Last Friday, a report was released that demonstrated the presence in World Trade Center dust of unexploded material the authors referred to as “super-thermite.” The report’s conclusions support those who contend that the World Trade Center was demolished, not by the planes that crashed into it, but by explosives planted within the buildings.
::::::::
PETER’S NEW YORK, April 4, 2009–A group of researchers says it has positively identified residues of undetonated explosives in dust samples collected soon after the collapses of three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001. The positive outcome of tests carried out in painstaking detail appears to contradict the assertions by U.S. government experts that explosives were not used to take the buildings down.
The scientists examined small red and gray chips in four dust samples independently collected in the days and weeks after planes impacted the famous twin towers of the World Trade Center. The red portions of these chips were found to be primarily composed of iron oxide and metallic aluminum in a substrate of material made of silicon, oxygen, carbon and possibly hydrogen. A common incendiary called thermite relies on the reaction between iron oxide and metallic aluminum to achieve temperatures high enough to melt steel. The oxygen is transferred to the aluminum, reducing the iron to its metallic state in what is called an oxidation-reduction reaction. It is this incendiary, in an explosive form called “super thermite,” that the scientists believe they have identified in the dust.
Using advanced techniques of chemical and physical identification, the scientists were able to determine the chemical identities of the components of the chips. When supplied with sufficient heat, the chips, which ranged in size from two tenths of a millimeter to three millimeters across, would ignite and explode, the researchers found. Byproducts of this reaction included iron spherules that are formed only when iron has vaporized and forms spherical droplets, which solidify upon cooling. These same iron spherules were present in World Trade Center dust, the scientists found. They established that commercially available thermite, when ignited, forms the same type of iron spherules. The scientists have thus claimed, in a peer-reviewed article published this month in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, that undetonated thermite, an incendiary or explosive, depending on how it is formulated, is present in significant quantities in World Trade Center dust. In a 25-page report, which goes into great detail about the composition of the chips, the scientists conclude that “the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
The discovery of what amounts to unexploded ordinance related to the collapse of the World Trade Center complex bolsters the case government critics have made that 9-11 was an “inside job” engineered by U.S. intelligence agencies and/or other factions within the government. Among the first to use the term “inside job” in connection with 9-11 was columnist Robert Novak only two days after the event, but more lately, the term has been adopted by a broad range of investigators. Critics of the government’s explanation of that day–that 19 Arab “terrorists” divided into four teams, commandeered what the government claims were four aircraft that were subsequently flown into each of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania–insist that the government’s story does not hold up under scrutiny. They point to the failure of the government to release crucial information that would substantiate or refute its version of the events. The government storyline was eventually incorporated into the 9-11 Commission Report released in 2004, a document which was later shown to incorporate major errors and omissions relating to the events it describes.
Government investigations and reports focusing on the collapse of the three largest World Trade Center buildings on 9-11 did not include forensic studies of the debris that would have positively identified the presence of incendiaries or explosive materials or their byproducts. Sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the reports contend that impacts of fuel-laden commercial airliners and the accompanying damage from those impacts were sufficient to explain the buildings’ destruction, and that forensic tests were not and did not need to be conducted . Critics contend that the reports cover up the government’s role, and say the manner in which the buildings fell–almost straight down and at free-fall or close to free-fall speed–could only have been effected by the sytematic detonation of explosives planted throughout the buildings.
Research into the possible use of thermite to bring down the Twin Towers was most vigorously championed in recent years by Steven E. Jones, one of the paper’s co-authors and at one time a physics professor at Brigham Young University (BYU). His outspoken views prompted the university to force Jones into early retirement in 2006, although it appears that the university has since been instrumental in making available research tools that enabled Jones and other researchers to establish the existence of unexploded thermite in the World Trade Center dust. Two of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth, are identified as current members of BYU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy. The other authors are Neils H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen; Kevin Ryan of the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana; Frank M. Legge of Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Australia; Gregg Roberts of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, California; James R. Gourley of the International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, Texas; and Bradley R. Larsen of S&J Scientific Co. of Provo, Utah, a firm with which Prof. Jones is also connected.
The government remains steadfast in its adherence to its explanation of the events of 9-11, incorporating it into its foreign policy objectives under the banner of an international “war on terror,” which for the most part targets populations it has branded as Islamic terrorists. Critics of the government’s version contend that, with a history of violent covert operations, a wide range of high tech weaponry at its disposal, and geopolitical mandates that required a seminal event such as 9-11 for their implementation, the U.S. government had ample motivation and means to carry out the complex set of attacks, using the hijacking storyline as its cover.
The government has not yet issued a statement reacting to the contents of the paper.
Very interesting!! I wish Fox News or somebody like that would follow up on these things. BYU is a very creditable University and I hope they will investigate extensively. Never be afraid of the TRUTH!!!! Mike
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
You may be interested in this.
http://uncensored.co.nz/2009/05/01/editor-in-chief-of-open-chemical-physics-journal-resigns-after-nanothermite-related-article-published/
Never be afraid of the truth, right?
[Reply]
Great work, but why did it take so, so, so, so long to get these results.
The Zionist controlled mass media and the corrupt, deceptive usa government will have to answer in some way, duh! Let us see what lame excuse they can possibly come up with.
It looks like GWBush will have to make his escape to Paraguay soon as will Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeild, & Powell along with many others at the top, top of the government.
The gig is up, get the ropes ready, sharpen up the guillotine, pack the sand bags for the firing squads.
Get ready to attack Israel the criminals who planted the thermite, but it was the mini nukes that did the real damage. The thermite only insured that the Towers would fall in their footprints. Thermite can not pulverize concrete.
Let the excitement begin, and start bringing the troops home, as 3/4 do not wish to be over there anyway. They know 911 was an inside job.
Take back the newspapers and tv and movies and documentary which are the main sources of false propaganda.
Elect Ron Paul President
End the Fed
End dual citizenship
close the borders
take back education
I hope the scientific finding are true.
Patriotic American
CL(110) = 100 DL(110) = 588 DL(16)
CE(110) = 2.0 x 10^14 Joules = 3.2 Atomic Bomb energy equivalents = 48,000 Tons of TNT
That is the minimus energy required to take down a single Tower according
to JohnSkillin’s publish data.
[Reply]
This is nutty don’t believe it.
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Based on your non argument and your word with no counter argument.
Get involved in the debate and say something worth saying, some counter argument.
Your ignorance prevents you from coming up with a debunk or counter argument. .
Stupid non comments or worth are just stupid…
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Thermite was used in the recovery process. Remember that huge smoking pile of debris, the multiple stories tall wreckage? Those pieces of steel were cut apart with thermite so that they could be removed in smaller pieces. It would be impossible to move pieces of metal that long, bent and burned and tangled, without the use of thermite to cut them into smaller pieces. Finding thermite after the recovery process proves nothing.
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
All samples of dust that were tested were taken before the clean up began. The cleanup & recovery had nothing to do with the samples. Do your research befor you comment and look a total ass a nine fool.But we forgive you Are you a shill?
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Typical, chuck. Anyone who disagrees must be part of the ‘big conspiracy.’ Show your sources of the dust and provide proof in a peer of the date they were taken. Have it published in a peer reviewed journal. How hard could it be? You would instantly have public recognition and be the darling of the media circuit, earning thousands of dollars as a talking head on TV. Why aren’t you out there making that kind of money if you have the proof you claim?
Chuck Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
My work is accepted by Jim Fetzer at highly probably true based on what is available to you in this very blog. I expect to get some notice from here on out.
Send me you email address and I will send you my MS Word research and proofs, accepted by enery Engineer that has peer reviewed it.
Obviously these other people in the movement could have reviewed my work that I sent to most of the top people in the Movement. They only commented that it was intriuging. Since then I am my own peer reviewer. I have reviewed all of their papers and know that they fall way short of the untimate answers, which I alone have. You will see soon enough and you could see now if you send for my paper at
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
Stop bugging me if you refuse to send for my proofs. They are too voluminous for this blog and I can not put my graphics, tables, graphs, and spread sheets on this blog.
Included are the nuke infor you desire and the plane crashes and fires and melting issues. All of that is insignificant once you see it is all meaningless what people have been argueing over for years. Everyone has been fooled and duped, even the best of the truth movement scientists, including Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan. The crashes and fires have nothing to do with the collapses, even if you cut off the top, raise miles high into the air and then drop the 16 floor block. Even then total collapse is extremely impossible.
Chuck,
I like your work and hereby invite you to be my featured guest on
“The Real Deal”, which is broadcast from 5-7 PM/CT on M/W/F, with
the F show taped on Thursday from 11 AM-1 PM/CT. Would Wednesday,
10 June 2009, work for you? We would need to connect via Skype or
you should call me at (608) 466-4339 about five minutes before the
program will begin. Please do send me your complete report, which
I will be glad to have. Thank you for doing this research on 9/11.
My interviews are archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Get back!
Jim
James H. Fetzer
Host, “The Real Deal”
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
—————————————————————-
This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail
No source.
No link to the scientific paper.
Searches of both the title of the article, and Dr. Stephen E. Jones, and anything else related, only link to other 911-truth sites also without sources.
I call bullshit unless someone can provide a link to a reputable, scientific source – preferably the actual paper published with these findings.
[Reply]
Kildar Reply:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I agree with Geoff.
I call Shenannigans.
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
check about two statements below your reply at where the scientific paper is located. Click the link and walah you are there and can read the PDF.
Very excellent scientific proof.
I hope your whole shill world does not cave in. You have been duped, made out to be a fool, which you are, a genuine fool since they fooled you, but you are not alone. Most of the Congress is in the same belief boat that you are. All of our world’s have been shattered by this, we just realized it sooner than you and your shill freinds.
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Try these links:
http://chuckboldwyn.vox.com/library/posts/2009/03/
or better yet send me your email address to: cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
and I will send you my PDF research paper that will blow your feeble mind away. I hope you can comprehend Physics, Engineerng, Chemistry, and Math.
Also try thsi link:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7532757641520709305&postID=3080366471208385395&page=1&pli=1
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
So this is YOUR research paper? Sorry, but for something of this magnitude honest people have the right to ask for some form of peer review. Otherwise we’d have to accept some whacko’s zero mpg engine research paper too.
[Reply]
I’ve read this on another page which went into more detail about what the explosive compound actually was. unfortunately the compound they described doesn’t exist and never will as its an oxymoron (They said Nanothermite, those of you who understand chemistry will see why Nano tech can not be applied to at a molecular level as nano refers to manipulation at an atomic level) Oh and there’s no such thing as super thermite either, its Thermite Plasma and if that was detonated on 9/11 there wouldn’t be a lower Manhattan left, because Thermite Plasma’s worse than an FAE which goes of like a nuke. Sorry but the blast pattern and radius, plus the lack of an oxygen burn just does not support the use of an exotic explosive. I’m not saying the US government have told us the truth about 9/11, I know they haven’t, it’s just that this particular theory doesn’t hold up to any real scrutiny.
[Reply]
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
That internet website above is where you can read the full research. It has, I beleive 25 scientists names attached to it. It can be downloades at a 25 page PDF to study. The research was done is several locations worldwide, one of which is The University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Some of the particles are or nano size, due to the pulverization, in my opinion, of the mini nukes, probably suitcase sized, planted through the Towers and other building at the WTC site. The gig will definitely be up, very, very soon.
I hope to be publishing my Blockbuster article soon in AFP.
You can get a copy of my truly BLODKBUSTER PDF by emailing me your email address to:
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
You will be shocked at what I have discovered, mind-blowing mass media sourced data resulting in very conclusive evidence that the Tower could never, even in one’s wildest insane dreams, be felled by exploding planes and the most incredible fires imaginable.
If your physics and math are fresh, you will be most highly entertained by my expose’ PDF. It would take the energy equivalent of 3.2 Atomic Bombs of the Hiroshima type to totally destroy a single tower, of course, spread out over the lengths of the Towers as mini or micro nukes…
Send for it today…
Please reply all of you big names University Professors and you NIST and mass media supporting numbskulls…
[Reply]
Conclusive 911 Scientific-Proof, with Physics & Engineering Evidence & References & Calculations, establishing the Impossibility for the Total Collapses of the WTC-Towers, without the Secretive use of strategically–placed Steel-Cutting & mini-Nuclear Explosive-Charges.
Engineering Definitions: (DL, LL, & CL are all in Terms of Force-Units of Pounds or Newtons)
DL110 = Dead-Load (a Force, F = 1 Mg) LL110 = Live-Load (a Force, F = 5 Mg) CL110 = Collapse-Load (a Force, F = 100 Mg) 110 = 110 Floor-Steel-Block 94 = 94-Floor-Steel-Block 16 = 16-Floor-Steel-Block
DL110 = Dead-Load weight of a WTC Tower of 110 Floors, in Pounds or Newtons= Weight of Unoccupied & Unfurnished Tower
Mr. Ronald Hamburger, a 911 Commission-Report-Scientist, advised that, “before being damaged, the Towers could support 5 times their own weights.” = WTC Live-Load, which is 5 times the Dead Load, (DL). This statement was made on Dec. 3, 2006 At The Center for Inquiry West in California
LL110 = Live Load weight of a WTC Tower of 110 Floors = Weight of Fully-Occupied & Fully-Furnished Tower = 5*(DL110) , (Reference = Mr. Hamburger)
WTC Chief Engineer, John Skilling, as reported in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964:
“Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”
(2000% means 20 times greater or to multiply the Live Load (LL) by a factor of 20.)
