Stop for a moment and think real hard. If someone said to you that all things are possible, how would you respond? Is it realistic to think that all things are possible through ordinary occurrence? Barring acts of God, and verifiable miracles, are all things really possible? Recently I was chatting with a friend about what, supposedly (according to the federal government), happened on 9/11 to cause the WTC Twin Towers to totally collapse into their tracks at free-fall speed. This particular person, a well-educated nurse practitioner in his 60s, said that he was there in New York City when the jet aircraft crashed into the two 101 story super-structures, and that he believed that the Towers totally collapsed because of the hollow elevator shafts that ran the entire height of the two buildings. Then he made that dubious statement, that he believes that all things are possible. I followed that statement by asking him if he had read the “Report of the 9/11 Commission,” to which he said no. Then I asked him if he knew what it would take to cause such massive buildings to completely collapse at free-fall speed into their tracks. He responded by saying, “Why don’t you tell me?” So I tried to briefly explain what, in all probability, happened on 9/11. The following is a paraphrased explication of what I tried to explain to him.

When something is undeniably scientifically impossible, it means simply that, barring something totally unnatural, or miraculous, happening, it will definitely not occur under normal or ordinary conditions. For instance, it is totally impossible, under any normal condition, for a human being to defy gravity and walk up the side of a building or house without falling. If you saw such a thing happen on a television screen, or, perhaps, on a computer monitor showing an Internet website, would you automatically grasp the reality of what you were seeing, that it was something computer generated; or that there were unseen ropes or wires supporting the wall-climber, making such a walk up a building wall possible? If a well-known pundit or media commentator spoke, while you were watching, and said that the person was really walking up the side of a building, defying gravity, would you believe it? Since the early 1950s, when televisions began appearing in the homes of most Americans, the combination of sound and sight to the eyes and ears of the average American has been a powerful propaganda tool in the hands of the media and federal government/political advertising. A great majority of the American electorate began demonstrating, in their everyday lives, that they believed as fact what was reported and shown on television news. Nonetheless, as I’ve already established, you can’t believe, as fact, everything you see and hear on television and the Internet. So, before analyzing what happened in New York City on 9/11, let’s consider the design, engineering, and construction of the Twin Towers.

Both of the Twin Towers were built in identical fashion to withstand the crashing impact of a Boeing 707, and jet aircraft forty- percent larger than a Boeing 707 (a Boeing 767 is about 43 percent larger than a Boeing 707). The 101-story skyscrapers were designed and engineered with reinforced steel columns designed internally with intricate steel lattice frames throughout the entire height of the columns. The 36, 36 inch by 16 inch, internally reinforced columns (they were not hollow as stated in the 9/11 Commission Report) were cross-braced and connected to each other, at each floor, by large square girders and I-beams about two-feet deep. The tops of the core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of hat truss structures. The core columns were oriented, in the building design, so that their longer dimensions were perpendicular to the core structures’ longer, 133-foot-wide sides. Hence, the design of the Twin Towers was engineered to ensure that the super-structure buildings would not totally collapse under any condition. And it is a fact that the Twin Towers are the first skyscrapers, in the history of high-rise architecture, to, supposedly, have totally collapsed in a manner identical to controlled demolition as a result jet aircraft crashing into them. Interesting so far?

When the two jet aircraft crashed into the North and South Towers, the floors beginning 40 feet above and below the crash points were not damaged. The people on the four floors directly up, and down, from the crash points, were either killed or seriously injured as a result of the crashes and resulting kerosene jet fuel fires, but the other floors beginning approximately 40 feet above and below the crash points were not affected. If the Towers had not collapsed, those people, hundreds if not thousands of them, might have been rescued. So, let’s consider for a moment the effect of the crashes of the jet aircraft, and their fires, on the buildings’ reinforced steel structures. Kerosene jet fuel burns at a temperature much less than the 1,500 degrees necessary for steel to melt. Hence, the severely melted steel that was found in the buildings’ tangled debris after the collapse of the two Towers could not have been caused by the aircraft fires, but by a greatly explosive substance that produced great heat sufficient to melt steel. Now that I’ve established as fact that the crashes of the jet aircraft, and the ensuing kerosene fires, could not have caused the melting of the steel columns, beams, and girders, let’s not forget that the Towers’ structural integrity, beginning and continuing forty feet above, and below, the crash points, had not been affected by the crashes and the fires. Even when the jet aircraft crashed into, and burned, the affected floors, the structural integrity of the connected steel columns, beams, girders, and trusses on those floors had not been damaged. The consumable materials destroyed by the fires, such as glass, wood, plastic, carpeting, and plumbing, and other office materials, which were attached by nails and other fasteners to the steel frames of the buildings, had not affected the buildings overall structural integrity. So, if over 70 of the floors of each WTC Tower had not been damaged in any way, what actually caused the each of the Twin Towers to collapse at free-fall speed in a manner identical to controlled demolition?

From the very top-floor down to the ground-floor of each Tower, every solidly welded connection point of the Towers’ steel structures were intact after the crashes of the jet aircraft. Even the Towers’ hollow elevator shafts were inconsequential to the solid integrity of the 36 reinforced steel columns and the beams, girders, and trusses connecting them together. Theoretically, the elevator shafts could have been completely separated from their connection points, and they would not have affected the integrity of the Towers’ steel frames. Yet, there was no reason for the Towers’ vertical elevator shafts to have been damaged except for the sections of the shafts on the floors affected by the crashes of the aircraft.

Therefore, in order for a total free-fall collapse of each of the Towers into its tracks to have occurred, every welded connection point (the steel columns to the I-beams, the I-beams to the girders, and the I-beam/column connections to the trusses) of each Tower had to have been severed at exactly the same instant. For a free-fall collapse, there can be no significant structural resistance. If there is significant structural resistance, the collapse will occur at a slower rate than free-fall speed, which is 32 feet/sec. If the building is not properly prepared for controlled demolition, the collapse will occur unevenly, and will probably result in a partial collapse. Consequently, I can say with total assurance that it was not scientifically possible for those Towers to have collapsed into their tracks at free-fall speed any other way than by controlled demolition; and for controlled demolition to have occurred, the Twin Towers were, by necessity, prepared over an extended period of time for the demolition process.

So, based upon the foregoing facts, we can reasonably conclude that all things are certainly not possible; especially when scientific impossibility is encountered. It would be very convenient to totally attribute the 9/11 debacle to the sinister conspiratorial efforts of Islamic terrorists, and to conclude that those jet aircraft crashes into the Twin Towers caused the Towers to completely collapse at free-fall speed into their own tracks, in order to exclude any other explanation. But such a conclusion would be absolutely incorrect. Such a happening was not scientifically possible. It was totally impossible. The WTC Twin Towers were undoubtedly prepared for controlled demolition, during a certain time-frame before September 11, 2001, by the liberal applications of a powerful heat producing explosive, namely nano-thermite, on the connecting points of the Towers’ steel frames. On 9/11, the people responsible for having the Twin Towers prepared for controlled demolition culminated their nefarious conspiracy by making it illusively seem as though the jet aircraft, which crashed into the Towers, were responsible for the total collapse of the Towers. After the crashes, when the controlled demolition was consummated, loud secondary explosions were heard by firemen, police officers, and pedestrians coming from different locations in the two Towers. These explosions were reported to the 9/11 Commission by very credible first-responding witnesses, but there was no mention of them because they were edited out of the “9/11 Commission Report” in order for it to conform to the federal explanation for the collapse of the WTC Towers. There was also no mention in the “9/11 Commission Report” of the collapse of the 47-story WTC Building 7, which also collapsed at free-fall speed into its own tracks later on
September 11, 2001, at approximately 5:15 p.m. The collapse of Building 7, federally attributed to two controlled fires on two of of its forty-seven floors, was also a scientific impossibility without the express use of controlled demolition. The National institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal agency, provided this implausible explanation in a specious report that made events totally impossible look possible.

Are you, so far, catching my drift? Things that are scientifically impossible cannot possibly happen under ordinary conditions unless God wants them to happen, and makes them happen miraculously. There was another scientifically impossible aspect of 9/11, which was put forth by the “9/11 Commission Report” that makes reason blankly stare, and which would make any reputable crime scene investigator gasp in sheer disbelief. That Boeing 757 that, supposedly, crashed into the Pentagon had 10 tons of steel and titanium engine components. According to a first-responding CNN reporter, who was the first person to publicly describe what the Pentagon looked like after the purported crash, said on national television that the ground in front of the Pentagon wall was undisturbed and that there was no aircraft wreckage that could be seen. Strangely, that report was only aired once and was never seen again on television after 9/11 had occurred. It’s as though someone ordered the report expunged from the record. Fortunately, the report was recorded by citizens watching the events unfold on television, and was later placed on the Internet. A real Boeing 757, if it crashed into rocky mountainside at around 500 miles, 200 feet above ground-level, would produce a lot of wreckage, especially engine wreckage. What the “9/11 Commission Report” is asking a reasonable person to believe is that a kerosene jet fuel fire produced by the crashing Boeing 757 jet airliner, was hot enough to cause 10 tons of steel and titanium engine parts to vaporize while leaving the organic dental remains of the passengers intact for identification purposes. Any reputable crime scene investigator, skilled in the physical and biological sciences, will tell you that a fire hot enough to vaporize steel and aluminum will also vaporize any organic materials in its wake. There is no way that sophistry can be used to explain how those alleged dental records were discovered if such a fire vaporized a complete Boeing 757 jet aircraft. This is because it wasn’t a Boeing 757 jet aircraft that struck the Pentagon wall. It is, either, a missile or a much smaller aircraft made of materials that would almost completely vaporize in a controlled explosion.

The conclusion that the real facts about 9/11 lead a reasonable person to understand is that the federal government lied to the American people on television and in the published “9/11 Commission Report.” Why would they lie? They would lie to produce a collective perception among a gullible adult electorate that would remove suspicion from the minds of the people that the federal government had a direct conspiratorial hand in the planning and execution of the events that occurred on 9/11. The feds, of course, realized that a portion of the electorate would immediately see through the conspiracy and realize what had actually happened. Yet, they counted on the perception cultivated by the electronic media among the majority of the gullible electorate that the federal government would never deliberately cause such a terrible thing to happen, to murder over 3,000 innocent people and blame it on Islamic jihad; just to create a war and to restrict the civil liberties of the American people. The federal government deceitfully make a, illusion, something totally impossible, appear possible and real.

During an ordinary murder investigation, homicide detectives and CSI investigators look very closely at the physical evidence at the crime scene, and then create a list of suspects based upon who had motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. In the case of 9/11, and over 3,000 horrible murders, the federal government had sufficient opportunity and motive to plan and orchestrate the events of 9/11. If the culprits were really a select number of those, supposedly honorable, men and women in expensive suits and military uniforms going in, and out, of swanky federal offices in DC, the Pentagon, the National Security Agency at Fort Mead, the CIA at Langley, at NORAD, and at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, what would such a stark realization about federal conspiracy do for the American electorate? Would a second American Revolution be necessary to correct such a perverse and conspiratorial federal government? This question is certainly poignant, but it definitely needs an answer, and soon.