Physics Proves Controlled Demolition for Towers

[conspiracy analyst]

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/open-letter-to-popular-mechanics-pr ove-your-ludicrous-911-theories-in-public/1451/

Has anyone spoken to this gentleman as he is British?

[Mick Meaney]

[kbo234]

As a physics teacher who has been working as a supply in secondary schools for most of the last two years, this is precisely the argument I have putting before 6th form physics students.

In fact the NIST 'estimated' time of collapse of the South Tower is '9 seconds' not '10'....i.e. faster than a zero-resistance collapse.....although this does not really mean anything as the time is an approximation.



It is absolutely obvious that this cannot possibly happen without explosives. Free-fall collapse without explosive demolition charges violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum (impacts always slow the progress of a body that is moving...e.g. a falling floor).

Also, in a free-fall collapse (as in any other free-fall situation, ignoring air resistance) ALL the gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of motion (so states the Law of Conservation of Energy)......so the question arises....Where did the energy come from that pulverised hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete to fine powder, destroyed the 47 massive steel beams of the core of the building and much more besides and cut all the other steel beams into 30 foot lengths?.....there was no significant other energy available according to the official narrative........just a little heat from the burnt-out fuel, that's all.....

.....only explosives could have done this.

Q.E.D.

[conspiracy analyst]

[kbo234]

I don't know enough about the radiation belt around the earth (and its effects on human tissue) to be able to comment.