CL110 = Collapse Load for failure of a WTC of 110 Floors
= 20*(LL110) = 20*(5*(DL110))
= 100*DL110 (says Vertical Stacking 100 WTCs may induce Collapse)
DL16 = (Dead-Load weight of one upper 16-Floor-Block of a WTC
Tower)
= 1 Force-Unit (FU) , (in Pounds or Newtons
= the Elemental Force-Unit used in all these calculations.
DL94 = (Dead-Load weight of Lower 94-Floor-Block
of a WTC Tower)
= (DL 94/DL16)(DL16) = (94/16)(DL16)
= 5.88*(DL16), this means 1 DL94 = 5.88 DL16
LL94 = 5*(DL94) = 5*(5.88*(DL16)) = 29(DL16)
= 29(1 FU)
= 29(FU) = 29 Force Units of DL16
CL94 = 20*LL94 = 20*(5*(5.88*(DL16))
= 588 DL16 , in Pounds or Newtons
= 588 FU (of anti-collapse Force Resistance and is the
Collapse-Load, in Force Units, in multiples
of a 16-Floor Block). (Stacking (588*DL16) on top of the 94-Floor-Steel-Block may induce Collapse).
(One does not need to know the masses and weights of any of the WTC structural materials, like steel and concrete to perform The calculation put forth in this paper, as only multiples of the basic Force Unit is required. (1 Force Unit = 1DL16)
¼ inch 4 inches
Conclusions: (588 FU UP ):(1FU DOWN ) Apply Vector Math now.
The Structural Steel at the top of the WTC was only about (1/4) inch thick. Compare that to Steel at the
lower level Floors of the WTC as being 4 inches thick. This means that the more truthful value for CL94 will be multiples greater that (588 *DL16), perhaps a mathematical-multiple of 10 or more, giving:
CL94 (revised) = 10*(588*DL16) = 5,880 DL16
CL94 (revised) = 5,880 Vector Anti-Collapse Force Units (FU) upward, as opposed to one Vector gravity weight
Force Unit down, (DL16). This is like a 5,880 pound guard going up against a 1 pound guard in Pro Football.
[Reply]
I find it interesting there are literally hundreds of experts, with the credentials as well as the expertise to back up their findings. who disagree with the governments proposition of planes being the cause for the collapse of the twin towers. What plane hit bulding 7 to bring it down? Why was Building 7 broadcast worldwide to have collapsed, 20 minutes before it actually did? Hmmm, could the government be lying to us – again? Ask the Indians if they trust the government to be honest, truthful, and straight foreward.
http://www.ae911truth.org Read what the unbiased experts have to say.
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I don’t think having books to sell on the topic makes them unbiased. Profit is a bias, you know?
[Reply]
Right, first off there’s no such thing as a mini nuclear charge, physics just prevents it. the smallest Nuclear Weapons are laughingly called Tactical Nukes and they still have a blast radius of around a kilometer. A certain amount of weapons grade material is needed to reach critical mass and although the actual amount of material is pretty small, the extra mechanics to produce critical mass aren’t.
Secondly the actual failing point of any structure can’t be clearly established until some one measures the amount of force needed to really take down that structure in reality. What that guy actually meant was the towers where designed to take more than 5 times they’re weight in theory, however faults in the construction process and fatigue in the design during its lifetime could have seriously reduced that. research done following those terrible events suggest that while theoretically the towers had tolerances far in excess of what they needed, in reality those tolerances weren’t that high. My uncle does exactly this job on motorway bridges, when they find a design with higher than expected tolerances they reuse it, when a designs tolerances aren’t what was predicted, the design is retired. However none of this info can actually be established until after my uncle’s team has set up their hydrolic jacks and measured exactly how much force it took to crack and damage the structure of the bridge.
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:45 am
There are dozens of internet sites that prove your staement false and misleading, to say the least.
Get your ignorant self educated and learn about all the countries that possess mini nukes:
USA, Russia, Israel, others and more to come…
[Reply]
Something else I just remembered.
The floors in the towers where supported by metal brackets connected to the actual load bearing structure. The fire caused by the jet fuel seriously affected these brackets on at least 6 floors which then collapsed. Little jets of dust and material where observed being pushed out of the towers just before they collapsed. Many people have assumed these are explosive charges being set off, they aren’t, they’re the floors collapsing in on each other and pushing that material out (and you don’t want to think what that material actually is). Once the effected floors had gone they landed on a none effected one, pushing it far beyond its limits, what ever they where. That then continued the effect through a lot of the unaffected floors, each one adding just enough weight to push the next stable floor beyond its limits and collapse it. Although this probably didn’t destroy all the floors it did take out enough to destabilize the actual super structure which then collapsed. It was a process the designers and builders of the towers had never envisioned and so had never built any safety mechanics for.
[Reply]
And one last thought to consider, most first world militaries have access to weapons called Fuel Air Explosives. If 9/11 was a staged event this would have been the perfect device to use as its residue and fragments would have been nearly indistinguishable from the aircraft wreckage. The fuel used in these weapons is aircraft fuel and the height of the twin towers make for a perfect air burst. But why bother using one when ramming an aircraft into the towers had exactly the same effect. It made each of those planes into an FAE, just without the maximized blast radius. Your average FAE has just below the yield of a Tac Nuke, in fact they’re what you use when you want all the destruction of a nuke but none of the radiological fall out, Aircraft fuel is still very toxic anyway. There’s your explosive device, a civil vehicle turned into one of the most horrific weapons known to mankind. A dramatized example of an FAE can be seen at the end of the film Outbreak and the USAF used them to clear the Vietnam Jungles, only then they called them Daisy Cutters.
[Reply]
The last 2 replys are totally unfounded, with no scientific proof whatsoever.
Let us see your proof in terms of physics and math, anywhere near the physics proofs that I have been able to produce. Send me your email and I will send you the uncontrovertable and conclusives proof and proofs you should and need to learn about.
The only problem is if you do not understand basic physics and math you will not be able to uderstand the “iron-clad” proofs.
Do you have a science background in physics? Without that you will not even begin to respond intelligently to my proofs, which are based on mass media published or announced data, and then the applicable physics and math applied to my Thesis Equation, thusly derived.
Please give us some proofs, or shut it down before you make a bigger fool of yourself that you already are. No body beleives you BS and NIST’s BS and the Mass Media’s BS, and the Government’s BS, not anymore. You are fighting a lost cause, amen…
Please, please do reply to request my 24 page PDF of Physics & Math proofs.
All I can say in response is you have no idea what you are talking about except what other people have told you about, which are lies. You are one of the few people who still beleive that fairy tale of the fire- induced collapses. You are a fool, possibly an idiot naysayer. Show me your physics proofs with math to explain the demolitions. Anyone can day dream up you storyline, even the Mass Media did it,where all of the great scientists are located, They studied Political Science 911, a course they have been teaching the world for some 8 years now. Looks like you may be one of their best numbskull students. I bet you grades were all “A”.
There are in true existence mini or micor nukes, possessed by the USA, USSR, & Israel, possibly other. All you need to do is some basic internet research and you will find dozens of sites discussing most aspects of mini nuke research and how they are used by terrorist states, like Israel and the USA, as Weapons of Mass Deception.
Anytime you hear the words “Terrorist”, “Building”, and Explosion in the same sentence, the first thing to pop into your mind should be “The Mossad” or “USA” were behindit and fully supporting it.
You could cut off the top 16 floors, severe it completely, then raise it up 120 miles and drop it before it could, according to the laws of physics, possibly totally collapse the lover 94 floor, intact, awesomely powerful, 94 floor Steel, extremely redundant and reinforced, Tower.
See my research PDF and you will see the physics and math behind this just stated fact.
It took the energy equivalent to 3.2 Atomic Bombs of the Hiroshima type or 48,000 Tons of TNT or 2.0 x 10^14 Joules of energy to bring down teach tower, completely.
Do some homework, study my proofs and them come back to me with your scientific physics and math reply proofs to support your NIST and mass media regurgetated, mimicked Thesis.
Are you a Zionist Shill, on their payroll to try to deceive the American public?
You are either ‘that’ or someone who simply is a parroting fool, with no provable proofs, just like the NIST 911 Ommission Report which could not or would not give a reason for the collapse and how the collapse actually occurred, according to the laws of motion, Force, and Energy Physics with the accompanying required math.
Please reply Shill… or shut up!
Chuck
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor
[Reply]
Kildar Reply:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Bullshit. No building is going to withstand 3.2 atomic bomb blasts. I don’t give a shit what the math says. I’ve seen enough shit in life to know that Murphy ALWAYS wins. I don’t care WHAT your wonderful physics says. If it would take that much to collapse it, how were they able to destroy it with explosive charges small enough to fit into an airplane, full of civilians?
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
You are showing the whole world your flagrant ignorance…
Murphy’s Law, sounds like hocus pocus to me. You are correct, no building could withstand 3.2 atomic bombs. The Zionists may have actually used more than that.
Your last comment makes no sense to me. Please explain yourself to us readers.
Newton’s Laws are what counts here, not your fantasy Murphy’s Law.
I would be em bare assssed to shill about you ass-a-nine statement.
If you are ignorant of Physics and Math, review some, and then enter the debate and make a credible statement.
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Nuclear explosions and no radiation? Nobody reporting radiation issues, not of the countless sue-happy rich dudes that got covered with dust that would have been radioactive? What about the reporters standing in that dust? Do you really think every single person in the city of New York would just let radioactive dust settle on them, causes huge numbers of diseases, and then not sue? Not mention it?
You can’t really have thought this idea through. Try harder.
Loa – Which disinformation agency are you employeed by? Chuck may have you pegged correctly. It’s just alittle more than interesting that raging fires have demolished many hi rise structures, both before and after 9/11, and not a one of them collapsed. As for the jet fuel causing structural fatigue, which it could not, but – even if it could have risen to a temperature high enough to do so, no building would fall in upon itself in a perfect imposion, without all support structures having given way all across the matrix in perfect timing with each other. Nor would free fall speeds have been experienced, as the structural support systems below would have created resistance to any such result. The cover up continues, but myself, like many others, would like to see a REAL investigation take place.
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Typical. Someone disagrees with you and you start on the ‘you must be part of the conspiracy’ stuff. This is a sign of paranoid delusions.
[Reply]
Chuck, you said…
“You could cut off the top 16 floors, severe it completely, then raise it up 120 miles and drop it before it could, according to the laws of physics, possibly totally collapse the lover 94 floor,”
…Why would you need to drop it 120 miles? Wouldn’t it reach terminal velocity sooner than that? Do you know anything about anything really?
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
The guy is absolutely lying about his numbers. He must have a book to sell or a website that needs more hits.
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Send for my MS Word research at cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
I hope you will be able to understand it, so review basic physics and math.
or you can look at my breif summary below with in this blog.
No one beleives my conclusion when they first see them, that is how impossible it was and is to bring down a tower via NIST, the government, the mass media and the retarded or crooked PHDs who brought you all of the false theories with no quantitative explanations.
They say: “it was doomed to collapse” with no real factual scientific and quantitative explanation.
I have the quantitative explanations if you will be able to understand them.
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Cite sources when you do. Until then it is just you claiming to have information and putting the onus on the reader to have the information needed to decode your words. This is what peer review is for, and in an issue this significant I’m sure you understand why people shouldn’t have to just trust you to tell the truth. We should be sceptical of you, the way you are sceptical of others. By the way, why haven’t you responded to why there isn’t a surge in radiation related health issues in New York?
The theoretical height to reach the free fall velocity needed and the Kinetic Energy needed would be 120 miles, without air resistance or in a vacuum.
You are correct, that some Terminal Velocity should be reached of less than 4,500 miles per hour. This question has been brounght up by others and myself.
This means, because of Terminal velocity, reached because of air resistance, that the Towers could never be totally destroyed from a free fall from any height, which makes my Thesis all the more sounder. This is all pointed out in my PDF,
Thanks for bringing up your excellect point and I apologize for not being clearer on the terminal velocity principle.
I am hoping to publish my thesis in American Free Press soon and that very question was discussed with the Publisher. Your point was also brought up by an Engineer who reviewed the physics and math of my PDF.
I was checking into it’s theoretical calculation, ie. the theoretical Terminal Velocity calculation, but was unable to acquire the specific equation that would allow me to perform that calculation. If you can be of some assistance in this calculation, it would be most appreciated and I would give credit in my publication to the person who can figure it out., ie., what the terminal velocity should be, knowing tit dimensions, area, volume and mass from published data.
Let me know if you know where that equation of information is located.
Very good observation!
It still boils down to the fact that the Tower(s) could not be felled by free falls means, especially from only a few floors of dropping free fall…
You can get my PDF by sending me your email address to me at:
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
I welcome additional reviewers, especially those who may be able to seen anything that needs additional consideration and evaluation.
Other that the Terminal Velocity considerations, I am unaware of any other points of debate within my paper.
My paper caculates all of the Forces and Energies required for total collapse or demolishment and takes into account the Terminal Velocity which the very astute person pointed out.
Again, thank you for your knowledgeable obversation…
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
April 17th, 2009 at 9:35 am
This is an update on consideration of the Terminal Velocity issue. I do not yet attempt to calculate the Terminal Velocity and the accompanying Terminal Energyat impact of Free Fall, I just consider free fall without air resistance, an IDEAL situation, in order to calculate the IDEAL values to reach the required final falling velocity and the required falling energy of impact of 1.5 x 10^14 Joules.
When I determine how to calculate the Terminal Velocity and Terminal Energy at impact, I will again adjust my report. I know the Terminal Velocity of a person sky diving in a vertical dive, with the least air resistance possible is about 135+ miles/hour. That person would have a small resistance surface area and a small mass as compared to 40,000 square feet of surface area and a mass of 7.3 x 10^7 Kg for the falling 16 floor steel block.
Can anyone calculate an estimate of the Terminal Velocity?
F(16) = M(16) x g = (7.3 x 10^7 Kg)(9.8 m/s^2) = 7.1 x 10^8 Newtons = Force of weight of 16 floor steel falling block.
The air resistance Force must be equal to the 16 floor block’s weight at Terminal Velocity
A definition for Terminal Velocity that I found is:
Terminal Velocity is reached when the Force of Drag = Weight of the falling object and acceleration can no longer occur.
The amount of air resistance an object encounters is directly proportional to its surface area and velocity.
Terminal velocity, V(T), is achieved when the upward force of air resistance equals the object’s gravity based weight and the object can no longer accelerate and stabilizes at a constant velocity. It reaches a state of dynamic equilibrium, where the upward and downward forces are equal to each other.
I need to determine the C(d) or drag coefficient of the 16 floor block??????
W = Weight is known = 7.3 x 10^8 Kg
Air density = known, need to look up
A = frontal area is known = 4,020 square meters = (63.4 m)^2 = length x width
C(d) = only unknown
Then the calculation can be determined.
Can anyone help me determine the drag coefficient value, somehow, it seems to be the unknown variable, preventing me from getting the Terminal Velocity answer I need?
C(d), (drag coefficient), which varies with the Reynolds number and is found by experiment.
If the drag coefficient has to be found by experiment, then I guess we will not be able to get that value directly. Maybe it can be done indirectly???
An object which is falling through the atmosphere is subjected to two external forces. One force is the gravitational force, expressed as the weight of the object. The other force is the air resistance, or drag of the object. The motion of any object can be described by Newton’s second law of motion, force F equals mass m times acceleration a:
F = m * a
which can be solved for the acceleration of the object in terms of the net external force and the mass of the object:
A = F / m
Weight and drag are forces which are vector quantities. The net external force F is then equal to the difference of the weight W and the drag D
F = W – D
The acceleration of a falling object then becomes:
A = (W – D) / m
The magnitude of the drag is given by the drag equation. Drag D depends on a drag coefficient C(d), the atmospheric density r, the square of the air velocity V, and some reference area A of the object.
D = Cd * r * V ^2 * A / 2
Drag increases with the square of the speed. So as an object falls, we quickly reach conditions where the drag becomes equal to the weight, if the weight is small. When drag is equal to weight, there is no net external force on the object and the vertical acceleration goes to zero. With no acceleration, the object falls at a constant velocity as described by Newton’s first law of motion. The constant vertical velocity is called the terminal velocity .
Using algebra, we can determine the value of the terminal velocity. At terminal velocity:
D = W
C(d) * r * V ^2 * A / 2 = W
Solving for the vertical velocity V, we obtain the equation
V = sqrt ( (2 * W) / (Cd * r * A)
Where sqrt denotes the square root function. The only unknown now is the Drag Coefficient, which can not be determined experimentally due to size, material and economic conditions.
We need an indirect way to calculate the Terminal Velocity the upper 16 floor free falling WTC block can ultimately reach. If there are any scientists out there who can lend a hand in determining this Terminal Velocity value, it would be greatly appreciated, perhaps a high school or university Teacher or Professor, or even a graduate student or a very bright high school student.
Where sqrt denotes the square root function.
The chemistry of the atmosphere and the gravitational constant of a planet affects the terminal velocity. You select the planet using the choice button at the top left. You can perform the calculations in English (Imperial) or metric units. You must specify the weight or mass of your object. You can choose to input either the weight on Earth, the local weight on the planet, or the mass of the object. Then you must specify the cross sectional area and the drag coefficient. Finally you must specify the atmospheric density. We have included models of the atmospheric density variation with altitude for Earth and Mars in the calculator. When you have the proper test conditions, press the red “Compute” button to calculate the terminal velocity.
Go to this site to see how to calculate Terminal Velocity with a special calculator.
You can download your own copy of a calculator for use off line. The program is provided as TermVel.zip. You must save this file on your hard drive and “Extract” the necessary files from TermVel.zip. Click on “Termvcalc.HTML” to launch your browser and load the program.
Notice In this calculator, you have to specify the drag coefficient. The value of the drag coefficient depends on the shape. Of the object and on compressibility effects in the flow. For airflow near and faster than the speed of sound, there is a large increase in the drag coefficient because of the formation of shock waves on the object. So be very careful when interpreting results with large terminal velocities. If your drag coefficient includes compressibility effects, then your answer is correct. If your drag coefficient was determined at low speeds, and the terminal velocity is very high, you are getting the wrong answer because your drag coefficient does not include compressibility effects.
The terminal velocity equation tells us that an object with a large cross-sectional area or a high drag coefficient falls slower than an object with a small area or low drag coefficient. A large flat plate falls slower than a small ball with the same weight. If we have two objects with the same area and drag coefficient, like two identically sized spheres, the lighter object falls slower. This seems to contradict the findings of Galileo that all free falling objects fall at the same rate with equal air resistance. But Galileo’s principle only applies in a vacuum, where there is NO air resistance and drag is equal to zero.
Please help if your Free Fall Physics and Math are fresh or you have the capability to do the research…
Chuck
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
April 17th, 2009 at 9:46 am
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html
[Reply]
JTK Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
So which is it.. did you do those calculations and get 120 miles, or did you lie about doing them and invent a number?
NEW BOOK RELEASED
4-13-2009 From http://www.infowars.com
The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.
Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General.
Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released tomorrow.
The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”
Only the very naive would dispute that an agreement not to tell the truth is an agreement to lie. Farmer’s contention is that the government agreed to create a phony official version of events to cover-up the real story behind 9/11.
The publisher of the book, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, states that, “Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security.”
In August 2006, the Washington Post reported, “Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”
The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
“We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”
Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
As we also reported in August 2006, released portions of NORAD tapes from 9/11, which were featured in a Vanity Fair article, do little to answer skeptic’s questions about the impotence of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 and if anything only increase focus on the incompatibility of the official version of events with what is actually known to have taken place on that day.
Make no mistake, Farmer is not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, however, Farmer’s testimony, along with that of his fellow 9/11 Commission members, conclusively demonstrates that, whatever really happened on 9/11, the official story as told to the public on the day and that which remains the authorities’ version of events today, is a lie – according to the very people who were tasked by the government to investigate it. This is a fact that no debunker or government apologist can ever legitimately deny.
[Reply]
cut & paste from Amazon.com
The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 (Hardcover)
by John Farmer (Author)
——————————————————————————–
List Price: $26.95
Price: $17.79 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $9.16 (34%)
Pre-order Price Guarantee. Learn more.
This title will be released on September 8, 2009.
If factual lies are discovered in one area of 911, then lies can be attributed to all of the others areas also.
The culprits, the top criminals in the Bush Administration, the Neo-Cons & the Zionist supporters should be preparing their escapes to other countries, countries where they can not be extradited, according to current laws. They should have many millions of dollars in their secretive “kickback” government contract sourced accounts.
What are all of those people doing now and where are they living or working. Which of them have hide a ways in other countries. They could always go to Israel and live in a Israeli commune, communist living communities…
Bush
Cheney
Rice
Rumsfeild
Powell
Pearle
& all of the others involved in the cover-up criminal treasonous schemes.
Someone should do an expose’ report on what those top Bush administrators are doing now and what their future plans are.
They all need to be brought to justice.
Let the Revolution for Constitutional Justice begin.
Round up the 911 criminals, put them into the concentration camps they built, jury try them and carry out their fated Justice.
The USA needs to separate itself from Israel and clean out all of the spying, lying, coniving, Zionist agents, the greatest political and media and financial plague this country has ever seen. Bring justice to the High-Treason Traitors and barr them from participation in government as long as they have Duel Citizenship, to where their primary allegience is to the Criminal and Terrorist Zionist state of Israel.
When will it all end???
American Patriot
[Reply]
The info I pasted above is basic chemistry and physics, if you guys need that backing up with links and crap you obviously have no scientific background at all, every school kid in the UK with an interest in making things go bang knows this stuff. If you guys don’t know it, don’t bother pasting complicated maths like you have because without foundations you can’t build a tower. Oh, and I don’t work for anyone or spout any party line or disinformation, not even yours. I know for a fact that the official version of events for 9/11 are wrong because i know for a fact the US government never tells the truth, that’s why I know that if you where going to blow up the towers, you’d use an FAE, it’s the only undetectable explosive device available for this event, added to which, they’re cheap and easily available, if one went missing it’s doubtful anyone would notice. The razor (Thats Ochams razor) it’s self leads to this conclusion, it is the simplest one, but even simpler is letting someone else fly a fully laden plane into it. Way to start an engineered war. The crime here is not that the agencies committed their own attack against the US, it’s that they deliberately allowed it to happen so they had an emotive excuse to not only attack the middle east and secure their precious oil supplies but also put US military assets not only on Iran’s borders but also with in striking distance of North Korea, China and Russia. Think about it, why risk exposure of an outright traitorous plan when you can allow already established enemies do it for you, its beautiful in its simplicity even if it is absolutely conniving and evil in its execution. If you want the real truth don’t go for over complicated theories go for the simplest, which in this case is that the powers that be allowed the inevitable big attack to succeed to give them all the excuses they need. Hell the quote ‘from time to time to roots (or tree) of freedom must be refreshed with the blood or martyrs’ probably inspired the whole plan. Let the religious martyrs kill them selves, then use the blood lust and desire for revenge of the ‘free’ to get them agree to be not so free and support a war which will inevitably create yet more terrorists and so can not be ended. Why would the western technocracy take down one of their own citadels, why not take out San Fransisco and hit the gays, or Monument Valley or the Statue of Liberty and get the tourists? Why cause so much economic damage and risk destabilizing their own holy grail when the same reaction could have been provoked without so much risk? I for one had being openly saying that the Neocon global strategy was putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk and I was not surprised one bit when 9/11 unfolded, instead I watched with the awful feeling that my greatest fears where coming true and from the second I watched that second plane vector in on the second tower I knew that war was inevitable. A war which I, being a 21 year old male at the time, would be expected to fight. That’s why I refuse to fight it and why I refused to be used by anyone, not them, not you. Hell your playing your own part in this by fielding crack pot theories that don’t add up, thus drowning out any rational opposition. Stop it and stop baffling everyone with bad maths based around theoretical models, start using real logic, real, proven science and real psychology. Apply the razor (the simplest answer to anything is usually the right one) to everything, don’t assume malice when simple stupidity will do and above all don’t trust anyone, especially those giving you what you want, they are the people you want to be most suspicious of, and that is the real reason I never post links, because i dont want to spoon feed you, I don’t want you guys to believe me word for word. I want to challenge you, I want to make you think, really think for your selves, I want to you to look up devices FAE’s and Thermite Plasma and tactics like deliberate weak points, acceptable losses and getting your enemy to do your dirty work for you and get your own info on them, not just copy mine. I want to make you do exactly what they don’t want you to and grant you the ultimate freedom of really thinking for your self in a live environment that focuses on the present instead of being stuck in the past, committed to arguing about events that can’t be changed. If you want to prove the US government lied about 9/11 simply point out that the stated flight path for the attack on the Pentagon doesn’t match up with the evidence given by the eye witnesses, nothing more than that is needed. And I want all this because that’s how we all defeat the power mongering murdering bastards who think they can manipulate us into war and cheat democracy. Keep it simple so everyone can understand, openly discredit them with reliable and emotive witnesses who can stand up and say ‘I was there and that’s not how it happened’ and hit them where it really hurts, then move on to the next sensitive subject before they have chance to retaliate. All you guys are doing is feeding your own ego’s by proving how intelligent you are and helping them by adding to the smoke screen. Please stop it, your doing more damage to your own cause then you are to the establishment and by doing that you are preventing people like me from actually enacting real change. You cause individuals like Carl Sagan and Professor Kevin Warwich to be labeled as fringe when the work they’ve done is invaluable, you’ve turned fields like extra-terrestrial studies in to jokes when the simple maths and science proves their existence day after day, you over complicate everything until the average joe in the street doesn’t know who to believe or if they should even care. You allow those evil and manipulative individuals who use every facet of our society, who willingly allow those they swore to protect to be sacrificed in order to further their own agenda’s, to get away with this shit time and time again because they know what ever they do they can rely on you to muddy the waters enough that they’ll get away with it. Please stop it, before this all goes too far and some one uses this smoke screen and air of unbelievability to really nuke either Jerusalem or Rome and gives the far right and fundamentalist Christians the Armageddon they so desperately need to excuse the huge sins the so desperately want to commit.
