PDF Scan Of Original: OurTown - Englewood FL - Dec 29th 2010
Engineer questioning 9/11
Official explanation defies basic laws of physics
By STEVE REILLY
ENGLEWOOD — Like most Americans, Jonathan Cole was shocked by the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001.
And like most Americans, Cole, an engineer and president of Giffels Webster Engineering, initially accepted official explanations for the towers’ destruction, but no longer.
The science doesn’t work, according to Cole, who has produced a series of simple experiments and videos that call into question the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s and other official findings on the disaster.
In late 2007, Cole began questioning all he heard when he was a sent a video of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The video shows the building collapsing down on itself, much like the twin towers; however, WTC 7 wasn’t struck by an aircraft.
Does this give anyone any ideas? http://www.dump.com/2010/12/11/bullet-physics-engine-simulates-the-creat...
The area under the impact seems incredibly resistant to collapse, unlike WTC 1 & 2 ; (would've liked to see the ball hit higher up)
Someone contact these guys and get them to do a simulation of the WTC'ers!
Posted by sakerfa on June 20, 2010
(SOTT) – Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong. It doesn’t matter what the computer models predict, how much funding is behind it, what the experts say, or what everyone “thinks”. Nothing can fool the laws of physics.
Part 1 of 2
My article submission was accepted and published at opednews.com. I was hoping for it to appear on the front page but alas, no luck. I also submitted a similar article to my local newspaper and the rochester democrat and chronicle. Will keep you posted if I see them published.
together in truth
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
-- Douglas MacArthur
Top 10 Connections Between NIST and Nanothermite
Posted by srsean1968 on October 22, 2009
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11. But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
by Kevin R. Ryan
Original paper available here (PDF)
Note: for better readability, we have removed important references to this online version of the paper. The original published version contains several pages of references.
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
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.
Professor Riddle demonstrates the science learned from the events of 9/11.
Dear friends and colleagues,
I have been invited to give a presentation at the Physics Dept. seminar of Utah Valley University on 10 Sept 2008, 4 pm, room PS-202. You are invited to participate. Here is the title and abstract:
9/11/2001: Forbidden Questions, Explosive Answers
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Seminar at Utah Valley University, Physics Department
10 Sept. 2008, 4:00 pm, room PS-202
Why did three (not two) skyscrapers fall to the ground on 9/11 at near free-fall rates, killing thousands? Why were numerous bone fragments found on a roof-top 600 feet away? Why did the National Inst. of Standards and Technology, charged by Congress to explain the collapses, concede to us, "…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"? Why did NIST refuse to look for residues from explosives? (We, however, did so using state-of-the-art methods and I will report results.) What is the significance of red/gray chips found in the 9/11 dust? What is super-thermite? Who are the whistleblowers and what do they have to say? Why were there no air defenses on 9/11?
Perth Citizens for Truth
Article PDF at:
9/11 and Probability Theory
Frank M Legge (BSc, PhD)
10 June, 2008
There have been a number of authors who have drawn attention to the improbability of certain reported events that led up to the disaster that has become known as 9/11, in which three major buildings at the World Trade Centre collapsed with heavy loss of life. Both Boolean algebra and probability theory have been invoked as a means of estimating the likelihood that the official explanation of the event as a whole can be relied upon. (1)
The official explanation for the building collapses may be distilled from the reports of the investigations carried out by three government bodies: FEMA, (2) NIST (3) and the 9/11 Commission. (4)
Sydney Conference: 9/11 - Physics and Findings: Challenging the NIST Report
Dr. David Leifer, Registered Architect and Incorporated Engineer of the Faculty of Architecture, Design Science and Planning at the University of Sydney
In Sydney a conference is now under way challenging the official version and lack of investigation into what happened during the September 11, 2001 attacks in the USA.
Dr David Leifer, Registered Architect and Incorporated Engineer of the Faculty of Architecture, Design Science and Planning at the University of Sydney was the first speaker at the conference.
"We've all seen graphic video images of planes smashing into WTC 1 and 2 on 11th September 2001, we also saw in real time the two towers spectacularly collapse, for which it appears obvious to all that the impact of the planes and subsequent fires were the cause" he started his speech. Seemingly only a fool or subversive would question this chain of events..." he said.
After reading a couple blog posts by Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican (thank you for the insight by the way and I hope you aren't upset I "borrowed" your ideas). I put together this email that I then forwarded to everyone I know friends, family, etc. The response has been phenomenal! People who vehemently argued with me before are now, at least, admitting the official collapse explanation is not adequate. I could not believe the responses I received. One person said, and I quote," It was like someone suddenly turning on a light bulb." I am very encouraged by this and I owe it all to the sharing of ideas and strategies we have utilized on this site. Thanks to everyone, but in particular thank you to Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican. Here is the email and you have my express permission to copy paste cut (as long as it stays within the general theme) or email to anyone you feel inclined to.
"Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Here it is:
This email is slightly more complicated than my usual emails, however, I believe it is pretty striking when viewed in whole.
I have been spending the last few hours trying to come up with a way to compare the explosive forces between the '93 bomb and the plane impacts of 2001. However, my lack of expertise in this area of physics, pertaining to kinetic energy, explosive force, pressure, etc. is preventing me from making any sort of informed conclusion. On the other hand the information I have gathered suggests ( and I use that term lightly) that a bomb ( on the order of magnitude used in the '93 bombings: The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa (Giga Pascal) and opening a 30-meter-wide (98 foot) hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_1993_bombings#Bomb_chara...) planted in the sub-level basement (which houses the critical main support for the tower) had a much larger probability of collapsing the building than an impact of a 767 carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel nearly 1,000 feet up from the basement.
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?
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 have had the following discussion with Zdenek P. Bazant, co-author of
the 9/11 Twin Towers collapse theory article titled "Why did the Twin
Towers Collapse -- Simple Analysis." Unfortunately he has not answered
all of my questions regarding his model of the collapse, probably just
because he is busy or not inclined to do so. I am sure it is not
because he is unqualified to answer my questions or because he is
involved in deliberately misleading the public about the nature of the
WTC destruction as part of some conspiracy or something. So, I am
asking any physicists or engineers if they can shed light on this
subject. I would like to be able to understand how Dr. Bazant's theory
explains the utter destruction of the Twin Towers in the manner recorded
and witnessed on September 11, 2001.
MY FIRST MESSAGE:
> Date: Friday, May 4, 2007
> Subject: Re: Regarding your WTC collapse hypothesis
> Dear Professor Bazant,
> I have read with interest your 2001 paper entitled "Why Did
> the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis". I wonder
> if you might take some time out of your busy schedule to
> satisfy my curiosity.
Hopefully this embed script works, this was posted today on rosie's video blog. Im not sure how often she does this i just noticed the second one of two today, the previous one has no mention of 9/11. YOU GO ROSIE!!!
Flyby News Notes -
Editor - Jonathan Mark - firstname.lastname@example.org
January 4, 2007 - Impeach the Crooks * Paulson Arrested
"He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. "
This was quoted by Robert F Kennedy in his speech announcing the
assassination of Martin Luther King on 4 April 1968; and the epitaph
his family inscribed on his grave marker in Arlington National Cemetery.
1) 9-11 Fiasco – True or False
- - Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don’t Exist
- - Prof. Steven Jones Quits Scholars for 9-11 Confusion
- - Arrest and Try Bush & Cheney for Global Crimes of 9/11
- - Reopen 9/11 investigation, local group says
- - Impeachment - World Can’t Wait
- - The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War
- - Senseless 'Sacrifice' in Iraq Must End
2) U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Arrested in Europe
Manuel Garcia, a national weapons lab scientist, has attempted to debunk 9/11 skeptics with a defense of the NIST appearing in Alexander Cockburn's leftist magazine, Counterpunch.
Garcia's analyses of the fall times and heat issues in the trade center collapses is quite skimpy and mostly irrelevant. I have talked with more than one physicist who is extremely skeptical of the government claims and hence wary of Garcia's analyses.
Cockburn also writes a column for the progressive magazine The Nation, which recently ran a lead article by English professor Christopher Hayes accusing 9/11 skeptics of fomenting paranoia. Physicist Josh Mitteldorf has publicly questioned Hayes' reasoning.
Garcia, who has championed the cause of Wen Ho Lee and fought polygraph testing at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has a PhD in aeronautical and mechanical engineering from Princeton University and has done plasma physics research for the weapons lab, where he has worked since 1978.
Previously, the noted scientist and socialist Noam Chomsky has pooh-poohed 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Further details are posted on my blog at znewz1.blogspot.com.
A relevant post is found at
There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Then there is