profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Newton 1 NIST 0
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Newton 1 NIST 0 Reply with quote

In this article Time magazine reveals poor understanding of Newton's Laws. In a piece further down this thread, BBC's astonishing science errors are highlighted:

TIME magazine offers photographic proof WTC Towers
did not undergo a natural, gravity-led collapse

[Photograph from TIME magazine article]
Severed steel columns, weighing tons, originating from the WTC Towers,
are seen impaled in a building 468 foot away. Simple physics calculates the horizontal
velocity with which these impaled columns were ejected is about 43 mph.
In a gravity-driven collapse, the only force present (gravity)
acts vertically downward, not outward.

IN A SPECIAL REPORT titled “The End of Bin Laden” (05/20/11), TIME Magazine [inadvertantly we presume] provides indisputable photographic evidence that the Twin Towers, WTC1 and WTC2, were destroyed by explosives, rather than by plane impacts and fires. Independent researchers have long maintained that some form of controlled demolition destroyed the Towers.

Scientists point to a two-page photograph on pages 48 and 49 of Time’s special report.

The photograph, taken in the vicinity of WTC1 by James Nachtwey, shows a maze of sections of exterior steel columns. Exterior columns were installed in sets of three, connected by spandrel plates. These units, about 30 feet in height, weighed 4 tons each.

The short lengths of steel debris, suitable for hauling away, and pulverization of other components of the building, are themselves signs of controlled demolition

But the indisputable evidence is seen [in the above photo]. Impaled in nearby World Financial Center Building 3 (WFC3), at the 20th floor, are two exterior columns connected by spandrel plates. A close up of this portion of the TIME photograph is shown..

Simple physics is used to calculate the minimum horizontal velocity with which the impaled columns were ejected from WTC1, the nearest tower, to hit the 20th floor of WFC3. The velocity is about 43 mph minimum.

Other researchers have examined similar debris that hit the adjacent Winter Garden, deriving horizontal ejection velocities of 55 mph (Josef Princiotta). Some tower debris plumes and objects have been clocked at 70 mph (David Chandler).

In reaching this value of 43 mph for the minimum horizontal velocity, we have used these numbers:

Floor in WTC1 where columns were ejected: 95th or lower
Height of WTC1 95th floor: 1179 ft
Height of WFC3 20th floor: 280 ft
Horizontal distance from point of ejection to point of impact: 468 ft

If the columns stuck at floor 20 of WFC3 originated below floor 95 of WTC1, the velocity of ejection would be greater, so 43 mph is a minimum velocity. The effects of air resistance would increase this minimum value.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Towers collapsed under gravity with the top portion crushing the lower portion of the building after a short period during which fires weakened the structures.

But in a gravity-driven collapse, the only force present (gravity) acts vertically downward.

Air expelled between pancaking floors could not eject columns and other debris weighing tons with horizontal velocities of 43 to 70 mph.

There were, in fact, no pancaking floors, since most of the concrete and floor contents were pulverized.

A theory that buckling steel columns were severed and ejected with a spring action, a very unlikely occurrence, is not supported by the uniform debris fields and lack of observed rotation of steel beams seen in mid flight on videos.

Extensive debris fields with ejected steel columns and sections of aluminum cladding surrounded the demolished towers on all sides for hundreds of feet. A very large proportion of the steel was projected outward.

Only explosive force can explain the debris fields. For a visual explanation of WTC1's destruction, see David Chandler's video.

View Signatories to see which international scientists support this site.

Last edited by marc on Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:09 pm; edited 9 times in total
Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:17 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Letter to Francesca Grifo,
Director Scientific Integrity Program,
Union of Concerned Scientists.

re: Violations of Scientific Integrity Guidelines by NIST

Signed by: John D. Wyndham (PhD Physics, University of Cambridge) et al (72 scientists)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

Frustrated scientists turn to humour

Last edited by marc on Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:41 am; edited 2 times in total
Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:35 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Very sudden onset of violent explosion - with symmetrical debris distribution - one and a half hours after tower had survived asymmetrical hit by a plane, as it was designed to do. NIST itself excludes the plane (and jet-fuel which would have burned off in first 15 minutes) as the primal cause of this sudden explosive event seen here. Surviving photographs like this - clearly showing massive multi-ton pieces of shredded steel thrown outwards - are an invaluable resource for forensic understanding of the cause and nature of the largest structural failure in history.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Burning questions don't melt Snow

C4's Jon Snow inadvertantly stands witness to anomalies at 'Ground Zero' in November 2001, never curious about them in decade that's followed.

Historical footage of Jon Snow in Manhattan

Footage and commentary from Snow raises questions for science/ investigative journalists. His own lack of curiosity/subsequent interest are noted.

Witness Snow treading around the debris pile of two steel skyscrapers, saying "who did this is yesterday's news.'

Watch Snow move past still-smouldering fires which, weeks later, are resistant to rainfall, hoses and chemical fire suppressants. Prof Steven Jones et al hypothesised that these fires were burning anaerobically, deep in the pile, leading to the forensic search for what fuelled them.

"For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
• Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
• Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
• Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
• A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).

"The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants. "

Extract from Environmental Anomalies At Ground Zero - Ryan, Gourley and Jones, The Environmentalist:
See note [4] below

Watch Snow's camera pan past still-smoking fires - almost two months after the event. These hot spot fires were picked up also by NASA thermal images.

Listen to Snow comment on 'heat kicking up with each shovel load'.