[Reply]
You sound like you just had a good dose of crack cocaine.
I know you agree that the government was involved with the 911 false flag scenario, but nothing you just said makes any sense, scientifically.
Stop puffing on the pot or sniffing the coke before you comment on what appears to be non sensical dribble.
No one can take you seriously. Come up with some facts or go to this site and learn some real physics and math as related the the Twin Tower demolitions by mini or micro nukes and thermite combined.
http://chuckboldwyn.vox.com/library/posts/2009/03/
or you can request my 24 page PDF if your mail box can handle it.
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
send me your email address and get some education from my research before you reply again.
[Reply]
What I said above is more of a political statement than a scientific one, and as for drugs, well I’m a physicist by trade, and a damn good one. They really wouldn’t help my career now would they. Anyway I don’t give my students the answers to the problems I set them, I’m not giving you them either. Take it from some one with a Phd in the subject that most of the science posted by others above does not marry up to the real world, they models, not reality. There’s no mention of wind strength, harmonic resonance, nor any variable tolerances or error margin. They all assume that there’s no other outside influence other than those stated for being the reason the towers fell down, and they all assume the towers where intact and capable of taking a full load when quite simply they weren’t. Both general fatigue and the damage caused by the actual collisions would have lowered those tolerances quite significantly.
[Reply]
Only in the area of the collision does the Tower lose some integrity, not in the rest of the lower building floor 94 and below are essentially still very powerfully intact. Above floor 94 is damaged but in no way should a collapse beyond mabe just one floor, maybe, but not likely, occur. Support forces are hundreds and even thousands of times stronger than a gravity force, singular. All this from experimantal structural physics and engineering as every Engineering student should know from tower and bridge building and Collapse Load to Dead Load Ratio testing in undergrad school.
Let us hear from the Bridge and Tower Engineeriing professors and students at all of those Engineering schools. Let us hear from all of your experience on the common concept of CL/DL ratio testing to complete failure of the structure, ie. towers and bridges, usually model made of balsa wood.
[Reply]
Let’s hear from some Engineers as to why the Towers should never have fallen. Physicists are most welcome too.
[Reply]
So, within days of me warning about Rome or Jerusalem getting nuked the Taliban moves within 70km of a capital that controls a country with nukes and weapon grades material, but no, I dont know what I’m talking about. Your all blind idiots stuck in the past.
[Reply]
Explain yourself. Who has any idea of what you are talking about. Make some sense and stop your incoherent gibberish.
Would you like to be addressed as “The Gay Prophet of Doom”?
[Reply]
More information from Architects and Engineers for 8/11 truth from their 2009 Convention. Is it amazing, how the professionals in designing buildings that DO NOT collapse at free fall speed, understand why the twin towers and Building 7 could not and did not simply happen the way the official story implies? Perhaps it’s more likely they DO understand, after viewing the videos, the structures could not have fallen the way they did without some outside influence that has never been officially explained.
http://www.pyrabang.com/view.php?ref=THX1138&post_id=29634&visitor=true
[Reply]
[...] enormous source of recent American spending—was started. . . Full story: republicbroadcasting.org [...]
New shorter version of conclusive proofs for the Impossible collapes of the WTC Twin Towers, without massive thermite and other explosives equivalent to the energy of 36.000 Tons of TNT, not necessarily TNT but something equivalent to it, perhaps many, many mini nukes, about 3.2 Hiroshima bombs worth of equivalent energy.
The safety factor for the Twin Tower was (20 x 5 = 100) times the Dead-Load gravity based weight.
Chuck Boldwyn said…
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor says:
The internet repeatedly established weight of a single Twin Tower is 500,000 Tons.
DL(110) = 500,000 Tons
The weight of the 16 Floor alleged falling block is much less than 73,000 Tons, as the steel is only .25 inches thick at the top, but we will consider the whole Tower to be of uniform thickness.
DL(16) = 73,000 Tons or less
The weight of the lower WTC 94 floor block is 430,000 Tons or more as the steel gets progressively thicker and thicker,until it reaches 4 inches thick toward the bottom floors.
The top alleged falling 16 floor block is less than (1/6) the weight of the lower 94 block.
Even though the top block was very massive, on a comparitive scale to the lower 94 floor steel, highly intact block, according to the laws of Physics, it could never collapse the topmost 94th floor, floor 94, with its gravity weight of force alone, much less the entire 94 floor steel tower below.
The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight.
CL = Collapse Load
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, deceased, but published everywhere)
The Live Load is confirmed by NIST 911 Commision Report Science Guy, Ronald Hamburger to be:
LL(94) = 5 x DL(94)
therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94)
and therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x (5 x DL(94))
and therefore:
CL(94) = 100 DL(94)
According to the above, the very unique Safety Factor is the Collapse Load Factor, whis is:
100 x DL(110)
It is not 5 DL(110)
It is not 20 DL(110)
It is 100 DL(110)
& it is 20 x 5 x DL(110)
Get over it OCT misguided dupes and misguided PHDs.
This means the the lower 94 block of steel could support 100 blocks of 94 floors before possible total collapse could occur.
This also means that the lower 94 block of steel could support 588 blocks of 16 floors before possible total collapse could occur, since one 94 block is equal to 5.88 16 floor blocks.
588 Vector Force units of upward support (stressed Normal Force)against 1 Vector force unit of downward gravity weight force, all by its lonesome.
Now apply Vector math Addition to opposing Forces to find that the top block could never in one’s wildest dreams totally collapse the lower 94 floor block of powerfully strong and very thick,
4 inches, steel.
588 Force units of upward support
minus
1 force unit of downward weight Force
gives 587 force units of non-collapsing support.
1 Force Unit(FU) = 1 DL(16)
(588 FU up) – (1 FU down) = 587 FU up.
No collapse can possibly occur…
CL(94) = 588 DL(16)
That is crushing and most devastating news for the Original Conspiracy Theorists in the Government and in the Mass Media.
They no longer have a lying and deceitful or ignorant leg to stand on.
Amen, story over using Vector Forces Physics. the Ultimate Truth and Proof.
That is the Final & Ultimate answer as to why the twin towers could never, ever collapse under the conditions offered by NIST, the Government, the Mass Media, and the big name University and corporate PHDs.
Since the confirmed discovery of the red and gray nano Thermite active and explosive particles in the WTC dust samples, there is no leg to stand on by the NIST, government and all the “quack” PHDs hired by the Government to do their lying diry work with the Mass Media.
Game over. Get the Gallows and Guillotines ready!!
Here is a little bit of shocking information for you OCT people and non physicists to digest.
You would have to raise the top 16 floor block, the alleged falling block, to a height of 120 miles above the 94 floor block and then drop it. The 16 floor block would drop for 200 seconds and collide with the top of the lower 94 block at a velocity of 4,500 miles per hour with a colliding energy of 1.5 x 10^14 Joules of energy before total collapse could occur.
That collision energy, 1.5 x 10^14 Joules, is the energy equivalent of 2.4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs or the equivatlent energy of 36,000Tons of TNT or a very large number of mini nuclear devices.
This is attained only if there is no air resistance, in ideal conditions of Free Fall. Because there is air resistance, the Terminal velocity of about 1200 miles per hour will prevent the top 16 floor block from attaining the required collision velocity and the required collision energy to totally collapse the botton 94 floor steel tower.
In other work, under any conditions it will be impossible to totally collapse the lower 94 floor tower.
Amen….End of the Official Conspiracy Unscientific Theory of NIST, the Government, the Mass Media and the retarded PHDs from the Universities and Industry.
All of those PHDs are shot down in flames, becoming the laughing stock of their students and peers. They all need to retire and spend the money they got for writing and supporting tnose stupin and foolish ideas and theories they have corruptly put forward. Their careers are doomed.
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor.
cboldwyn@bellsouth
You may request my detailed PDF research report to be emailed to you if you send me your email address at cboldwyn@bellsouth.net.
You will be amaze and shocked when evaluating my blockbuster research findings.
Bring on the debunkers, if they are brave and foolish enough to try their foolish best…
[Reply]
Kindly show how hot metal (which loses its structural strength long before the melting point) is taken into account in your calculations.
We both know its not there. Why are you pretending it is irrelevant? Do you have a reason to leave out this critical piece of information?
You make these kind of claims and leave out an issue so significant, and expect to be trusted? What drugs are you on?
[Reply]
What you are asking is totally irrelevant. They could have been melted or severed and still no collapse could have occured, not even one floor would collapse, impossible according to my quantitative physics, a major feat that no government scientist has been able nor willing to do.
I will destroy all of their reputations as scientists, anyway. They have no leg to stand upon, only a lying leg of falsehoods.
If you can understand simple physics and vector math please read and study my abreviated proof above as a blog.
It is rather difficult to discuss these scientific issues with non scientists, basically incompetents in this field of endeavor.
Quantitative answers is the name of this game and the government and NIST and the academics have no, nada, zero, zilch quantitative answers.
Game over, amen…
[Reply]
Chuck, you coward. You erased my comments where I made clear refutations of your lies. Why would an honest person need to delete those comments?
You have been caught redhanded. You provide numbers and supposed calculations of how the collapse was impossible and yet you ignore the weakening of steel completely. You do this on purpose, you were reminded of it, you know it is wrong to pretend it had no effect, and yet you delete the comments of those who mention it. This is clear proof you are lying to your readers.
Your ‘physics’ is a lie. You pretend that even if they melted the building would not collapse? Really, think about that for a moment. Even if the steel melted, the steel that held up the building, the steel that really WAS the building, the building would not collapse. The steel could be a puddle, but you say the building would not colapse! A non collapsing puddle! You have to be lying about having a physics background. Nobody can believe something that utterly insane.
Wow, you really must make money from this to sacrifice your integrity in this way. How much do you make from these ridiculous lies? Do you sell these lies in a book or something?
Coward. Liar. Whackjob.
[Reply]
Chuck Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Are you still buggin me with your retarded responses. Send me your email address so receive all of the answers to your question. I hope you are capable of understanding physics and math.
If there was melting, it could only occur in the area of the 94th floor. So what, the rest of the 94 floors are not melted but fully intact.
If you think the entire building melted, then you are a total moron, idiot, numbskull, fool, and retard.
I will not respond to you any more, unless you send me your email, which you are desperately avoiding, so I can send you my very, very extensive proofs.
Obviously you revel in acting like an imbecile, an ass a nine one at that.
Were you a “special ed” kid?
What is your educational background? If it is not in science you will not be able to understand my research and I do not wish to participate in a one sided argument where you are the mental retard.
Slow does not adequately describe your interaction communication with me. I reply to you and you still do not get it…
The tower could support 100 times its own weight or 588 times the 16 floor block
The satety factor was 100 = 20 x 5.
last contact with you, dufus…
[Reply]
Why are you afraid to answer these questions publicly? You make your claims public, are the simple disproofs something you are ashamed of? I’m quite serious about this.. if you are actually interested in the truth (as truthers claim to be) then what is your justification for hiding all those questions asked about your so-called theory? Fear? Shame? Doubt? Or do you profit by selling some book?
Now at least you admit steel can be deformed by heat. This is a direct contradiction to what you said in your response to me above, but its not a surprise to me that you contradict yourself so easily.
The fire extended over several floors. The temperature level of burning paper is well within the range necessary to cause structural steel to weaken to the point where it could not support the floors above. Not to mention the plastics such as carpetting and furniture, wooden desks, paint and fabrics of all kinds. Furthermore, the collision of the aircraft severed some of the central column that supports a significantly greater amount of the overhead structure than any individual exterior member. This allowed fuel to fall down that column and start fires on other floors, including a huge fireball in the main lobby when the burning fuel that fell down the elevator shaft found a way out.
Given that, the tower could NOT support 100 times its own weight. With a the structural steel of a portion inside heated to the point where it deforms? No, you are outrageously wrong here and if you had the education you claim you would realize it. Are you lying about your education? Link your degree. Link the institution you got it from.
My educational background is a double major in physics and math, by the way.
All of this is publicly available information, and pretending it didn`t happen makes you either an ignorant fool or someone who thinks he has found some way to profit from this tragedy.
Your lack of actual knowledge of engineering is showing, in other words. Your tendency to misdirect and lie implies that your so-called research should be filtered through some good old peer review. I bet you tried and failed, right? Or did you not try at all?
You want my email address when you act like this, probably to spam me or put me on some ridiculous mailing list. You have already shown yourself to be a liar and a coward, you can hardly expect me to let you use that information to spam me. This is your pet theory after all. You should not be afraid to confront your detractors publicly if not for fear or shame or sheer cowardice. Explain why it is so important that you have my email.
So, coward.. I`m challenging your lies in your face. My guess is you will wuss out and delete this conversation instead of answering. That is how cowardly liars behave.
PS. Be careful…. if you claim burning paper and wood products aren`t hot enough to deform steel then you are claiming blacksmiths don`t exist and horses don`t wear shoes. That would be foolish.
[Reply]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y
[Reply]