> Before the towers fell, the planes' remaining jet fuel exploded. This
> weakened the central support columns, and the explosion went down the
> elevator shafts. That's why people saw mini-explosions on the sides of
> the towers that looked like demolition charges.
>
> End of discussion.

Simple physics says you are mistaken.

9/11 was an _INSIDE JOB_. End of discussion.

In article <fqqu6v$js0$1@aioe.org>, Rinehart Winston <a@b.c> wrote:
>> Before the towers fell, the planes' remaining jet fuel exploded. This
>> weakened the central support columns, and the explosion went down the
>> elevator shafts. That's why people saw mini-explosions on the sides of
>> the towers that looked like demolition charges.
>>
>> End of discussion.
>
>Simple physics says you are mistaken.
>
>9/11 was an _INSIDE JOB_. End of discussion.


But nobody with relevant expertise can explain why in any way that
makes sense to the millions of of other people that also have relevant
expertise.



--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

On Mar 7, 8:43 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> In article <fqqu6v$js...@aioe.org>, Rinehart Winston <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> >> Before the towers fell, the planes' remaining jet fuel exploded. This
> >> weakened the central support columns, and the explosion went down the
> >> elevator shafts. That's why people saw mini-explosions on the sides of
> >> the towers that looked like demolition charges.
>
> >> End of discussion.
>
> >Simple physics says you are mistaken.
>
> >9/11 was an _INSIDE JOB_. End of discussion.
>
> But nobody with relevant expertise can explain why in any way that
> makes sense to the millions of of other people that also have relevant
> expertise.
>
> --
> Al Dykes
> News is something someone wants to suppress, you

Tell me something- were the bomb-sniffing dogs that
didn't find bombs trained to detect Thermite?
Because the microspheres of metal that were
plentiful in the dust could only have been produced
in a Thermite reaction. I'll bet any kind of half-assed search could
still
turn up pockets of dust in New York replete with those things.

John

john wrote:

> On Mar 7, 8:43 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>In article <fqqu6v$js...@aioe.org>, Rinehart Winston <a...@b.c> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Before the towers fell, the planes' remaining jet fuel exploded. This
>>>>weakened the central support columns, and the explosion went down the
>>>>elevator shafts. That's why people saw mini-explosions on the sides of
>>>>the towers that looked like demolition charges.
>>
>>>>End of discussion.
>>
>>>Simple physics says you are mistaken.
>>
>>>9/11 was an _INSIDE JOB_. End of discussion.
>>
>>But nobody with relevant expertise can explain why in any way that
>>makes sense to the millions of of other people that also have relevant
>>expertise.
>>
>>--
>>Al Dykes
>> News is something someone wants to suppress, you
>
>
> Tell me something- were the bomb-sniffing dogs that
> didn't find bombs trained to detect Thermite?
> Because the microspheres of metal that were
> plentiful in the dust could only have been produced
> in a Thermite reaction.

Or a building collapse which occurs after an airplane hits it.

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"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."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale"!

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.

Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.

How Gravity Acts:

Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.

Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.

So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.

Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
high-school physics book:

* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)

And

* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
x G x T x T)

So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

Checking Our Work:

We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
conservation of energy.

We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.

In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.

So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.

The equation for potential energy is:

* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)

The equation for kinetic energy is:

* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
= 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
x 9216 = 4608

So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:

The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.

This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.

A Quick Recap:

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.

Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)

With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)

Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)

Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.

Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
200 mph.

But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.

Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.

Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.

Observations from 9/11:

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.

But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!

Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions:

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.

* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.

* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.

* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.

* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.

The Bottom Line:

The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.

It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.

Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.

---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation

Reality Fighter lied:

(snip)

Your theory is physically impossible.

