Question – Do you deny the laws of physics?

By Dark Politricks

This article and the videos contained within should be compulsory viewing for anyone who believes that any talk of controlled demolitions in relation to the World Trade Center is the crazy talk of tin foil hat wearing loons. Its a collection of clips, news stories, talks and links that cover the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11th. The aim of the article is not to accuse anyone behind the attacks but to show that logic and science backs the view that the buildings did not fall from the hijacked planes alone.

The first video is a 10 minute condensed overview of a much longer talk held by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth that detail the many flaws in the official story as well as the evidence that points towards controlled demolition in World Trade Center 7.

This is the building which many in the 9/11 truth movement treat as the smoking gun that proves complicity in the attacks and by the end of the article you will see why. Remember this is the 47 storey skyscraper that was not hit by any plane and was the third steel beamed tall building to collapse that day, supposedly from fire alone.

Leave aside co-incidences that all 3 buildings were heavily insured and owned by the same person who “admitted” that building seven was pulled.

Also leave aside the damage to the American psyche that was obtained through the collapse of the huge potent symbols that the WTC represented to the world and leave aside all talk of NORAD stand downs, US training for the terrorists and ignored warnings as well as a desire to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq that required a pretext for doing so. Lets just look at the buildings:

Now I am not an engineer or architect but I would take their educated opinion on matters relating to how buildings are built and how they are destroyed over most other groups of people. These are all well educated people at the height of their chosen profession who have chosen to make a public stand against the official story. Given a choice between following the evidence and keeping quiet to avoid being labelled a conspiracy nut or “truther” they have bravely chosen the former and gone on the road to convince others.

Having looked at the flaws in the NIST report into the collapse of WTC-7 myself I know that the official explanation by NIST does seem to be a blatant attempt to coverup some form of collusion in the collapse of the buildings.

Questions of who and how doesn’t matter right now as it only allows for far fetched theories to propogate and detract new people from investigating the main issues revolving around the evidence that proves demolition. Remember just because there is evidence of controlled demolition it does not logically equate to George Bush being in on it or a huge conspiracy involving lots of people sworn to secrecy. To see why please read the following article of mine on the type of conspiracy involved.

The NIST report into WTC-7 came out not long back and although proponents of the offical story tried to claim it was the final nail in the coffin regarding the smoking gun it did not take long for people to see the various lies, omissions and bad science that the report was based on.

Leaving aside all the lies about their being no witnesses to the explosions at any of the towers when there were many:

Rich Banaciski — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
… and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Greg Brady — E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard — I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Ed Cachia — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Campagna — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.

Kevin Darnowski — Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

Dominick Derubbio — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion …

Karin Deshore — Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.

Brian Dixon — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
… the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

and leaving aside the lie that there were no witnesses or evidence of molten steel:

and leaving aside the peer reviewed scientific study by 25 phsycists that provides evidence that explosives, namely Thermite, was used in the collapse of the World Trade Center:

“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

and leaving aside the dodgy computer model used by NIST to explain the collapse of WTC-7 in which they loaded the input parameters to create a model that didn’t fit the events on the day.

A model for which they still haven’t released the data so that it can be analysed independently.

A model in which the different parts of the building were heated differently causing unnatural thermal expansion and a model in which parts of the building that were in early NIST reports disappeared from the final report.

In all it was a model in which all computer programmers can attest proves that if you put shit data in you get shit data back out. As the non peer reviewed report didn’t even consider controlled demolition or the use of accelerants then it does seem to be an attempt to push a preconceived outcome on the public.

Leaving aside all those inconsistencies and problems I have still not been told by anyone who believes in the official story how a building as large as WTC-7 can collapse at almost free fall speed without having some form of demolition to remove the path of least resistance.

Even the NIST admit that the building falls at free fall speed for a couple of seconds! Saying in their final report that they had found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a “freefall drop for approximately 8 stories.”

This obviously defies all logic unless something had caused the resistance to magically disappear. However without controlled demolitions as the cause of this free fall path it leaves proponents of the official story in a very sticky place having to defend an event that defies all the known laws of physics .

As this famous YouTube video created by a high school physics teacher shows, the building fell at a speed indistinguishable from gravity for over 2 seconds.

Unless the laws of physics are updated soon to give an alternative explanation we are left with the fact that only a controlled demolition can explain this event.

And if we accept that fact then we also have to accept that 3rd parties colluded with the terrorists on that day to ensure these buildings fell.

Obviously this leaves believers in the official conspiracy with an awkward decision.

Either to accept the laws of physics or to deny them because they cannot face the alternative.

Which choice do you make?

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Question – Do you deny the laws of physics?”

  1. noreligion Says:

    This is why science thinks 9/11 truthers are idiots that don’t deserve any reply. You said

    Unless the laws of physics are updated soon to give an alternative explanation we are left with the fact that only a controlled demolition can explain this event.

    If the laws of physics were broken, the building would not have fallen as we saw it fall. Nor would there be an internet for you to write about it on. Nor would there be videos of it. Nor would there have been TV to watch it happen. Get a damn life.

  2. darkpolitics Says:

    I have a life thank you very much but you obviously spend yours trolling boards slagging off posts you don’t like without providing any evidence to back up your position. If you don’t like the article fine but at least try to explain the 2 seconds of free fall speed through the path of least resistance which the bottom video proves occurred, which NIST reluctantly admits happened and is an uncomfortable fact which has meant thousands of architects and engineers have gone on record to support that only a controlled demolition could explain this event.

