Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Buildings Topple Over

Normally, when buildings collapse, they topple over:

Why didn't this happen to the World Trade Centers on 9/11?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that if 911 had been properly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, we wouldn't be having discussions about all of our kids being sent overseas to die FOR LIES.

911 was an INSIDE JOB. Cut and Dried. Obvious as sin. Controlled demolitions from start to finish.

Nice website. Just don't go off on the 'holograms' nonsense.

3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, see Architects and Engineers for 911 truth video lecture by Richard Gage, AIA at the University of Manitoba. A very good structural analyses that explains how the three towers were demolished, as in demolition. Follow the money, mossad agents (five dancing Israelis, Urban Moving Company, front for mossad operation across the river in N.J. Silverstein, whom purchased the towers prior to 911 and was quoted after the collapse as saying we had to 'pull it' which means demolition. So many anomalies leading to the culprits. Mossad,
Dick Cheney, C.I.A., F.B.I. N.S.A.
and the Neocons; Wolfowitz, Perle,
Rumsfield and many others were involved in the planning and execution of the event.

3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The photos posted are of buildings that "fell over" because of liquifaction of the soil during an earthquake. You can't compare WT7 to these buildings as there was no fire. I do believe that WT7 wan an inside job but don't use these pictures for comparison.

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Mike, where did the fire come from? A plane, a bomb, jet fuel, Superman? Who started the fire? Let me guess - spontaneous combustion.

Yeah, right.

4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plenty of buildings with serious fires in them far hotter than those in WTC7 did not collapse into their own footprints.

9-11 was an inside job.

5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These photos make a good point. When some member or members of a structure fails ALL members do not fail.

Needless to say they are also not turned to dust.

5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are missing my point. I agree that WT7 was pulled. No fire has ever caused the collapse of a steel frame building. But, the buildings in these pictues fell over because the soil on which they stand turned to mud during an earthquake. It's called liquifaction. (I live in San Francissco, we know these things)They did not fall over due to structural failure, they fell over due to soil failure.


5:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Missing the point Mikie--- Popular Mechanics states--wtc7 lower floors weakened by fire and therefore all the upper floors weight crushed all the steel beams,concrette. Maybe someone forgot to mix cement with the sand and stone and rivat and weld the beams.
By the way--here is a new one---we are told that aitliners slamed into WTC1& 2 and Pantygone at 550 mph. Try calling Boeing and ask them if airliners can travel at this speed under 700 ft--they can't ! They will not talk about {:-(

6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When people ask me if I've forgotten 9/11, I tell them No, I remember it like it was yesterday. I remember watching the buildings collapse and thinking to myself that they collapsed with the precision and speed of a controlled demolition. I remember reading about the Bush administration, two months before 9/11, rescinding a 40 year law that allowed pilots to fly armed. I remember wondering why fighter jets were never scrambled to intercept the planes, and why the Secret Service never scrambled Bush out of the school that morning. Anyone who believes 19 Islamists took over four airliners and crashed them into buildings causing these building to collapse from fire needs to adjust his tinfoil hat. Cui bono? Who benefits?

6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So many are tranfixed, mesmerized and flabbergasted by so many small parts of what has happened over the last six or seven years, it is a wonder... Just a wonder, folks.

In the aftermath of 9-11 there is so much else that has been so quickly forgotten or missed all together, it had to be the set-up for the sting...

Does anyone even remember the big swindling Wall Street heist and the corporate corruption of the Dot.Com implosion? This too was an inside job on all of us. Who do you think shorted all those companies and walked away with the billions when they filed their pre-bankrupty statements with the SEC?

Has anyone even noticed that the banks own almost 100% of the real estate in this country now? That the stupendous prices you see advertised for real estate that have been leveled against all of us resulted from easy credit that came from the banks? And that these jacked-up real estate prices really only reflect to a small fraction of what every American is actually paying for these housing units? This too was an inside job on all of us.

Has anyone noticed the freedom to rape and pillage Monsanto, Perdue Pharma (Oxycontin) and other crimes against humanity big-pharma, bio-engineering and genetic engineering companies have unleashed upon the world? This too was an inside job on all of us.

Has anyone noticed how inflation is now almost solely based upon what business has to pay the American worker? And did anyone notice the 20 million illegal immigrants that were encouraged to flood across the border to keep "inflation" low? This too was an inside job on all of us.

There are some people out there tonight who read this article and, they're saying to themselves, "I'm glad these ballsy bastards who did all these nasty things are on our side."

That's the nature of it all, this human race toward oblivion led by the world's last superfraud.

The dollar will be the last currency left standing. All the dollar-hype is baloney. This too was an inside job on all of us, and they're not through showing you a good time with it yet.

They are going to find a way to bomb the crap out of and, invade Iran too. You just know it.

You can bet on it on Wall Street.

You can bet on it because of the way these guys play the game.

It's rough and tumble. And it's all about keeping your opponent stunned, rocked backward on his heels and unsteady on his feet.

So, is that the way you feel yet?

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher

7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's the jews stupid


9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will we all be debating as we are now after the next flase flag that is inevietably just around the corner? After last weeks secret push of the hate speech bill and the continued edicts from the boy King and his puppeteers.

Somehow it seems likely that our current avenue of debate will be severely curtailed, if not cutoff entirely. So while we can still use the venue to question the crimes of the New World Order and their Zionist masters one last question have I for you. Where is the missing WMD from the Minot to Barksdale B-52 going to be used?

9:21 PM  
Blogger JimGawthrop said...

The assertion that all these buildings fell over due to soil liquifaction is an assumption, not empirical. Some but not all buildings which topple, topple because of earthquakes plus soil liquifaction. Buildings which collapse topple over because they are following the course of least resistance, like water seeking its own level. This is the general rule. There are no examples of steel framed buildings collapsing straight down at free fall speed other than the twin towers and building seven, except of course controlled demolitions. As Griffin said, there are no collapses of buildings which exhibit all the characteristics of controlled demolitions which are not controlled demolitions.

11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Buildings topple over they don't collapse into their own footprints UNLESS strategically placed explosives have been added to their supporting members and detonated at EXACTLY the right time in EXACTLY the right order.

911 was a controlled demolition. The planes may have added some additional WOW! But jet fuel burns at 1300 degrees. It takes 3000 degrees to melt steel and MOLTEN METAL was found in the basements a MONTH after the event in 1, 2 and 7.

What can keep metal MOLTEN for WEEKS? Jet fuel?

Yeah right. And I'm the King of Kashmir.

5:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure it was an inside job. Next you'll tell me they lied about weapons of mass destruction to start a quagmire in Iraq. Wait a minute.....
If we only look at this event as the cornerstone of the worst, most criminal presidential administration in US history, it all becomes clearer. The only thing that makes me hesitate to believe W and Darth Vader had anything to do with is is that the operation was successful. But then again, they are good at death, destruction and suffering.

9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why didn't Bush just demolish the whole NY city? He could have rid the world of the liberal waste that live there and the country would be better off as a whole. LOL!

Hail to the Chief!!!

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am appalled that people who know these men haved murdered 500,000 in iraq believe they would not do it to them, that they are viewed any differently in the eyes of madmen who see only THEIR bottom line.

10:15 AM  
Blogger JimGawthrop said...

Curriculum Vitae:

1. Also called vita, vitae. a brief biographical résumé of one's career and training, as prepared by a person applying for a job.
2. (italics) Latin. the course of one's life or career.

Here is what Steven Earl Jones did before he wrote a paper suggesting the World Trade center buildings were brought down with explosive cutter charges:


His research on 9/11 can be found here:


3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bottom line is if buildings fell like the WTC towers there would be no need for demolition crews. Buildings, especially ones that size, do not conveniently collapse into a neat hole at their base.

The fact is it takes a heap of planning to get buildings to fall like that. We all know demolition took them out, just some are too afraid to admit the obvious.

3:21 AM  
Blogger JimGawthrop said...

True, the twin towers came down in eight and ten seconds, straight down and symmetrically, which looks remarkably like a controlled demolition. However, these were explosive demolitions, not implosions. The concrete was pulverized and sent upward and outward. It is almost as if the buildings became towers of very fine dust, while pyroclastic flows chased people down the streets and chased boats across the Hudson River, as you see in Richard Siegel's film. Siegel produced web TV for a living, and had his equipment set up and rolling on the New Jersey side of the Hudson. He also had his microphones on, and you can plainly hear several loud low frequency booms before the collapse, which could only be explained as earthquakes, thunder,
or explosive demolition charges. Squibs are clearly visible as the towers collapse. Defenders of the official theory argue that these squibs are puffs of air caused by collapsing floors compressing air in the elevatort shafts. However, steel beams weighing hundreds of tons were ejected hundreds of yards and were impaled into surrounding buildings. Puffs of air from the elevator would not have had the energy to do this. Tiny fragments of human bone were discover on the roof of the Deutsche Bank Building. There is no scenario where collapsing floors could have done this. So, a good deal of material did not land in the footprints of the towers, which were explosive demolitions, unlike Building Seven and other conventional controlled demolitions, which are implosions. The great height of the towers required a different and unconventional type of controlled demolition.

