OK then. Just the facts. 9-11 [View all]

[cbrer]

Leave alone the whodunits, and the schemes, and the conspiracies. I'd like this thread to deal with one issue. Does enough SCIENTIFIC evidence exist to justify reopening the 9-11 investigation? This time by a fully independent panel with no restrictions. TS/FOUO information protected from dissemination, but used to analyze the event.

Remember, just forensic/scientific type stuff. Leave the names, governments, terrorists, and UFOs out of it.

Also remember Physics does not lie. If an event happens (with a visual, audible, and physical record), it MUST according to natural law, have occurred along known behaviors. For instance, if an object is dropped off of a building, at a certain gravity, it will accelerate and travel at a known rate until acted upon by an outside force. If a building falls at the same rate, it's in free fall. JUST the facts.
All credit to Isaac Newton!

1. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt structural steel. Especially when encased by fireproofing. Proven by NIST doing gov. tests.
2. Timing does show some free fall throughout collapse of towers. And in fact the upper block of tower one accelerated during collapse.
3.Tower one's upper block shows effect of having fallen due to lack of support underneath it. Not the tower falling because of upper block collapse onto the lower block. Physics suggest it could have supported the upper collapse, and arrested the further collapse of the tower.
4. No steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to an airplane strike. One day we have three. Oops two. WTC 7 never hit.
5. Floor pancaking postulation slows collapse much more than evidenced.
6. FP theory doesn't explain core structure failure. As admitted by NIST (gov. lab). NIST investigation proves FP theory impossible.
7. WTC 7 so close to free fall that physics suggest support severing.


Lots more at http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf As well as many other sources. I only consider information from Engineers or Physicists. I do NOT have the math background to decipher the equations used.

If only 1/2 is true...