Is Physics Reality or Just a Theory?

[Coil Coyle]

 Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC

by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.

Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.

Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.

Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.

So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.

An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.

The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.

As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.

The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.

It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.

Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.

This proves controlled demolition.

We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.

A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.

But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.

Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.

If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.

If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.

The World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand aircraft impact, which they did for about an hour. Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings, in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions. The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, and this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in the fireballs outside the towers.

If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble.

Given the many uncertainties about these events, it certainly seems that there should be more questions, more investigations, and more thoughtfulness about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. A little bit of logic will reveal that the Arabs alone could not have been solely responsible for the entire chain of events.

The author has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.

$0.02
;)
Coil

[macroars]

... but as we know, us that have done a task as easy and uncomplicated as adjusted the carbs on a V: reality can be informed by the theories, but theories cannot predict reality. 

Sorry to say - but this Jerry Russell might have interest in i.e.:
Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1991. Some remarks on the theory-practice gap, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

And he might have had some use of looking a bit further down the library alleys where those books concerning conspiracy theories and self-deceive is to be found...   

[Tanno]

So, according to him, if I were to fall 10 feet straight down onto another person.....they would be my molassas? I could walk away unharmed?

There are so many people that just can't accept things for what they really were. Elvis is still alive. Aliens have never been here / Or they just don't exist. There is no God or god. The greenhouse effect is solely because of industry and the automobile. And {*SOB*} we were not attacked by anyone other than ourselves.

I firmly believe that most of the people that believe this crap don't spank their kids, are vegetarians whilst trying to save the forest, but yet won't stop breeding.

Anyway.... I get a little un-nerved on these issues.

[YellowJacket!]

Well, I'm taking a physics clas right now.

There are a few holes in his theory.
First.  Have you ever seen how they set up a building for a "controlled blast"?  The engineers go in and make cuts in the primary support and insert explosives into the supports.  Then they wrap them with a carbon fiber mesh to direct the explosion inward.  On top of that, there are miles of detonator cord laying around and tied into one control point.
Next, the buildings were designed to withstand an airplane hit.  One flying at normal velocity...not full speed loaded with tons of highly explosive jet fuel.  Those jets sliced into the buildings like hot butter knives.
The implosions were a result of two factors. 1. The buildings were tight...meaning fairly airtight.  As the fires intensified, they required more oxygen (air) to burn.  As any good fire fighter knows, fires suck air inward. (any of you Californians been around a wild fire?)  The combination of the fire sucking air inward and the weakening of the burning structures above, caused thebuilding to implode.  As it did, its like stoking a furnace.  The upper floors compressed the air, superheating the fire and burning materials causing it to literally eat itself downward.  Did you notice there was surprisingly little debris?
The conspiracy is that it was ARABS, not Iranians, not Iraqui's that carried out the mission.  A country we are still "friends" with and continue to support and send military technology too.  The same bastards that are controlling oil prices.  So, they couldn't break our will by terrorizing us so they break our backs by sucking the lifeblood (money) out of us.  Thats the damn conspiracy and we continue to kiss their asses!!  If you want to fix the damn problem bomb the damn Saudis.  They are the problem.  Oh, and did you ever wonder if we built in failsafes into the F-15's, F-18's etc, that we sold them?  I hope so.  At least we had the sense to do that to the ones we sold our former buddies the Iranians.  One day, all of a sudden, all their US made jets quit working.

Steps off soapbox.

David

[Lucky]

who shot Kennedy, Global warming, Ozone, save the Earth, etc, etc.

Here's the truth:
None of it matters, in a (relatively) short time we'll all be gone.  the Earth doesn't need saving, it's 'self fixing'. The continents will roll over, the atmosphere will fix itself.  We are more than an annoyance to the Earth than anything else.  Shortly after that (again, relatively) the Sun will go dark, & that will be that.

Have a nice Day!  :)

[67GTO]

It always amazes me how concerned people are about global warming, oil sortage, the economy,
conspiracy theory's etc  etc etc...  But they give no thought to where they will spend eternity when
they die. We are here on this earth for such a short period of time and then we are gone, like a vapor.

[joevacc]

It's against my better judgment to perpetuate a thread like this, I have not so far.  I strongly feel this is not the place for it!

coil, don't believe everything you read. Please don't stop reading, you'll have to come to your own conclusions.  BBC news seems to be a unbiased source.  There are others.

I started to read that "proof" and saw several holes in it before I got to the third paragraph. I did not get through it all.  Anyone that makes statements of absolute may be lacking in real world experience, foresight and vision.

I am going to stay out of these sort of threads going forward - too bad I have already made myself a hippocrate.

I did read a quote by George Carlin that I want to add to these thoughts though...