"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
news:AbiAj.288003$MJ6.136244@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
> GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
> EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
> On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
> Center
> (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos
> of
> the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
> the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
> straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
> touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
> minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
> damaged remained standing.
>
> In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
> former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
> "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."
>
> We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
> that's "beyond the pale"!
>
> Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
> phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and
> the
> emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
> objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
> assertions?
>
> The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
> that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to
> as
> a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane
> crashes
> and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
> heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
> significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
> repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate
> everything
> else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
> According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence
> was
> quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
> tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
> repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
> sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
>
> There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
> facts:
>
> * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel
> core
> columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
>
> * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
> gravity
> alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
>
> Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
> check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to
> do,
> even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
> pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a
> simple,
> unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform
> a
> reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
> such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
> American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>
> How Gravity Acts:
>
> Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
> noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
> observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
> at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
> magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
> become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
> certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>
> Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
> ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
> same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
> fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
>
> So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
> anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
> greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
> falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
> accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per
> second
> for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago,
> heavier
> objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>
> So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
> per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
> falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling
> at
> 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
> on.
>
> Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is
> falling
> at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
> ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has
> fallen
> 16 feet.
>
> Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
> harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
> high-school physics book:
>
> * Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
>
> And
>
> * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =
> 1/2
> x G x T x T)
>
> So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
>
> Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
>
> So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
> and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
>
> Checking Our Work:
>
> We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,
> using
> conservation of energy.
>
> We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely
> changes
> form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy
> in
> a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
> gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
> heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
> bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is
> converted
> into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
> [molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough
> to
> shatter or even pulverize concrete.
>
> In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
> concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
> potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water
> stored
> up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
> holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
> gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
> converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>
> So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic
> energy.
>
> The equation for potential energy is:
>
> * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x
> H)
>
> The equation for kinetic energy is:
>
> * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>
> So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has
> a
> mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
> momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>
> The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x
> 144
> = 4608
>
> The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =
> 1/2
> x 9216 = 4608
>
> So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.
> Seeing
> that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
> simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an
> independent
> analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of
> energy.
> Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>
> One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
>
> The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
> perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
> may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
> of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as
> will
> a solid metal ball.
>
> That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
> gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in
> order
> for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational
> potential
> energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate
> of
> 32 ft/sec/sec.
>
> In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
> falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
> energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
> its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet
> per
> second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
> overcoming frictional resistance.
>
> This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall
> equations
> predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
> limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
> propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
> that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
> increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
> incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the
> air
> creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
> terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration
> upward,
> they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is
> maintained.
> Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the
> person
> attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
>
> A Quick Recap:
>
> Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
> physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
> resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
> without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
> it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
> fall a given distance.
>
> Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
>
> The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start
> by
> using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
> free-fall from the towers' height.
>
> Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>
> With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
>
> 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
>
> Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
>
> Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
>
> Time = 9.2
>
> So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
> ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>
> Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
> free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just
> over
> 200 mph.
>
> But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>
> Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
> imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
> arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
> objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
> example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
> mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
>
> Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
> than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
> ground.
>
> Observations from 9/11:
>
> On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the
> government's
> "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
> seconds. Here is the exact quote:
>
> "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
> government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
> not lie about this.
>
> But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
> seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the
> air.
>
> This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
> air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
> undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands
> of
> times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
> core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30
> years
> despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
>
> Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way
> of
> the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
> Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the
> upper
> floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>
> It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
> you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
> minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more
> than
> 10 seconds!
>
> What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could
> not
> have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
> rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
> physically impossible!
>
> Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
> high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
> glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
> Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
> energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total
> amount
> of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
> sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in
> close
> to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
> expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and
> glass,
> eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
> The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to
> have
> done all these things at once.
>
> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So
> WHERE
> DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
>
> Conclusions:
>
> In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
> observed
> duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
> following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
>
> * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
> the collapse.
>
> * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
> expenditure
> of energy.
>
> * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
>
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
> gravity.
>
> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
>
> None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions
> can
> be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
> the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official
> myth
> of 9/11.
>
> The Bottom Line:
>
> The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
> conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
> FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
> collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
> explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
>
> It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
> destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
> free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
> collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane
> impacts.
> The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
> towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
> came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
>
> So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
> story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
> premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you
> to
> decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
> presumptions, is also flawed.
>
> The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
> also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
> similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
> made no attempt to explain it.
>
> Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
> miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
> basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
>
> ---------------------------------
> FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
>
> http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
>
>
>
LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than you
are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence" is
going to change what little mind you have.
Let me just state that your IGNORANCE is absolutely ASTOUNDING and knows no
bounds!! How can people be so utterly mindless and uninformed? Jeez --do
you actually dress yourself in the morning??

BORING!!! AND BS TOO!!


