As many others we were exposed to the pathetic attempt by Popular Mechanics to debunk the "myths" of 911. We all now know that they failed miserably and a respectable institution has lost its good name for nothing. In their response to the theories about 911 they simply attack the most crazy ideas first in an attempt to induce a bias in the viewer. We´re not going to make a complete theory about 911, instead we are going to issue a question and a challenge for anyone to take up. If you can answer this question with something that even Newton could agree with we will happily take this section off our site.

Here is a chart used to calculate the approximate speed of a falling object in vacuum, straight down under ideal conditions. Any grade school science teacher will recognize this and in the realm of newtonian physics it is not disputable:

*Indicates the approximate height of the World Trade Center twin towers.

Now the speed of the fall does not depend on the size or the weight of the object, check it out, yet somehow a lot of people have the nerve to call the mouse a liar!

We can see from the chart a free falling object reaches 350 meters in approximately 8 seconds, this means that if we had dropped an apple (or the top 20 floors of your average WTC) from an altitude of 350 meters it would hit the ground in 8 seconds. On september the 11th 2001 we saw two planes hit one WTC tower each, the impact zone burned for roughly an hour and then the towers fell to the ground. Now I don´t claim to know much about concrete, architecture or structural steel, but I pride myself with being able to understand grade school maths and physics. The two towers fell to the ground at 9 and 11 seconds respectively. This can be verified by watching the countless copies of the TV segments showing the fall that are available on the web. We can also see from this footage that the buildings collapse in a pancake manner, the falling floors hitting the floors below. The building never topples over and falls to the side, it falls straight down.

So it´s safe to say that we are not talking about a free fall under ideal conditions, the top floors aren´t even falling through air (air does provide some resistance to a falling object and slows it down a bit, once again it is a fact and not disputable). I would like to bring up another medium that things can fall in, namely liquid. I do this because I want to make a clear distinction between free fall that occurs in either of the three aggregate states, gas, liquid and solid. If you drop something in liquid it soon reaches a finite speed, gravity itself can not propel it any faster. The same thing actually occur s in gas as well, but it takes a lot longer. In solid mediums however the speed is much more greatly reduced, a simple test is to drop a stone on a concrete floor, how fast does the floor alter the speed of the falling stone? Pretty fast, some would say instantly. Of course there is a a difference when a large mass is falling through a porous substance. When we are talking about masses the of the magnitude of 30 floors of a building even concrete becomes rather sensetive, it breaks. But can it break at the same speed as free fall through air or vacuum? And more importantly, why doesn´t the falling part of the tower break as it collides with the lower parts. If two identical cars collide they are both demolished, yet in this case no one has a problem with one of the cars passing through not just one identical car but half a freeway of cars. The falling part of the tower is identical to the one it hits except in one important respect, it is much much smaller. How can an object of a certain substance unharmed fall straight through a much larger object of the same substance*? Or rather, this brings me to my question, how can the fall of the WTC towers violate the laws of physics? I want to hear from you on this, how do you explain it. It seems this question has become rather important, even urgent. Around 80% of the american population question the official story. Isn´t it about time that some wise scholars started to address this issue? I haven´t been able to find a single plausible explanation for this phenomenon, neither have NIST, in fact they state that they don´t support the 911 commission pancake explanation.

The NIST report does however state that the weight of the falling floors were so great that they floors below resisting the fall failed to slow down the collapse, but they fail to mention how the falling floors could accelerate as if falling in vacuum, if the floors below indeed could fail to slow down the fall we can once again analyze it with the table above. The falling floors had a free fall period (optimistically calculated) of approximately 20 or 30 meters (corresponding to between 6 and 12 floors) which means they would have reached a velocity of max 19,64 m/s. This mean the collapse would have taken between 15 and 18 seconds, yet somehow the actual fall takes little more than half that time. If violating the laws of physics is this easy we should start working on a time machine, travel back to 2001 and prevent the attacks! Unless of course... someone wanted them to happen...

Email your thoughts on this to info@puissance.info

*A possible explanation is that the two objects only seem to be made up of indentical substance but in fact are not. In the case of solid matter this can be accomplished by perforating the larger substance with small holes making it porous and thus able to collapse as the falling object travels through it virtually unharmed. In the case of the Twin Towers this would require some sort of perforating mechanism such as explosives planted in the building, but we all know that can´t be true, after all... that´s what they say on TV. If you doubt TV you are with the terrorists, think about it.