SH. I  wasnt aware that comments had been disabled on the youtube link.

In answer to your question ...Regarding 911 you seldom get a free honest and open debate if you promote something which sits rather closer to the truth than what they want you to be. That is what i have found during my research.

Flaws can become apparent as new evidence and further disclosures take place. Obviously when that occurs you have to look at what you previously believed and re evaluate accordingly.

The last 5 minutes of his report is hypothesis as he doesnt have the evidence to substantiate it ( which he states )

I would strongly recommend you watch follow the money. I hope it may help you understand better what we are dealing with here.

Bit
worried that Mex has disappeared after Dyno answered that question he kept on and on about, who knows how these sick bastards think and works?!

Here's a question for the physics experts.

The government's take on why the twin towers fell is because of crash damage and fire damage to six or so storeys, eventually leading to a total progressive collapse. From a purely theoretical standpoint as a scientific puzzle on paper: imagine an identical 110 storey tower and then completely remove floors 85 to 91 so that 19 floors are left hovering above the rest of the building. What would then happen if that 19 storey block was allowed to drop down onto the lower part of tower? Does the physics dictate that we should witness an explosive collapse like 911?

That sounds like bollocks to me but that is what the 911 commission claims.

Torquemada,

Your last point is something I've always found quite hard to believe.  How or why did the building collapse and so quickly considering that essentially the lower part of the buildings were undamaged and had obviously always been supporting the structure above. 

Another thing I've found interesting in 911 footage is the state of the lobby in either one or both of the lobbies before the collapses.  It does look like something has happened at ground level that cant be explained by debris falling down lift shafts or falling from the outside.

I know Leviathan. The official story is that the fire and crash area was weakened so much that the smaller portion of the building above the damaged fell down and crushed the rest of the tower all the way to the ground. Well that explanation just doesn't fit with what the collapses looked like to me. The buildings literally exploded all the way to the floor. And that's not even considering WTC 7. VERY VERY suspicious IMO.

Ask Bill GATES that Mex,he yer man, oh and surveillance ,data and control,

For someone who cant answer "simple 9/11 questions" I have You look the LOON with your monumental f uckary stick with official b0llocks,actually we all have but keep at it wont you

Torquemada
Torquemada 15 Oct 18 14:55 Joined: 27 Apr 12 | Topic/replies: 2,899 | Blogger: Torquemada's blog
Here's a question for the physics experts.

The government's take on why the twin towers fell is because of crash damage and fire damage to six or so storeys, eventually leading to a total progressive collapse. From a purely theoretical standpoint as a scientific puzzle on paper: imagine an identical 110 storey tower and then completely remove floors 85 to 91 so that 19 floors are left hovering above the rest of the building. What would then happen if that 19 storey block was allowed to drop down onto the lower part of tower? Does the physics dictate that we should witness an explosive collapse like 911?

That sounds like bollocks to me but that is what the 911 commission claims.

@ Torquemada. The official narrative for this tragic event is ridiculous. How they have got away with it defies sane belief. Something very strange happened to the towers that day and it is doubtful that it will be uncovered during our lifetime. One thing i am convinced about is that somewhere someone has access to advanced technology which has been harnessed to create weapons. There is nothing known to man which could have caused the towers to turn to clouds of dust in the way that they did.

The whole tragic episode is littered with anomalies which we all seem to go round and round in circles trying to unravel. You have to accept that this was always part of the plan.

Very few researchers  / investigators / scientists / truthers / conspiracy theorists can agree on the details and you have to accept that whoever was behind it all banked on this being the eventuality.

If you ask anyone anywhere to fully explain exactly what happened my best assumption is you wont find anyone who is  "hand on heart " capable of doing so.

Thanks for that Dyno-layer. I'd love to hear from the science guys their opinion on my theoretical physics question.

If the question isn't a theoretical physics question I don't know what is!

I have provided all the info I know about. I don't know what weights or forces or fomulas are involved. That's why I asked for answers from the science guys. Are you a science guy?