What is the source of this persistent heat? See 'Persistent Heat' at [2] below.

Watch Snow's footage of the burned-out shells of other buildings in the vicinity - World Trade Centre Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 - which were also burned and gashed by falling debris but behaved as expected. Their steel structure is largely still in place - an office chair survives - unlike Building 7 which imploded into a pavement-level rubble pile with all office content pulverised. [3] Buildings 3,4,5,6 and 7 were all subject to similar damage and fire but only Building 7 descended in a dead-ringer for perfect implosion.

Has Snow thought of the amount of energy needed for lateral ejection of steel beams (20 - 50 tons each) for over 400 feet, in order to cause these 'gashes' in neighbouring structures? What is the source of this energy that could rapidly shred the bottom three-fifths of the towers, made of cold, hard, undamaged steel. [4a]

"Severed steel columns, weighing tons, originating from the WTC Towers, are seen impaled in a building 468 foot away. Simple physics calculates the horizontal velocity with which these impaled columns were ejected is about 43 mph. In a gravity-driven collapse, the only force present (gravity) acts vertically downward, not outward. " -

Jon Snow wrote about his trip in The Guardian, November 2001 [5]:

"Deep inside Ground Zero you realise that all concrete, all masonry vaporised to nothing leaving mangled ironwork in its wake."

What energy would cause masonry of massive skyscrapers to 'vaporise' in seconds? In fact 'pulverise' is a more exact word - masonry has not pulverised in other gravity-led collapses.

Tower cement pulverises to micron-sized dust in mid air

Some characteristics of demolition:

- Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
- 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

[ characteristics that distinguish demolition from gravity-led collapse listed by Architects & Engineers]


[1] Tower Collapses

[2] Persistent Heat

[3] Metallurgical forensics

Steven Jones hypothesised that the severe metal corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson

[4] Ground Zero Gas Emissions

Environmental Anomalies at Ground Zero - The Environmentalist

[4a] TIME magazine offers photographic proof WTC Towers
did not undergo a natural, gravity-led collapse

[5] Jon Snow in The Guardian

[6] Concrete pulverisation

Reported by AFP: Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, was, notably, the only person willing to speak openly with AFP about his work at the WTC site.

“I was there every day,” Tully said. “The mayor’s office and DDC called us on Sept. 11 . . . Tully told AFP that his company had worked on the South Tower, WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground retail mall.

“Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers—I never saw one—every thing was pulverized,” Tully said. “Everything that was above grade—above the 6th and 7th floor—disintegrated . . . it was like an explosion.”

Tully Construction specializes in concrete. AFP asked Tully if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC.

“No—never,” he said.

Last edited by marc on Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:10 am; edited 7 times in total
Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"That is one of the things I warned you about:
In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees C
but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C
" - J McMichael, Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!.
J McMichael's article was published in October 21, 2001. He, along with others, was branded a conspiracy theorist and his observations were ignored and/or ridiculed by corporate media.

20 July 2011

Dear BBC

BBC Asserts It Knows Exactly What Happened, 48 Hours Later:
Can You Explain Your Dry-Labbed Journalism

The 13/09/01 graphic from the BBC is thoroughly inaccurate.

BBC Graphic 13 September 2001,13:59 UK

Why is it inaccurate?

- It describes the columns as steel-reinforced concrete when in fact they were 100% steel.

- It depicts the core as a being a fraction of its actual dimensions.

- It states that 800ºC temperatures can melt steel, when steel's melting point is 1535ºC.

The BBC quoted a Chris Wise less than 48 hours after the event in its September 13, 2001 piece How the World Trade Centre Fell. Wise spoke with cinematic emphasis:

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning ... The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

"[But] the fundamental problem with the jet-fuel-melting-steel explanation is that its premise contradicts the laws of physics," write scientist Jim Hoffman in Waking From Our Nightmare. "No amount of ‘aviation fluid’ burning in the open flames of a building fire could even begin to melt steel."

"1535ºC is the melting point of structural steel, whereas 825ºC is around the maximum temperature attainable with hydrocarbon-fueled fires without systematic pre-heating or pressurization of the air. "

The BBC executive has announced it will appoint a new science editor to raise the profile of science in BBC news. This is to be welcomed.

Alison Hastings of the BBC Trust is reported as saying the BBC must avoid "bias by elimination" and include "dissenting voices" in debates over all science issues. She added that "clearer identification of individuals' expertise and agendas" would help audiences "judge their comments".

Here is one example of an article where clearer identification by the BBC of the journalist's "expertise and agenda" would have been helpful.

How the World Trade Centre Fell
by Sheila Barter
Thursday, 13 September, 2001, 12:59 GMT 13:59 UK

Date and time are highlighted to indicate that this journalist - on a BBC platform - purported to explain the wholly unprecedented building performance of steel skyscrapers (a science issue) a mere 48 hours after the event, prior to any forensics or independent investigation and citing no solid supporting evidence or peer-reviewed paper.

When British-educated physicist John Wyndham (PhD) was asked to list the scientific errors in BBC articles pertaining to the WTC buildings he replied: "Where to begin?" His 73-strong group of named, science-educated professionals seems well placed to run through the article with the new BBC science editor - discussing related issues like fire temperatures, steel performance, NIST's own refutation of the "pancake theory" (depended upon by BBC expert Chris Wise) and Newton's laws of conservation of momentum. Find the group at

To ignore the viewpoints of scores of credentialed science professionals does unfortunately leave the BBC open to accusation of "bias by elimination". If you look at the BBC Editors Blog "Conspiracy Files:911" files during the period 2006 - 2009 you will note that many thousands of listeners requested then that the BBC not engage in bias by elimination. Many were appalled that the BBC never reported NIST conceding 'freefall' after physicist David Chandler's correction, though many viewers requested it do so.

