<
NEWLY RELEASED UNEDITED VIDEO REVEALS
EXPLOSION PRECEDED COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus&feature=player_embedded#!
<
======================
<
Well, I see we'll soon be observing the ninth anniversary of 911.
<
The TV networks and newspapers will be reminding us about that
infamous day -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- and once again they'll reiterate
the totally fictitious story of how Muslim terrorists turned THREE
WTC skysc.rs into dust and sent more than 3,000 people to
their graves.
<
Not to mention the dire consequences of putting us at war in
Afghanistan and Iraq, sending more than a million poor souls to their
death -- nearly 7,000 American military personnel and untold women
and children -- and costing American taxpayers trillions of dollars.
<
Their story line is obviously Yellow Journalism -- the major media
fearful of reporting the truth -- since the overwhelming physical
vidence indicates that 911 was a Cheney-Bush government
conspiracy.
<
It was a charade of the highest diabolical order.
<
But today's question is not WHO DONE IT? but, instead, how what
we remember as 911 even got its name.
<
It is my opinion that the the attack on America on Sept. 11 -- and
the 911 horror story that will forever will live in infamy --
certainly
was NO COINCIDENCE.
<
I firmly believe that. once the plot was hatched within the confines
of the White House, the only loose end was figuring out the most
opportune day it should take place.
<
While a few of the conspirators were licking their chops with
overconfidence,a few might've been studying the September
calendar
month of September.
<
"HOLY SHIT!" shouted one, probably Karl Rove. "Sept. 11 is, as
you all know, 911 -- the emergency response number. "
<
The vote was taken, the ayes had it and the final piece of the
grotesque puzzle was put in place.
<
It was done on 9/11 to add more salt to our wounds.
<
===========
<
MEET THE REAL 911 TERRORISTS
http://groups.google.im/group/alt.obituaries/msg/1b51051602ef759c
<
=========
<
FREEDOM MAN responded to the above
by posting the following message to alt.politics.bush, alt.politics,
alt.tv.keith-olbermann, rec.arts.tv and alt.conspiracy . . .
<
(Who said courageous Americans have gone the way of the dinosaur?)
<
=====================
<
There was a time, the time of America's Founding Fathers, when most
citizens would be up in arms -- literally -- to get justice against
the evil
mass-murdering warmongers behind the 9/11 false-flag attack
conspiracy.
<
Today? - all the stupid, brainwashed Sheeple care about is sitting in
front of the boob tube drinking beer and watching football.
<
These fools got what they asked for on 9/11, and are still blind,
deaf, and dumb -- especially dumb! The tragedy is that so many
innocent people suffered, died, and continue to suffer and die for
their ignorance and apathy.
<
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
authoritarianertions?
<
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 justumed that heavier objects fall
faster, much the way they hadumed 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. 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 equationsume 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
<
|
