911 Problem Solving

2+2 Really Does = 4

By now, most Americans have heard something related to people questioning the official account of 911. Separating what is known, and unknown about 911 is not really as difficult as many people would think. There are many aspects of 911, most notably the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7, that can be looked at from purely a physics and engineering perspective, free of conjecture about what the media, or what our government is capable of. Looking at 911 from a purely technical perspective allows us to strip away preconceived notions, conjecture, and speculation. There is a great deal of physical evidence that can be analyzed, and very strong conclusions can be made. From this basis, interested citizens can form the foundation to understand what did, or did not happen, on that horrible day.

We all spend time in our lives solving problems, from trying to figure out how to set up the new TV universal remote, to organizing our time crunched lives. In our professional lives, some solve problems in areas like education, finance or medicine. In some of the scientific fields, the laws of physics can be rigidly applied in problem solving. In a field such as structural analysis, heat transfer, and material properties, the laws of physics are very well understood, and problems involving these disciplines can be solved with near certainty. Those that spend their professional lives in some of these scientific disciplines solve problems on a routine basis, and with very quantifiable analysis to justify the conclusions.

So what is problem solving? Gaining an understanding for what is unknown or previously unknown. In simple terms, a problem can be broken down into things that are known and things that are unknown. A great roadblock to problem solving is preconceived notions. If you make assumptions for what was wrong, or what caused the problem, before you have looked at all of the possibilities, you will likely find yourself struggling to solve the problem, as you may have missed or overlooked key details.

The events of 911 present an extremely important problem to solve. The US government’s official investigation was not a rigorous scientific analysis of events, and many 911 researches have taken the challenge to determine what happened on that horrible day. There are many key pieces of evidence that can help solve this problem.

Many Americans also have strong preconceived notions of what may or may not have happened on 911. Most, if not all of these preconceived notions were established without understanding the key facts and physical evidence. To come up with a clear a picture of what happened or didn’t happen on 911, you need to look simply at the physical evidence, and put aside any and all preconceived notions of what may have occurred, what our government may be capable of, what the media knows or doesn’t know. Physics doesn’t lie, to solve a problem go straight for what can be compared firmly against the laws of physics. Making prejudgments without a detailed and careful analysis of the physical evidence, will lead to skewed or incorrect analysis.

To help solve a problem, you must clear your mind of what you think is wrong, so you can lay out all of the possibilities. You must cleanly lay out all of the possible parts of the problem, and through observation, testing, analysis, and research, slowly gain a better understanding of the problem. As you rule out certain possibilities, run some tests, and study the problem, you can begin to develop some hypothesis, or models which can explain what the problem is and how to solve it. This process of observation, testing and analysis can be applied to each model until it becomes clearer which model best fits the available data. Depending on the problem, you may be able to prove with near certainty that you have the answer.

Let’s use the new universal remote for a problem solving example:

Problem: Universal will not control the TV.
Possible causes:
1. Batteries in remote are dead
2. Remote does not work
3. TV remote receiver does not work
4. Instructions on programming the remote were not followed, were not correct.
5. Some interference with the wireless signal

You can devise some tests to eliminate some of the problems right away. You can test the batteries, you can use the TV remote to check the TV, you can use the universal remote with other products to check remote functionality, etc. But to solve the problem you need to layout all of the possible causes, then eliminate the one by one. If you jump to the conclusion that the remote is not working properly, you can waste a lot of time and effort returning it to the store, trying to get a different unit, but at the end of the day, if this was not the cause of the problem, you are no closer to solving the problem, and you have wasted a lot of time and energy in the process.

Let’s look at another problem solving example of how powerful preconceived perceptions prevented solving a very basic question, the planetary structure of our solar system.

Early astronomers were trying to understand why some objects in the sky (planets) did not follow the same path as other objects in the sky (stars). The planets appeared to wander back and forth across the night time sky, while other objects followed a very set pattern of movement across the sky. Early astronomers, who had a good understanding of geometry, came up with some very elaborate geometrical models to describe the movements of the planets. Why did these astronomers come up with elaborate and complicated models of how the planets moved across the sky? They assumed that the earth was the center of the universe. These astronomers spent lifetimes coming up with more and more intricate models to predict the location of the planets. All of these astronomers were wrong. The fundamental assumption they made was that the earth was at the center of the universe. Once Astronomers were able to look at the planetary problem without this preconceived notion, a simpler and far stronger theory was developed, that the sun was at the center of the solar system. Using the scientific understanding of mathematics and physics, it was quickly realized by the scientific community that this must be the explanation for the planetary orbits based on how well simple mathematical models predicted the planetary orbits. Many people rejected this notion, even though all of the scientific facts were well in place to support this theory, purely based on an assumption that the earth must be the center of the universe, a preconceived notion that was very strong. The planetary orbit problem provides a very good example where people’s preconceived notions blind them to sound and well documented scientific evidence.

To get a clear understanding of what happened on 911 we need to apply the same problem solving methodology, and free ourselves from preconceived notions. It can be very difficult for some to free themselves from very strongly held beliefs, but to get a true understanding of a problem; you must open your mind to all possibilities, and eliminate them in a very systematic and scientific way.

As engineers, we use our understanding of the physical world to provide a basis for technical analysis. The fundamental laws of physics which are well understood, must be used to solve any technical problem.

Lets investigate at the collapse of the WTC1, 2, and 7 with a clean sheet of paper, no preconceived notions, no hypotheses without laying out all of the possibilities, and eliminating them one by one. Let’s also look at the government’s analysis of the events of 911, and review what possible scenarios they looked into during their investigation of the buildings collapse.

What is the problem we are trying to solve? WTC1, 2, and 7 collapsed on 911, why?

What do we know about the problem?
1. That the buildings were struck with something, most likely aircraft
2. The design and construction methods of the buildings, and some of the basic design criteria.
3. We know that the buildings were strong enough to withstand the impact energy of the aircraft.
4. Fires were burning in the buildings

This is a reasonable place to start.

So let’s refine the problem statement to some event, or series of events took place after the aircraft struck the building, which caused the complete collapse of the building.

Hypothesis or model 1: The structural damage coupled with the fire caused the collapse of the building.

Model 2: Controlled demolition was used to collapse the buildings.

Model 3: A flood, structural failure or other event caused the loss of structural integrity of the buildings foundation.

Model 4: Bombs and/or car bombs caused the structural collapse of the buildings.

Model 5: Unknown forces caused the buildings to collapse.

What data or information do we have which is relevant to these models?

Model 1
1. We can extrapolate the heat of the fires based on the type of fire/smoke generated and the materials of combustion
2. We can use the buildings blue prints and analyze the structural damage from the aircraft and resulting fires
3. We can analyze the steel from the building to determine how hot the steel structure was and what the initial steel material properties were.
4. We can construct detailed heat transfer models to determine how the heat from the fire would have been transferred throughout the building.
5. We can generate some simplified building collapse models to look at the energy required to collapse the building, the speed of the collapse, the symmetry of the collapse.
6. We can talk to eye witnesses of the event.

Model 2
1. We can compare the collapse to previous controlled demolitions, including symmetry and speed
2. We can look for evidence of controlled demolition, including the signatures from explosive materials.
3. We can talk to eye witnesses of the event.
4. We can analyze debris from the buildings

Model 1 is essentially the model presented to us as the official version of events. The details of Model 1 have been presented by the government, through various reports and main stream media sources.

Model 2 is a leading model of many 911 researches. The key points are well laid out here www.ae911truth.org Here is a summary of the key points that have been made by 911 researchers, and compare them to what we know about the events of 911.
1. The speed of the buildings collapse
2. The symmetry of the collapse
3. The eye witness accounts of explosions in the buildings
4. Molten metal found under all the buildings
5. Steel samples from at least some of the buildings shows a signature indicating the use of explosives
6. Analysis of WTC dust, particularly the small metallic spheres
7. Previous building collapses from fire and controlled demolition.
8. Previous fires in the WTC

Model 3: A complete failure of the foundations support structure does not account for the complete destruction of the building. Based on this large discrepancy, this model has an extremely low order of possibility.

Model 4: There is some data which supports this possibility: Multiple explosions in the buildings heard by multiple eye witnesses.

Model 5 can not be reviewed in detail, as the basis for “other” forces is unknown

Let’s do a very high level review the analysis conducted to date on the collapse of the WTC buildings. It appears from the governments reports on the collapse of the WTC buildings that only model 1 was analyzed. It has been argued that not only model 1 was analyzed, but that Model 1 was made to fit http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf It appears that the government’s investigation made a fatal flaw, they jumped to the conclusion that the planes and fires caused the collapse of the buildings.

911 researchers found that the government’s model of the WTC did not fit well with the available evidence. The results of five plus years of investigation, testing, and analysis is model 2. Looking at video and physical evidence from 911, all of the key points previously mentioned fit extremely well with a controlled demolition model. When there are multiple pieces of evidence that fit well with one model and not the others, it becomes a leading model, and one that is used to further refine what the answer to the problem is. Recent work by Dr Steven Jones on the small metal spheres found in WTC dust provides the latest strong piece of evidence http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf to support Model 2. This is a piece of physical evidence you can put in your hands and look at. Model 1 can not explain how these could have been found in the WTC dust.

Models 3, and 4; while providing possible explanations, do not fit well with the available evidence, and can not explain the complete destruction of the building.

The problem solving techniques used by the government did not evaluate all of the possible explanations. The government investigators had the preconceived notion that the planes and fire could be the only explanation, and their analysis was set to prove this. Instead of cleanly laying out all of the possibilities, only one model was investigated. As we have seen from the history of the understanding of our solar system, the use of preconceived notions can lead to incorrect conclusions. If the preconceived notions are strong enough, a somewhat strong case can be made to support their conclusion. As in the example of the solar system, no one had any reason to doubt the “official explanation” for the motion of the planets, even though looking back today; it seems pretty foolish that the motions of the planets in the sky would follow the wild geometric paths that early Astronomers came up with.

Physics doesn’t lie - it is a fundamental truth. Solving an engineering problem requires that you work from absolute know physical truths and work backwards from there. By looking at 911 on the basis of purely the physical evidence, and creating models based on this, you can leave speculation and preconceived notions behind. You can get a cleaner path to the truth.

The evidence at this point to support controlled demolition is simply overwhelming. There are so many different types of physical evidence that all support the same model, that there really is very little doubt at this point. Asking questions like “how could they have planted all of the explosives in the building” is pointless, because based on the physical evidence they must have. Asking what happened to the passengers of the planes is pointless because we can not reference this to a known physical law. Asking why the NY Times will not cover alternate 911 theories is a dead end because this can not be referenced to a known truth.

The strong physical evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC towers forms the basis for further investigations. From a strong technical basis we have now established that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. We must now ask how and why. The future of our Republic likely depends on finding these answers.

It's even easier to disprove the official reports

It's even easier to disprove the official reports than to prove what did happen on 9/11. The government reports are jam packed with absurd and mind-numbingly stunning lies that anyone with common sense can poke through. It's lies like "The FAA didn't tell us the planes were coming" when the military has its own sophisticated radar that can track fast moving missiles, let alone slow moving commercial planes--with or without transponder on, and even the secret service has its own access (read: real-time) to the FAA radar data.

Just take a look at how absurd the NIST report is:

9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


Most people follow.
# 1 Lazy
# 2 Unable to think for themselves. #3 They fear ridicule
I really believe people have a right to voice thier opinion. The thing i find funny is most people that have one don't know shit about the issues.
So want to have a valid opinion?