If the BBC wants to 'help the audience judge the comments [of a wide-range of experts]' as it says it does, unpacking the article by the BBC's Sheila Barter - in a transparent manner - would be a good place to start.

A further suggestion would be to call back Chris Wise ** - the expert the BBC consulted 24 hours after the event - for an in-studio live debate with two or three of the engineers and physicists who have continued studying the issue over the last decade.

Clearly, both sides cannot be correct. Open debate among experts will soon sort out who has the weak argument. Should Sheila Barter be proved correct in a free and fair forum, the BBC will be the stronger for it.

Kind regards.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


** Chris Wise explaining the tower implosions to BBC viewers 24 hours later

Note his reference to:
- - WTC 7 (Saloman Bros Bldg), which was not hit by a plane, being brought down by 'debris'.
Fallacious. Even NIST conceded debris had nothing to do with this.
- - According to Wise, jet fuel suddenly had the ability to melt steel.
- - Global 'pancake' collapse. Discredited by NIST itself and by Newton's Laws of conservation of momentum.
[See also "Can You Spot the Pile Driver?" at ]

One of the first people to point out the absurdity of the idea that building fires with hydrocarbon fuels could melt steel was J. McMichael who published "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!" on October 21, 2001.

e x c e r p t : Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!

"Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people.

"Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page: "Fire reaches 800 C — hot enough to melt steel floor supports."

"That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees C but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C... I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce. And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it."

Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:12 pm; edited 3 times in total
Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:07 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Letter (pdf) available at

Sir Paul Nurse FRS
Royal Society
6-9 Carlton Terrace

Dear Sir Paul,

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, people around the world are turning their attention to those tragic events in remembrance. At the same time, this remembrance brings to mind the work and ideas of several of the most notable Royal Society members of the past.
One of those historic members is Isaac Newton, whose famous laws of motion are brought to mind in compelling fashion when one examines the destruction of World Trade Center (WTC) building 1, 2 and 7. In particular, Newton’s first law of motion was ideally demonstrated during the highly symmetrical collapse of this 47-storey building, which appeared to occur with no resistance whatsoever. The official investigative body, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), recently admitted that WTC building 7 was in free-fall acceleration for at least a few seconds.

Newton’s second and third laws of motion, dealing with momentum, are questioned when viewing the destruction of all three WTC buildings. One reason is that the large deformations expected from the collision between an upper section of a falling tower and the enormous cold steel structure below would consume energy and, therefore, result in some amount of deceleration and a probable halt to the fall of the upper section. However, there was no such deceleration for either of the WTC towers.

Another reason is that large sections of structural steel were thrown upward and outward from the towers, travelling hundreds of feet, requiring substantial as-yet unknown forces to drive those dynamics.

Scientific evidence now exists to support the idea that these apparent violations of Newton’s laws can be explained by the theory that energetic materials (i.e. explosives and pyrotechnics) were actually used to bring down all three of the WTC buildings. Peer-reviewed scientific articles are available that address the inadequacies of the official investigations, the extremely high temperatures that were known to be present, the environmental data, and the finding of thermitic residues in the WTC dust.[1-4]

Considering this evidence, many scientists and other professionals have reluctantly changed their minds about what happened on September 11, and they have begun to call for a new investigation. This is reminiscent of Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society from 1890 to 1895, who had an historic change of mind with regard to the concept of the “ether” through which electromagnetic waves were said to travel. Lord Kelvin’s position changed based on the Michelson-Morley experiment, which provided the first strong evidence against the ether theory.

We represent a group of 1,500 licensed and/or degreed architects and engineers who have changed
their minds and positions based on observations and experimental evidence related to the destruction
of the WTC buildings. We are calling for a new investigation that includes examination of the theory of
explosive destruction. Many other professionals have joined us and are speaking out today, including
religious leaders, firefighters, and scientists.

In June of this year, the founder of AE911Truth, Richard Gage, AIA, will be giving presentations
throughout the United Kingdom – including a major presentation at the Royal Institute of British
Architects on Monday June 20. We respectfully request that you or another member of your
organization’s leadership make time to meet with him to discuss these matters – and attend the
presentation. Because the destruction of the WTC buildings is central to the narrative of 9/11, and the
narrative of 9/11 is central to the ongoing policy-making of both of our governments, we believe that
scientific leaders throughout the world must work to discover the truth.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely, and with best regards,
Members of the Board of Directors, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)
Ron Brookman, SE
Jonathan Cole, PE
Richard Gage, AIA
Justin Keogh
Kevin Ryan
Thomas Spellman

Cc: Dr. Julie Maxton, Executive Director, Royal Society

[1] Steven E. Jones, et al, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World
Trade Center Destruction, The Open Civil Engineering Journal Volume 2
[2] Steven E. Jones, et al, Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction,
Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 19, January 2008,
[3] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic
materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009,
[4] Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center
Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009
[5] 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD – at
Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:47 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Does Science Lie?

Scientist debates a slice of bacon

"...a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages".

Do the Critics of the 911 sceptics have a case?
What happens to a society when analysis offered by credentialed scientists, engineers, physicists etc is labelled 'nonsense' by politicians?

