Rebekah Roth retired air steward has been talking these many months about 911.
She brings it all together and this interview with Bill Ryan is supurb; it's all here after many years of extensive research!
Who are the most likely involved and what happened to the people on the planes!
Few will be the same after listening to this audio mp3.
911 Controlled Demolition
According to lead investigators, Shyam Sunder of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, World Trade Center 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for more than one hundred feet of its fall.
What does the speed of the collapse reveal to us?
David Topete: Essentially in less that 7 seconds, Tower 7 came down upon itself.
Roland Angle: Building seven, NIST reports admits fell at the rate of gravity for the first one hundred feet.
Well, that's impossible unless there is nothing resisting it.
Building 7 was a forty-seven story high-rise not hit by an airplane.
It was the third modern steel-framed skyscraper to collapse rapidly and symmetrically on 9/11.
David Chandler M.S. B.S. Physics M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics: It's just like taking your car keys out and dropping them down.
That is how fast the building came down for over a hundred feet.
The only way you can get that is for zero resistance.
David Chandler: What we are looking at is the building coming just straight down, falling right through itself with zero resistance.
Buildings don't have zero resistance.
Which is why you feel comfortable walking into a building.
Building 7's precipitous collapse was blamed on normal office fires.
Jonathan Smolens: A building cannot do freefall with a huge structural steel system in place to support it without it being blown up.
That is the only way it can come down at freefall.
Steven Dusterwald: The failure of all these connections as the primary means of structural failure is inconsistent with a natural gravitational collapse, and indicates the presence of other agents which would dismember these connections.
I am David Chandler. I have a bachelors degree in physics from Harvey Mudd College. A masters in education from Claremont University, and another masters in mathematics from California Polytechnic University. I have been teaching for over thirty years.
I have heard people say, 'Well it came down at freefall, or close to freefall,' so I decided to measure it myself.
I have a tool that I use in teaching which allowed me to take a video and put a dot on each frame to follow the motion.
David Chandler: So if you can measure your speed and accelerations, it will the analysis.
David Chandler: One of the fundamental laws of nature is the conservation of energy.
David Chandler: In order for the building to be falling down with zero resistance it means that resistance had to have been removed, by something else.
Ronald Brookman: NIST claims that the columns were buckling in the first several seconds before the freefall occurred.
Now I don't see how that is possible.
David Chandler: In the final report they modified it, tried to doctor it up.
NIST still tried to say that it was essentially correct, but then they modified and they actually admit that there was a period of freefall involved.
But they never changed their model.
How do you all of a sudden allow for freefall?
They have just been explaining how it couldn't have been in freefall.
If I were a scientist at NIST, I would be embarrassed to try and put forward something like that.
It was clearly a fraudulent argument.
Roland Angle, P.E. Civil Engineer: In other words, NIST is telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse of the building.
Well, in physics buildings don't just cease to exist and cease to resist the forces that are on them.
Ronald Brookman, S.E Structural Engineer: Freefalling for eight stories.
So, we know that happened, Okay.
So it has been measured and it is on videos and everyone can see it, and NIST has admitted it went into freefall for eight stories.
That's the bothersome part of the puzzle because never explained it.
Steven Dusterwald - P.E. Structural Engineer: Absolutely no resistance to the descent whatsoever.
Roland Angle, P.E. Civil Engineer: The building didn't disappear so the building falling for a hundred feet at freefall speed, that is impossible.
That is a violation of the fundamental law of physics that says for every action there is an equal and opposit reaction.
So that evidence alone would indicate that the official story doesn't hold water.
Steven Dusterwald - P.E. Structural Engineer: There was no time for the elastic deformation, and plastic deformation which would have absorbed energy and decreased the descent to less than freefall speed.
As energy is drained away from the system to deform those members, it would slow down the descending mass and cause a descent at less than freefall speed.
Jonathan Smolens, P.E Structural Engineer: Forty-thousand tons of structural steel and it's structural system, and that is intended to keep it from going anywhere.
A building cannot do freefall with a huge steel structural system in place to support it.
Steve Luce: If the pancake theory works it is going to experience hesitation. There was no hesitation.
Robert E. McCoy - High Rise Architect: There is no resistance until the building gets down maybe half-way.
Steve Barasch: Buildings tend to be delayed as they collapse.
They don't just pancake down like this in a very short period of time.
Ronald Brookman, S.E Structural Engineer: Going from motionless to freefall instantly.
Anthony Szamboti: One continuous motion.
There couldn't have been any structural resistance.
Steve Barasch - High Rise Architect: Buildings just don't behave like that.
Floors that fall are braced by the floor directly beneath it, and there's some delay there.
Steven Dusterwald - P.E. Structural Engineer: This is inconsistent with the energy redistribution that would be required from the descending mass to the remaining structure.
Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E Mechanical Engineer: Completely impossible, and NIST themselves have to recognize the implication of this.
The fact that they haven't is fraudulent.
Steven Dusterwald - P.E. Structural Engineer: The connections are designed with a safety factor of 1.5 to 3 times the failure load for the member.
This assures that the member will always fail first.
First in an elastic mode and then in a plastic mode.
Ronald Brookman, S.E Structural Engineer: Ideally the member would fail before the connection.
You don't want connections to fail first.
Steven Dusterwald - P.E. Structural Engineer: The connections failed first without any of the member exhibiting large deformations, or deflections.
Steven Dusterwald: Over four hundred connections per second has to fail in order for the members to be released and for the structure to descend at almost freefall rate.
Casey Pfieffer: To fail at the rate that they did, progressively across the building, even if a floor were to collapse, it still wouldn't be able to collapse all of the connections simultaneously at the rate that it did, without secondary explosions.
Steve Luce, former US Army Combat Engineer, Explosive Demolition of Structures:
There is no hesitations.
There is no hesitation when it was to hit story after story.
Casey Pfieffer - S.E Structural Engineer:
If you were to look at a standard moment frame, steel-connection, which is a welded connection between the beam and the column, it would take on the order of around 500,000 pounds to shear off one connection.
If you multiply that by four hundred, put maybe a safety factor of 4, you would require fifteen million pounds of force, per second, in order to collapse the building the way it was shown, based on the NIST report, and what we saw on the video evidence of the video of the building that day.
It is highly unlikely.
Don't know how that could ever happen without secondary explosions.
It is not logical or reasonable.
David Chandler M.S. B.S. Physics M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics:
The fact that it is coming down at freefall says all of the energy is being used to just make it go straight down.
Which means it is coming down through itself and not breaking up the building as it goes.
Something else has to be clearing the way.
That is smoking gun evidence to me.
I think that is one of the primary pieces of evidence that these buildings rarely were demolished.
There weren't just accidents that happened.
9/11 Conspiracy Solved Names Connections and Details Exposed
In fact someone told me recently, 'I wouldn't believe what you are telling me even if it were true.'
PDF and now EPub versions for small tablets and Kindle, Nook and varied e-readers