9/11 Physics Truth

I started work on the 9/11 Physics Truth site last spring and finally got around to cleaning it up enough for release.

My intention is to present easy to read physics arguments that anyone can quickly understand and share with others, thus spreading the word and waking up more people. While we need to continue doing solid scientific research and presenting arguments that prove our case, we also need the support of many more people. The science is not that difficult for most people to understand, but we do need to do a better job of presenting it for easy understanding.

The site is a wiki, and I am hoping to get help from others to add comments, correct any misunderstandings I may have, create more graphics and videos, and fill in more of the detailed arguments, as well as address many other physics-related issues.

The site looks good

My only criticism would be the sizable advertisements.

I don't like the ads either

Although wetpaint wiki editing and commenting is very convenient, the ads have gotten rather large and obtrusive lately, probably to pay the bills. We could pay to have them removed, but I'd rather move to another site.

I'm interested in the physics too.

I just wish I were brilliant enough to write a simple (but reasonably) accurate physics simulation of the Tower collapses, illustrating conservation of momentum, and allowing adjustments to be made by the user - such as varying the percentage of material that is available to act as a crushing block.

To create a full, finite element analysis of the Towers would take a couple of hundred man-years of programming time. But to do a physics simulation of a simplified tower structure - especially one whose variables the viewer could adjust - would be interesting and useful.

Some have tried


Some are trying


Also, see Derek Johnson's presentation: http://www.911blogger.com/node/21432

Looks like they need more people to help

These are some great efforts, and I would encourage more people to get involved in some small way.

There are a few more simulation tools that I tried using with limited success. I'll probably make a list and add it to the site.

It would be ideal if we could provide some online interactive tools to simulate the physics principles so people could experiment with them to get a feel for how they work. A full-blown finite element analysis system would be too much to ask for, at least right now. Maybe in a few years. Until then, we have to rely on offline tools run by experts.

Simplicity is good

I liked the way you've started with basic experiments to make your point. If one diagram doesn't drive home your lesson, another is provided with a slightly different presentation, so that the basic principles of physics are understood. Keep it simple and the viewer will delve deeper into the material.

Now How the Heck Did That Get There?

It might be useful to explore the path of just one large ejected beam from its origin in one of the towers, to its resting place in one of the surrounding buildings. Then talk about the forces involved. Ignore everything else, even pulverization and all the other beams.

An animation would be best, perhaps even an annotated video with arrows and such. Still images with annotations would be OK, but not nearly as good.

The idea would be:
- to show with video and illustrations the starting place, to the approximate floor and location if possible,
- discuss what sort of a beam it was (core column or whatever it was)
- its size and weight and strength
- show the picture of the steel skeleton as the building was being built and locate the beam
- show the trajectory graphically, with the video and stills
- show the damage it caused,
- do something to make people understand just how big the beam was - use analogy
- and make them realize, in their gut, how far it traveled - use analogy

Then ask them, how is this remotely possible, since gravity would pull the beam down, not across? Collapses do not hurl large objects hundreds of feet sideways, do they? However, people need to focus on this point to understand it. A casual appraisal will not be enough.

They have to understand that:
1 - This beam was massive
2 - This beam was hurled at a considerable speed
3 - This beam was hurled at a considerable distance
4 - This beam did considerable damage
5 - This beam had an origin in a particular place on the towers
6 - This beam had to disconnect for the rest of the structure in order to fly away
7 - It takes considerable force to hurl a beam
8 - Gravity pulls things down, not sideways

What could possibly supply such a force (hint - explosives can supply that level of force)

I had to learn to see that the towers were exploding. My teenage niece saw it immediately, just from a still image. One of my brothers said he had no idea what exploding or collapsing buildings should look like, and did not take the time to think about it, or watch the video with any attention.

Look at the nonsensical explanations put forward and debunk them; these could include:
- release of water vapor by the concrete (I read this gem years ago in a critique of Hoffman's paper),
- a ricochet off a lower piece of the tower,
- a beam attached at one end swinging and then being catapulted,
- air pressure from the collapsing tower,
- or any other ridiculous explanation that has been given, or might be given.

People have to form a mental model of how unlikely it is that a single large beam could fly off horizontally this way. By focusing on one object, we might get them to think the issue through a little more carefully.

I once read a rejoinder to the effect that since we have not seen a similar collapse in the past, we have no way of knowing what is normal in such a situation. Clearly this is nonsense, but to anyone with poor intuitions about applied physics, it may be a convincing argument.

To give an example from another realm: There is a discovery channel about tornadoes. In it many tornadoes are shown. There are usually specks flying around in the videos near the tornadoes. The scale of the tornado and it destructive effects take on much more immediacy when the voice over announces that the speck on the left of the screen whirling around many hundreds of feet in the sky is a large tanker truck. Until this detail is pointed out, the massive size of the storm is not so apparent.

There needs to be astonishment. They know that objects don't just fly great distances sideways for no reason. People need to all of a sudden look at it and say "What the heck could make that happen!"

Ricocheting is possible

Great ideas, thanks.

But it is possible for ricocheting to be responsible for a few of the beams flying off at right angles, or even being propelled upwards. Think of what happens when a cue ball smashes into the 15 pool balls arranged in triangle - balls go off in every direction.

However, it would not be possible for most of the beams to be ricocheted outside of the building's footprint because that would require too much energy, and not leave enough mass falling straight down to rationalize a gravitational collapse. And that is what we see in photos of ground zero - I conservatively estimated 20% remaining within the footprint, but it might be as low as 5-10%. So it doesn't add up.

Would ricochet be significant?

I am sure that there would be some ricochet, but would their be enough energy in a dropped beam to ricochet at the speeds measured? The collision would not be perfectly elastic, so some velocity would necessarily be lost (significant?) and the velocity after ricochet would depend on the distance fallen before the bounce. Am I right on this? So, how far could something ricochet in the most extreme case? What would that case be - a fall from the very top to the very bottom before the bounce? This would certainly result in the fastest fall possible, but could something bounce sideways at the velocities observed? We could focus on some beam with a known origin, and a known trajectory that ended up damaging a neighboring building. Is there such an animal, that is, is there someone expert in this narrow corner of the controlled demolition world?

A few ricochets and catapults could be larger

Actually, a ricochet by itself, where a beam is merely bouncing off a stationary object, would not go far. But if a bounce is enhanced by a much larger moving mass, it can be very significant. Take a look at this explanation of a collision between The Basketball and the Tennis Ball. And here is a short video demonstrating the concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQf9UwUfBs

A few ricochets (and catapults) might be very large, but if we add up the total energy required for all ejections of mass, it must be much less than what is required to collapse the building. We should be able to calculate this knowing the distribution of the steel beams around the footprints of the buildings.

I think it depends upon who your target audience is.

For most people who are wholly unsophisticated in physics/science/architecture/engineering, such as me, the official "pancaking" theory (sans personal research) was believable. As I began to explore matters, I continued to hear claims that lateral projectiles were evidence of CT.

Lateral projectiles, eh? Hmmm.

The sad truth is that, if you don't know anything about anything and you're still thinking "pancaking," it honestly makes sense to you that the pressure caused by massive floors falling down on another would cause some things to shoot/pop out sideways at huge speeds.

I think about when I was a kid ... the peanut butter and marshmallow Fluff sandwiches I used to make and then squish together really fast and hard right next to my unsuspecting sister's face. For those, "in the know," that a ridiculous comparison, but it's all I have. That's all people who don't have any frame of reference can do. Before 9/11, when was the last time I saw a CT? Never. (Maybe a video clip lasting 7 seconds on the news, when I looking down to take a bight of my dinner.) When's the last time I saw a floor or floors of a house or building fall down on top of one another? Never.

This is also why "squibs" are a hard sell. Squibs honestly "look" to many of us as though they are pressure relief points (e.g, teenager popping pimples). Why they would occur at one place (window?) and not another, we don't know. Why they'd be happening so many floors below the "action" also seems logical to us because we figure that some things are probably crashing through floors faster internally, where we can't see anything.

Regarding lateral projectiles, my "ah-ha" moment, my "Helen-Keller-with-her-hands-under-the-pumping-well-water" moment occurred when I saw a very short video clip that's part of R. Gage's presentation. It shows an actual CT, very close up. When the thing is "pulled," HUGE pieces of the building clearly shoot out/explode out sideways and away at blinding speeds. Only then, only then, did I "get it." (For most of us, the " massive" 9/11 collapse is a miny fountain montage made up of specks, straws, and talcum powder. That's what's on the TV screen, no matter how many times the clips are shown. Huge numbers of people in this country have never even seen skyscrapers first-hand.)

Same thing with squibs - often heard as "squids" by people, like me, because we don't know the professional "lingo." It wasn't until I saw CT videos that clearly showed entire series of "squids" that I understood the concept of "squibs." ...And let's see, I began "waking up" in 2005 and I didn't really, REALLY "get" either of these two things until late 2008. That's too long. Simply hearing the same thing over and over again (even with greater emphasis), that you don't understand to begin with, doesn't help you to better understand it.

What I'm saying here is that there are a lot of people - even intelligent, highly educated folks in other professions - that need to have things addressed from the "bottom up." This site is excellent, especially if you have some basic knowledge in these areas to begin with. But to draw in and educate greater numbers of us "regular" people, I'd advise dumbing things down even further.

I once heard that major newspapers were written at a 6th grade level. Whether that's true or not, it makes a good point. If we're really trying to educate people, we need to remember that many we are trying to educate are not that well-educated, and that even those who are, can unintentionally be "left in the dust" by those of you with greater knowledge/training in these areas.

Not wanting to seem dumb or admit that they don't understand, people just shut down, close up, and stick with the official theory, which - by the way - was intentionally made simple, clear, and VERY easy to understand! Arabs, caves, boxcutters.

Maybe we should borrow a page from that playbook:

"Nano-thermite for Dummies"
"Controlled Demolition 101"
"Squibs Don't Live in the Ocean."

I'm serious.

All of this being said, the site and idea are really, REALLY good ones. If there's ever a section added that starts at a 6th grade level, I hope someone will let me know. I'll learn that first and then jump to the current pages so I can have a real appreciation for the critically important points being made/explained there.

People who eat squid pancakes for breakfast

The funny thing about the pancake theory is that the OCT guys dropped pancakes a few years ago, but I suspect most of the public still believes that's how it happened.

Those coverup con artists must have an awful tedious job always chasing the latest lies, dreading they will eventually be exposed. But I can just hear their cynical guffaws about the stupid sheeple, so easily led astray.

It is very easy to rationalize that the government and MSM must be telling the truth, and then the blinders go up and you fail to see what is otherwise plainly obvious. (I was there until a year ago, actually.) Most people don't even want to be bothered, it seems, and certainly don't want to go to a lot of trouble to question everything they believe in.

There are two rather huge hurdles we must leap. One is tearing down the OCT along with trust in the system, and the other is constructing something else, a plausible theory of what might have really happened, and why the big lie in the first place. The first is much easier to do, logically, but people have a very hard time going there, and if they are open to it at all, they don't want to be left with nothing, so they immediately ask what we think did happen.

I actually think it is too much to expect most people to look into this on their own, and the purpose of the 9/11 Physics Truth site is to help all the already-converted truthers to better arm themselves with the facts and practical arguments. There should be other sites for addressing all the non-physics arguments. And then every one of us needs to communicate with our friends and family, the people who are most likely to trust us, talking one-on-one to find out what they believe and get them involved with learning the truth one small step at a time.

Anyway, thanks for your support of this idea, of making the truth easier to understand. If there is anything that doesn't make sense fairly quickly, please let me know.

very helpful

Sometimes us dunces is useful. As a non-technical person, who nevertheless took college physics and math through calculus, I had a similar internal reaction to some presentations as Mokeyboy. I was able to overcome this by careful study and consideration, especially of the free-fall question, but I believe he is right that the propaganda material is perversely just intuitive enough to the uneducated or half educated like myself. Mokeyboy's honesty here is very important.

Nevertheless, my suggestion for the graphics is to put the text in terms of intutively expected results vs. actual happenings. When Richgard Gage asks whether you expect the top of his model building to fall at the same rate when it has to crush the building as when it falls with nothing under it, you think of course not.

"Would you expect this falling building top (X) crushing steel beams (ll)


"To take longer than this one with no steel beams?



"If your answer is yes, you are being told things behaved differently on 911!"

That kind of thing. If you can't get a clear intuitively expected result vs. its controversion by the official theory, then there will be a problem as Mokeyboy noted.

I would link to Gage's recoded presentations also for more info. They are very effective if you can get people to watch them. Good luck!

- omniadeo