9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion


Published on Mar 3, 2016
Why can't the experts demonstrate the force behind the motion?

"Explain it to me like I'm five." Okay, then.

Thank you Jonathan Cole. Again.

Thank you so much

for all the time and effort you put into these experiments (and the videos too). They're excellent demonstrations of how we've been lied to about what destroyed the towers and I hope as many people as possible see them. I will share them of course.

"Out, and down"

Is to 9/11, what "Back and to the left" is to the JFK assassination.

I loved the firecrackers!

Thanks for the cool experiments!

Bravo !

Although not exact, your last experiment show the closest resemblance to what EVERYONE seen. Sad most people can't see the forest through the trees. Make sure Richard Gage get's this video.

Thank you for your time and effort.

A much stronger argument should be possible

It seems possible to me to give a much stronger argument, that the official explanations for the collapse of the towers are vastly insufficient.
But not based on "force", but on energy.

Here it should be possible to make rather simple calculations, which, due to their abstract nature, actually are fully convincing.

Namely one has to make rough estimations how much energy was available, according to the official explanations(!), and what energy would be needed to obtain the observed effects.

For the available energy A, one should make gross simplifying assumptions which definitely overestimate A.
For the needed energy N, one should make gross simplifying assumptions which definitely underestimate N.

The guess is that N >> A (N much bigger A) --- and that's it!

For estimating A: Put all the weight of the building into one point on top of the building, and calculate the potential energy.
Make an overestimation about the available fuel and other burning material, and assume it burned optimally, calculate the energy set free.
Plus the kinetic energy by the airplane.
Add it up, obtain A.

For N, one needs on (under-)estimation of the energy needed to pulverise all the concrete and spread it over the area, and to separate the structural elements.

Now I am not an engineer, and can't do the calculations (especially concerning N). But I guess for the right people it shouldn't be too hard to do.
One then needed to see the numbers, and how grossly one can do the estimations -- if we are lucky, then a very gross estimation is enough.
And in this case, this would actually be most convincing, due to the (truly) abstract nature of these considerations (different from the model building, where one can always say "not realistic") -- energy conservation is a fundamental physical law, and if these calculations are successful, they demonstrate beyond doubt that there must be additional energy sources.


Thanks! Will now need some time to digest ...

Megajoules !

~100,000MJ PE

Gordon Ross, one of the first.

Added to the list.

It's scary to think that this

It's scary to think that this is almost 9 years ago already.

Energy may be nice for some....

…but I think too complex for most. The reason I used the net force, that invisible entity that makes things accelerate, is for three reasons.
First, it’s easy to visualize.

Secondly, it ties directly to Newton’s laws.

Finally the "scaling issue" of building an exact model of the towers is constantly thrown as a reason why "nobody" can make a real experiment. But here is the beauty of using "force".... we do not need to worry about scaling for the direction or the sequence of net force behind the motions observed!

For example, the motion of a bucket on a rope whirled around your head is similar to the motion of the moon orbiting earth. The direction (not the magnitude) of net force acting on the bucket and the moon is about the same, even though the bucket is not a scaled model of the moon.

And the sequence of force, that is, what force had to be applied first to make a chain reaction happen, is also independent of scale.

So any objects observed to accelerate similarly, will have the same direction and sequence of net force, regardless of scale.

Let's not forget

The tests performed by UL for NIST were to scale with more weight, less fire proofing, and hotter fires known to have occurred. They just contradict the results anyway. What few experiments NIST did perform lacked relevance. NIST isn't called out enough in this area I believe.

I am sure that one of the

I am sure that one of the "experiments" that NIST did was to fire a shotgun at a beam to see how much of the fire resistive material would be dislodged.
Kevin Ryan did a great job of calling them out in "NIST - A New Standard for Deception" from 2006 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsVYC4GJC8k
And you're right, they're not called out nearly enough for it.

Jon, You got the approach

I really appreciate this video and the others which you have done over the years.
The experiments are a spot on approach for many reasons. You cite some reasons in this video with the firecrackers.

But I want to emphasize another, very, very important point about these experiments which you do...
They are FUN !!

I mean...who doesn't like firecrackers?! (Well..maybe the guy missing some fingers.) Firecrackers are fun!

REACHING "TYPES OF AUDIENCES" (or types of public).
In any marketing, in any presentation, in any advertising campaign, in any educational approach, there is a "target audience".
Attracting attention and interest are key.

Let's face it...
Most of our society does not have a keen interest in science. Visit any High School science class.
Ha!!...If most of our society had a keen interest in scientific studies and technical details, then the media would publish the detailed science in headline stories. Instead, if the media runs a science story, they give a "layman take" or an "easy to understand synopsis of the story". And, the story often has a sensational zing to it.

There is a type of audience which enjoys the very technical details, mathematical & Physics equations, and a long studious read through a highly technical "Greek language" scientific study. However, they will probably be scouring through tombs of literature & presentations which are in that realm.

Your Firecrackers or your "bonfire with a steel beam and gypsum" put a nice spin to the science.
It makes it more entertaining and reaches a wider audience.


After all, our mission is to reach new people with the facts about 9/11.
Attracting attention and interest is part of that approach.

Doing back flips for your videos

It feel like a great honor to have my back flip included on your video. Keep up the great work! Rick

A Million Dollar Prize

The 9/11 Truth Movement should offer a million dollar prize to anyone who can demonstrate a crush-down crush-up, or demolition by fire in the case of World Trade Tower 7. I wonder how many takers we would get?

Nice experimental demonstrations, Jon - well done!

Thanks so much for your experiments and demonstrations. You're a man after my own heart.
I love to do experiments, to find out. I'm still doing experiments.

And I appreciate that you quoted Richard Feynmann and Nikola Tesla - two of my favorites and also strong proponents of experimenting as opposed to blind reliance on authority.