and an influential investigative reporter (Dan Rather). That certainly sends a message.
      Mr Limey wrote:

      The logical and practical ability of getting explosives rigged to the WTC towers is conveniently ignored by truth deniers such as my esteemed friend above.

      Mr. Limey completely misrepresents my position with the phrase getting explosives rigged. I would have to agree that if this was the sole destructive mechanism, it presents a logistics nightmare, because they’d have to plant overkill amounts (above and beyond what was needed for demolition) in order to account for the energy requirements of pulverization. How many man-trips is that?
      No. My position is that they planted 2 or 3 directed energy weapons (DEW) within the towers. (How many man-trips is that?) The energy source for these weapons? Lots of possibilities, but my bets are on either a mini-nuclear reactor or cold-fusion reactor to which they plugged in DEW, because these energy sources would leave radiation signatures (which were indeed measured) that would deviate from what one would expect from known milli-nuclear devices. The DEW devices were aimed within the towers up and down. They blasted waves of energy into the content which turned, say, trapped water molecules instantly into steam whose rapidly expanding volume pressure would blow apart the content that contained the water molecule. Small fragments of human remains were found on the rooftops of neighboring buildings.
      You seem to ignore “the logical and practical ability of getting” a few DEW devices and their energy sources into the towers, as opposed to explosives. Not so logistically tough, except maybe running massive electrical transmission cables down the elevator shafts to the energy source.
      Mr Limey wrote:

      I note that he has not at all tried to logically argue against my assertion that physics proves that the top of the tower in question could not have toppled but would have always fallen through the building and crushed what was below.

      My apologies, Mr. Limey, for not addressing your concern of the toppling upper block. Your understanding of physics for this event remains as flawed as your comments about demolition speed. The angular momentum of the upper block should have been conserved. Therefore, the laws of physics suggest that (unless some outside force acted on it) the upper block would have continued with its angular motion and toppled eventually off the side of the lower structure and creamed neighboring buildings (and cracked the bathtub.) Nothing in physics suggests that it would have or should have “fallen through the building and crushed what was below.” You’re just being obtuse. Haven’t we been down this garden path before?
      In my response to Mr. Hopkins, I spoke of the observed and measured facts that the upper block disintegrated into itself before progressing that many levels below the alledged impact floor. It lost 2/3 of its structural integrity suddenly. I maintain that DEW beamed upwards “added” the energy. Angular momentum of the upper block actually continued, however the momentum was transferred from “a cohesive block” to separated and individual dust particles that DEW turned the block into. There was no cohesive top of the tower to fall through the building and crush what was below. DEW devices on a few levels were there to help and keep the pulverization going.

      Instead he dumps a whole load of formula into his reply which read as though they have been copied and pasted from a conspiracy form elsewhere. I bet he doesn’t even understand them himself.

      Awe, shucks, Mr. Limey. Are you having difficulty copying sentences or phrases from my physics analysis into Google and finding a definitive web source for any of it that would prove I might have plagiarized it? Please, do keep trying. I love it when you do futile busy work. And when you come up short, that’s when you’ll lose the bet about my understanding it myself.
      [Hint: it was written from scratch, albeit earlier this year I did freshen my understanding of basic physics from Dr. Judy Wood’s excellent book, “Where Did the Towers Go?” You could go try there, but you still won’t find plagiarism. One would hope you’d find there (a) agreement with my analysis and (b) a vast improvement to your understanding of high school physics.]

    3. Dear Limey, it seems to me that your thinking also contains errors. You talk about the weight of “unsupported” floors, such as in your phrase: “The first floor to collapse had over 30 floors of unsupported building above fall onto it, there was no chance of it holding that weight up and any resistance it could offer up will be pretty much instantly overcome.” Even before any airplane hit the building, that floor (that later would be the first one to collapse) had over 30 floors of buliding above it whose weight it had to withstand. No matter if those 30 floors were “supported” (structured) or “unsupported” (unstructured), their aggregate mass and weight would be exactly the same.
      I assume that the floor in question was designed to withstand not just the mass of the 30 floors on top of it but a multiple of that mass. After all, the 1st floor of the building had to be designed to withstand the aggregate mass of the 110 floors above it. So even when steel structures were weakened by fire it is not easy to see how the weight of 30 floors could have brought the tower down.
      The difference between the situation when the tower was still intact and the situation when it started to collapse is not the mass and weight of the 30 top floors but the velocity of their downward movement. Their impact on the floor that was the first to collapse would have been the product of velocity and mass, not the weight of the mass alone.
      My second argument is: What happened to the tilting momentum? The laws of physics would suggest that once a tiliting (rotating) movement starts it would continue; if the base of the tilting tip of the building would still be attached to the rest of the building and could thus not go down in free-fall speed that would even accelerate the speed of the tilting (rotating) movement and not slow it down. So we could have expected the tip of the building to completely tip over, become detached from the rest of the building and drop down to the street in free fall while still rotating. Why did that not happen?

      1. You’re correct with regards to the falling velocity of the top of the building. That was intended as part of my comment, even if it wasn’t clear. As to why didn’t it just tip over? That’s because it was going down though the building as well as twisting and since the center of mass didn’t move enough to take it critically over the edge, it didn’t go over the edge. It didn’t go down in free fall speed, there was a whole building in the way to prevent that.

        1. How precisely do you know that the top of the building did not tip over because “it was going down through the building as well as twisting and since the centre of mass didn’t move enough to take it critically over the edge, it didn’t go over the edge.” The top of the building was tipping over and then stopped when the fulcrum disappeared. You fail to provide any explanation for the tipping section’s failure to follow the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The fulcrum provides enough resistance for the tipping motion to start, and then suddenly the fulcrum stops acting on the structure.

          1. Regarding the conservation of momentum, the top section was falling with the building as well as tipping slightly and rotating. Straight down is by a low long way the easier path to the ground, which is why that was the way it went. For that top section to just fall off the rest of the building, it would need to not be going downwards already and it would have needed enough energy to tip beyond the point of no return. Neither of those were the case, so there is only one way it could have gone. Which just happens to be the way it did go.

          2. Complete gibberish. The top section is tilting on a fulcrum, and then it stops tilting. You have in no way explained why the momentum was not conserved, and you have in no way explained why the fulcrum stopped acting on the top section.

          3. Watch the videos. The top tilts slightly and also rotates slightly. It is also falling. There are several forces acting on it. The strongest being the downward pull of gravity. While it’s falling, the top section and the building below are each being destroyed by the constant impacts. The effect this will have on the top section is to change its mass and its center of gravity. This will affect how it behaves, that change is witnessed in the videos as its tilting and rotating rate changes. It’s basic physics.

          4. I find your posts quite puzzling. Did you really suppose that fifteen years after these events I would be replying to your nonsensical rubbish without having watched “the videos”? You have failed entirely to account for the loss of momentum of the top section that was tilting away from the fulcrum, but then stopped tilting. There are no “impacts” occurring as the building tilts. It is tilting because a fulcrum, consisting of intact columns, is acting on it. Compromised columns have ceased to act on the upper section in the same way as the intact columns, and gravity pulls the section down, away from the fulcrum. Then the fulcrum stops acting on the top section. You haven’t bothered in any way to try to account for the loss of the fulcrum’s action. The force from the top section on the intact columns is in fact being reduced as the load moves away from the fulcrum, so the fulcrum is certainly not being destroyed by “impacts”. You have provided no information whatsoever in your three recent posts, and provide no evidence of reasoned analysis.

          5. I wasn’t suggesting you’ve never watched the videos.
            The momentum is downwards. That’s where it’s going and the easiest and simplest way for that to happen is directly down. On its way down the building is being destroyed and so is the top section. As the building is being destroyed, so how it supports or holds the top section is constantly changing. It is this change that causes the change in direction you are so concerned about. It is fully accounted for by that interaction.

          6. The momentum is downwards? That is a contradiction of the observed phenomenon of the upper section tilting. In four posts you have failed entirely to address the loss of momentum that was tilting the top away from the fulcrum, and you have failed entirely to account for the loss of action by the fulcrum. You posts are utter rubbish.

          7. The fulcrum that was acting to rotate and tilt the to section got destroyed which then meant that the action on the top section halted.

  2. I’m not sure why this comment wasn’t approved at the time it was sent. Given that it addresses the science of the issue and isn’t a personal attack, it seems that it should have been approved at the time. I will be posting a response to this comment when I have the time to go through it again.

  3. Another factor I would add to the equation is the tilting portion’s center of mass. This is a redistribution of momentum, from directly over the core supports, to the load walls on one side. How would that effect the path of destruction? How would gravity counter that momentum, being that gravity is continuing momentum in this direction?

  4. I periodically peruse these types of articles not because I want to learn physics or discuss theories of 9/11, I do so to remind myself that even the most well educated of minds can still be completely and utterly stupid when it comes to actual logical thought. Oddly enough, the people I am talking about here will automatically assume I am directing my comments to the other side.

    1. Jack, why don’t you avoid people assuming anything by simply stating exactly what your opinion is. Of course, that will require that you expose yourself to criticism. Not everyone is willing to do that.

  5. The steel frame of a high rise steel frame building has never come down from fire in the history of Earth. You cannot give one example. Claiming that the trade center buildings did does not count. The demolitions of the towers were highly sophisticated, and the final stages began high up on the upper floors, rather than at the bottom as was the case with building seven. So nit picking about free fall speed is meaningless. If you want to discuss free fall, talk about building seven. Larry Silverstein knew that building seven was a demolition and that it would be recognized as such, so he told a tale claiming that it was brought down at his suggestion.

  6. Discussion is fine but there are so many variables concerning the WTC towers they leave WTC Bldg 7 as the discernable smoking gun.

  7. We were told that the structural failure of many connections ,thousands, not unlike an earthquake caused the collapse of both bldgs. If it were structural failure we would see 2 piles of 110 floors plus the core structure as part of the debrie field but it all turned to dust more like a volcano. There was an earthquake recently in Italy and the bldgs were still there although in a different form, shouldn’t this be similar?

    1. No. Newton’s Laws (plural!) cannot be violated and thus have not been violated.
      Their physical-mathematical representation has been misapplied by various researchers while describing the 9/11 events. You should make sure to know the difference.

  8. We in Europe are glad to see there still is a debate going on around re-opening the case of 9/11. To me that event marks the beginning of the 21st century and still serves as justification (directly or indirectly) for all the Middle Eastern wars that followed. However, I believe it to be more fruitful if investigations and debates focussed on the smoking gun – WTC7. 2 airplanes, 3 towers. It’s that simple. Besides, public awareness of a third building falling on 9/11 is still not where it should be. So, in my opinion, more research on WTC7 would be beneficial to the whole truth movement.

  9. WTC 7 Evaluation is a two-year study by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded through the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
    WTC 7 Evaluation Website:
    September 2016 Update – Students:
    October 2016 Update – Engineers:

  10. Limey wrote: “Remember the conservation of momentum description from above? The angular momentum of the top could not have stopped unless there was another force was acting it. [sic] That other force is gravity.”
    No. The G-forces act uniformly on all elements of the structure or, in effect, on the point-center-of-mass. Thus gravity, acting alone, will leave the ongoing rotation unaffected. Left to itself, the rotation of that top block would have continued and, because the center of mass was no longer directly above the center of support, it’s likely the rate of rotation would even have increased due to less “crushing” on the high (i.e. the northwest) corner and corresponding outside walls. But also note that the conservation-of-momentum law applies to ISOLATED systems. That means that the 30 story block would have had to have been severed (somehow) from the underlying structure.
    For those among us who are not physical scientists, I invite the thought experiment: The earth is in orbit or “free fall” around the sun, and has been for the whole of its existence. It nevertheless has rotated continuously for the whole time without exploding or falling into the sun. Another even simpler example would be the “top spin” or “back spin” put on a ping pong ball. The ball does not explode and it does not crash down through the table under the influence of gravity.
    In the case of the World Trade tower, what we would have expected is that the collapse that (visibly) started at/near the southeast corner would, under very strange but nevertheless conceivable circumstances, have proceeded to make a growing “kink” across the structure leading to a kind of folding over, somewhat like a melting candle. The intact walls on the opposite sides/corner on the northwest would have come under TENSION, or at least reduced loading, not compression. Steel is strong under tension as well as compression, which is why we use it, for example, in wire rope and reinforcing bar, and all those intact spandrels would have provided a LOT of resistance, whether in tension or compression, to the pivoting of the mass of those thirty floors around whatever remained of the massive core columns.
    Provided those core columns were still there to create a pivot.
    And, we would have expected to see some bending in that upper block, in the direction of the ongoing, but resisted, rotation and fall. Looking at the photograph above carefully, I suggest that is exactly what we see. In the upper left quadrant of the picture at the block corner, between what appears to be the fourth and fifth floors down from the roof, there is a clear kink in the corner. Moreover, the near corner of the block has developed a slight but evident bow. The block appears clearly under stress of the kind we might expect in the scenario we’ve just sketched. That implies, in turn, that important elements of that massive core are still trying to do their job.
    But wait! Something totally unexpected is happening in the wall on the right side of the frame, below the block. Even though the mass above should be pulling upward along this wall, leading ultimately to a folding of those spandrels, we see some of them being blown violently outward by what appears to be a massive explosion or row of explosions, accompanied by splashes of what appears to be molten metal immersed in a cloud of pulverized material that CANNOT possibly be due to high-velocity floor-to-floor collisions, since nothing (according to the visible evidence) is yet moving at more than a few tens of miles per hour (or tens of feet per second).
    This explosion of course removes most or all of the resistance to “collapse” that otherwise would have existed in this portion of the structure. Crush down, even with crush up? I think not.

  11. Why would the weight of the 30 top floors be too much for the floor underneath when it had been there all along, Or the weight of all floors on the bottom floor even which would be much greater.
    This is just one point & not meant to explain everything, its just one of those obvious things that people miss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *