Date: Wed May 17 11:26:14 2006
From: Pete.Simpson at clearswift.com (Pete Simpson)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

Paul,

Of all people you surprise me with this dishonest trick of argument -
appeal to authority. Challenge either the data, the principles or the
logic.

The buildings 1,2 and 7 fell at near free fall time 10 seconds. Any
undergraduate should be able to calculate the minimum time for pancake
collapse as at least 90 seconds.

This fundamental contradiction raises so many issues that it may replace
the reader's cosy world view with a bewildering kaleidoscope of chaotic
questions. If this threatens to disrupt too many established neuronal
connections in the brain, some readers may suffer 'cognitive dissonance'
- the inability to accept a plain truth even as it stares you straight
in the face, namely that the official pancake theory is false,
absolutely. 

Some may feel inclined to reject this conclusion, as although the
argument may be perfectly sound, the conclusion must be false, because
one or more key facts must surely be untrue. The truth of this argument
rests on two unassailable facts: the height of the Twin Towers and the
value of the constant force of acceleration due to gravity, interpreted
in the light of two unassailable principles: Galileo's Equivalence
Principle and Newton's Second Law of Motion, to derive the free-fall
time of any object in a vacuum of 9.2 seconds. The official time of
descent according to the  9/11 Commission Report was 10 seconds. It does
not matter whether this is in error by a few seconds: it certainly did
not take 90 seconds, as required, as an absolute minimum, by any form of
the 'pancake' theory.

This is not 'rocket science'. One must ponder then, why on Earth the US
National Institute of Science and Technology Report overlooked this
glaring discrepancy?  The answer lies on p.80 of the Final NIST 9-11
report, with the disingenuous admission that this report "does not
actually include the structural behaviour of the tower after the
conditions for collapse initiation were reached."!

Obviously it does not, but one must question why not?  It would appear
that all physical evidence following the instant of initiation of
collapse was disregarded, not because it is irrelevant (far from it),
but because otherwise NIST would have been obliged to conclude that the
near free-fall time rules out any form of 'pancake theory', or face
ridicule throughout the global scientific community.

One simple, physically-feasible mechanism for each floor to present no
resistance to the floors falling from above was for each floor to fail
due to explosive charges timed to coincide precisely with the fall of
the floor above. This is known as a 'controlled demolition' and when
planned and executed correctly results in an orderly destruction, so
that the building collapses on its own footprint in near free-fall time,
as did the WTC Twin Towers. 

Is there any further evidence, other than the overwhelming evidence of
the near free-fall time of descent, to support this hypothesis? Yes
indeed, Steven E. Jones of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at
Brigham Young University has marshalled ample, strong, circumstantial
evidence <http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html> that the
Twin Towers were subjected to controlled demolition and, furthermore,
tell-tale evidence indicates the types of explosives
<http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm> that were used. 

Conclusively, the lease-holder of the World Trade Center Complex, Larry
Silverstein, went on record in a PBS documentary "America Rebuilds
<http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/>" openly admitting that he
authorised the controlled demolition of one of the buildings (WTC7) on
that inauspicious day.

The under-reported, controlled demolition of the WTC7 building raises
more than a few intruiging questions. Foremost of these are: why was it
necessary to 'pull' it; when were the demolition charges put in position
and by whom; why was it 'pulled' at the time it was; and why did the
insurers pay out even a single cent (rather than over $3 billion)? 

The 47-storey WTC7 building fell to the ground, on its own footprint, in
near free-fall time (6.5 seconds) at 5.20 pm local time.  This was a
classic controlled demolition, with cutter-charges proceeding in the
usual manner, from the base upwards. WTC7. It was not hit by any
aircraft on 9/11. It stood an entire block away from WTC1 and 2 and was
not damaged by any falling debris, as these fell on their own footprint.


Minor and easily extinguishable fires were observed in a few adjacent
WTC7  office windows. Their cause remains unreported. So why was it
demolished?  In the words of lease-holder Larry Silverstein:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain
the fire, and I said, "We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing is to pull it". And they made that decision to pull and
we watched the building collapse."

As we say here "pull the other one".


-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of
pauls@...allas.edu
Sent: 17 May 2006 01:58
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

--On May 16, 2006 11:48:01 PM +0100 Pete Simpson
<Pete.Simpson@...arswift.com> wrote:
>
> The official account of 9/11, as affirmed repeatedly by governments 
> and media, therefore contradicts Newton's Second Law of Motion by at 
> least a factor of ten (out by an order of magnitude). Newton's Laws 
> may have stood the test of time admirably for centuries, but as we 
> have been told time and again, the world changed irreversibly on the 
> 11th of September
> 2001 and officially, by implication, so too did the Newton's Laws of 
> Motion.
>
Wow.  I guess you're more knowledgeable than some of the most eminent
scientists in the US (physicists and structural engineers, architectural
engineers, etc., etc.), who modeled the collapse of the towers and
proved conclusively that it happened exactly the way witnesses saw it.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Clearswift monitors, controls and protects all its messaging traffic in compliance with its corporate email policy using Clearswift products.
Find out more about Clearswift, its solutions and services at http://www.clearswift.com

This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of Clearswift. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Clearswift by emailing support@...arswift.com quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. Clearswift accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the Clearswift domain.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists