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?