What happens when media colludes in this - highlighting hoaxes, indulging in name-calling and failing to cover best evidence?

Are we to conclude that thousands of science professionals (who tend to be cautious people who specialise in handling empirical data) are irrational? These are people holding down jobs in engineering, construction, aviation industry, science labs, law and lecturing our children in university faculties.

Critics of the truth community - do they have a case?
Paul Craig Roberts

Roberts analyses the work of Alexander Cockburn, Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt - well worth a read.

Barnhardt's tactics take the cake:- Excerpt: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes downhill from here.

"Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”

"Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.”

"People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.”

"If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic.

"Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

"Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her lustre with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages."

Last edited by marc on Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:41 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Steel skyscraper throws itself to the ground

Chris Mohr of Skeptic Magazine makes the case (in a nutshell) that a steel skyscraper threw itself down to the ground.
The editor of Foreign Policy Journal takes on Skeptic Magazine's junk science. Smile

Scroll down Page One to see photographic evidence of Mohr's blatant deceit/ignorance - re the Netherlands high-rise.

Physicist David Chandler has also responded to Chris Mohr - in his usual easily-understood way. This edifying statement applies to all science-based discussion, no matter the subject matter:

David Chandler: My Reply to Chris Mohr (YouTube)

Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:44 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Physics Tutorial @ David Chandler's blog

Quote: "Newton’s laws of motion (all three of them) hold very precisely except for situations of extreme speed (close to the speed of light) or extreme gravity. These are situations where the laws of relativity are needed. For non-relativistic situations, such as falling buildings, Newton’s laws (all three of them, arguments of some “debunkers” notwithstanding) work very precisely. They are universal laws."
Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:45 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

- - Hypothesis - -
Trailer for new documentary on Physicist Dr Steven Jones

"... a scientist of long standing repute and integrity .. recognized that a monstrous lie had been foisted on the American people and the world. For his efforts in the service of justice and truth, and arriving at conclusions that were scientifically sound but politically incendiary ... he got the shaft from his BYU professorship."

From the comments section at 911blogger:

'Blogulator': "When Barack Obama was campaigning for presidency in 2008, he railed at the politicization of science" under the prior administration (and before).

Obama: "I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees".

"Unfortunately for us all, that promise was never honored. [...]

"What does it ultimately indicate about our society, when those who conduct honest science with results that are inconvenient to the credibility of the powers-that-be, get silenced, suspended, fired or worse?

"Was NIST's study of the destruction of the World Trade Center submitted for an anonymous peer-review process, an essential part of scientific research? Apparently not.... it was more an establishment approved "decree" based on what was deemed politically "acceptable". If NIST had proceeded with the correct scientific method and taken *all* the evidence into consideration, they would have arrived at a different set of conclusions. [...]
Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:17 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Medical science

Energetic materials as potential cause of 911 first responders' illnesses?
- - Kevin Ryan.

9/11 Responders To Be Warned They Will Be Screened By FBI's Terrorism Watch List

FDNY Rescue Workers Show Lasting Lung Damage From 911 WTC Dust - New England Journal of Medicine

Also: Jones, Ferrer, Jenkins, Legge, Gourley, Ryan, Farnsworth, Grabbe - “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Centre destruction.”

WTC Rescuers Health Risk - The Guardian
World Trade Centre rescuers at higher risk of cancer, Lancet reveals

Kevin Ryan's statement at Scientists for 911 Truth

"It is important for people to realise that understanding the events of 911 and the false explanations given for them, is a fundamental footstep in solving the problems we're facing today. There are critical and species-threatening issues that need to be addressed immediately. That's why many of us are convinced that it is this 'catastrophic and catalysing' realisation, that we have been deceived, that can bring us together to work for lasting positive change.'

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
"As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigour and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents. We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11."
Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:34 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

911: Achilles Heel
Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:30 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Seminar on science of WTC disasters - Times Free Press
Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:43 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

This Introduction put together by scientists and physicists is simple and comprehensive and particularly good for forwarding to science faculties and school science teachers in order to foster wider discussion. (Scroll down through this entry for full discussion and photographs).

Facts stand and fall on their own merit.
Why has the corporate media blocked this discussion for a decade - despite repeated requests for open, transparent, public debate?
How will this event come to be written up in physics and history books for our children's generation?
Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:16 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Bottom line: Fire cannot drop steel skyscrapers through the path of greatest resistance.

If fire could achieve this (whether fed by jet fuel/kerosene or office content), demolition companies would be out of business.

Comments in Scientific American magazine in response to letter from a Senior Research Fellow in Structures And Fire from the University of Edinburgh


[Dear Scientific American]
In presenting the changes that have occurred in the design of skyscrapers since September 11, 2001, in “Castles in the Air,” Mark Lamster notes three threats: aircraft impact, earthquakes and wind. He correctly claims that structural engineers are now able to effectively design against them.

Unfortunately, the Twin Towers collapsed primarily because of fire [according to the US Dept of Commerce's Nat Institute of Standards and Technology NIST], and nowhere in the article is fire explicitly mentioned as a structural threat.

On 9/11 we clearly saw that fire can cause entire modern high-rise buildings to collapse. (Indeed, 7 World Trade Center, a steel-framed high-rise, was not struck by an aircraft but collapsed because of fire ignited by debris from the Twin Towers.)

To ensure safety in ever taller buildings, the potential impacts of uncontrolled fire need to be explicitly considered during the structural design process with the same care as earthquakes and wind. While changes in escape-stair width, firefighter communications systems and the addition of sky bridges (all noted by Lamster) can only improve life safety in tall buildings, they do not prevent structural collapse resulting from fire.

