damage whenthe building itself was designed to handle several times its own weight.The fact that an accelerated block could exerta smaller force than its own weight in the target block can be intuitivelydifficult to accept, but that is because our experience tells us that thetarget block would resist the destructive impact. A hammer moving fast andhitting a nail into a solid block of wood normally exerts a force on the nailmuch greater than its own weight. But this is only true if the nail resists theimpact. The biggest force driving the nail into the wood is matched by anotherforce that simultaneously slows down the hammer, and that is why several blowsare required. However, if the nail is placed in a block of polystyrene, it willnot withstand the impact. He will be pushed into the block with very littlestrength. The hammer will find a resistance so low that will be able toaccelerate all the time. In the case of WTC 1, the falling block acts as ahammer driving the nail to the polystyrene, but looking from another angle, isthe interface between the blocks that is "soft". Another thing otherthan the falling block (explosives?) needs to be destroying the structuralintegrity of the interface zone that offers only a small fraction of theresistance that was designed.Jonathan Cole has done experiments where hedemonstrates how a falling object exerts a force smaller than its weight. Thevideo is on YouTube and is called 9/11 Experiments: Newton vs. NIST (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w). He also demonstrated how a block (the top of the building)falling on top of a column of blocks mounted on top of each other (the rest ofthe building) can not destroy the column. Video Jonathan Cole - 9/11: Collapsevs. Demolition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawHFFo).Those videos are very instructive to watch.Either way, they may want to argue that interms of resistance of various materials, the impact of the falling block woulddestroy the lower section of the building, but the fact is that it could notdestroy maintaining a constant acceleration. Also, if you look in terms of momentumwe have that any increase in the force in the lower section of the buildingmust be accompanied by a loss of momentum in the falling block to slow it down.So he should experience a "bump" that would be visible in the video.But the fact is that the block continues to move without slowing down, it isclear that there was no "bump" in spite of the sharp deflection ofthe building in the first three seconds.Combining this analysis with the othersevidences shown is clearly that some form of controlled demolition washappening, but not one as normally seen, because the building was destroyedfrom top to bottom, the wreckage were not contained within the footprint andvarious parts of the structure were ejected laterally by several meters,causing damage to adjacent buildings.So we can conclude that once the collapse wasnot caused naturally, he was necessarily caused by man. And, as has been arguedwas a controlled demolition that clearly was planned before September 11. Andif it was planned in advance so we have a conspiracy and not a conspiracytheory. Because it happened, and several