Image: BRAD HINES
Noted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book, L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002. But I never imagined such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore¿wannabe filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor¿like attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the justification for war. The evidence was there in the details, he explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites.
In fact, if you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google, you'll get more than 250,000 hits. From these sites, you will discover that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and 175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania; and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved). Books also abound, including Inside Job, by Jim Marrs; The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin; and 9/11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey. The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.
The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.
No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.
All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales.
This article was originally published with the title Fahrenheit 2777.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add Commentall i can say...is THANK YOU. jeez man. I watched it and i began to question things from the "get go". Our govnt isnt smart enough to pull that off. LOL. But really, THINK people...THINK....and RESEARCH! The world's NOT flat, aye?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Shermer is out of his league. He should examine more of the 9/11 evidence that sheds a lot of light on us fed. gov. collusion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am largely undecided on the "facts" of 9/11, although I really hate to believe that so many were murdered by a domestic threat...
That being said, I find it interesting that none of the debunkers even attempt to explain the glowing, molten pools and rivers of steel reported by rescuers and cleanup personnel at ground zero, even after weeks of cool down time.
"No 2777, no molten rivers of steel." C'mon, there has to be an explanation, other than "well, that doesn't fit our model, so we'll ignore that fact."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm fairly disturbed by Shermer's position concerning "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory." Unexplained anomalies basically point out flaws in theories that lead to advancements--what about Relativity or quantum mechanics? Didn't they start from unexplained anomalies? Isn't this sort of thinking unscientific? It's status quo-is-right, and belies a certain arrogance about our understanding of the world. Whether or not there was a 9/11 conspiracy, if such a prominent scientific figure as Shermer holds beliefs like this, I'm inclined to be rather wary of his claims and why he is making them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, steel loses 90% of its strength at 1100 deg C, which is the temperature of an ordinary fire. Moreover, the main cause of the collapse was structural damage done by the jets. The fires only helped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no reliable source indicating that pools of molten steel were found weeks later.
Additionally, the yellow glowing material flowing from the towers was molten plastic or aluminum, with burning debris (according to NIST)
--
Edited by Philadelphia Ron at 02/04/2008 6:27 PM
I am sorry SA is getting into this political debacle. I don't believe we will ever know the full truth. But one point seems painfully obvious: Bush spent less moneu investigating this tragedy than was spent on Bill Clinton's personal life. And even then he didn't testify under oath or by himself even.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very difficult it seems to get at the truth of this. Yet it also seems a truth that few would want to have (if there's any truth of it being related to psych-ops). Personally when I look at the pictures related to the construction of these buildings, it's very hard for me to believe that they would each collapse in 10 seconds, even given the most optimistic 'pancake' explanation. Perhaps, if they were very poorly built the explanation would be more plausible. I don't think they were. Their collapse ignited the fear which indeed gave Bush the chance to roll out his agenda with minimal interference. The possibility of a Psych-Ops operation, cannot be readily dismissed. Explosions low in the building, have not been explained. The sharp angle cuts burned in the steel, at it's base, have not been explained. The design of these buildings may well have been flawed. We don't know. When this was defined as an act of war our ability to view this as a crime kept us from investigating it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems to me that S.A. should actually investigate 911. I guess your nothing more than a glorified Popular science mag. Your quote "Easily refuted"..Ok Explain WTc7. Explain why Thermite was found in the dust. Explain all the reports of explosions. Explain why both towers collapsed exactly the same way when they were struck at different angles and heights. At free fall speed no less. FyI, There is a little thing called "The laws of physics" Ever heard of it? Tell ya what, why don't you, S.A. have a round table with Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage. I want to hear you refute them. I dare you, I dare you, I dare you. C'mon put your money where your mouth is. Better yet, do it on national TV. Instead of trying to cover up the obvious demolition on 911, S.A. should actually use science in their opinion! BTW Thomas Egars opinion is absurd!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh and BTW Ul labs certified the steel's integrity at 1800 degrees F for 6 hours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like denial of scientific possibility to me. What is science all about?... Speculation, validation, not outright oblation, right? Let the mind pursue as much truth as is there, not what one wants to believe. Liars like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer is a paid liar. Or perhaps the "cause" which he supports- a war against "terror" (conveniently, against any who "threaten" Israel )- is one which is "worthy" of his lying. He has lied in the past, in front of TV audiences... But anyone who wants to know about HIS record can look into that. I used to argue at times with others about why we were attacked by "Islamic terrorists", so automatic was my belief in the "mainstream" story. Then, years later on the web, I saw Building 7 come down for the first time...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for why there aren't "whistleblowers" coming forward, golly Mike, could it be some are petrified? Not "martyr material"? Not willing to cash in their lives to blow that whistle? How many DO you really need on the "inside" to "pull this off"? Not too many probably, because Americans aren't too bright. You can stage a ridiculous stunt like this, get away with it with incredible one-time explanations (combined with threats against "deniers") and move on to the next "crisis". Besides, when you have a country so stupid it blindly follows an (idiot? LIAR?) into a war to find "weapons of mass destruction", clearly the perps of 9-11 didn't have to worry about anything Americans might question. They could pull off any shit and just say," Uh, yeah, see here's what happened... " Look into Larry Silverstein. The "Dancing Israelis". Look into who gained from this "tragedy". Open your eyes and look.
Shermer needs to examine the events with his Baloney Detection Kit rather than his emotions. His slavish devotion the the government's official conspiracy "theory" is disappointing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuess I've been living under a rock just learned of these 911 conspiracy theories yesterday starting from a DVD "9/11 Guilt: The proof is in your hands" which includes a presentation by James Hoffman arguing the WTC buildings had to have been a controlled demolition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI expected that supporters of such claims would be crackpots , but as I read more I was surprized to find myself wondering if some of their accusations could be true.
And I found some of the people highly credible - such as Steven Jones the Brigham Young physics professor who argued that normal fires could not have produced the molten steel seen at the site, and further claims he's found thermite in the WTC wreckage as proven via chemical analysis.
At the very least, I found the topic fascinating and experienced a shift in thinking much as Thomas Kuhn described in "The Theory of Scientific Revolutions" - i.e. the day before yesterday if I saw a video of the WTC towers falling I knew *exactly* what I was seeing - an act of terrorism where the building collapsed as a result of the fire from the planes, now watching the exact same thing these new ideas have changed my perception - now I'm not so sure that those buildings didn't survive the planes and the resulting fire, and I'll be darn those puffs shooting sideways out the building below the wave of the collapse - those sure look like squibs going off - and it sure looks like a controlled demolition!
So I'm not sure anymore - I've become a skeptic.
Steven Jones lost his teaching job for having the courage to pursue the deeper truth and applying his knowledge of physics to this question.
As a "professional skeptic" Mr Shermer reaaly should delve deeper on this subject before jumping on the "they're just crackpots" bandwagon - sure some "conspiracy" accusations don't hold water, but some of them make you think, if you're open minded enough...
If you're *skeptical* enough.
Lets actually look at some of the evidence. Review the evidence then make up your own mind. Check out the following links. They deal only with WTC7 the third WTC building to collapse. It was not hit by a plane and had only minor scattered fires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis website has videos of the actual collapse. Note the perfectly symmetrical 6.5 sec collapse of WTC Building 7:
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
Here are a couple of examples of controlled demolitions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQOqnaIce0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
This is a BBC report on 9/11 that actually reported the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA
This is link to the official BBC website which confirms the authenticity of the above report. There explanation is pretty amusing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
This is an interview with Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC, where he says that WTC7 was "pulled". The term "pulled" refers to a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I
This link is about Securacom the security company for the WTC including 7
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
General Science Info. If youve never melted a frying pan frying an egg you can probably skip this part. On the other hand if you not certain if an unpressurized hydrocarbon fire can melt steel, maybe you should check these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire#Temperatures_of_flames_by_appearance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel see thermal properties
This is the smoking gun . This link is to Appendix C of FEMA report on a structural steel sample from WTC7. Section C.2 describes high temperature corrosion , intergranular melting and the presence of anomalous amounts of Sulfur. Also note section C.6 which states no explanation for the source of Sulfur found in the sample has been identified
http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_apc.pdf
This is a brief description of a common military explosive used to cut steel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
This is the National Institute of Standards and Technology website. Note the important links column on the right. Go to the official models and compare them to the actual collapse videos above.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
Let’s actually look at some of the evidence. Review the evidence then make up your own mind. Check out the following links. They deal only with WTC7 – the third WTC building to collapse. It was not hit by a plane and had only minor scattered fires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis website has videos of the actual collapse. Note the perfectly symmetrical 6.5 sec collapse of WTC Building 7:
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
Here are a couple of examples of controlled demolitions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQOqnaIce0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
This is a BBC report on 9/11 that actually reported the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA
This is link to the official BBC website which confirms the authenticity of the above report. There explanation is pretty amusing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
This is an interview with Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC, where he says that WTC7 was "pulled". The term "pulled" refers to a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I
This link is about ” Securacom” the security company for the WTC including 7
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
General Science Info. If you’ve never melted a frying pan frying an egg you can probably skip this part. On the other hand if you not certain if an unpressurized hydrocarbon fire can melt steel, maybe you should check these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire#Temperatures_of_flames_by_appearance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel see “thermal properties”
This is the “smoking gun”. This link is to Appendix C of FEMA report on a structural steel sample from WTC7. Section C.2 describes “high temperature corrosion”, “intergranular melting” and the presence of anomalous amounts of Sulfur. Also note section C.6 which states no explanation for the source of Sulfur found in the sample has been identified
http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_apc.pdf
This is a brief description of a common military explosive used to cut steel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
This is the National Institute of Standards and Technology website. Note the important links column on the right. Go to the official models and compare them to the actual collapse videos above.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
I lost all faith in Popular Mechanics after this article. Please read Prof Steven Jones' Investigative report. Bet Popular Mechanics will not have the courage to respond to it. Please Wake up America! Ask the right questions and you will see. Our rights are being robbed right under our noses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis isn't science. this is ad hominum. you can's just compare hard evidence to ufo believers and get us to go, "yeah, i guess that really is far fetched." we've been lied to, and we want the truth -- the truth our government has, but won't turn over. 911 truth is about that -- not about one particular theory as to what may have happened. the point is, whatever happened was covered and lied about. we want the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlong since dead thread but, it may rouse a response, hopefully from you Michael.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it hard to believe, you of all people, a skeptical, scientific mind would choose to participate in the American 'dumb down'. Your article is a dullard's comment on ignorance. There is a wealth of information available, http://www.ae911truth.org/, yet you choose to warble the idiocies of America's faithful patriots, reassuring yourself your rush to believing the attacks were 'surprising and unimaginable' assaults by some desert dust bunnies with box cutters. You're an embarrassment.
Ever fascinating how people live their lives as establishment mouthpeices who accept everything they are told for fear of looking foolish in the eyes of imbeciles. No wonder this guy works for Scientific American, a collection of cowardly boy scouts turned fake journalists. What's even more rich is the tone is littered with condescension, the textbook sign of lack of confidence in his premises. You need not be a physicist or scientist to know prima facie that building 7 was a demolition and not a collapse. Anyone willing to even entertain the absurd notion that the first steel structure in architectural history to collapse from fire was building 7 of the World Trade Center is either a halfwit or a shill, or both. Look at how buildings collapse. They never uniformly collapse neatly on themselves in non-planned situations. Yet by some miracle, WTC 7, after all the day's tragedy neatly drops to the ground in orderly fashion. You have to accept that ridiculous premise to so arrogantly dismiss the people looking into 9/11. Meanwhile, the owner of the building has spent years trying to backpeddle a patently obvious admission it was demolished on purpose. Grow some balls or give up writing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis the the greatest piece of non-science crap that I have ever read. It had to be put together by non-scientists or want-to-be scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPay close attention now to become truly educated as to why the Impossible collapses of the TwinTowers can be very easily proving using mass media data and then applying physics and math to kick some real Official
Conspiracy butt...
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor says:
The internet repeatedly established weight of a single Twin Tower is 500,000 Tons.
DL(110) = 500,000 Tons
The weight of the 16 Floor alleged falling block is much less than 73,000 Tons, as the steel is only .25 inches thick at the top, but we will consider the whole Tower to be of uniform thickness.
DL(16) = 73,000 Tons or less
The weight of the lower WTC 94 floor block is 430,000 Tons or more as the steel gets progressively thicker and thicker,until it reaches 4 inches thick toward the bottom floors.
The top alleged falling 16 floor block is less than (1/6) the weight of the lower 94 block.
Even though the top block was very massive, on a comparitive scale to the lower 94 floor steel, highly intact block, according to the laws of Physics, it could never collapse the topmost 94th floor, floor 94, with its gravity weight of force alone, much less the entire 94 floor steel tower below.
The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight.
CL = Collapse Load
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, deceased, but published everywhere)
The Live Load is confirmed by NIST 911 Commision Report Science Guy, Ronald Hamburger to be:
LL(94) = 5 x DL(94)
therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94)
and therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x (5 x DL(94))
and therefore:
CL(94) = 100 DL(94)
According to the above, the very unique Safety Factor is the Collapse Load Factor, whis is:
100 x DL(110)
It is not 5 DL(110)
It is not 20 DL(110)
It is 100 DL(110)
& it is 20 x 5 x DL(110)
Get over it OCT misguided dupes and misguided PHDs.
This means the the lower 94 block of steel could support 100 blocks of 94 floors before possible total collapse could occur.
This also means that the lower 94 block of steel could support 588 blocks of 16 floors before possible total collapse could occur, since one 94 block is equal to 5.88 16 floor blocks.
588 Vector Force units of upward support (stressed Normal Force)against 1 Vector force unit of downward gravity weight force, all by its lonesome.
Now apply Vector math Addition to opposing Forces to find the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor says:
The internet repeatedly established weight of a single Twin Tower is 500,000 Tons.
DL(110) = 500,000 Tons
The weight of the 16 Floor alleged falling block is much less than 73,000 Tons, as the steel is only .25 inches thick at the top, but we will consider the whole Tower to be of uniform thickness.
DL(16) = 73,000 Tons or less
The weight of the lower WTC 94 floor block is 430,000 Tons or more as the steel gets progressively thicker and thicker,until it reaches 4 inches thick toward the bottom floors.
The top alleged falling 16 floor block is less than (1/6) the weight of the lower 94 block.
Even though the top block was very massive, on a comparitive scale to the lower 94 floor steel, highly intact block, according to the laws of Physics, it could never collapse the topmost 94th floor, floor 94, with its gravity weight of force alone, much less the entire 94 floor steel tower below.
The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight.
CL = Collapse Load
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, deceased, but published everywhere)
The Live Load is confirmed by NIST 911 Commision Report Science Guy, Ronald Hamburger to be:
LL(94) = 5 x DL(94)
therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94)
and therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x (5 x DL(94))
and therefore:
CL(94) = 100 DL(94)
According to the above, the very unique Safety Factor is the Collapse Load Factor, whis is:
100 x DL(110)
It is not 5 DL(110)
It is not 20 DL(110)
It is 100 DL(110)
& it is 20 x 5 x DL(110)
Get over it OCT misguided dupes and misguided PHDs.
This means the the lower 94 block of steel could support 100 blocks of 94 floors before possible total collapse could occur.
This also means that the lower 94 block of steel could support 588 blocks of 16 floors before possible total collapse could occur, since one 94 block is equal to 5.88 16 floor blocks.
588 Vector Force units of upward support (stressed Normal Force)against 1 Vector force unit of downward gravity weight force, all by its lonesome.
Now apply Vector math Addition to opposing Forces to find that the top block could never in one's wildest dreams totally collapse the lower 94 floor block of powerfully strong and very thick,
4 inches, steel.
588 Force units of upward support
minus
1 force unit of downward weight Force
gives 587 force units of non-collapsing support.
1 Force Unit(FU) = 1 DL(16)
(588 FU up) - (1 FU down) = 587 FU up.
No collapse can possibly occur...
CL(94) = 588 DL(16)
That is crushing and most devastating news for the Original Conspiracy Theorists in the Government and in the Mass Media.
They no longer have a lying and deceitful or ignorant leg to stand on.
Amen, story over using Vector Forces Physics. the Ultimate Truth and Proof.
That is the Final & Ultimate answer as to why the twin towers could never, ever collapse under the conditions offered by NIST, the Government, the Mass Media, and the big name University and corporate PHDs.
Since the confirmed discovery of the red and gray nano Thermite active and explosive particles in the WTC dust samples, there is no leg to stand on by the NIST, government and all the "quack" PHDs hired by the Government to do their lying diry work with the Mass Media.
Game over. Get the Gallows and Guillotines ready!!
Here is a little bit of shocking information for you OCT people and non physicists to digest.
You would have to raise the top 16 floor block, the alleged falling block, to a height of 120 miles above the 94 floor block and then drop it. The 16 floor block would drop for 200 seconds and collide with the top of the lower 94 block at a velocity of 4,500 miles per hour with a colliding energy of 1.5 x 10^14 Joules of energy before total collapse could occur.
That collision energy, 1.5 x 10^14 Joules, is the energy equivalent of 2.4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs or the equivatlent energy of 36,000Tons of TNT or a very large number of mini nuclear devices.
This is attained only if there is no air resistance, in ideal conditions of Free Fall. Because there is air resistance, the Terminal velocity of about 1200 miles per hour will prevent the top 16 floor block from attaining the required collision velocity and the required collision energy to totally collapse the botton 94 floor steel tower.
In other work, under any conditions it will be impossible to totally collapse the lower 94 floor tower.
Amen....End of the Official Conspiracy Unscientific Theory of NIST, the Government, the Mass Media and the retarded PHDs from the Universities and Industry.
All of those PHDs are shot down in flames, becoming the laughing stock of their students and peers. They all need to retire and spend the money they got for writing and supporting tnose stupin and foolish ideas and theories they have corruptly put forward. Their careers are doomed.
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor.
cboldwyn@bellsouth
You may request my detailed PDF research report to be emailed to you if you send me your email address at cboldwyn@bellsouth.net.
You will be amaze and shocked when evaluating my blockbuster research findings.
Bring on the debunkers, if they are brave and foolish enough to try their foolish best...
"Knowing that you are a fool, Scientific American
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat is the beginning of your Wisdom"
This applys to all potential government and NIST supporting allies. You are all pathethic puppets of the Terrorist Man or Terrorist Men who really and truly run the USA Government, Politics, Elections, Finances, Banks, Education, Media of all kinds, and on and on. They orchestrated the 911 WTC Twin Towers "False-Flag" demolishments or obliterations.
Thay all will be investigated, indicted, arrested, incarcerated, tried in court, and publicly, on world wide TV be executed. That is my ultimate wish and desire, for the Traitors, Murderers, and Mass Falsifiers of evidences.
They will never publish my finding in the Mass Media for the sheeple to see and understand. That would be mass suicide of themselves.
When will they ever publish the finding of the scientific proofs for the explosive nano thermite in the WTC dust samples?
follow this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
This is also an Ass Kicker death sentence for the 911 Traitors, killers. The evidence is absolute and conclusive and final, it is the bringer of damnation for the Bush Administration's top level criminals who financed and supported the 3,000 911 murders, assissinations...
Chuck
American Patriot and 911 solutions solver and a Hero of the "Truth Movement"
Come one, come all, and try your hand at debunking, using quantitative science, my ass kicking, blockbusting 911 Twin Towers Conclusions.
This "Anti Truth Movement" site has been completely and 100% debunked with no mercy. You are all fools, dupes, idiots, numbskulls, morons, and retards if you still, yet, support the government's and the Mass Media's Theis Conspiracy. You will now be a supporter of mass murderers. Be careful of what you support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext time, use your brain, if you have one...
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor says:
The internet repeatedly established weight of a single Twin Tower is 500,000 Tons.
DL(110) = 500,000 Tons
The weight of the 16 Floor alleged falling block is much less than 73,000 Tons, as the steel is only .25 inches thick at the top, but we will consider the whole Tower to be of uniform thickness.
DL(16) = 73,000 Tons or less
The weight of the lower WTC 94 floor block is 430,000 Tons or more as the steel gets progressively thicker and thicker,until it reaches 4 inches thick toward the bottom floors.
The top alleged falling 16 floor block is less than (1/6) the weight of the lower 94 block.
Even though the top block was very massive, on a comparitive scale to the lower 94 floor steel, highly intact block, according to the laws of Physics, it could never collapse the topmost 94th floor, floor 94, with its gravity weight of force alone, much less the entire 94 floor steel tower below.
The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight.
CL = Collapse Load
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, deceased, but published everywhere)
The Live Load is confirmed by NIST 911 Commision Report Science Guy, Ronald Hamburger to be:
LL(94) = 5 x DL(94)
therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94)
and therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x (5 x DL(94))
and therefore:
CL(94) = 100 DL(94)
According to the above, the very unique Safety Factor is the Collapse Load Factor, whis is:
100 x DL(110)
It is not 5 DL(110)
It is not 20 DL(110)
It is 100 DL(110)
& it is 20 x 5 x DL(110)
Get over it OCT misguided dupes and misguided PHDs.
This means the the lower 94 block of steel could support 100 blocks of 94 floors before possible total collapse could occur.
This also means that the lower 94 block of steel could support 588 blocks of 16 floors before possible total collapse could occur, since one 94 block is equal to 5.88 16 floor blocks.
588 Vector Force units of upward support (stressed Normal Force)against 1 Vector force unit of downward gravity weight force, all by its lonesome.
Now apply Vector math Addition to opposing Forces to find that the top block could never in one's wildest dreams totally collapse the lower 94 floor block of powerfully strong and very thick,
4 inches, steel.
588 Force units of upward support
minus
1 force unit of downward weight Force
gives 587 force units of non-collapsing support.
1 Force Unit(FU) = 1 DL(16)
(588 FU up) - (1 FU down) = 587 FU up.
No collapse can possibly occur...
CL(94) = 588 DL(16)
That is crushing and most devastating news for the Original Conspiracy Theorists in the Government and in the Mass Media.
They no longer have a lying and deceitful or ignorant leg to stand on.
Amen, story over using Vector Forces Physics. the Ultimate Truth and Proof.
That is the Final & Ultimate answer as to why the twin towers could never, ever collapse under the conditions offered by NIST, the Government, the Mass Media, and the big name University and corporate PHDs.
Since the confirmed discovery of the red and gray nano Thermite active and explosive particles in the WTC dust samples, there is no leg to stand on by the NIST, government and all the "quack" PHDs hired by the Government to do their lying diry work with the Mass Media.
Game over. Get the Gallows and Guillotines ready!!
Here is a little bit of shocking information for you OCT people and non physicists to digest.
You would have to raise the top 16 floor block, the alleged falling block, to a height of 120 miles above the 94 floor block and then drop it. The 16 floor block would drop for 200 seconds and collide with the top of the lower 94 block at a velocity of 4,500 miles per hour with a colliding energy of 1.5 x 10^14 Joules of energy before total collapse could occur.
That collision energy, 1.5 x 10^14 Joules, is the energy equivalent of 2.4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs or the equivatlent energy of 36,000Tons of TNT or a very large number of mini nuclear devices.
This is attained only if there is no air resistance, in ideal conditions of Free Fall. Because there is air resistance, the Terminal velocity of about 1200 miles per hour will prevent the top 16 floor block from attaining the required collision velocity and the required collision energy to totally collapse the botton 94 floor steel tower.
In other work, under any conditions it will be impossible to totally collapse the lower 94 floor tower.
Amen....End of the Official Conspiracy Unscientific Theory of NIST, the Government, the Mass Media and the retarded PHDs from the Universities and Industry.
All of those PHDs are shot down in flames, becoming the laughing stock of their students and peers. They all need to retire and spend the money they got for writing and supporting tnose stupin and foolish ideas and theories they have corruptly put forward. Their careers are doomed.
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor.
cboldwyn@bellsouth
You may request my detailed PDF research report to be emailed to you if you send me your email address at cboldwyn@bellsouth.net.
You will be amaze and shocked when evaluating my blockbuster research findings.
Bring on the debunkers, if they are brave and foolish enough to try their foolish best...
Who is going to be the brave and knowledgeable person to attempt to scientifically debunk this ass-kicking Thesis of Chuck's.
Proverb:
"Knowing that you are a fool,
that is the beginning of your Wisdom"
This applys to all potential government and NIST supporting allies. You are all pathethic puppets of the Terrorist Man or Terrorist Men who really and truly run the USA Government, Politics, Elections, Finances, Banks, Education, Media of all kinds, and on and on. They orchestrated the 911 WTC Twin Towers "False-Flag" demolishments or obliterations.
Thay all will be investigated, indicted, arrested, incarcerated, tried in court, and publicly, on world wide TV be executed. That is my ultimate wish and desire, for the Traitors, Murderers, and Mass Falsifiers of evidences.
They will never publish my finding in the Mass Media for the sheeple to see and understand. That would be mass suicide of themselves.
When will they ever publish the finding of the scientific proofs for the explosive nano thermite in the WTC dust samples?
follow this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
This is also an Ass Kicker death sentence for the 911 Traitors, killers. The evidence is absolute and conclusive and final, it is the bringer of damnation for the Bush Administration's top level criminals who financed and supported the 3,000 911 murders, assissinations...
Chuck
American Patriot and 911 solutions solver and a Hero of the "Truth Movement"
Come one, come all, and try your hand at debunking, using quantitative science, my ass kicking, blockbusting 911 Twin Towers Conclusions.
This "Anti Truth Movement" site has been completely and 100% debunked with no mercy. You are all fools, dupes, idiots, numbskulls, morons, and retards if you still, yet, support the government's and the Mass Media's Theis Conspiracy. You will now be a supporter of mass murderers. Be careful of what you support.
Next time, use your brain, if you have one...
Really, Mr. Schermer? You say so what that the jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, we still have the curtains, furniture and paper to consider. How hot do those things burn?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the following research PDF, 21 pages, that quantitatively proves the impossibility for the WTC Twin Towers Collapses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.freeamerican.com/Images/911Boldwynn.PDF
and check out this accompanying MP3 interactive tutorial for understanding the Twin Tower collapses and other anomalies:
10 June 2009
Interview: The 58th broadcast of "The Real Deal"
on Revere Radio Network will feature my special
guest, Chuck Boldwyn, on the physics of 9/11;
5-7 PM/CT,
http://www.revereradionetwork.com/.
Listen to the show featuring Jim Fetzer and Chuck Boldwyn, retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor.
This MP3 may not be posted until 6-16-09 to 6-18-09. It was recorded on June 10, 2009, but not yet posted, today being 6-15-09
Dear Scientific American,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, you lazy Rag, I'm getting tired of this waterhead scientific analysis of the mounting evidence of the events of 911. What are you doing printing articles like this in Scientific American.
Michael Shermer needs to examine the events, rather than his emotions. It is embarrassing for readers of Scientific American.... this anti-science flag sucking waterhead logic of Shermers. It is an embarrassment, and he should hang up his scientific instruments, turn in his boy scout badges to the proper authorities, and go join Fox News.... as there scientific commentator.
If you do not want to Join the factually challenged over at Fox News, Mr. Shermer, all you have to do now is act like a Professional and do some scientific research. What the hell do you think Scientific American is all about? Nobody needs to hear any more of that Gibberish about yr. Emotional response & yr. blind faith in our leaders official story *(Dick Chaney never lies?...Right?) & how Hopelessly unpatriotic the scientists are who have serious questions about 911. If you're that disinterested in the astonishing events of the largest attack on American soil, and possibly a self inflicted one, since Pearl Harbor, then you should move on and find a new career. Journalism is not for you, and especially Scientific American articles, which should have never been printed. Such emotional drivel. Mr. Shermer, Scientific American is no place for Amateurs & Dilatants who don't want to do anything but "take lunch" & Waste serious people's Time.
Now, suggested reading, Mr. Shermer. This may be a Little Challenging , since it is a real peer reviewed science paper, and may require some critical thinking.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
By Dr. Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Niels H. Harrit, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."
The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.
Link to the Peer Reviewed Science Paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal:
Good Luck, and happy scientific/critical thinking everyone.
Gough Lewis
Producer/Director
Dear Scientific American,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, you lazy Rag, I'm getting tired of this waterhead scientific analysis of the mounting evidence of the events of 911. What are you doing printing articles like this in Scientific American.
Michael Shermer needs to examine the events, rather than his emotions. It is embarrassing for readers of Scientific American.... this “anti-science flag sucking” waterhead logic of Shermer’s. It is an embarrassment, and he should hang up his scientific instruments, turn in his boy scout badges to the proper authorities, and go join Fox News.... as there scientific commentator.
If you do not want to Join the factually challenged over at Fox News, Mr. Shermer, all you have to do now is act like a Professional and do some scientific research. What the hell do you think Scientific American is all about? Nobody needs to hear any more of that Gibberish about yr. Emotional response & yr. blind faith in our leaders official story *(Dick Chaney never lies?...Right?) & how Hopelessly unpatriotic the scientists are who have serious questions about 911. If you're that disinterested in the astonishing events of the largest attack on American soil, and possibly a self inflicted one, since Pearl Harbor, then you should move on and find a new career. Journalism is not for you, and especially Scientific American articles, which should have never been printed. Such emotional drivel. Mr. Shermer, Scientific American is no place for Amateurs & Dilatants who don't want to do anything but "take lunch" & Waste serious people's Time.
Now, suggested reading, Mr. Shermer. This may be a “Little Challenging”, since it is a “real” peer reviewed science paper, and may require some critical thinking.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
By Dr. Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Niels H. Harrit, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."
The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.
Link to the Peer Reviewed Science Paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal:
Good Luck, and happy scientific/critical thinking everyone.
Gough Lewis
Producer/Director
So, the entire US govt isn't capable of carrying out 9/11, but 19 young Arabs armed with $2.00 box cutters are?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Schermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a true idiot, numbskull, fool, moron, imbicile, quack, and retard
what a load of codswallop
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is one of the most corrupt, scientifically innaccurate, logically fallacious trashy pieces of effluent I've had the displeasure of viewing. 911 is scientifically proven to be Controlled demolition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFACT 1: The north tower accelerated through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which is much less than it's weight when supported at rest. This means the resistance was removed by explosives.
FACT2: The top section of the south tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum. The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of toppling proves the removal of resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
FACT 3: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage. even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.
FACT4: The 2.5 seconds of Freefall that NIST admits to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
FACT 5: Office fires don't burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Hydrocarbon-based fires only reach about 700F in open-air conditions and steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). "Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers."
INSIDE JOB PROVEN: FOR THOSE THAT DOUBT, READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN AND GET EDUCATED!
I'm used to read scientific American but now realise it is a propaganda-filled corrupt political piece of trash.
-Why do we always only see the one shiny piece of debris from the crashed pentagon plane?I would have thought it would be charred.And why were the street lights near the pentagon not taken out by the plane? -Is it true that no bodies were recovered from flight 93 even though it crashed on land?Has that ever happened in the history aviation? I don't necessarily think it is a conspiracy theory i just need an objective answer/explanation minus all the aggro comments from both sides please!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere were reports of explosions on the lower floors(ground to 15th floors) and the lobby before the building went down consistent with a controlled explosion. Being a dumbo, I just assumed the building was designed to go down in that way, but if so, does that mean you do NOT need a controlled demolition to bring down a building in that "pancake" manner. What happens if demolition charges on a building are laid imprecisely?Would the building collapse unevenly? I would have to assume either it does not matter or that on 911 the 2 separate planes crashed in such a precise manner that caused each tower to fall uniformly. If so, demolition companies should find out as it would save them a bomb(no pun intended) on costs of purchasing explosives!! It could actually revolutionize their industry!! IN LINE WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY, IT MEANS YOU DO NOT NEED TO DESTROY THE GROUND FLOOR OF A BUILDING TO GET IT TO COLLAPSE IN A UNIFORM PANCAKE MANNER!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the official story to make sense it means that buildings can be brought down straight and uniformly with any kind of intensely violent explosion on the higher or middle floor only, WITHOUT the need to set charges on the ground floor AT ALL!! And as it happened twice from two different planes hitting two different buildings at different heights and angles, at different times and random winds, it sounds to me like IT IS A MYTH that you need to spend all that time training and money to learn how to lay explosives and time them precisely to demolish a building. We should run this one by Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd guys please don't take my head off(no pun intended) when answering my questions, i just have questions to which i need answers. I am no expert.The problem is that for every official explanation, i see 10 new questions!! I just want to believe there is some kind of logical explanation. I am not bothered with the political intrigues,that is too complicated for me to understand. I am just concerned with what i saw on t.v. with my own eyes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sounds absolutely impossible for both towers to fall straight down in such a uniform manner from planes crashing in at different angles, heights, winds, times etc..and without detonating the ground floors first, even if one concedes that the planes were capable of bringing the buildings down,how can both buildings come down so straight and uniform? And now i am hearing that it has never happened before. How was i made to turn a blind eye to this impossibility, and why are demolitions experts and people with a basic IQ of over 80, not speaking about this,especially those from outside the USA who are blessed with independent thought.I have come to accept that many Americans are incapable of independent thought when it comes to Politics or stuff their government tells them, in spite of their generally extremely high levels of intelligence in almost every other facet of human life(except maybe car making but i digress). If you disagree with an Yank on any political position from that of his government,then you are the Devil, a Nazi, a Communist, a Terrorist, a trouble maker,a rabble rouser a conspiracy theorist, and any other insult you can imagine. If you are a Yank questioning your own government you are a conspiracy theorist, a traitor,a mafioso, a security risk, an extremist a hippie a drug smuggler, etc...Most normal people would simply put their argument across without hurling insults and staging character assassinations, seek an objective answer and take it from there. For instance when i asked a black American why he is anti Castro and anti Cuba seeing as Castro outlawed Racism at a time when USA would not, instead of getting any sort of answer,i was accused of being a Communist!! I can only assume some Afro-Americans long to go back to "the good old days", when they were referred to as "boy" and "nigger" and had to drink from separate water fountains,sit at the back of the bus,and got murdered and raped" orribly",by men in white hoods in the middle of the night.Now I AM sounding like a Yank!! My bad!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd how did the third building near the twin towers fall in a uniformly pancake manner without a plane hitting it and no ground floor explosions? This is the greatest mystery of all as it was affected by totally different different factors from the twin towers but with an identical result.I agree with Jeremy Clarkson that in some parts of America, people have actually started mating with vegetables!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 500,000 ton building being brought down by 1oo tonnes of airplane?That is a difference of 5000 to one!! That is like the weight of a large man taking out 100 cars. All this talk about the heat from aviation fuel melting steel, when we all saw the fuel burn up and explode on impact outside the building on t.v. Otherwise what was the fireball we saw? Before you can even discuss Thermite or free fall times or melting steel, conspiracy theories, etc... just look at any video of the crash and see the fuel burning up outside.This is of course assuming that the plane had a full tank of fuel. The whole thing looks very odd and all sense of reason and objectivity has been suppressed under a cloud of fear and anger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost striking about these conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for the obvious. Large jumbo jets crashed into a building shortly after taking off carrying many gallons of jet fuel, and this was all caught on video tape. Only a moron would believe the convoluted theories I have heard in the face of this evidence. Clearly they have decided to believe in a fantasy world that fits their conspiratorial beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny of you that pretend to be scientists. Model it. I'll give $1000 to anyone that can make a reasonable physical model of the WTCs that disintegrates at 2/3 g, has over 50% of its mass, steel, concrete, etc. vaporized in 10 seconds. Anyone? I don't want to hear arguments, show me the experimetal model. Show me! Where is over 200 acres of carpet? 40,000 door knobs? 40,000 toilets? No, mostly just dust is left. Scientific American, right! Not scientific and not American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent. I once read this magazine also. It appears to be nothing but trash now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding? You have it all figured out in 5 quick and easy to read paragraphs don't you? This reminds me of a high school essay. When I started to read this I was hoping you would perhaps get some jet fuel, a steel beam, a thermometer, etc and start melting steel!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm just an average Joe citizen... Truth is, I really don't know what temperature steal melts at. I don't know what temperature jets fuel burns at, or if the design of the buildings allowed for a blast furnace effect to occur, or if that is even a possibility. I also don't know what temperature carpet and other interior items burn at.
All you've done was find a guy at MiT who says steel gets weak at 1200 degrees. Fair enough, but the commenter, Myopicvoid, has pointed out, "Ul labs certified the steel's integrity at 1800 degrees F for 6 hours." What about that? Both opinions rely on hearsay, it would seem. One thing's certain, both opinions aren't right. I want answers, not more conjecture! Get the materials, set up the experiment, video tape it, and show me... I want to see it. I would think a scientific publication would perform the experiment. You haven't brought me anything I can rely on here.
I do know that several sites have pointed out that many buildings in the world have burned for days, and they're still standing... they say this is the first time that a (steal) building has collapsed due to fire, and I find that compelling. I also know that I was watching it live (on TV) when each of the towers fell, and from that moment, I sort of knew something didn't make sense. I figured the debris pile would've been 30 stories high, but it was like an empty lot. Where did it all go? Can it turn to dust? If yes, then show me
Those buildings held their weight for 30 years in all kinds of wind storms, etc... they could flex 3' at their tops. They were strong, yet when they fell, they came down as if the bottoms weren't there at all. This makes little sense... it would seem (in a natural collapse) the top sections should have twisted over and fell off to the side, leaving at least some of the bottom in place... the bottoms didn't seem to be engulfed in fire. The entire structure should not have failed simultaneously. Your answer: "Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down." What? What makes that true? Dude, you're opinion is 95% air. This is like something a high school student would hand in for a D
This is not opinion, this is fact. WTC7 fell at free-fall rate for nearly 2.5 seconds. NIST was forced to concur. Fact. Not one disputable word stated. Not one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, if you think that this can ever happen in nature, that a steel-reinforced (or even other construction) building falls into and through itself, picking up speed at the same rate a bowling ball in air would pick up speed, then if you are a physicist or even think you understand nature, one or more of the following applies:
1. You ain't much of a physicist,
2. you are lying to yourself,
3. you are lying to others.
And if 2 or 3, see 1.
They cannot honor your request TruthandLight. They cannot duplicate it and they know it. I've offered $1,911 to anyone that can (and I even offer to let them break one or two physical laws) on this site and others and not one word. Same with Mythbusters, they can't. There is no experiment that can be done that will break the laws of physics as is necessary to see what is seen on 911. Only if man intervenes in nature can that physical behavior be reproduced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this