Preventing another 9/11 requires that the structural engineering and architecture communities own up to the reality of what uncontrolled fire can do to tall buildings and take the necessary actions.

Luke Bisby
Senior Research Fellow in Structures and Fire
University of Edinburgh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Finally, with the publication of Luke Bisby's letter, Scientific American has dared to touch (however obliquely) the scientific question of what happened to cause three steel superstructure buildings to collapse on September 11th of 2001.

The official pronouncements from our government are that somehow three steel frame buildings of two different construction designs collapsed completely and symmetrically due to fires on that day. They were --supposedly -- the first three steel superstructure buildings ever to completely collapse due to fire.

With the collapses of the twin towers we are asked to believe that buildings damaged high up in the structure could burn for an hour to an hour and a half and then collapse completely to the ground at or near free fall speed.

This would mean that each of the 47 huge steel columns in the center of the building for all those lower floors -- undamaged by either the airplane crash or the fire -- snapped on each floor in anticipation of the falling debris, otherwise the resistance from these central columns would certainly have slowed (and probably stopped) the collapses.

And, they all had to snap simultaneously on each floor because otherwise the collapse would have been asymmetrical.

Of course, Building 7 -- the third building that fell that day -- also collapsed absolutely symmetrically and for at least eight floors fell at free fall speed. Supposedly, this building also fell because of the effects of fire on a single column. However, the government's report stops short of saying how a collapse of a single column could lead to the instantaneous collapse of all the columns on eight floors of the building.

After over a decade of silence on this issue -- to disastrous effect to our political and economic environments -- Scientific American should bring this issue into the light.

Mr. Bisby is absolutely correct in saying architects and engineers should face up to this issue.

What Mr. Bisby and Scientific American fail to mention is that over 1,600 architects and engineers have indicated that there is no way that fires brought down these buildings.

This magazine should be at the forefront in demanding a scientific investigation into the causes of these collapses, not bringing up the rear.

It's just like Galileo all over again, Scientific American can either side with science or with the dictates of the political authorities of our time. It's way past time that the magazine spoke up for science.

Andy Swamp

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What is absurd is the belief that the three WTC buildings collapsed due to fire. So far, I have seen no evidence to support this outlandish claim, but have seen over a thousand architects and engineers sign a petition citing the obvious flaws in such an account and demanding a new explanation.

Chief among the multitude of attributes of the collapses that point to explosive demolition is the free-fall, symmetrical collapse of WTC 7. Fire cannot achieve this [and] I would expect Un-Scientific American to recognize this simple fact.

Additionally, fires have occurred that burned longer and hotter in a myriad of other steel framed skyscrapers (including, ironically, the WTC [Buildings 5 and 6]) none of which resulted in sudden, progressive collapses.

Uncle Joe

Last edited by marc on Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:40 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Another comment at Scientific American, responding to a letter from Luke Bisby, Senior Research Fellow in Structures And Fire from the University of Edinburgh (see previous post in this thread):

Comment #5: "There have been thousands of fires in highrises all over the world, turning many of them into raging infernos, but only three steel-framed highrises have totally collapsed - all at the WTC.

"Whatever the precise cause of the total destruction of the third skyscraper, WTC 7, its demise would amount to probably the most perfect controlled demolition in human history.

"Many controlled demolitions have failed, as all columns throughout a couple of floors need to be destroyed within a fraction of a second. As a result of mistimed or partially failing explosions, some buildings have only descended a couple of floors until the intact structures have arrested the descent, and some buildings have fallen to one side. Reducing a highrise to a rubble pile is a highly challenging, skill-demanding task.

"However, fire alone [allegedly] accomplished this for WTC 7, a modern, 47-storey highrise.

"In light of this, it is utterly amazing that, according to NIST, all the research material was destroyed without investigation: "No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7."

"Jim Hoffman, who contributed to Scientific American in the past, writes on

"Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis. Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history."

"We know that over the years, NIST came up with different "interim hypotheses" about the cause of the destruction. Why weren't they allowed to examine the steel debris to determine why and how the skyscraper was destroyed?

"After publishing their draft for final report in 2008, NIST lead WTC investigator Shyam Sunder said that WTC 7 could not have collapsed at free fall acceleration, as crushing structures necessarily takes time and slows down the descent. However, after a physics teacher demonstrated that WTC 7 did in fact descend at free fall acceleration for over 2 seconds, NIST concluded in their final report that "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration" took place, without explaining how this could happen.

"Following Luke Bisby's advice, it is indeed high time to take a real scientific look into the total destruction of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. Over 1,600 architects and engineers, among others, have already paved the way for this ."

Last edited by marc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:04 am; edited 2 times in total
Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:12 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Forensics: Americans love their "CSI" hi-tech forensics TV programme - yet the biggest crime on US soil was never subjected to forensics

WTC bone fragments still surface a decade after 11/9/01. - NY Times

The explosions that destroyed the WTC towers sent human remains throughout lower Manhattan – most of which may have yet to be found. A recent New York Times article revealed that a decade after 9/11, small fragments of human remains are still being identified.

This adds to the documented evidence of the severe destruction of the bodies of WTC victims.

Bodies trapped in natural, gravitational building collapses are mangled/broken/squashed but identifiable - bones are not shattered into tiny shards and distributed laterally over distance. This amounts to 'wet' evidence of an additional source of energy.

"Facts that in isolation appear isolated and insignificant take on new meaning when they're seen within a larger pattern. It's one thing to learn that human remains from the WTC were discovered on the roof of the Deutsche Bank Building (USA Today 13/4/06); but this discovery, along with other widely dispersed debris, raises an obvious question: If gravity alone pulled the Towers down, what hurled human bodies and huge steel girders hundreds of feet laterally?" - Dr Paul Rea, Mounting Evidence (2011)

Last edited by marc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:39 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Holding the BBC to account for public deception

In 2007, mechanical engineer J Blacker planned to sue the BBC for public deception for their unscientific documentaries hosted under the BBC Conspiracy Files: 911. umbrella. Mr. Blacker said: “The BBC is being sued for lying to viewers and a formal apology and a new film correcting the scandalous misinformation is needed.

[John Blacker: Physics, Mechanical Engineering M.Sc. Semiconductor Device Physics, University of Lancaster, 2004]

His letter of complaint was ignored by BBC for months.
Blacker (part of Scientists for 911 Truth) reported that when he first took the action he 'believed the BBC had made genuine errors.

"As I received replies from the BBC and their barristers it became clear the BBC was in fact totally dishonest and no amount of genuine 911 evidence would change their intention to peddle propaganda.

"Where I was unsuccessful in my prime objective, I did have minor success with respect to the BBC being exposed for the propaganda machine it has become."

Last edited by marc on Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:15 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Toxic Dust

Telegraph: Cancer rates triple among New York police officers who responded to 9/11, according to new figures

Daily Mail: Three Hundred 9-11 Cops Diagnosed with Cancer - Average Age 44

Foreign Policy Journal: Energetic materials as potential cause of 911 first responders' illnesses?
- - Kevin Ryan.

FDNY Rescue Workers Show Lasting Lung Damage From 911 WTC Dust
- New England Journal of Medicine

Journal note: "...smoke from fires that continued to burn until mid-December." - despite rainfall, pumped water and chemical fire suppressant PyroCool. See this paper for analysis of the fires that could not be put out: “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Centre destruction” - Jones et al

Mesethelioma.Com: Cancer among 911 First Responders

Huffington Post: 9/11 Responders Warned They Will Be Screened By FBI's Terrorism Watch List

NY State legislation to force NYPD to release names of all cops who worked at Ground Zero to cancer researchers at Mount Sinai?

NY police union demands info on 911 toxic debris

From the comments section of above article:


Some of the illnesses suffered by the WTC first responders might be explained by the existing evidence of energetic materials, like thermite, at Ground Zero.

For example aluminum, aluminum oxide and aluminum silicates are known causal factors for some of the common illnesses seen, such as sarcoidosis, pulmonary fibrosis, and the as-yet-unexplained immune system diseases.

Furthermore, the rare cancers found in some first responders could be the result of environmental factors such as the unusually high levels of benzene and derivatives of 1,3-DPP which suggest the presence of energetic materials like thermite and nanothermite.

Analysis of the lung tissue of first responders has also indicated that energetic materials might be involved.

The unusual platy configurations of aluminum silicates found in those lung tissue samples seem similar to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in the nanothermite that has been discovered in WTC dust samples.

I've made sol-gel nanothermites, and have confirmed that the iginition residues contain carbon nanotubes (first discovered by Niels Harrit).

Carbon nanotubes have been found throughout the WTC dust and in the lungs of the first responders.

I've also done some analytical and visual comparisons between nanothermites and the paramagnetic fraction found in WTC dust samples.

Submitted by Kevin Ryan (chemist) on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 7:22am.

Last edited by marc on Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:31 pm; edited 2 times in total
Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:39 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"The science is pretty simple; only its political consequences are complicated, and troubling"

The fact that iron-rich microspheres were found in the September 11 dust by
(i) the United States Geological Survery (USGS)
(ii) the RG Lee Group in a set of reports prepared for Deutsche Bank in late 2003
(iii) Steven Jones et al

is the primary indicator that extremely high temperatures (twice the temperatures caused by normal fire - even jet fuel/kerosene-started fire) were present during that event.

"Pardon Our Dust" ** (see quote below)

Later on, Harrit et al, using high-tech microscopes, detected the presence of nano-structured thermitic material.

But the primary evidence (available to all) is photographic/video - which reveals speed, symmetry and shredding of steel in three high-rise structures. Discovery of iron-rich microspheres (by govt, corporate and independent sources) provided forensic clues as to the cause of the afore-mentioned speed and global destruction.

There is talk now that a private company is currently sponsoring a scientist to 'disprove' the Harrit et al paper.

Interesting to see what they produce. Will they be able to disprove what researcher Jim Hoffman (author of website terms 'aluminothermic arson'? They would need to disprove the USGS findings, NASA's thermal images and the primary photographic evidence. They would also need to counter the observable evidence of Building Seven's freefall acceleration and NIST's own admission (after Chandler and Jones challenged them in 2008) that Building Seven experienced freefall acceleration.

In the meantime, here is useful information (which professional science journalists can verify) in FAQ format from the Scholars for Truth group:

Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction. Read full FAQ at the link.

** From the article "Pardon Our Dust"

The importance of iron microspheres is simple.

Iron melts around 2,800 Fahrenheit, which is about twice the highest temperature that an open-air fire could produce.

A microsphere can only be produced by first melting iron, then dispersing the melted iron by some energetic means (like explosion) into an aerosol whose particles, influenced by the surface tension of the molten metal, form spheres as the smallest surface area required to contain any specified volume of matter.

Once again, as with the NASA thermal survey, an intense source of energy other than the WTC fires is required to melt iron or steel, as even the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admitted in its reports.

The science is pretty simple; only its political consequences are complicated, and troubling. "
- - - Michael Green

Debunking - a fact-filled rebuttal

Last edited by marc on Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

When Mohr is Less

The Official Non-Response to Forensics
Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:39 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and Secretary of Defense official, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

Writes researcher Jim Hoffman: ""All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft ...

"Carrying out a robotic takeover of some or all of the jetliners destroyed on 9/11/01 need not have required anything as elaborate as special equipment installed covertly on fleets of jetliners. Since modern jetliners are capable of being flown by their flight control computers, no special equipment is required, necessarily, to turn the aircraft into 'suicide bombs'.

"A review of Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions "

Andreas von Buelow in his Tagesspeigel interview: '"I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry ... I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprang out of the mind of an evil man in his cave"'

Last edited by marc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:18 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

9/11 – The Twin Towers and Common Sense
By Frank Legge, Ph.D.

Before the roof of the North tower of the World Trade Centre became hidden in dust it was falling at a rate which would have brought it to the ground in 10.5 seconds. The US administration expects us to believe that this fall rate is reasonable for a fire and plane damaged building. For comparison the roof on the right in this drawing, freely falling in a vacuum, would take 9.2 seconds.

Data published by NIST shows that the steel was not hot enough for the collapse to begin. There are also engineers who have worked out that, even if collapse did begin at the damaged level, it would not continue, but would quickly come to a halt.

That may be hard to validate, unless you can deal with complex calculations, but what about this time difference, just 1.3 seconds? Does not ordinary common sense tell you that the block on the left will be slowed down if it has to crush its way through over 90 storeys of cold steel and concrete? Would it not take more than 1.3 seconds longer than the one on the right, freely falling?

Does this not imply that the undamaged, unheated lower part of the building suddenly lost structural strength in some way? Is there any explanation other than explosives that could account for this sudden loss of strength?

No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire except on that day, when three tall buildings came down, and they came down impossibly fast.

One of these three buildings, WTC 7, was not hit by a plane and showed little evidence of fire. It took no more than half a second longer than free fall to collapse. This building was occupied by the FBI, the CIA and the DoD. Is it feasible that al-Qaeda could have got past all these sensitive organizations to lay explosives without inside help?

It is instructive to note that there were four other buildings at the WTC which were badly damaged by fire and falling debris but behaved in the usual way: they did not collapse.

To locate peer reviewed papers which substantiate these claims see:

Frank Legge

Last edited by marc on Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:26 am; edited 5 times in total
Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:54 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Proof the twin towers were deliberately demolished

All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

The observed collapse of the World Trade Centers 1 and 2 have been measured at near the rate of free fall. This is the rate at which nearly ALL of the "falling energy" (kinetic energy from gravity) must deliver the building to ground level ASAP.

This leaves NO energy for smashing and pulverizing the concrete slabs NOR for shredding construction steel.

Can't have it both ways!

There is only so much kinetic energy available and it can either be used for shredding steel and pulverizing concrete OR it can be used for acceleration toward the ground. The building simply can't get to the ground in the requisite time that is observed unless most of the energy goes into acceleration.

There is no room for a significant quantity of the potential energy being utilized in any other way than falling or the building does NOT get to the ground in time. It's a race, you see. A race against the clock.

Free fall is the unrestricted acceleration from a height toward an impact with the Earth. The WTC towers both fell to the Earth very quickly as is timed by seismographs and video.

They fell at the rate of free fall; that is, they fell as though NOTHING was in their way.

The speed at which they fell totally cancels the theory that they "pancaked" one on top of the other and then stressed one floor after another until the entire mass was in rubble on the ground. According to rate of collapse, the towers fell smoothly and without encountering obstruction or resistance of any kind.

It's impossible for the floors to fall / crash / fall / crash / fall...and get to the ground level in 10 seconds. Starting from the 80th floor, for example, at just ONE second per floor, it would take 80 seconds to fall--eight times too long. Even at only 1/2 second per floor it is STILL four times to slow. The only way that the WTC towers could get to the ground within approximately ten seconds is to encounter a weakened building on the way down--demolition.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below.

And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls.

Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

There is no wiggle room on the laws of physics. For the towers to fall at that rate there had to be NO resistance from each of the floors encountered on the way to the ground.

Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not cannot pass through a structure made of concrete and steel at the same rate as it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).

The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is clear evidence that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. [Something in the way delays the passage.]

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).

Some people trying to use "common sense" without a knowledge of the laws of physics suppose that the addition of one floor after another would make the towers fall faster and faster. An elementary principle of masses falling through space was demonstrated at the Leaning Tower of Pisa nearly 500 years ago. The larger mass does NOT accelerate through space faster than a lighter, more dense mass. It will, however, cause the shredding force because of the connection between the slab and the outer wall.

It is not even necessary to disprove all of the allegations in the official conspiracy theory. All that is necessary is to disprove ONE allegation to demonstrate the whole to be a lie.

* All that is needed is the difference between an unobstructed free fall and an obstructed free fall.

[....] [cut]

* All that is needed is the official claim to have identified the DNA of Flight 77 victims when at the same time it is claimed that the temperatures were so hot that over a 100 tons of metal were 10,000 gallons or less of JP-8 which burns at a temperature less than 1/4 the evaporation point of the metals.

Any one of these among many others is all that is required to prove the lie of the official conspiracy theory.

So you're suggesting a la Eagar that floors fell on each other from the top down, the weight of the floors above exceeding the maximum load of the floor on which they fell accumulating more mass and more readily destroying the structure in each successive floor.

How long would you estimate it would take for your scenarios of fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash to be complete?

Would you propose something like one second for each floor? Perhaps we could cut that in half, say one half second each floor, taking a bit more time at the top and a bit less at the bottom. How many seconds is that? Let's see now....about 110 floors. Let's knock that down to 100 floors even. That would be.....50 seconds. Nope, won't work. Five times too long. That's way too long.

Then let's say that it took only a half-second on the top 50 floors and a quarter of a second in the bottom 50 floors. That would be 25 seconds for the top 50 floors to get half way down...added to 12.5 seconds for the WTC to fall the rest of the way. That's 37.5 seconds. Nope. That won't work. That's nearly 4 times too long.

So what if it only took half second to smash-fall the top 25 floors, one quarter second to crush each of the next 25 floors, one tenth of a second to demolish the next 50 floors......that's 12.5 + 6.25 + 5 = 23.75 seconds. Nope! Still took too long by more than double.

C'mon! I'm squeezing this hypothesis as much as I can and it still seems way off. (How fast can you say fall-smash 100 times? Try it. Time it.) OK. Let's try a quarter of a second in the top 50 and one tenth the rest of the way. That's 12.5 + 5 = 17.5 seconds. Still too slow.

OK. That's it! For anything to be so ground up as the WTC ended up, lot's of powder. stuff has to be hitting other stuff, right. So there HAS to be SOME collision time to do all that work. We saw the pieces, the dust AT THE START of the fall. Demolition does take energy and in this case a lot of energy. That energy of smashing + the energy of falling (yes, even falling, acceleration) must all be accounted for.

Calculations for the FASTEST time that the WTC could reach the bottom is about 10 seconds. That's with NOTHING getting in the way, not even touching anything else on the way down. It's called free fall. Free fall represents the sole effect of gravity causing a mass to accelerate through space between a point above the earth to the surface of the earth.

The hypothesis ...would have us believe is that a 110 story building fell from 1300 feet up to approximately street level at the rate of free fall yet it serially crushed floors below on the way down as though they weren't there.

According to the Official Conspiracy Theory, WTC was in a hurry that cannot be accounted for by laws of physics.

You can't have the WTC fall at the rate of free fall and still encounter even the tiniest bit of resistance on the way down. A tiny bit of resistance on the way down means that it can't get there in the time that is in evidence. Eagar's hypothesis fails simply the top can't get down as fast as the documented facts demonstrate.

If it doesn't fit the facfs, it's filed in the circular file.

It's not about "wanting" to believe. The hypothesis proffered by the Prof. just simply does NOT fit the observed facts. If you wish to throw out the observed and provable facts, then any opinion will do. But al-Qaeda could not repeal the laws of physics even if they COULD get the USAF to stay on the ground for an hour while they flew all over, the Northeast, (even over several USAFB). and History/law_of_free_fall.htm

911review Wiki

Last edited by marc on Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
Wed May 02, 2012 7:51 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Technical FAQ
Brief answers to commonly asked questions

Will fire and gravity pull this high-rise to pavement level at freefall acceleration, as it did in NY with the Saloman Bros building (wtc building 7 - not hit by a plane)?
In Defense of Skyscrapers - burned and battered but still standing -
Block of flats hit by plane with a full jet fuel load - engulfed by jet-fuel-started fire, no collapse
The NIST Reports conceded the airliners in themselves had nothing to do with the rapid destruction, through path of greatest resistance, that later ensued.

The South Tower, while hit second - thus subjected to LESS fire time-wise* - succumbed FIRST.

* The towers were
- hit from slightly different angles and
- descended suddenly after different time periods (56 minutes and 102 minutes respectively).
But they
- erupted in identical fashion and
- fell at identical speed (10 - 11 seconds) through their quarter-mile length and
- fell with identical symmetry around vertical axes.

Sequence of Events Sources:

(i) 8.46am > NORTH Tower hit by Flight 11

(ii) 9.03am > SOUTH Tower hit by Flight 175

(iii) 9.58am > SOUTH Tower falls

(iv) 10.28am > NORTH Tower falls

Towers fell 1340 feet (408 metres) in 11 seconds - Building 7 fell 576 feet (175.5 metres) in 7 seconds - World record-holder Usain Bolt ran 100 metres in 9.58 seconds. How long would it take a bunch of keys to hit the ground after being thrown off the top of a 1340-foot or 576-foot tower?

Did collapse rates violate laws of physics?

Last edited by marc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Thu May 03, 2012 7:03 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Cate Jenkins Gets Her Job Back

Foreign Policy Journal: Energetic materials as potential cause of 911 first responders' illnesses?

FDNY Rescue Workers Show Lasting Lung Damage From 911 WTC Dust
- New England Journal of Medicine

Journal note: "...smoke from fires that continued to burn until mid-December." - despite rainfall, pumped water and chemical fire suppressant PyroCool. See this paper for analysis of the fires that could not be put out: “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Centre destruction” - Jones et al

Huffington Post: 9/11 Responders Warned They Will Be Screened By FBI's Terrorism Watch List
Tue May 08, 2012 7:46 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
   printer friendly