The tilting of the south tower, just before collapse.

According to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over, but it didn't, it fell through the path of greatest resistance. The top was tilting at approximately 20 degrees or so, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? it didn't and couldn't.

Watch a compilation of the collapse what you are observing is approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.They begin to topple over, not fall straight down.The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?

[Video evidence also shows that the lower sections of the Towers do not even begin to start collapsing until the upper sections are completely destroyed]([Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/Ag88tNY.jpg\)) This is an impossibility if we are to believe the official reports

---

NIST's global collapse theory, in regards the complete collapse of two 110 story skyscrapers violates Newton's laws of motion.

It is scientifically impossible and completely illogical that these two buildings, which had an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight, could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it, while it maintains its downward acceleration.

The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is direct evidence that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it,

Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate

---

For the Twin Towers (WTC1/2), NIST examined only the period BEFORE the actual destructions began but nevertheless concluded that there was

no corroborating evidence ... for controlled demolition using explosives - NIST NCSTAR 1 report, pages xxxvii and xxxviii

This approach ignored the fact that most evidence of controlled demolition appears only after a demolition begins

---

NIST never attempted to explain the physical evidence of the building destructions such as what caused four ton perimeter columns and other debris to be ejected horizontally in all directions from the “collapsing” Towers at speeds of up to 70 mph, or why column sections weighing many tons were stuck in buildings hundreds of meters from the Towers as in the following pictures

---

NIST’s study...

does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable - NIST NCSTAR 1 report, page 82, footnote 13

NIST’s model did not proceed past the point where initiation of collapse was asserted to be imminent and therefore did not cover the actual collapse. The collapse was clearly the crucial portion of the investigation. This omission was in defiance of the stated objective to determine

why and how WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed

NIST claims that a floor sagging downward pulled in exterior columns initiating the collapse. NIST provides no theory whereby a sagging floor or buckling columns on one side could lead to the observed completely vertical descent. There is no explanation for the crushing and pulverization of the undamaged, stronger, much larger portion of the building underneath at about two-thirds of free-fall acceleration, no explanation of how the upper portion disintegrated in midair and no explanation for the horizontal ejection of a large fraction of the building structure

NIST’s 10,000 pages of NCSTAR reports clearly lack the most essential theory needed to substantiate a gravity- driven collapse. NIST’s WTC1/2 computer model also appear to be fabricated, and there is no way to judge the model without independent scrutiny. NIST’s failure to follow the NFPA code and test for explosives and omission of key evidence for controlled demolition is falsification since it concerns highly relevant data that was excluded.

NIST’s report underwent no independent peer review before publication.