    I don’t deny the Internet, I don’t deny the TV but you obviously deny the law of physics which means this event could not have happened in the way the official story claims.

    Unless you at least attempt to explain that your berating of the article just looks like another “I don’t want to look at any evidence that is contrary to what I want to believe” comments that people tend to make.

  3. Tweets that mention Question – Do you deny the laws of physics? « Dark Politics -- Topsy.com Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dark Politricks RT, DarkPolitricks. DarkPolitricks said: 4 once we r the right side of the "denier" label. Do you deny the laws of physics? http://bit.ly/aKYNFA #science #physics #911 #wtc7 #video […]

  4. darkpolitics Says:

    NoReligion > I am still waiting for your explanation of the free fall descent of 2+ seconds through the path of least resistance that keeps within the laws of physics. Do you have an explanation?

    Believe it or not if it wasn’t for WTC7 I might have believed the official story even though it was a shocking coincidence that 2 buildings fell so quickly on the same day. However it’s the descent of WTC7 that is the problem for me and I am offering you the chance to convert me. All you have to do is show me details that explain this 2 seconds. I do hope you reply.

  5. noreligion Says:

    Tell me how preferably with an equation that shows exactly how a 2 second fall at freefall speed in the atmosphere breaks the laws of physics. I want to hear nothing about path of least resistance since it isn’t a law of physics. I want to hear nothing about NIST, Silverstein, Judy Wood, Steven Jones, HAARP, controlled demolition or anything besides the physics saying why a 2 second freefall is breaking the law of physics.

  6. darkpolitics Says:

    I appreciate you coming back to reply.

    Are saying that if we dropped an apple of the top of the building to fall through nothing but thin air and compared it to the building falling in on itself with everything that entails both would hit the ground at the same time?

    Remember that nothing has helped the building collapse apart from one supposed structural weakness and because the building fell into its own footprint rather than lopsidedly over into thin air the building must fall through itself.

    I tried not mentioning anything you said but I doubt you will be happy.

    Anyway as I could never explain the problem as articulately as the physics teacher does could you please watch his video (the last one) and let me know what is wrong with his demonstration regarding the problem of the free fall.

    Also could you tell me what reason you believe (apart from wanting the truth to be known or madness) would cause a thousand or so expert engineers and architects. People who know the physics of building structures much more than I and possibly you could ever know, to risk their professional reputations and their careers by being labelled “conspiracy theorists” to publicly go out on tour around the country to detail why the official story of WTC7 is a crock of shit.

    If you also have the time I would love to hear you reasons for ruling out the possibility of a controlled demolition at WTC7.

    I can understand people who are not aware of history being reluctant to ever believe that our supposedly beloved and benign leaders would ever harm us for political or monetary gain but we know that this is the same wishful thinking that leads people to believe in God and fairies. You are obviously a sceptic as you don’t beleive in religion so why can you not apply your scepticism to the official story as well?

    It’s not as if our leaders have ever lied to us before (Watergate, Lewinsky, Iran Contra)

    or wars never started under false pretences (Iraq, Vietnam).

    And we know ours and other countries intelligence agencies are full of people willing to do whatever it takes (torture, assasination squads, lie under oath).

    We also know these same intelligence agencies have inflitrated, aided, controlled and even created terrorist groups (Mossad & Hamas, CIA & Jundallah, ISI & Taliban)

    Recent history is also full of incidents of Democratic States engaging in False Flag events against their own people ( CIA/Iran coup, FSB apartment bombings, Bali Bombings, GLADIO etc)

    and we know the administration in charge at the time of 911

    a) wanted an event of this magnitude to occur to use as a pretext for extending global power (PNAC authors were in power)

    and

    b) Cheney & Bush were perfectly happy to discuss staging a false flag event to start a war with both Iraq (shooting down the UN plane in a call to Tony Blair) and Iran (staging a shoot up in the Straight of Hormuz).

    We also now have a peer reviewed study that shows traces of explosive materials taken from the dust of WTC

    and we now have the released testimonies of first responders who were witnesses to what they believe were charges going off. Ttestimony that was blocked from the public for years – why could that have been?

    So I am wondering why you feel so so strongly that this could never have happened and refuse to even entertain the faintest possibility that WTC7 a building not hit by a plane, that fell looking exactly like a controlled demolition on the day 2 other buildings owned by the same person fell, wasn’t actually taken down by one?

    Thanks for your time. I do hope you reply again.

  7. noreligion Says:

    i asked you to explain how the laws of physics rule out a 2 second freefall. You didn’t do that but instead brought up just about every other topic. Believe what you want, I am through.

    • darkpolitics Says:

      Ok well sorry but you could have just read the top 2 paragraphs however I wanted you to know why I as a sceptic who was taught to always question everything, especially authority when that authority has proven not to be trusted, believe there is sufficient evidence for controlled demolition at WTC7.

      I still would love to hear you explaination of why the apple and building would hit the ground at the same time though. Do you have an explanation backed up with evidence or even just theory that can counter the bottom video?

    • darkpolitics Says:

      Could you please take a look at this article which looks specifically at the 2.4 second freefall of WTC-7 which NIST admit happens and which meant they
      had to remove all mention from their report was consistent with the basic principles of physics.

      If you could please debunk this article it would be much appreciated

      http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: