There is a growing number of scientists¹ who believe in conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. They often call the well researched² background of the terror attacks the "official conspiracy theory" and they tend to euphemistically call themselves "skeptics"³ of this theory.

This article presents a promising experiment to use interviews with physics professors to effectively fight the further rise of conspiracy theories among scientists. Additionally, it makes a proposal to derive a professional survey from the initial experiment that would be useful to reach the proposed goals on a broad level of the scientific society.

The Roberts Report

AUDIO INTERVIEW HERE
http://www.911truther.org/2010/01/cheri-roberts-interviews-coleen-rowley...

More than eight years after her story broke, FBI Whistleblower – Retired Special Agent Coleen Rowley, sat down with me to discuss her explosive May 2002 memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller on the pre 9/11 lapses into the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 9/11 Commission, her appearance on the cover of Time magazine, the urgency of the Whistleblower Protection Act and the importance of unifying the 9/11 Truth movement.

From the woman who teaches ethics to the unethical, hear her irresistible call for unification. In a time of great division, unity is the key that can open the door of Truth. Leave the debates and investigations to the experts and focus on the common ground on which we all stand.

We all seek Truth, we all want answers, and we want to see justice finally served. That is the thread that ties us all together and we can have all of that if we have each other.

This is a piece intended to try and pry open 911 truth deniers by showing that our worldview has evolved greatly over time, and how did our world view evolve? using science. Any constructive comments are welcome.

Shattering World Views
Throughout history, humans have created their own worldview or a belief system which provided a sense of existence in our world. In simple terms, this worldview provided a framework for why they were here and why the world around them appeared as it did. This worldview has been passed down from generation to generation without much thought or reflection. The creation of organized religions is an excellent example of creating a worldview to explain our existence. People were taught their local cultural and religious worldview, and these views changed little, if at all over time. The social norm was to accept these worldviews without question; the local worldview was accepted as truth.

In the blog post Downward Acceleration of the North Tower, by David Chandler, AE911Truth, Mr. Chandler deduces from the application of Newton's third law (For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction) to the visual evidence of the North Tower collapse, the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less that the force exerted by the top block at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred.

What follows is another way to apply Newton's third law to the problem, perhaps even easier to understand, and it yields the same result: Gravitational collapse theories are impossible.

Molten Concrete Flowed Like Lava Under Ground Zero

These photos are from a current New York Police Museum display of recovered firearms that had been stored by the US Customs House inside WTC6, prior to and during 9/11.

As the actual display sign indicates, the entire hand gun on the left, and two pistol barrels on the right are completely embedded in a mass of solidified concrete, melted by the intense fire and liquefied so that it flowed “like lava”.

What they have neglected to consider is Jet fuel and office contents can produce a maximum burn temperature of 1,800 degrees, over 1,000 degrees cooler than the sustained 3,000+ degree burn temperatures required to liquefy construction grade concrete.

Therefore, this becomes one more of the countless items of absolute evidence that the fires were far hotter, and burned far longer than jet fuel could possibly produce. Once again, the laws of physics must be suspended for the official government cover-up story to be believed.

View Enlarged Image: http://tyrannyalert.com/jpg/molten_concrete_02.jpg

The conclusion of NIST's 10,000 page report which took seven years to produce claims fires, coupled with "thermal expansion" and unusual truss design caused core column 79 to fail, leading to a complete "progressive collapse".

The absolute impossibility mentioned above is evident in their computer simulation of the physical copllapse as initiated by core column 79. In reviewing the individual screen shots, and when seen in the non-NIST animation of their screen shots , it becomes apparent that the collapse they postulate is totally different from all videos of the actual collapse.

In their simulation, the East side of WTC7, where column 79 was located, fell completely down taking over 25% of the building to the ground, while the balance of the building was as yet unaffected.

http://tyrannyalert.com/jpg/core_collapse.jpg
Visit www.tyrannyalert.com to view the flash based animation of the NIST collapse theory.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) is now posted on YouTube. This concluding segment explores the implications of NIST's concession (to easily observed reality) that freefall occurred.

This is not the "Part II" I had originally envisioned. That will have to wait for Part III. In following up on the erroneous measurement described by John Gross in Part I, I decided to look more carefully at the measurement and find the video frame NIST claims marks the beginning of the collapse. What I found is that there is no motion of the roofline for at least 20-30 video frames after the point identified by John Gross. In other words, the measurement is a complete fabrication with the goal of producing a "measurement" to agree with the result predicted by NIST's collapse model. This result is sufficiently significant to merit its own video.
--David Chandler, AE911Truth

A quick guide to the most obvious oddities regarding September 11, 2001.
by Måns Ekman

Ask yourself if it sounds plausible that:

Written and Performed And Arranged By GARKO FACTOR
for the upcoming CD - Thought Crimes Rhapsody
http://meetthetruthers.com

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080715133426AAf0npq&r=w

note the comment below. what happened was the original question got deleted by yahoo lol
then after i made note of such here i realized i can edit this thing
so this is the long story. now please go to that link above if you have a yahoo account and share your thoughts, k?

i dont want my kid to make another darn volcano that spews vinegar all over the high school gymnasium again. we are becoming infamous in the local community for stinking up the gym...not a good thing!
so i thought that maybe someone could explain to me how to make a small scale representation of how the towers crumbled on 911 with the physics involved in that.
maybe i can try it in my kitchen first since the heat of jet fuel and the heat i use to boil my water for tea and cocoa are about the same temperature.
is there something i am doing wrong? because i have never had my oven vaporize into dust from boiling water for my cocoa.
maybe someone can share with me some pointers so i can help my kid do an educational display of the physics of 911?

* 2 hours ago
* - 3 days left to answer.

Additional Details

Retired public defender William Veale presents a concise summary of some of the science behind the controlled demolition hypothesis of the complete collapse of WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 on 9/11.

This is a clip from "Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic" -
http://www.improbablecollapse.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

Original article at: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/index.html

These guns are on display at the New York Police Museum. Concrete melts at 3000 degrees fahrenheit, proving that temperatures inside the collapsed World Trade Center had to be at least that high.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/index.html

(This a 'rough cut'...we are currently working on the post production of the entire event which will be available on DVD in the coming weeks. Please check 911hartford.org for updates.)

Prof. Steven Jones : " Whats New in 9/11 Research"

Sorry to post this as a blog entry but I need some help from the good people of this community...

I am currently in the process of making the first version of a short film regarding 9/11 physics (includes physics simulations :)), and I have two points where i'd like to quote official documents regarding the wtc tower collpase times. I already have a quote/citation for the south tower:

"...the south tower collapsed in ten seconds..." - 9/11 Commision Report, page 305

but I have been unable to locate a similar quote for the north tower. Can someone point me to an official document (NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Ommission) where they state the north tower collapse time? I have the pdf of the ommision report, and ncstar1 but I cant find a reference in those. (maybe i missed it)

any help would be greatly appreciated.

Once I have the first draft of this short presentation ready I will push it up to google and post a link on blogger. Thanks.

(ps- shills need not reply)

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.

It's long but trust me, it's a quick read....

What do you all think about this? I remember the laws discussed in 8th grade science but I’m not into physics enough to know if any of this helps explain the "impossible collapse theory" . ANyone here into physics that could comment on this?

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

Free-Falling Bodies
Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie

Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check

On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapsed. People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated ad nauseam on television for days.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, Robert Gates, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current Secretary of Defense stated (cached), “The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”

I'm an aging physicist who had his eyes opened to the likelihood of 9/11 being an inside job 4 years and 36 days late. But "Better late than never!"
Being less than youthful, I haven't been much of a blogger, and that might not change with my joining 911 Blogger.com. Still, to my surprise and delight I finally put together a real web site, which I emailed to my friends with the subject line: "Geezer Builds Own Website!" So here it is: http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com

In an amazing redux, new video has been unearthed of a CNN report on the day of 911 in which a CNN anchor announces they have received word that WTC 7 is on fire and "has either collapsed or is collapsing." The problem with this is that WTC 7 is clearly visible behind the anchor.

original article →

Hello All, I am saddened to see contention amid the leading members of st911.

I looked for a "Forum" site on the web page to make the following comments but could not find it. I'm writing because of new information that I've discovered that may have a direct bearing on the current dispute over what, exactly, could bring the WTC buildings down. Accidentally, I was thumbing through a book that I've had for years,
"The History of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal", by James Norris Gibson, (1989 - by Brompton Books Corp, ISBN 0 86124 564 4 ) I include all this information in case someone would like to verify the information I state.

I had heard about "mini-nukes", but didn't know much about them. This book provided me with some surprising data.

The last entry in the section on various warheads contains the following:

(Quote ON) (Warhead yields are measured in Kilotons)

SPECIAL ATOMIC DEMOLITION MUNITION (SADM) SPECIFICATIONS
Length: Shipping Container, 35 inches Width: Shipping Container, 26.2 inches
Height: Shipping Container, 26.6 inches Weight: Shipping Container, 163 lbs.

I lost my nephew 911 at Cantor Fitzgerald. He wasn't married so there was no millions of dollars going to anyone. His crime was showing up to work on time.

I have spent countless hours over the years trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

The "official" story was crap from day one. The main stream media has not been much help either when it comes to solving the mysteries. As with the JFK assassination the silence of the main stream media is collusion.

I will highlight some of the mysteries, for there are too many for this blog at this moment in time to list them all.

The "official" story suspends the laws of science, and we are not talking about one branch, but most, if not all of the sciences are screaming foul.

The "Official" pancake theory does not explain why the central cores came down. And it doesn't explain the free fall of the towers either.

"Fire" from kerosene does not melt or even weaken reinforced steel. And one of the biggest mysteries is the molten steel ponds found under the central cores that boiled for 3 months.

The "thermate" theory is plausible but does not explain the molten ponds burning for 3 months or the ejection of massive steel girders hundreds of meters. Gravitational forces don't account for it either.

Lymphoma cluster points to nuke event at WTC

Wayne Madsen Report, Sept. 12, 2006:

"According to sources who worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at Ground Zero on and after 911, residents of southern Manhattan and rescue and clean-up workers involved in the recovery operations at the site of the former World Trade Center are experiencing an unusually high rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- a cancer that is common among individuals who have been exposed to extremely high levels of ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear blasts and major nuclear reactor leaks. In addition to the respiratory problems among rescue workers at Ground Zero who breathed toxic "pulverized" concrete and other debris into their lungs, the radiation cancer is of extreme interest to researchers who suspect that the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 were brought down with the help of high energy releases. WMR spoke to a number of individuals who were at Ground Zero on 911 who are now experiencing symptoms resulting from severe damage to their immune systems -- a condition that is common among those exposed to high levels of radiation.

[I just spent a long time writing an amendment to this blog. I'm at a public terminal and lost the text i worked on. I have to go not but will re-write later tonights.

The blog entry is incorrect since my calculations were wrong. I apologize for the sloppiness.

More later.]

From the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
"Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center"

J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 131, Issue 10, pp. 1066-1072 (October 2005)

Here's the abstract from ASCE Research Library

I couldn't figure what the flashes were coming from the "9" choppers
flying past the WTC in the video 911 Eyewitness, nor could the producers., and why
explosions resulted thereafter. Well here it is thanks to Alex Jones site for referral

http://www.sundayherald.com/25646

Exclusive: confessions of a secret agent turned terrorist
By Neil Mackay

Fulton then travelled to the US and helped develop light-sensitive bombs, activated by photographic flashes, to overcome the problem of IRA remote-control devices having their detonation signal jammed by army radio un
its.

Pretty damning evidence of controlled explosions
You decide since I'm no expert

From 9th of September 2001, for nearly four and a half years, I was more or less a believer in the official conspiracy theory. You know, the one that says: it was a gang of 19 arab Muslims (plus their puppet masters hiding in Bagdad and an Afghan cave) who managed to make the 2 WTC towers collapse with the help of 2 airplanes crushing into the buildings and burning lots of jet fuel. (Uhmm, the only thing where I had my doubts from the beginning may be summarized as follows: "Probably not even in their wildest dreams would the hijacker-perpetrators have imagined they could completely bring down the towers themselves. The most they may have hoped for was an irreparable damage, and a globally visible wound they inflict on these symbols of Western capitalism... No-one, not even structural engineers could have predicted these total collapses").

Anyway, it was only half a year ago that I encountered for the first time a story about WTC7 (the third WTC building to collapse on that very day, also a high-rise steel structure, albeit only 47 storeys high) -- and that one additional fact made me re-consider the whole story. By now, I've seen most of the videos available on the 'net, read most of the articles, am familiar with most of the unofficial conspiracy theories...

What I am missing are a few more hard facts. Proofs based on the laws of physics that will shake the official theory to pulverized dust. Facts that can be verified by any student of physics or chemistry.

What I found and saw so far was merely "common sense physics" applied. Arguments like "Why did the collapses happen in near-freefall speed?", "What did transform all the buildings concrete into very fine dust?", "Why were there these 'squibs'?", "Why did that pulverized dust originate from the top?" etc.

I'm very familiar with the fact that a solid piece of concrete will *not* pulverize into dust if you throw it out of the 7th floor window onto a yard with a concrete surface -- it will only shatter into a few dozen (still solid concrete) pieces and very little "dust". Because I tried it....

However, I feel this is not convincing enough for still many, many people. Can't we do better?

Aren't there knowledgeable people, scientists, engineers around, who could just start to calculate the required amounts of energy to cause all the evidence that can be seen in the videos, in the satellite pics taken of Ground Zero, etc.? So that the argument "At least for 9/11 in 2001, Almighty Allah changed the universal laws of physics for one spot of the earth in New York, to let happen once what elsewhere and at other times is impossible to happen" can be admired in its full beauty?

To make it more specific:

* Take a 1 kg cube of concrete: how much energy is required to transform it into pulverized dust of [use appropriate figure]-sized mini particles? Hence, how much total energy would be required to pulverize 50% of the concrete that was built into WTC2? What about 100%?

* How much energy would one have to put into that created concrete dust in order to make it behave like a "pyroclastic flow" and spread over all of Manhattan as a 1 inch layer of "snow"? (That one will probably have to make use the "ideal gas law", PV = nRT ...)

* How much energy is required to heat all of the steel columns (built into one WTC twin tower) to 100° Celsius? To 200° C? To 300° C? To 500°, 800° C? How much of its load capacity does steel loose at 300° C? What temperature is required to make it loose 50% of its load capacity?

* How much "potential energy" was in one 110 storey WTC building that would be transformed into kinetic energy and released if it came down in freefall speed? How much energy could the jet fuel release if it burnt under "ideal conditions"? How much was the kinetic energy of the planes flying at 500 mph? How much energy can the standard office equipment/furniture/paper/files release in a fire conflagration?

* What other major providers (and consumers) of energy would need to be covered to explain the evidence experienced during 9/11?

Such an overall balance sheet of energy released and consumed on 9/11 will probably lead to many new surprises if conducted in a sober way... Just apply this one fundamental law of physics about the conservation of energy to the situation.

Of course, these calculations would not need to be totally exact. They could be made with different ("optimistic" and "pessimistic") assumptions, covering upper and lower ends of a possible range of outcomes.

Is there anybody up to this task? Engineers, physicists, chemists, vulcanologists?