I asked about 6 floors being removed because that's what was reported as being destroyed or severely damaged by the crash and fire. So weakened that the upper floors fell down through the damaged storeys before going on to crush the rest of the building all way down to the ground. I went one further by asking what the effect would be if there was nothing present in that gap at all.

I don't believe the block of upper floors would crush everything below it, but would be interested to hear from others with a scientific background.

Torq

I believe you when you say you don't know what a theoretical physics question is.

It isn't anything to be ashamed about , so no worries.

Torq ,

Just because you posted all the info you know about, does not mean you have posted all the info needed to make a calculation.



I would be surprised if buildings are so over engineered as to withstand these millions of KG falling at speed onto the "undamaged " part of the building.

Surely it shouldn't be too difficult for anybody of a scientific background to work out the relevant weights, forces and formulae etc? Can't you do that Mexico?

Dyno

The 4 planes which crashed on 9-11 were not made out of butter.


I can't really understand why anybody would read a point saying tgat floors did not disappear & the mass of these floors actually increased would come to the conclusion that the planes were made of butter.

Seems rather flawed logic to me.

Plenty of joy with Torqs request

I pointed out it was not theoretical physics & explained had not given enough info for a calculation.


Dyno - There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest that planes crashed

Eyewitnesses, confessions, wreckage, human remains/DNA, radar, photo/ video, phone calls, black boxes, missing planes, missing people

I have pointed out to you on several occasions that unless the alleged commercial airplanes had been reconstructed from butter prior to the alleged take offs on  9-11 then the whole official narrative is bunkum .. I am not going to go over that old ground again.

Dyno

The planes were not made of butter

There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest that 4 planes crashed.

There is just about zero evidence to suggest that commercial jets didn't crash into WTC


I don't consider myself a science expert, been a long time since studied the subject. I don't think that question is that relevant as don't need to be close to an expert to realise it is not a theoretical physics question & lacking info. As mentioned an architect/structure engineers etc. may have some experience in the matter.
Are buildings over engineersed to such an extent that millions of kg can fall at X ms-1 without destroying the lower part of the building?

Just remembered this investigation which I somehow forgot to mention in earlier posts..

Primarily this is for Team Mexico however I somehow doubt they will take the time to consider the content.

This video is dedicated to everyone who still believes that real planes crashed on 9/11.

I ask everyone to forget everything you have learned or have been told about 9/11. Start here with a fresh clean slate and let your mind go blank. For the information in this video will prove conclusively that NO REAL PLANES were used on 9/11.

This subject has been talked about since at least 2005/6 ( and more likely since 2001 )  and despite years of ridicule it is this information that stands out as the truth.

Years of psychological mainstream media propaganda has poisoned peoples minds into accepting an official story so riddled with errors and impossibilities that it makes a mockery of all that we know about science, engineering and aviation today.

Keep an open mind and just listen to the real evidence and see for yourself that no real planes could've caused the damage we saw at all four crash sites on 9/11.

Impossible Physics, Speeds, G-Forces, Manoeuvres and Impact Dynamics.

Lack of debris, lack of any physical evidence, no serial numbers, no DNA identification or any bodies, false flight data recorder and no plane recovery identity done by the FAA.

The documentation that shows Flight's 11 & 77 did not take off on 9/11 and that ACARS data shows Flights 93 & 175 were still airborne after their alleged crash times. No passenger manifests, boarding cards, ground crew testimony no confirmed CCTV footage of any of the hijackers arriving at the airports or boarding the planes. And the fact that several hijackers were still alive after 9/11.

The evidence that goes for the no planes on 9/11 is quite extensive while evidence that goes the other way is almost non existent. It is this evidence that has been ignored and ridiculed by lying and corrupt media, politicians and military towards citizens who have demanded answers.

PLEASE DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS VIDEO AND SHARE WITH EVERYONE.


https://vimeo.com/115801417

Here is also a link for the youtube version youtube.com/watch?v=9teNgS3oC4E part 1

youtube.com/watch?v=-Yq6bbTBNuQ part 2

Who'd have thought cold fusion and a directed energy weapon could do such things amazing work by Dr Judy Wood.
Please excuse my lateness of comment on this subject been having an educational time in recent months catching up on such issues.