Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**
From: "Pete Simpson" <Pete.Simpson () clearswift com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:25:50 +0100
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 () lists grok org uk [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of pauls () utdallas edu Sent: 17 May 2006 01:58 To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??** --On May 16, 2006 11:48:01 PM +0100 Pete Simpson <Pete.Simpson () clearswift 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 () utdallas 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 () clearswift 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. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- RE: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**, (continued)
- RE: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Pete Simpson (May 16)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Morning Wood (May 16)
- RE: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** pauls (May 16)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** ducki3 (May 16)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** ducki3 (May 16)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Valdis . Kletnieks (May 16)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** bruen (May 17)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Paul Schmehl (May 17)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** bkfsec (May 17)
- RE: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Pete Simpson (May 16)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** c0ntex (May 17)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Paul Schmehl (May 17)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Paul Schmehl (May 17)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Valdis . Kletnieks (May 17)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Paul Schmehl (May 17)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** Ducki3 (May 18)
- Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??** c0ntex (May 18)