Certainly if they were not rigged with bombs and cutter charges, and floors collapsed, the buildings would have toppled over and closed down Wall Street for an extended period of time. The demolitions were carried out in such a way as to minimize disruption to the stock market. Ground Zero workers were told the toxic dust was safe by Christine Todd Whitman's EPA, in order to minmize disruption of the New York Exchange. Wars are generally primarily about money.

11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some additional comments: The WTC buildings were of significantly different construction than almost all other steel-framed buildings, with a very solid central but possibly unreinforced core or steel columns, connected to an exterior wall structure of perimeter columns tied together with steel plates. If the girders connecting the core to the perimeter columns failed, as the official story has it, then what would happen? I think the 4" concrete slab would put pressure on the failed girder or section and possibly cause further collapse (possibly not), causing an internal structural failure which could accelerate, and than possibly cause buckling of the external columns, but not necessarily the central core. What happened at the North Tower, though, was an extremely rapid collapse that was symmetrical, and initiated in a fraction of a second, as if set off by a very even horizontal weakening of key columns from some quick explosion from within. The antenna above the North Tower started collapsing first, possibly because its supports were connected to the roof, which would have been affected by 'pancaking' before the facade of the building made of external columns. But why would the collapse initiate almost instantaneously and symmetrically rather than gradually as would seem to be expected by an internal failure of individual members, followed by a more regional failure (if it did) and then possibly global failure. However, the structure of the World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2 was such that the internal floors could have been collapsing inside the building out of sight from external view and have gathered momemtum before affecting the outer facade, which may have failed because of the even weight of the mass above it, but it happened so fast, it just does not make sense or seem plausible from the official fire/steel heating/structural weakening/totally gravity-based collapse theory. Closer examination reveals many 'squibs' (explosive expulsions of material) at various times and places during both collapses that are very difficult to explain via this theoretical explanation. Please don't ridicule others who are honestly trying to figure out what happened. It's still unsolved and a very interesting problem. Don't forget, though, to watch the Final Version of 'Loose Change' which comes out about Nov. 11th. Also, get a hold of 'Oil, Smoke, and Mirrors' about Peak Oil, The Bush Admin. and 9/11. Keep on the trail, folks, we'll get there yet!

1:24 AM  
Blogger JimGawthrop said...

The 360 foot tall antenna atop the North Tower rested directly on the core columns, not the roof. In the initial frames of the collapse of the North Tower, we see the antenna collapsing first, before any floors have collapsed. How could this be? It could be if the core columns failed first, before any floors collapsed. In much the same way, there was a penthouse atop World Trade Center Seven, and we see the penthouse collapse before we see any collpase of the floors below. The penthouse rested directly on the core columns, so once again we must infer that that the failure of the core columns preceded the collapse of floors. In the collapse of the South Tower, we see another anomaly. As the collapse begins, we see the section above the impact zone begin to topple over. Instead of toppling over into the street as required by the laws of physics (conservation of angular momentum), the section is pulverized into dust in midair, which certainly indicates explosive demolition as it cannot be explained any other way.

The NIST gave up on the "pancake" theory because if the floors broke loose from the trusses the core columns would remain standing.

Galieo's law of falling bodies predicts that a brick dropped from the top of Building Seven would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. In reality, it takes 6.5 or 6.6 seconds. The difference is due to air resistance. The business of pushing the air molecules out of the way actually slows the fall by about ten percent in air as opposed to a vacuum. Millions of tons of concrete and steel are more dense than air and would have slowed the collapse more than air. So if you imagine a crane holding the top section of Tower One or Tower Two above the street and let it drop through a vacuum, through air, through water, or through the lower sections of the building, the top section might hit the street in either case, but more slowly if dropped through the bottom two thirds of the building than through water, more slowly through water than through air, and more slowly through air than through a vacuum.

9:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home