Date: Tue May 16 23:48:17 2006
From: Pete.Simpson at clearswift.com (Pete Simpson)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

You are a commercial pilot and an engineer? Where did you qualify in
engineering, because it would appear that you have overlooked some of
the most elementary principles of physics?

The official US government account of the destruction of the World Trade
Center Twin Towers consists of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) report [1], the 9/11 Commission Report [2] and the  National
Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) Report [3].
 
The following six assertions represent the core elements of the official
account:

1.  The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as the
WTC7 building underwent gravitational ('pancake') collapse due to
structural failure of steel trusses caused by hydrocarbon fires.

2.  Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and
crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
 
3.  Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington,
D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.
 
4.  Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and
crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

5.  Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into
a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

6. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four
aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001.

Let us examine the basis, both scientific and evidential, for assessing
the truth of  these six assertions. Many subsiduary questions remain
relevant, but these six represent the main thrust of the official story.

The Gravitational Collapse Defies Sir Issac Newton's Second Law of
Motion

Four hundred years ago, Galileo demonstrated experimentally that gravity
accelerates all objects at the same rate, by timing the descent of
objects of different mass and composition dropped from the Leaning Tower
of Pisa. This represents a cornerstone of modern physics and is known as
the 'Universality of Free-fall' or the 'Equivalence Principle'. Einstein
assumed the validity of the principle  in developing his General Theory
of Relativity. Over the last 30 years, lunar laser ranging experiments
(pinging the moon) have confirmed that the Equivalence Principle holds
true to within a few parts in 10 -13.

Sir Issac Newton's Second Law of Motion defines the relationship between
an object's mass and the its acceleration under an applied force. In
particular it shows that an object's rate of free fall in a vacuum is
independent of mass. It provides a powerful means of quantitative
calculation of the dynamics of, amongst many other things, the free-fall
acceleration due to gravity. 

Applying Newton's Second Law of Motion, the minimum time taken for an
object dropped from the height of WTC1 and WTC2 to reach the ground is
given by t=(2h/a)1/2: the square root of twice the height (h = 416m)
divided by the constant force of acceleration due to gravity (a = 9.8
m/s/s) as t = 9.2 seconds. This, however, is the time for an object to
fall that distance in a vacuum: it neglects air resistance. So allowing
for air resistance, the time would be slightly longer, depending upon
the composition and shape of the object.

The 9/11 Commission Report
<http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm> (p. 305) states, "At
9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, .... The building
collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a
massive debris cloud."  (Chapter 9. html
<http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm>, pdf
<http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.pdf>). Similarly,
the North Tower fell in about ten seconds. The collapse of both
buildings occurred effectively at near free-fall time.

Now consider, not an object dropped off the top of the building, but the
buildings themselves. For air resistance, substitute the resistance
presented by a quarter of a million tonnes of steel and concrete. How
long should it take for them to fall to the ground (minutes, hours...)?
To approach a solution to that question, we first need to consider the
dynamics of a very simplified hypothetical model.

Supposedly, the heat of the burning aviation fuel caused steel trusses
to fail and each floor 'pancaked' onto the floor below, causing it to
fail also. Let's assume that this is true, despite the fact that the
maximum temperature at which well-oxygenated aviation fuel can burn is
800o C and steel (depending upon alloy) melts at around 1370o C.
Nonetheless, let's also assume merely a sufficient loss of integrity
rather than melting and that, at each stage in the collapse, failure of
all steel trusses across each lower floor is uniform and instantaneous
on impact from above.

In our simplified model we have 110 floors suspended one above the other
just waiting to move when hit with a force from above. When the first
floor fails, it starts from a position of rest and accelerates until it
hits the floor below. The time for 'pancake' collapse of the WTC1 and 2
is given by the same formula t=110(2h/110a)1/2, where the height is
divided by 110 (for each individual floor) and the overall result
multiplied by 110 producing an elapsed cumulative free-fall descent time
of just under 87.9 seconds.  In order to approach the free-fall of just
9.2 seconds each floor would need to present no resistance. 

This demonstrates that if the model were valid the minimum possible
duration of complete collapse would be 87.9 seconds. Actually, the
simplified 'pancake' model does not take account of the fact that each
successive floor would be kick-started with increasing energy, but given
Newton's Third Law of Motion (for every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction) the overall elapsed time for complete collapse
remains valid, as the fall of each upper floor would be decelerated as
well. It totally neglects the energy (and delay) caused by each impact
of an upper floor having to overcome the inertia of the floor below. 

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Gary E.
Miller
Sent: 10 May 2006 23:47
To: bills@...ineen.org
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yo Bill!

On Wed, 10 May 2006, bills@...ineen.org wrote:

> Have you actually watched the video?

Yes, several times.  I try to withhold comment on things I lack first
hand experience about.

> It presents facts and historical accounts and leaves it to the viewer 
> to make up their own mind.

I am both a commercial pilot and an engineer.  As an engineer I have
worked on many failure analysis projects.  I have also visited the
Pentagon and the World Trade towers.  Some of my friends watched the
towers fall.  To me the "facts" and "historical accounts" were just
ludicrous.  CSI and MI:3 are more credible than this turkey.

RGDS
GARY
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
	gem@...lim.com  Tel:+1(541)382-8588

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEYm1t8KZibdeR3qURAvCDAKCrA04CCsMgMu3UTDhbio1P5OTZfQCbBq89
llzoEXFPvoUVhKc4jdpmzIU=
=dM2e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
m/

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Gary E.
Miller
Sent: 10 May 2006 23:47
To: bills@...ineen.org
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yo Bill!

On Wed, 10 May 2006, bills@...ineen.org wrote:

> Have you actually watched the video?

Yes, several times.  I try to withhold comment on things I lack first
hand experience about.

> It presents facts and historical accounts and leaves it to the viewer 
> to make up their own mind.

I am both a commercial pilot and an engineer.  As an engineer I have
worked on many failure analysis projects.  I have also visited the
Pentagon and the World Trade towers.  Some of my friends watched the
towers fall.  To me the "facts" and "historical accounts" were just
ludicrous.  CSI and MI:3 are more credible than this turkey.

RGDS
GARY
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
	gem@...lim.com  Tel:+1(541)382-8588

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEYm1t8KZibdeR3qURAvCDAKCrA04CCsMgMu3UTDhbio1P5OTZfQCbBq89
llzoEXFPvoUVhKc4jdpmzIU=
=dM2e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
m/

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