Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

Apparently, originally it was believed the BBC had made an innocent error or three of which when these were pointed out they would be corrected. However, as it turns out, during the pre action protocol stage it became apparent that the BBC was fundamentally & completely rotten to the core.

It was then decided that the "Total Public Deception" was in fact part of a deliberate BBC propaganda and not as first understood to be just a few bad apples.

As a result of limited funding the action was put on hold, and the BBC was told if it continued to put out further "Total Public Deception" then its illegal activities would be brought to the attention of the law courts.

I am reliably informed, should the BBC not operate within its charter and continue to vilify qualified scientist who choose to investigate the 911 Inside Job False Flag operation, then again, the BBC will be taken to task to put its house in order.

Clearly the official story can not be right – hence another investigation which does not defy all the known laws of Physics is needed ASAP.

1) I saw a photograph that showed a support column with a 45 deg cut. The only way I know to do that is with primacord. The angle cut causes the building to slide sideways slightly so it will come straight down.

2) The flames from kerosene (jet fuel) are not hot enough to weaken the columns. Consider the controlled flame under a kitchen stove. It is controlled and much hotter than kerosene or gasoline, and it doesn't harm the grate which is not even steel, it's iron.

3) An strangly similar incident occurred during WWII when

a bomber crashed into the Empire State Building at the 75th floor. even though gasoline burns much hotter than kerosene, there was no structural damage. check the link below.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecr…

4) I find it interesting that a clip available on you tube shows a BBC announcer detailed the collapse of building 7 several minutes before it came down, you could even see building 7 in the background WTF

If you must believe in nonsense, try to make it at least vaguelly possible.

Notice how not one single person has ever claimed this particular physics proof is wrong – that is because it is so simple to prove that it is correct.

Its no good doing hand waving John. Hand waving is no good in a court of law.

1) Molten metal was seen coming out of one of the buildings and (no matter what people argue that metal was) it was at as high or at a higher temperature than the flames of the fire. This is impossible and the only way this can happen is through another source of heat than the fires at a very high temperature.

2) Free-fall. Think of dropping something through the air and ask ourselves would it fall through a building at the same rate? Obviously the answer is no. A building cannot fall through itself at anywhere near free-fall, not unless the building was deliberately brought down.

Common sense and as simple as that.

My point is this: Joe public rarely understands the language of maths and to get the point across we need to speak in Joe’s language.

John