"Mikey" <zigfried@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KaCdncSIqY9NoU7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
> news:AbiAj.288003$MJ6.136244@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
>> GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
>> EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>>
>> On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
>> Center
>> (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos
>> of
>> the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours
>> after
>> the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
>> straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
>> touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained
>> relatively
>> minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
>> damaged remained standing.
>>
>> In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
>> former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
>> "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."
>>
>> We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
>> tale
>> that's "beyond the pale"!
>>
>> Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
>> phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and
>> the
>> emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
>> objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
>> assertions?
>>
>> The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
>> that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to
>> as
>> a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane
>> crashes
>> and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
>> heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
>> significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
>> repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate
>> everything
>> else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
>> According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence
>> was
>> quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
>> tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
>> repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
>> sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
>>
>> There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
>> facts:
>>
>> * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel
>> core
>> columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
>>
>> * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
>> gravity
>> alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
>>
>> Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they
>> didn't
>> check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to
>> do,
>> even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that
>> incredible
>> pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a
>> simple,
>> unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform
>> a
>> reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
>> such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
>> American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>>
>> How Gravity Acts:
>>
>> Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
>> noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
>> observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of
>> gravity
>> at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
>> magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
>> become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
>> certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>>
>> Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a
>> large
>> ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
>> same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
>> fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
>>
>> So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight)
>> upon
>> anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
>> greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
>> falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
>> accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per
>> second
>> for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago,
>> heavier
>> objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>>
>> So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
>> per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
>> falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling
>> at
>> 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
>> on.
>>
>> Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is
>> falling
>> at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged
>> 16
>> ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has
>> fallen
>> 16 feet.
>>
>> Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
>> harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in
>> any
>> high-school physics book:
>>
>> * Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
>>
>> And
>>
>> * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =
>> 1/2
>> x G x T x T)
>>
>> So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
>>
>> Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
>>
>> So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144
>> feet
>> and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
>>
>> Checking Our Work:
>>
>> We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,
>> using
>> conservation of energy.
>>
>> We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely
>> changes
>> form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy
>> in
>> a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
>> gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
>> heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
>> bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is
>> converted
>> into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
>> [molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough
>> to
>> shatter or even pulverize concrete.
>>
>> In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
>> concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
>> potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water
>> stored
>> up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever
>> is
>> holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
>> gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
>> converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>>
>> So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic
>> energy.
>>
>> The equation for potential energy is:
>>
>> * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x
>> H)
>>
>> The equation for kinetic energy is:
>>
>> * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>>
>> So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object
>> has a
>> mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
>> momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>>
>> The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x
>> 144
>> = 4608
>>
>> The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =
>> 1/2
>> x 9216 = 4608
>>
>> So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.
>> Seeing
>> that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
>> simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an
>> independent
>> analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of
>> energy.
>> Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>>
>> One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
>>
>> The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
>> perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact,
>> you
>> may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped
>> out
>> of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as
>> will
>> a solid metal ball.
>>
>> That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
>> gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in
>> order
>> for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational
>> potential
>> energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate
>> of
>> 32 ft/sec/sec.
>>
>> In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
>> falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
>> energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity
>> reduces
>> its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet
>> per
>> second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
>> overcoming frictional resistance.
>>
>> This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall
>> equations
>> predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase
>> without
>> limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
>> propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.
>> At
>> that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
>> increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
>> incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the
>> air
>> creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
>> terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration
>> upward,
>> they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is
>> maintained.
>> Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the
>> person
>> attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
>>
>> A Quick Recap:
>>
>> Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to
>> precise
>> physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
>> resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it
>> would
>> without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air
>> resistance
>> it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
>> fall a given distance.
>>
>> Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
>>
>> The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start
>> by
>> using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
>> free-fall from the towers' height.
>>
>> Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>>
>> With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
>>
>> 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
>>
>> Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
>>
>> Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
>>
>> Time = 9.2
>>
>> So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
>> ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>>
>> Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds,
>> the
>> free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just
>> over
>> 200 mph.
>>
>> But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>>
>> Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able
>> to
>> imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
>> arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
>> objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
>> example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
>> mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
>>
>> Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
>> than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach
>> the
>> ground.
>>
>> Observations from 9/11:
>>
>> On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the
>> government's
>> "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
>> seconds. Here is the exact quote:
>>
>> "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
>> government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they
>> could
>> not lie about this.
>>
>> But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
>> seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the
>> air.
>>
>> This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
>> the
>> air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
>> undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands
>> of
>> times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central
>> steel
>> core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30
>> years
>> despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
>>
>> Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way
>> of
>> the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air
>> would?
>> Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the
>> upper
>> floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>>
>> It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
>> you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
>> minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more
>> than
>> 10 seconds!
>>
>> What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could
>> not
>> have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
>> rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to
>> be
>> physically impossible!
>>
>> Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
>> high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
>> glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better
>> word.
>> Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
>> energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total
>> amount
>> of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
>> sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in
>> close
>> to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
>> expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and
>> glass,
>> eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
>> The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to
>> have
>> done all these things at once.
>>
>> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So
>> WHERE
>> DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
>>
>> Conclusions:
>>
>> In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
>> observed
>> duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
>> following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
>>
>> * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance
>> to
>> the collapse.
>>
>> * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
>> expenditure
>> of energy.
>>
>> * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
>> magic.
>>
>> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
>> gravity.
>>
>> * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
>>
>> None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions
>> can
>> be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
>> the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official
>> myth
>> of 9/11.
>>
>> The Bottom Line:
>>
>> The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
>> conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
>> FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
>> collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
>> explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
>>
>> It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
>> destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
>> free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
>> WTC
>> collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane
>> impacts.
>> The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
>> towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather
>> they
>> came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
>>
>> So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
>> story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
>> premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you
>> to
>> decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
>> presumptions, is also flawed.
>>
>> The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
>> also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
>> similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
>> made no attempt to explain it.
>>
>> Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
>> miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it
>> this
>> basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
>>
>> http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
>>
>>
>>
> LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
> To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
> assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than you
> are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence" is
> going to change what little mind you have.
> Let me just state that your IGNORANCE is absolutely ASTOUNDING and knows
> no bounds!! How can people be so utterly mindless and uninformed?
> Jeez --do you actually dress yourself in the morning??
>

"Mikey" <zigfried@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KaCdncSIqY9NoU7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com. ..

< snip >

> LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
> To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
> assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than you
> are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence" is
> going to change what little mind you have.

Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
frustration they resort to childish name-calling.

> Let me just state that your IGNORANCE is absolutely ASTOUNDING and knows
> no bounds!! How can people be so utterly mindless and uninformed?
> Jeez --do you actually dress yourself in the morning??

Ignorance? WHERE, exactly, are the errors in the post you refer to?
I don't believe you understood it, if you read it at all.
HOW are the calculations wrong? HOW are those laws of physics invalid?
You cannot answer, so you won't. All your simple, in-denial mind is capable
of is childish name-calling.
So -
PLONK!

In article <jFhBj.296508$MJ6.3370@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Freedom Fighter <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>"Mikey" <zigfried@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:KaCdncSIqY9NoU7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>< snip >
>
>> LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
>> To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
>> assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than you
>> are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence" is
>> going to change what little mind you have.
>
>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
>frustration they resort to childish name-calling.



Which is exactly what you do to all NY firemen when you accuse them of
lying when they say that WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire.

Take Danny's Metro card offer and go to a firehouse and tell it to a
fireman.


In the testimony below, are Chief Haydon, [1] Chief Nigro [9], Chief
Scheuerman, [2] and more than 100 firemen [8] lying when they say that
WTC7 was damaged and collapsed due to fire?

Are they lying?

1. Statement of FDNY Chief Hayden
2. Statement of FDNY Chief Scheuerman
3. High School Physics for fall time of WTC7 with video of WTC7 to establish time.
4. Four Demolition experts say WTC collapse was caused by fire
5. Frame of WTC7 was unlike any other building & probably contributed to collapse
6. Evidence of no man-made demolition,
7. TV News showing WTC7 on fire and close to collapse on the afternoon of 9/11
8. Transcripts of all firemen and others. 100+ firemen say WTC7 collapse was caused by fire.
9. FDNY Chief Nigro explains the collapse of WTC7
10. Richard Gage and Prof. Jones have no relevant expertise for what tehy say about WTC.
11. No all-steel building was ever doused with gas, set on fire and allowed to burn.
12. Why some buildings near WTC collapsed and some didn't

[1] ----------------------------

FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we
were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early
on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and
13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she
was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible
bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock
in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[2] --------------------------------------------------

The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8, .06
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
(good diagrams and pictures. )

FDNY battalion chief, Ret.

[3] ----------------------------

The WTC7 "fast as free-fall" crap is wrong by huge amounts. Free fall
for WTC7 (610 ft.) would be 6.17 seconds. WTC7 could be 2,000 ft high
for 11 seconds to be "free fall".

WTC7 was 610 ft tall.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The final collapse of WTC7 was about 15 seconds by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

Equations: http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling.htm


[4]----------------------------


We have FOUR demolition experts that are on record saying that WTC was
not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.

There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
demolition.

In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
were NOT demolition jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
http://jowenko.nl/

[5] ----------------------------

Nobody that is familiar with the structural frame of WTC7 thinks there
is anything about the collapse that requires man-made explosives,

Diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/
Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png/180px-Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2aftg3

[6]--------------------------

There is a massive amount of evidence that there was no man-made
demolition at WTC. WTC 1 and 2 were videotaped from all angles from
the moment of the first impact to the point of collapse. No video
shows any man-made demolition.

This video is all about man-made demolition. All sources and
documentation for the video is in the second link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme

No video exists that shows what every known man-made demolition shows.

[7] -----------------------------------


NBC TV news report showing WTC7 on fire and at risk of collapse.
This was broadcast well before early in the day.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294%20



[8]----------------------------

About 100 firemen state clearly that WTC7 was damages by on fire and
about to collapse beginning at about 2PM. Their names and full text
transcripts are online via the following links.

41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
104 firemen mention pullback from WTC7
36 firemen mention "Pull" to mean withdraw from the building

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Lookup for a few non-fireman transcripts:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu

[9] ----------------------------

FDNY Chief Nigro was in command at WTC on the afternoon of 9/11.

This is a message Chief Nigro addresses the conspiracy theories
surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Source:
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro


Chief of Department FDNY (ret.) Daniel Nigro Addresses Conspiracy Theories

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the
afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1
& 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never
collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain
high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and
from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns
providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without
sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the
owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that
decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone
surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that
zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7
collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

[10] ----------------------------

NOBODY with relevant structural engineering or demolition expertise
thinks that there is anything strange about how WTC7 collapsed. None
of the people in AE911 that speak about WTC7 have this expertise.
That includes Jones and Gage.

Gage's Resume: http://members.shaw.ca/loudstudios/GageCV.pdf
Jones' resume http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm

Professor Jones nas vener released teh full lab results for his
claims.

[11] ----------------------------

No all-steel building in history was ever doused with thousands of
fuel, set afire and allowed to burn without any firefighting. WTC1,
2, and 7 were unique in that each was hit by tons of something, had
structural damage and had minimal fire-proofing, and had no
firefighting.

[12] -----------------------------------------------------------

Wounded Buildings Offer Survival Lessons (Dec 4, 2001)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E4DF1F3DF937A35751C1A9679C8B 63&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
Illustration from article. http://tinyurl.com/ynjre3
Also: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108006

When the south tower collapsed, said Mr. Trelstad, the engineer,
some of its huge columns fell and ripped out many of the steel
spandrels, or cross beams between windows, on the north facade of
90 West Street. One series of spandrels, from the 11th down to the
3rd floors on the east part of the facade, was destroyed as if a
giant claw had run down the front of the building.
...
He was first struck by the scale of the devastation and the
eeriness of the setting. Fires set by the south tower's debris had
gutted the 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 23rd floors, and much of the northern
portions of the 4th, 5th, 8th and 21st floors. At least two people
are believed to have died in the building, trapped in an elevator.

--

Don't respond with "people heard...." or "experts say.." unless you
have the names of those people. Lets see what they heard or saw.

Don't respond with a video of eyewitness claims. I want names and text
transcripts. That's what I give you and am prepared to give you more
of. There is video on Twoofer sites that has had explosion sounds
added to it.

Don't respond by changing the topic or making a counterclaim.

You can prove me wrong by posting a name with credentials and a
statement.








--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

On 10 Mar 2008 19:45:31 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <jFhBj.296508$MJ6.3370@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Freedom Fighter <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>>"Mikey" <zigfried@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:KaCdncSIqY9NoU7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>< snip >
>>
>>> LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
>>> To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
>>> assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than you
>>> are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence" is
>>> going to change what little mind you have.
>>
>>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>>incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
>>frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
>
>
>
>Which is exactly what you do to all NY firemen when you accuse them of
>lying when they say that WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire.
>
snip

How would NY firemen know - are they engineers with the proper
qualifications to make a valid judgment?

In article <gunct3d2ie2b3dmq636hlii1fj08592n9s@4ax.com>,
Liam O'Shea <liam.oshea@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>On 10 Mar 2008 19:45:31 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>In article <jFhBj.296508$MJ6.3370@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Freedom Fighter <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>>>"Mikey" <zigfried@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:KaCdncSIqY9NoU7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>
>>>< snip >
>>>
>>>> LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
>>>> To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
>>>> assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than you
>>>> are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence" is
>>>> going to change what little mind you have.
>>>
>>>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>>>incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
>>>frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
>>
>>
>>
>>Which is exactly what you do to all NY firemen when you accuse them of
>>lying when they say that WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire.
>>
>snip
>
>How would NY firemen know - are they engineers with the proper
>qualifications to make a valid judgment?


FDNY firemen train for building collapse and have real engineers on
call for big building. It's a matter of life and death for them.

By 5PM on 9/11, there were lots of structural engineers at the pile
goiving professional advise.

See [1] and [2]


[1] -------------------------------------------

FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we
were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early
on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and
13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she
was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible
bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock
in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[2] -----------------------------------------

Mr. Gilsanz is one of about 130 structural engineers from 30 firms
who .... turned up at the trade center site as volunteers, but after
a few days, the city established formal arrangements, and they were
signed up as subcontractors. "We did not want to get paid for this
work, but we were told we had to be paid in order to participate,"
said Joseph Tortorella, a former president of the Structural
Engineers Association, who is also being sued. "Many of us ended up
giving the money to charity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23about.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=nyregion&adxnnlx=1203782888-SscGLHe0laM4P+XEPcWbVg

http://www.seaony.org/

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


Below is a partial List of agencies, organizations, and experts that
responded to and investigating the 9/11 attacks and the Pentagon, WTC
and Shanksville.. These have been added up and come to these totals.

1,200 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
7,000+ FBI Agents
8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon

Any one of these people could witness something with their own eyes
and say something. There is no need for the whistleblower to know "the
big picture". There are plenty of ways to speak anonymously these
days.

Nobody has.

These people were all eyewitnesses to their bit of the events of 9/11.
They are all members of organizations listed below. Lots of them knew
people that died on 9/11 and have every reason to se the responsible
people punished.

We can count the people that were eyewitnesses to the events of 9/11
and have joined the "Truth Movement" on the fingers of one hand. None
of those people speak within their experience or say things that match
the public record. Anything anyone says has to be evaluated within
the entire public record of evidence and eyewitnesses.


ACE Bermuda Insurance
AEMC Construction
AIG Insurance
Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue
Allianz Global Risks
American Airlines
American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Red Cross
Applied Biosystems Inc.
Applied Research Associates
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
Arlington County Fire Department
Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington VA Police Department
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee
ARUP USA
Atlantic Heydt Inc.
Bechtel
Berlin Fire Department
Big Apple Wrecking
Blanford & Co.
Bode Technology Group
Bovis Inc.
Building and Construction Trades Council
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville
Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept.
California Incident Management Team
Carter Burgess Engineering
Celera Genomics
Centers for Disease Control
Central City Fire Department
Central Intelligence Agency
Cleveland Airport control tower
Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee
Consolidated Edison Company
Construction Technologies Laboratory
Controlled Demolitions Inc.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Counterterrorism and Security Group
CTL Engineering
D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc.
DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners
DiSalvo Ericson Engineering
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon
D'Onofrio Construction
E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews
Edwards and Kelcey Engineering
Engineering Systems, Inc.
Environmental protection Agency
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates
EYP Mission CriticalFacilities
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Falcon 20 crew in PA
Family members who received calls from victims on the planes
FBI Evidence Recovery Teams
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Co.
FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1,
California Task Force 1,
California Task Force 3,
California Task Force 7,
Colorado Task Force 1,
Fairfax Task Force 1,
Florida Task Force 1,
Florida Task Force 2,
Maryland Task Force 1,
Massachusetts Task Force 1,
Metro Dade/Miami,
Nebraska Task Force 1,
New Mexico Task Force 1,
New York Task Force 1,
Pennsylvania Task Force 1,
Tennessee Task Force 1,
Texas Task Force 1,
Utah Task Force 1,
Virginia Task Force 1,
Virginia Task Force 2,
Washington Task Force 1
FEMA Disaster Field Office
FEMA Emergency Response Team
FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3
Fire Department of New York
Fort Myer Fire Department
French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department
Gateway Demolition
Gene Code Forensics
Georgia Tech Engineering Dept.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
GMAC Financing
Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers
Guy Nordenson Associates
HAKS Engineers
Hampton-Clarke Inc.
HHS National Medical Response Team
HLW International Engineering
Hooversville Rescue Squad.
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department
Hoy Structural Services
Hughes Associates, Inc
Hugo Neu Schnitzer East
hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC
Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives
Industrial Risk Insurers
Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15
J.R. Harris & Company
Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc.
KCE Structural Engineers
Koch Skanska
Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates
Laboratory Corp. of America
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Leslie E. Robertson Associates
LIRo Engineering
Listie Volunteer Fire Company
Lockwood Consulting
M.G. McLaren Engineering
Masonry Society
Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc.
Metal Management Northeast
Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue
Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
Murray Engineering
Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc.
National Center for Biotechnology Informatics
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
National Disaster Medical System
National Emergency Numbering Association
National Fire Protection Association
National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute
National Law Enforcement and Security Institute
National Military Command Center
National Reconnaissance Office
National Response Center
National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems
National Security Agency
National Transportation Safety Board
National Wrecking
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
New Jersey State Police
New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force
New York City Department of Design and Construction
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
New York City Office of Emergency Management
New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
New York City Police Department Aviation Unit
New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
New York Daily News
New York Flight Control Center
New York Newsday
New York Port Authority Construction Board
New York Port Authority Police
New York State Emergency Management Office
New York State Police Forensic Services
New York Times
North American Aerospace Defense Command
Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew
Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists
Numerous Forensic Dentists
Numerous Forensic Pathologists
Numerous Forensic Radiologists
NuStats
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Office of Strategic Services
Orchid Cellmark
Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services
Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
Pennsylvania State Police
Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team
Pentagon Medical Staff
Pentagon Renovation Team
Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
Port of New York and New Jersey Authority
Pro-Safety Services
Protec
Public Entity Risk Institute
Purdue University Engineering Dept.
Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers
Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity
SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams
SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams
Salvation Army Disaster Services
several EPA Hazmat Teams
several FBI Hazmat Teams
several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company
Silverstein Properties
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Somerset Ambulance Association
Somerset County Coroner's Office
Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department
St. Paul/Travelers Insurance
State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Structural Engineers Association of New York
Superstructures Engineering
Swiss Re America Insurance
Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes
Teng & Associates
Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc.
TIG Insurance
Tokio Marine & Fire
Transportation Safety Administration
Tully Construction
Twin City Fire Insurance
Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Underwriters Laboratories
Union Wrecking
United Airlines
United States Air National Guard
United States Fire Administration
United States Secret Service
United Steelworkers of America
University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research
US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County
US Army.s Communications-Electronics Command
US Department of Defense
US Department of Justice
US Department of State
Virginia Beach Fire Department
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Virginia State Police
Vollmer Associates Engineers
Washington Post
Weeks Marine
Weidlinger Associates
Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering
Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
Whitney Contracting
Willis Group Holdings
WJE Structural Engineers
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
World Trade Center security staff
XL Insurance
Yonkers Contracting
York International
Zurich Financial
Zurich Re Risk Engineering

Conspiracists: are these people liars, dupes, or shills?

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Amy Zelson Mundorff
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Cote
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.)
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian Lyons, Tully
Brian McElhatten, S.E.
Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB
Charles Hirsch, M.D.
Charles J. Carter, AISC
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Charlie Vitchers
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Doyle (IW 40)
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Dan Koch Jr.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Davidowitz, ConEd
David Hoy, S.E.
David Leach, USACE
David M. Parks, ME
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Ranlet
David Schomburg
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.
Dennis Clark (IST)
Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D.
Dennis Mileti, Ph.D.
Dennis Smith
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD
Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief
Edward Depaola, S.E.
Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD
Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Farid Alfawakhiri Ph.D.
FDNY Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuono
FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
FDNY Chief Frank Cruthers
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
FDNY Chief Joseph Callan
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
FDNY Firefighter Sam Melisi
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D.
Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Suson
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
Guylene Proulx, Ph.D.
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.
Hal Bidlack, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Ph.D.
Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
Harry Martin, AISC
J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department
Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully)
James A. Rossberg, P.E.
James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
James H. Fahey, S.E.
James Lord, FSFP.E.
James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
Jan Szumanski, IUOE
Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
Jim Abadie, Bovis
Joel Meyerowitz
John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.)
John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Lekstutis, P.E.
John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC)
John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC)
John O'Connell
John Odermatt (NYC OEM)
John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
John W. Fisher, P.E.
Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
John Ryan, PAPD
Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D
Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
Karl Koch III
Karl Koch IV
Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
Kenneth Holden
Kent Watts
Kevin Brennan, OSHA
Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.)
Kevin Terry, S.E.
Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
Larry Keating (IW 40)
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
Leo J. Titus, P.E.
Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
Louis Errichiello, S.E.
Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
Mark Blair
Mark Kucera, USACE
Mark Tamaro, P.E
Mark Volpe, IW 40
Marty Corcoran
Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
Merle E. Brander, P.E.
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Michael Burton, P.E.
Michael Dallal
Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC)
Mike Marscio, P.E.
Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
Mohammed Ettouney
Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
Nick Carcich
Norman Groner, Ph.D.
Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul Sledzik
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Pete Bakersky
Peter Chipchase, S.E.
Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
Pia Hoffman
Rajani Nair, S.E.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
Randy Lawson
Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E.
Richard Gann, Ph.D.
Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Robert Shaler, M.D.
Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
Robert Solomon, P.E.
Robert Wills, AISC
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
Ronald Rehm, Ph.D.
Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C
Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD
S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal
Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
Sonny Scarff
Stan Murphy, P.E.
Stephen Cauffman
Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC)
Stuart Foltz, P.E.
Terry Sullivan, Bovis
Theodore Galambos, P.E.
Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD
Thomas Schlafly, AISC
Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
Tom Scarangello, P.E.
Tom Stanton (IST)
Tony Beale, P.E.
Valentine Junker
Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Victor Hare, P.E.
Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.)
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
W. Lee Evey
Wallace Miller
William Baker, P.E., S.E
William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
William McGuire, P.E.
Willie Quinlan, IW
Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.

9/11 Commission & Staff
Thomas H. Kean, Chair
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair
Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson

Joanne Accolla
Alexis Albion
Scott Allan
John Azzarello
Caroline Barnes
Warren Bass
Ann Bennett
Mark Bittinger
Madeleine Blot
Antwion Blount
Geoff Brown
Daniel Byman
Dianna Campagna
Sam Caspersen
Melissa Coffey
Lance Cole
Marquittia Coleman
Marco Cordero
Raj De Counsel
George Delgrosso
Gerald L. Dillingham
Thomas Dowling
Steven Dunne
Thomas Eldridge
John Farmer
Alvin Felzenberg
Gordon England
Lorry Fenner
Susan Ginsburg
T. Graham Giusti
Nicole Grandrimo
Doug Greenburg
Barbara Grewe
Elinore Hartz
Len Hawley
Christine Healey
Karen Heitkotter
Walt Hempel
Michael Hurley
Dana Hyde
Michael Jacobson
Bonnie Jenkins
Reginald Johnson
William Johnstone
Stephanie Kaplan
Miles Kara
Janice Kephart-Roberts
Hyon Kim
Christopher Kojm
Katarzyna (Kasia) Kozaczuk
Gordon Lederman
Daniel Leopold
Sarah Linden
Douglas MacEachin
Daniel Marcus
Ernest May
James Miller

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fr4h6r$nn7$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <jFhBj.296508$MJ6.3370@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Freedom Fighter <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>>"Mikey" <zigfried@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:KaCdncSIqY9NoU7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>< snip >
>>
>>> LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
>>> To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
>>> assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than
>>> you
>>> are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence"
>>> is
>>> going to change what little mind you have.
>
>>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>>incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
>>frustration they resort to childish name-calling.

> Which is exactly what you do to all NY firemen when you accuse them of
> lying when they say that WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire.

I never said they deliberately lied, but it is obvious that many did not
fully observe, or could not psychologically accept, the truth of what was
actually going on around them.

Do you know what a PSYOP is? A perfect example is a massive act of terrorism
so horrific that most people that experience it, or even hear of it after
the fact, cannot psychologically confront the reality of it. They are
rendered gullible and compliant through shock and fear, just as the
perpetrators intend. Thus they can easily be convinced that we should attack
Iraq, without questioning whether or not Iraq actually had anything to do
with it. And they DIDN'T!

> Take Danny's Metro card offer and go to a firehouse and tell it to a
> fireman.

There ARE firefighters that have given testimony regarding explosions and
other phenomena indicative of controlled demolition. As with many others,
they have been intimidated into silence or the recanting of their original
statements.

For all the information you repeatedly post, I could, had I the time,
respond with information and testimony to more than counter it. You still
have not been able to rebut the facts of physics I posted that show the WTC
collapses could not have happened as the official government story alleges.
I'd be wasting my time though trying to convince you, as not only is your
mind made up, but you seem to have a vested interest in making everyone else
believe as you do. You may be a government shill, or merely a person in
psychological denial.

