Where Are The Tops of the Towers?

Recently during my discussions with people about 9/11 I have noticed that discussing the tops of the towers is usually much more effective than other smoking guns, even building 7. I have tried to no avail to simplify the language used to describe the various laws of physics broken by the pulverized concrete, the expanding dust clouds, the lateral ejection of the steel beams, the speed of the collapse, the burning temperature of jet fuel, the heat-sink properties and melting point of steel, but invariably the non-scientifically minded always have doubts (gravity could cause the dust and lateral ejection, fires and debris downed building 7, the jet fuel mixed with other materials in the buildings, etc.)

However, one argument usually stumps them and forces them to admit that it there are unanswered questions. Namely, the disappearance of the tops of the towers. The argument they usually present me is that the tops of the towers crushed the bottoms of the towers. So I ask them, if that is the case, where are the tops of the towers. There should have been two roughly 30 storey tops of the towers sitting at ground zero, but they were pulverized as well. They usually blurt out "well the bottoms crushed the tops" which I instantly jump on, saying that if the tops crushed the floors below, how could the floors below have crushed the tops? This usually shuts them up because no scientific knowledge is necessary. It is just common sense that the tops of the towers should have been left sitting at ground zero if they were the cause of the gravity collapse, and yet they were exploded as well. How can this be without the use of explosives. Just another point to think about the next time you are debating a skeptic.


...........Have to love basic common sense!

Great point

Very logical, impossible to refute. Also, I know for the south tower at least, the top never even reached the ground. It twisted with a "kink," and disappeared before it even fell halfway into pulverized material. You can see it on some of the YouTube simulations.

Your point is simple and logical ... and I'll definitely commit it to memory!

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

Good point. Impeachment.

Good point.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Agreed -

When I get on the subject of the Twin Towers I often use a very similar line of reasoning.

The original FEMA BPAT theory is the classic "pancake" explanation which some people still try to argue. I simply ask them "If the floors pancaked, why aren't there any pancakes piled up at the bottom?" I usually don't even have to ask what happened to the core columns with these folks.

The simplified theory of the NIST report is that the top acted as a "pile driver" and smashed the lower floors into dust and short lengths of steel. Once again, I simply ask them "where is the pile driver?"

Most people who honestly consider these questions for even a few minutes will realize the absurdity of these theories.

One of the major points of the NIST charade was to create a huge report filled with all kinds of technical jargon to obscure the obvious and convince the average person to abandon all common sense and accept theories which clearly violate several laws of physics.

I usually start with WTC 7 and, if they are not aware of it it is a major eye opener, that obvious controlled demolition makes it much easier to get people to look more critically at the demolition of the Towers.

We are winning brothers and sisters!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.