Tower Pulverization -- need more proof that 911 was an inside job?

North Tower Pulverization

The top is already gone - what is pressing down on this massive building?

South Tower Pulverization

Stop calling this a "collapse"

Government scientists' "Foot of God" hypothesis

• What we are looking at, in essence, is increasing weight UN-loading, not loading . . . as the tops blew right off these buildings from the top down, there was quite literally NOTHING BUT ATMOSPHERE, above the entire length of remaining UNDAMAGED structure, containing a 47 steel column core . . . are we to believe that this nothingness--the "Foot of God"?--then exerted such massive downward force and momentum . . .

Firefighters reach 78th floor of South Tower

• "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

Jeff King explains the explosions of the Twin Towers

• Jeff King is a physician who studied engineering at MIT, and gives an excellent 15-minute video presentation

On the afternoon of 9/11/01 the "rubble pile" left from WTC1 is essentially non-existent.

WTC7 can be seen in the distance, revealing the photo was taken before 5:20 PM that day.

source / original size:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/1593.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/search2.jpg

PATH train (7th subbasement) was not crushed:



Photo/Caption source: New York Times - February 22, 2002:

"The basement: By February, well ahead of schedule, workers had dug out the rubble down to the very bottom of the site, the PATH train station on the lowest level of the World Trade Center complex, 7 floors down" NYTimes



Original High Resolution:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image311.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image312.jpg




Original High Resolution: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image300.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image321.gif



========================================

The material did not spread out over the surrounding area:


Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air. This dust looks deeper than one inch. Most of the curb looks filled in.



WTC 4: Clean vertical cut on the north wing.
Building material on other side of cut "missing"

Original High Resolution: http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image194.jpg



Yellow box below locates north wing of WTC 4. As can be seen, the wing was “cut” in line with the north face of WTC 2:

Original:
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image271.gif



========================================



WTC 5 / WTC 6: Round Cylindrical Holes. Building material "missing".
Mid-section of WTC 6 "missing"

Original High Resolution: http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image140.jpg

What Toasted These Cars?

See here for much more: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html



Cars along FDR drive were randomly toasted. These cars are at least 1/2 mile away from the WTC.
Note the waviness of the tire tracks. What happened?





Did one car run under the other during the event or were they stacked after the event?
The marks in the pavement suggest they were pushed to the side of the road.





What was this thing across the street? Was it a car? Was it a van?
What caused that line of burn marks on the hood of the car in the foreground on the right?
In the left foreground, the remains of a vehicle sit atop a white sedan.
Are we looking at the front or the back end?
It looks like the front end and if it is, its engine is missing.
We can see daylight through the wheel well.





Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?





The front half of car 2723 is toasted, but check out the new wax job on the back.
Notice the missing front door handle and the untouched back door handle.
Plastic red light on top survived.





========================================



Does This Look Like a "Collapse"?

"Flight 175"

Real planes don't do this.

The Ghost Plane

• "To the casual observer, it would appear that the facade of the Twin Towers did not offer any resistance at all . . . How was it possible that the relatively weak, light, and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns?" MIT impact engineering expert Tomas Wierzbicki

Jeff King on crash physics

• Aluminum is softer than steel (DEAD LINK.. aaargh! If you know a new download location for it, PLEASE, please, please leave a comment and paste the link!)
  

OK, so you believe this is crap. You are in great company. The people who CREATE REALITY, however, are not your friends!

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community," was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."^[1

Commentators who use this term generally oppose President Bush's policies and by using this term imply that Bush's policies are out of touch with reality. Others use the term to draw a contrast with the perceived arrogance of the Bush Administration's unilateral policies, in accordance with the aide's quote. Its popularity has prompted conservative commentators to use the term ironically, to accuse the left-leaning "reality-based community" of ignoring reality.

Evolution? Revolution! Darwin? Chomsky!