Tell me, if you can, why the greatest evils and inhumanities of mankind that
have surfaced in the past could not, and have not, surfaced again? Why would
America be immune to such politically-motivated malevolence?

In article <HECBj.1234$D_3.837@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Freedom Fighter <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
>news
....
>
>There ARE firefighters that have given testimony regarding explosions and
>other phenomena indicative of controlled demolition. As with many others,



I love that fact that Freedom Fighter and the rest of the Twoofers
insist that more than 100 firemen are lying when they, by name,
specifically and clearly describe WTC7 as collapsing due to fire and
damage and yet take every use of a metaphor or simile like "like a
bomb" as a sign of man-made explosions in WTC1 and WTC2 even there is
no evidence of man-made explosives at WTC.


There were no man-made explosions recorded on tape on 9/11. Any
explosion too small to be heard from outside wasn't big enough to
demolish anything. Not a single Truth Movement "expert" is willing to
speak in public and answer questions from people with relevant
expertise. The resumes we know of show that the alleged experts are
speaking outside their area of expertise.

Lots of people used words like "explosion" at WTC. If the members of
the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by "simile" and
metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC described
what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a pyroclastic
cloud with a noise like a freight train.


Nobody that claims man-made demolition can explain why in a way that
makes sense to the millions of of other people that have relevant
expertise.

>
>For all the information you repeatedly post, I could, had I the time,
>respond with information and testimony to more than counter it.



It's been 6 years. What is taking the Half-Truth Movement so long?


Here is the full-text transcripts from all the firemen, by name. Tell
us which firemen though there was man-made demolition, the we will see
where he was and what he saw.

Full text transcripts for those names:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Here is the easiest wat to search the above.

http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu



--
Meet the Creators of "Loose Change" http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5jWvu4tR8

Meet the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://youtube.com/watch?v=T6fe9YlHQwA

Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

Les Jamieson and others of NY911Truth.org disparages the FDNY
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ny911truth.orgmembersdisparagethefdnyatg

How famous Truth Movement people repond to unfortunate truths that
show them for what they are
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

Anyone that hasn't seen WTC's Ground Zero in NYC and the "Truth
Movement" kooks that hang out there should look at the first three
videos. The others should be required viewing by anyone that has an
opinion about 9/11 and WTC or has never been to NYC.


--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

"Liam O'Shea" <liam.oshea@yahoo.com.au> wrote in a message

>>Which is exactly what you do to all NY firemen when you accuse them of
>>lying when they say that WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire.

> How would NY firemen know - are they engineers with the proper
> qualifications to make a valid judgment?

I don't know if it's some weird psychosis shared among firefighters, an
allergy, or what, but they all seem to have a very strong desire to be
outside any burning building when it collapses. As such, firefighters have
training and equipment which helps them determine the possibility of
collapse.

Given they were actually at the scene, versus any of the amateur kooks who
claim to be better able to make a determination of the building's condition,
their testimony is highly reliable.

"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
news:jFhBj.296508$MJ6.3370@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Mikey" <zigfried@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KaCdncSIqY9NoU7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> < snip >
>
>> LOL!! Can you say "braindead moonbat"?
>> To even respond with a post that would refute your asinine, ignorant
>> assertions, would be giving you and others of your ilk more time than you
>> are worth. And it would be comletely useless. No amount of "evidence" is
>> going to change what little mind you have.
>
> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
> incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
> frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
>
>> Let me just state that your IGNORANCE is absolutely ASTOUNDING and knows
>> no bounds!! How can people be so utterly mindless and uninformed?
>> Jeez --do you actually dress yourself in the morning??
>
> Ignorance? WHERE, exactly, are the errors in the post you refer to?
> I don't believe you understood it, if you read it at all.
> HOW are the calculations wrong? HOW are those laws of physics invalid?
> You cannot answer, so you won't. All your simple, in-denial mind is
> capable of is childish name-calling.
> So -
> PLONK!
>

May I refer you to POPULAR MECHANICS which did a complete SCIENTIFIC study
regarding the catastrophe on 9/11.?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I also recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X
Expanding on an article published in Popular Mechanics in March 2005, the
staff of the highly regarded magazine painstakingly deconstructs many of the
myths surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Drawing on interviews with
engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses, and
investigators, this book addresses only those questions raised by conspiracy
theorists, mostly that somehow the U.S. government was behind the attacks,
and puts forth no theory of its own. Each section announces a theory,
discloses the major proponents behind the theory, and deconstructs the
theories specifically surrounding the World Trade Center (the fires could
not have melted the steel in the structure), the Pentagon (the holes in the
building were too small to have been made by a Boeing 757), and United
Flight 93 (that it was actually shot down by an air force plane). The
afterword details how Popular Mechanicsitself was accused of being part of
the conspiracy to support the administration. Although it isn't likely to
stop conspiracy theorists, this book offers sound information for readers to
ponder.

Haven't read it, but then again I don't HAVE to!

Beyond that, it is a waste of time for me to type responses to the
"theories".
If a person were outside yelling at people that the sky was falling, would
you respond to him?
****!! I just have!!