The use of Doublespeak to derail Occam's Razor.

Excellent point in example... wtc2 was hit off center at an angle... essentially cutting through one corner/side of the building. Basic common knowledge and/or common sense would suggest that if there was enough structural damage at such a location to merit a collapse, we should have seen what would mimic that of a tree being shopped down.

Then when you consider the huge 5 sec fire ball after impact.
You see the majority... if not all of the fuel was spent.

Here's a front/corner view (CNN footage):


Here's a back view (NBC footage):


...another example in which occam's razor favors 911 truth... provided you have both eyes open. All the essential and sufficient evidence is right before our eyes...coupled with the application of common sense and basic physics, simply points us away from the official story.

To make the official story stick, people have to buy the sales pitch. Suspend your own observations/judgments/thinking, ignore/avoid discrepancies and believe what they tell you that you see... as well as who was responsible for it.

Just watch... this post will open the floodgates of doublespeak once again.
Let's Roll !

[edit on 26-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Oh shucks that is some funny stuff. So you read some mumbo jumbo double speak about properties and effects completely unrelated to the principles that I addressed and that satisfies you? I am sorry my friend but either you have not a clue what you are talking about or you are just willing to believe all them thar words somehow manage to actually explain what I am speaking of without even addressing it.

This whole section is a complaint without any actual backing facts.

Angular momentum, inertia.

What stopped that angular momentum? What force? What energy source working AGAINST gravity did that?

The force is the requirement for the upper block to accelerate mass.

Imagine two homogeneous blocks sitting on top of each other. Now, pick one of the two connected corners and imagine the block rotates around this particular corner so the other corner intersects with the other block. At this point, the distribution of mass between the two sides is unequal. That is, for every rotation, or any vertical movement, the side which has moved downwards has to move more mass out of the way. This results in a larger force being imparted back into the upper block (Newtons third law). This is not mumbo-jumbo, it's simple physics.

Now you might argue "aha but how can the block pass inside the other block!". Well of course it can't, and then we get into how the towers were actually constructed, with a large (60ft) void of relatively empty space between the two load bearing elements. This is where the upper block falls into, and the contact with the perimeter walls of the lower block is what imparts a larger force.

Of course, actually quantifying this is difficult, but as I have already mentioned it has been done by people more qualified than me. Please read this before directing complaints at me.

Originally posted by poet1b
If my recollection serves me right, the outer shell only supported 20%-30% of the structure.

Your recollection from where? You are wrong.

If the fall came as a latent response form the impact of the 747, where the 747 physical impact cut enough of the inner core beams to lead to the collapse, then the building should have folded over at the point of impact, not fallen into its own footprint.

There were no 747s involved, and both buildings failed at the point of impact and did not fall into their own footprints. The buildings destroyed the entire WTC complex, how exactly is that "falling into their own footprint"?

With regards to your "it hit a corner" statement, you should read the NIST report and understand the construction of the towers. Inside the core, the strongest elements were corner elements, something that AA11 did not hit.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

What stopped that angular momentum? What force? What energy source working AGAINST gravity did that?

How about you come up with an explanation for it?

Explore all areas. Look into what it would take.

When you do that, you'll see that any explanation that involves outside forces becomes impossible.

Then you'll understand the red herring that this question represents.

Actually when you include explosives into the equation, there is a rather simple and rational explanation for how that might happen but noone wants to hear that so instead let's just pretend it made sense that gravity adjusted itself. Heck, if you cannot figure out what did it, it must just make perfect sense that physics changed the rules for a moment that day right?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Actually when you include explosives into the equation, there is a rather simple and rational explanation for how that might happen but noone wants to hear that

I want to hear it.

Explain how it would happen using explosives.

More evidence that is in line with Occam's Razor... only a couple month's have rolled by, and we still have the simplest explanations, thus most likely to be true; two of the most recent being...

NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength. ~ George Orwell

Just like Orwell in his day, Ron Paul has a grasp of our modern day doublespeak, like no other:



I would like to extend a big thank you to David9176 for turning me on to this vid.