Distorted Tilt Confirmed

To explain the constant acceleration of the upper block of WTC 1, Ryan Mackey insists that the initial tilt of the Tower misaligned the columns to a point where the impacts were not square enough to produce sufficient deceleration. He demonstrated this in a Hardfire debate with Tony Szamboti, using this graphic.

However, Scootle Royale demonstrated that Mackey was incorrect in his analysis, pointing out that the upper block did not rotate about a fixed point as Mackey's slide states. Here, I will expand on Scootle's rebutal to Mackey by using another debunker's analysis. Shortly after the Hardfire debate aired, debunker AlienEntity posted the following video in support of Mackey's theory.


The video basically confirms that the tilt was instant in the collapse. But after I watched it a few times, I realized that it may also confirm exactly what Scootle pointed out. To test this, I first took Mackey's original graphic and straightened it out to illustrate the Tower prior to tilting. Then, I set it next to Mackey's graphic of the tilted Tower with markers added.

I've numbered the floors for both graphics so that debunkers will not accuse me of incorrectly adjusting Mackey's original graphic.

What this comparison shows is that, if the upper block truly "rotated before falling" as Mackey's slide states, then the north side of the Tower would have remained fixed relative to the original height of the building. Here, I've taken AlienEntity's original video and added my own marker to the roofline of the building. And it clearly shows that the north side does not remain fixed. It falls at the same time the tilt begins.



Mackey's analysis is clearly incorrect, and does not adequately explain the lack of a jolt in the North Tower's collapse. Until proven otherwise, the acceleration of WTC 1 clearly violates the laws of physics.

Side note: I would like to take this opportunity to thank AlienEntity, as his work has been very useful to me recently.

NIST's Admission of Freefall - Does It Matter?

A debunker on YouTube sent me the above graphic in a message response to my song, presumably to debunk the line "Tower 7 Falls At Freefall Speed". It shows the alleged buckling of floors 7 to 14 during the collapse. Debunkers claim it proves that eight floors of freefall is possible in this case because the buckled floors wouldn't offer any significant resistance.

The amount of hoops that debunkers and skeptics have to jump through in order to get their theories to work is ridiculous. Two sections of building can't slam into each other without there being a jolt ... but the collapse of the North Tower was a special case! Look, a slight tilt! For more than 120 years, Arctic temperatures appear to correlate perfectly with solar cycles ... but the last decade was a special case! Look, warming! Pay no attention to the lying scientists! And a building can't fall at freefall ... but WTC7 was a special case! Look, CGI buckling!

I'm not convinced that even buckled floors like that would behave as if they were turned to air, as freefall implies, but let's assume they would. Note that this is a computer model, and the thing about computers is - BS in, BS out! And since this is NIST we're talking about (or my new name for them, NIMMTCD - The Nanothermite Institute of Molten Metal and Thermal Conductivity Deniers), I don't have much confidence in this model! Since the parameters of their models have never been released to the public, despite numerous FOIA requests, there's really no way of knowing whether or not this model is realistic.

NIST clearly knew admitting freefall would be a problem. In fact, in their list of changes that accompanied their final report, they never actually mentioned their revised analysis! So it's obvious they didn't want to draw attention to it.

Is freefall important? Yes. Is it our strongest evidence WTC7 was demolished? No. Freefall tells us something strange is going on, but the proof comes from the forensics. The strongest evidence in my opinion is the extreme corrosion of the steel, documented by FEMA. Which by the way, NIMMTCD completely ignored... So maybe there should be an extra C in that acronym.