Newton rides again
[Image from activistpost.com no modification]
This, my first post, on 9/11 will use limited sources and try to make one simple point:
The USA official story of 9/11 is incomplete or misleading.
Personally, I think the official story is completely demolished. But, I'm only trying to convince you of either "incomplete" or "misleading", or both. Make up your own mind.
The hyper-brief summary of the official/media findings/narrative could be:
A collection of extremist muslims from somewhere, who may have been in Afghanistan, boarded a collection of 4 flights to use the aeroplanes as missiles to destroy 3 buildings; the 2 twin towers in New York City and the Pentagon. The fourth was overcome by passengers and crashed in Pensylvania thus saving some other building (e.g the Whitehouse).
There is one, not so small, 57 story high sky scraper just next to the two twin towers which pokes a prick into this narrative bubble: World Trade Center 7 (WTC7).
The short “prick” is 3 buildings destroyed with 2 planes. The long “prick” is physics.
I shall use, but need to introduce, a single source for the demolition of the official narrative to achieve my objectives of "incomplete" and/or "misleading".
I'm a science graduate and like simple but useful things like Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion. A reputable source may be NASA, who use these laws to calculate trajectories for Solar System travel and the very subtle calculations of velocity required to do amazing things like insert the Cassini Probe into its orbits around Saturn, or possibly even more amazingly inserting the Messenger Probe into obits around Mercury.
Newton's third law, quoting NASA, is:
Whenever one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first.
One of the coolest things about this law is that it is simple and comprehensible, with no mathematics involved. You push me, I push you back, with the same strength and precisely against the direction in which you pushed me. Simple and clear.
Imagine a table on a floor with a piece of wood on it with a nail partially "nailed" within the wood. You have a hammer in your hand and hit the nail with the hammer's head. What happens?
Well, the nail goes further into the wood. But, why does the hammer stop?
THAT is the key question. A whole sequence of up/down action/reaction forces are occurring according to Newton. The hammer hits the nail, which is pushed into the wood, but the wood pushes back through the nail bouncing off the hammer, and the wood hits the table which pushes the wood back but bounces off the floor, etcetera.
To simplify the question, take your hammer to a very big rock and hit that. Did the rock move? Yes, but only by a tiny, tiny amount. Again the forces are balanced, but the rock itself, being so big is harder to move. It is the same principle all around.
In the end, nail to wood to table to floor or rock, it all ends up hitting our planet. Does the planet get affected? Yes. But, your hammer is 1 and the planet is about 300 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 hammers (assuming your hammer is 2 Kg).
The government initiated and controlled "investigation" into 9/11 is first published on 2004-07-22 and a USA High School Physics teacher sees something amiss. He uses a program "The Physics Toolkit" which he has used with his students for years, and thus knows its reliability, to investigate the uninvestigated destruction of WTC7.
What? They missed an entire 57 story sky scraper? Yep. Actually, its worse. There was serious damage to WTC 5 and 6 too. Any detailed investigation there? Nah. There’s a name for this: covering, coverish, coveringly, covered, coveredly, …. uppish, uppishly, upland, …. I dont know.
Back to Newton's Third Law: replace the hammer with a sizable(*) rock which you will drop on that nail. Now imagine that the nail, and wood, and table and floor are not there. What will happen to the rock? It will just keep, not only falling, but accelerating. Here, Newton's Second Law comes in, and it does involve mathematics, but it’s simple enough. Junk Newton, and just know your own experience. If you drop a dense object it speeds up as it moves down getting faster and faster until it hits something, at which point the 3rd law comes in and forces apply back and forth.
Published in 1687 this fundamental work in Physics remains uncontested to this day at any speed slightly less than the speed of light (at which we need Einsteinian General Relativistic mechanics). Thus, in "earth like" conditions, Newton's Laws are completely vindicated for 400+ years. There is not one single reproducible counter claim (hence, NASA using the Laws).
So, if nothing is there to stop the falling body (rock) it’s downward speed will just keep getting faster until it hits something. Now watch David Chandler's video:
Sorry for all the Physics intro. As David would say "Try it! Experiment!". Anyone who had the joy of their children learning under his instruction should be proud and smiling. These are the teachers our children (and we!) need.
Making the Case
Having done this “you gotta be kidding me” analysis, David calls in to the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to speak with them when they finally present their findings on WTC7 years later. He asks the question; what about freefall? They fluff this off in the media event, but someone or somebodies incorporate it into their final report that freefall did occur for WTC7. Chandler pays out on them again by their fraudulent characterization of it, and this is important, but his victory is achieved: NIST has admitted to freefall of WTC7!
There is only ONE way WTC7 freefall can happen; there was nothing below the falling mass to stop it, which implies that all of that lower mass had been already destroyed and/or had no structural support.
There are only two ways to characterize that:
never quantified physical phenomena (there are several single words for this and they start with un- or im-)
It would be remiss of me to not mention Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and their supporters and founder, Richard Gage. He has advocated tirelessly for a new independent investigation into 9/11 for at least 15 years. With the supporters, they gathered sufficient funds to engage Prof. Hulsey of University Alaska, Fairbanks to perform a rigorous, detailed, investigation into the the destruction of WTC7. The report is hundreds of pages long, publishing all of their starting data and models used. As opposed to the NIST report which published neither.
It sits uncontested in peer reviewed literature in its conclusion that the NIST evaluation is categorically wrong; Fire did not cause the WTC7 collapse. I contend that this was already proven by David Chandler years earlier by simple Newtonian mechanics, but Hulsey and his team did the long yards of getting all of the engineering diagrams and setting up two parallel models in two parallel finite analysis engines to prove what a High School Physicist had observed about a decade earlier using the simplest of principles and tools. No disrespect to Hulsey and team; I was sold on Newton's Third Law.
The only way the Fairbanks researchers could make the collapse look like it did on the film collected on the day was to minimally destroy 8 floors of the building, almost instantaneously. This is their contribution. Given the finite element models, how could the destruction actually happen?
Answer: destroy about 1/7th of the building, almost instantly, completely, horizontally.
The official story to WTC7's destruction is that it was caused by fire, which obviously cannot instantly destroy 8 floors of a building.
Can you see any “incomplete” or “misleading”?
(*) sizable; I'm just trying to avoid discussing the atmosphere and air resistance for less dense objects
Newton’s Laws of Motion, NASA
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, US Government
Physics - WTC7 Freefall by David Chandler - AE911Truth.org, David Chandler
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, University Alaska Fairbanks, Hulsey et. al.
Extra Source Repositories
There are many more, including great efforts by individuals. If you like "the weeds" I suggest a search term of "9/11 red grey chips". Through in “Neils Harrit:”. If that gets you going look into “Steve McQueen” and “9/11 first responder oral testimony”.