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"
George Carlin

[Brian Moffet]

We are here on this earth for such a short period of time and then we are gone, like a vapor.

Is there a problem with that?  I'm okay with it.

Brian (yes, with a degree in physics...)

[inanecathode]

Yeah, i get about two sentences into stuff like this and just click over to something else. Its so dishonest to the reader it almost makes me sick. Its just written sand bagging. If people who wrote bullshit like this actually wanted to have an honest debate or convince people who have more than half a brain they wouldn't hide behind educational monikers and untraceable articles.
Heres my easy and simple one step rebuttle of the 9/11 truth nonsense.

THIS GUY

Is still alive. A government willing to kill thousands of people and perpetrate the biggest and most complex consipiracy plot in human kind can't manage to kill this guy before he makes a youtube video?
What about this professor? Why haven't they hunted down and killed him? Too complicated? They took down the two towers with covert explosives (insert thermite buzz word here) and fooled the entire planet into thinking religious fanatics from north africa hijacked planes with box cutters but couldnt stomp out a popular conspiracy theory?
Oh thats right, because conspiracy theorists are always better than the common man. See, they know how it went down, you're just a sheep. They've got the inside knowledge, man. Theres always a deeper meaning that only they know about. Its the knowing chuckle they make when you mention 'popular facts'. Its the secret club effect, if you're in the know you're in the club. It feels nice to be in the club.
Well i dont want to be a part of the club, and pretty much everyone who isnt in the club thinks the club members are insane. Thats ok though i guess, it takes all kinds.
Are you going to tell us about chemtrails and the faked moon landing now?
Last i heard the earth was round, but thats what they want you to think  :o

[inanecathode]

While i'm still bored, i'll do some editing:

Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes the twin towers in newyork werent meant to withstand earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy we have countless images, videos of 'sky scrapers' as he calls them being destroyed by natural forces.

Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers We have countless pictures and videos of this happening from numerous objective sources and literally countless eyewitnesses. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. The towers werent designed to deflect or outright stop an airplane crash they were designed to absorb it But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. The design of the tower itself defeats this logic, its not built like a giant rod, again its designed to absorb an impact not stop it as this author asserts. It wouldnt have acted on the highest levered stress point as the external shell of the structure collapsed and absorbed the impact That, of course, did not happen.

Fires do not destroy skyscrapers again, we have video, eye witness accounts, and pictures to the contrary. This authors only proof to the contrary of reality are his own assertions. You cant prove your statements with your own statements. . Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.

So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example. A professor with a masters in engineering and a phd in psychology should know how to write better than this, this is outright leading your reader.

An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball. This section just like the last is simply meant to lead the reader. For an objective article this reads more like political propaganda

The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. This is an understatement, not just throughout, its every single level and every single structural support thoughout the entire structure, top to bottom The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. Again, this man has no concept of controlled demolition. You dont just simply put explosives on the key points and blow it up. Theres an extremely lengthy process of preweakening the structure that is absolutely critical, you cannot have a smoothy demolished building without preweakening the structure first The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse. Im not sure what he's trying to go for in the last section of this paragraph, his voice changes from an analytical scientist type to a almost forced poetic type. This isnt to mention the fact that a psychology professor with a masters in engineering is referring to things like "the unyielding earth"

As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions I think many agree here with his assertion with what it looked like the problem is he's using what it looked like as proof of what he posits it is. Here's the proof. proof of what it looked like?

The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds. This is one of the biggest problems with this mans writing. When you're talking about proving equations with real life examples you cant throw around inaccurate "just about"s. "just about" doesnt cut it when you're talking about physics equations, a engineering master should know that. Further more, noone can percisely say when the top of the structure reached the ground as it was obscured by a opaque cloud of dust he's using inaccuracies in his favor to prove his point

It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. once again, 'as if' 'thin air' you cant use diction like this in an article thats supposed to support technical claims As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. The twin towers werent built like jenga towers. the outside of the building is almost nothing compared to the structural strength of the elevator core which is what actually held the building up. An engineering master is asserting that the structure below has to be 'cut' with something for it to collapse? Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down. Once again, a controlled demolition doesnt just blow out one level, it blows out every level of the building. I simply cannot believe someone who's supposedly as learned in physics and engineering is claiming that any structure does anything like he describes 'hanging in the air'

Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. Once again, this is just blind assertion, he has no basis for his claims of 'braking the fall'. He's taking what the every day person would see on tv and making technical assertions based on this. It 'looks' like it falls 'straight down' 'really fast' so it must mean that there was nothing below it This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all. I dont think the writer fully understands what friction is

This proves controlled demolition. Actually, it doesnt. It proves that a lay person looking at the TV cant make technical assertions about the collapse of a structure by what it 'looks like' and what 'a ball of lead dropped in mollases' would look like

We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure its been proven over and over that is has. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. It doesnt have to burn hot enough to melt steel, stell loses half its strength halfway to the melting point. You dont have to liquify a metal for it to lose structural strength. Furthermore, the statistics he's probably citing refers to the open air burn temperature, not forced air burn temperature. Burning wood can almost melt steel under forced air, i'd assume kerosene is no different In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned. I'm quite shocked this man can quantify the amount of gallons of fuel burned simply by the size and apparent intensity of a fireball

A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. Actually, it did. If you look at pictures and video of the event it clearly shows several hundred windows blown out not only in and around the impact zone, but all over the building, and in fact several buildings remote to the impact point The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire. According to numerous engineering reports both of the fire itself as it is seen and the reminants of the towers themselves, it was not an office fire, it was an extremely intense accelerant fire

But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. Again, it doesnt have to be What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire. Once again, the world trade center isnt a jenga tower of steel, nor is it a giant steel rod as this author seems to think. Its a concrete and steel elevator core, surrounded on the outside of the building by a steel and glass shell. Its also been proven that the fuel from the aircraft sprayed from one end of the building to the other, evenly distributing accelerant across the entire section

Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. It wouldnt have, and it didnt, the airplane was fast enough and large enough to distribute the impact throughout the whole building floor and spread fuel from one end to the other In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Im not sure why he keeps inserting these forced 'sciency' sounding portions Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways. It did tip and fall sideways to some extent, but it didnt fall sideways away from the building according to this man's cartoon physics, it tipped and fell straight down

If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. Which is what it did in fact The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. Which is exactly what happened The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. Im sure it did deflect elastically, but once again the structures arent jenga towers, they're held together with rivets, once you reach the shearing point of rivets the extra energy simply travels down to the next level, picking up energy as it goes At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Once again this man is using uneducated observations and simply estimating by how it looks how much energy the top section of the structure had. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame. Again with the baseless observations, how does he know how much potential energy is in the top of the structure?

If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. This man is obviously not an architect  But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. Incorrect, it wouldnt have slowed, it would have absorbed a portion of the energy in its shearing force, then continued to collapse, gaining energy every moment the debris isnt in contact with the fixed structure, accelerating. This is seen in the collapse of the towers The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, Im not sure how he's getting his numbers, or lack of, but it clearly had enough energy to pulverize concrete and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case. Is this "just about" ten seconds again?

The World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand aircraft impact from a 707, much smaller than a 767, and much smaller than a 767 loaded with fuel, which they did for about an hour. No, it withstanded the impact for fractions of a second, the impact is a singular event not one stretched over an hour, what it did resist is the firestorm consuming those levels of the structure Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings, actually, there was significant damage to surrounding buildings, one actually collapsed itself that was unrelated to the two towers in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions. The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, not just the US government, countless actual experts, and countless objective sources, as well as the pictures and video itself support this and this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in the fireballs outside the towers. Reports written by people like this man, to support theories he's supporting. Once again, hes using claims supporting his theory to support his thoery

If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. I suppose they could have, after first gutting the building, preweakening it, then placing explosives on every single level on every key structural support, without being noticed by anyone working there, or alerting athorities   Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives aliens maybe?) for it to have collapsed into rubble. Its been studied numerous times, and every report concludes that collateral structure damage from the fall of the twin towers weakened building 7 to an extent that it too failed catastrophically

Given the many uncertainties about these events, it certainly seems that there should be more questions, more investigations, and more thoughtfulness about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. I think many would agree with this A little bit of logic and a whole lot of inventing physics will reveal that the Arabs alone could not have been solely responsible for the entire chain of events.

[VisionMeister]

You guys have to much time on your hands.
You could have been out riding.

[h2olawyer]

I think inanecathode is currently waiting out a snowstorm up at his house.  Weathermen are predicting accumulating snows down to about 8500 feet today.

H₂O

[kwells]

whether or not you want to accept HOW the building fell...the truth is all 3 did in fact fall in a 'free fall' manner and at the same speed observed in a controlled demolition.  You can draw your on conclusion as to the cause.  They all also fell into their own footprint.

Those alone are interesting observations and deserve some analysis.  I don't simply swallow the fact that it was all coincidence.  I similarly also do not simply say aliens did it.  That is yet another manner of op-ed discrediting that requires no other energy. 

 

[Brian Moffet]

Since I'm pondering something else, I thought I would comment on the subject line.

In science, a theory is not just a hunch or a guess.  A theory is an explanation of a system.  One that has withstood the rigors of testing, observation, and scientific method.  A hypothesis might be considered a hunch or guess, but in science even a hypothesis is an explanation based on knowledge, mathematics, and prior evaluation.  As a hypothesis moves through the scientific scrutiny, comparing it to observations, tests, it will eventually either be disproven or establish enough testing to become a good theory.

There are many areas of science that are solid theories, one could argue that all of science is theory, very well established theory.  There will be gaps in the knowledge.  These gaps do not necessarily mean the theory is incorrect, rather our understanding is incomplete.

I like to trot out the planet Vulcan as an example of this.  Most of you probably remember Vulcan as where Spock came from on Star Trek.  However, there is more background to that planet than just a short-lived TV series.

When Newton came up with the laws of gravitation, calculus, and other things (I won't get into whether deserves to get credit or not), people started comparing reality with the theory of gravitational attraction.  The took observations of the planets they knew about, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and started plugging these into Newtons equations of gravity.  This was in the 19th century, so the computers were often students, or very bright citizens they hired.

Based on their calculations, they determined that the orbit of Saturn and Mercury were being altered by something.  They figured there had to be other planets out there.  At around this time, someone discovered Uranus, and these scientists worked their equations and determined that Uranus was where the equations said it was supposed to be.  Science triumphs again. 

However, Uranus' orbit was being altered.  Two people, John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier, calculated where that planet should be.  Astronomers trained their telescopes on that part of the night sky, and they discovered Neptune.  As a side note, turns out Galileo had observed, it but thought it was a star.

People turned to the planet inside Mercury.  There had to be another planet perturbing the orbit.  They named this planet Vulcan.  Many people searched for the transition across the sun, some people seeing something, but the sightings were never reproduced at all.  This went on into the early 20th century.

A mathematician by the name of Albert Einstein was playing around with the mathematics of gravity, coming up with the space-time dimensions.  These equations amounted to basically the same results as Newtons, except when an object was near a very large or massive object, like the sun.  Then a distortion occurred, corresponding to that object distorting the space-time continuum.

He took a look at Mercury and plugged its orbit into his new equations that described gravity. When using his equations, he determined that the orbit of Mercury matched the observational information.  A very minor change for most people amounted to a major change for science.  There was no planet Vulcan, the Newtonian model we had for gravity was incomplete. The new model from Einstein was more complete.

[macroars]

whether or not you want to accept HOW the building fell...the truth is all 3 did in fact fall in a 'free fall' manner and at the same speed observed in a controlled demolition.  You can draw your on conclusion as to the cause.  They all also fell into their own footprint.

I have to say: Yes! It is really strange that
1) the acceleration induced by gravitation is exactly the same all over Manhattan - and
2) both in case of controlled demolition and terrorist attacks.

Hence, it is clear that The Government and The Arabs has been united!

[kwells]

of course...

and thus it is all proven...

[Coil Coyle]

http://physics911.net

"
Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, and Blacksmith Forger. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning. The grounding failed, and the million gallons blew up.

Well, for a diesel fire that is. It didn't "blow up". It simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, and didn't melt a thing.

The tank, 1/4″-thick steel, never melted.

Yet the 47 HUGE box-section core columns, the main structural supports of the WTC towers, are said to have melted?

Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing.

I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired, sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

Do you recall the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? What caused that?

It was the JP-8 [jet fuel] contained in the aircraft's tanks.

Did you see that huge fireball? What was that?

It was the kerosene (JP-8 is nothing more than refined kerosene, the same stuff you use in your camping stove).

It burned OUTSIDE the towers!

How could this fuel then have reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building?

And then?

It ran down 90 floors to melt the "un-insulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" the insulation off by jet impact? Are you kidding me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below it! What nonsense!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. It's about 11'x11'x11' — About the size on one of the many small offices on the floor that got hit. That's all. The size of one little office the size of a 11-foot-cube.

Let's look at this another way: The volume of each of the towers was roughly 50 MILLION CUBIC FEET.

The volume of the fuel was a relatively insignificant 1,300 cubic feet, about 0.003 percent!

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and less than 14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see "small fires") and caused the beams to melt because the impact "knocked off the insulation".

I have only one reply to that: What about WTC 7. Not hit. there goes THAT THEORY.

Steel at higher temperatures may bend, but it NEVER melts or turns to dust. Never. No, not ever.

Say, how about this for an argument: From now on, Controlled Demolition, Inc. never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences...oh no. We can simply pour 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition. Right?"

$0.02
;)
Coil

[inanecathode]

Diesel fuel =/= "jet fuel"

[YellowJacket!]

Everyone needs to be reminded of compression forces.  The structure was compromised and did burn.  Once the structure was weakened and began to cave in on itself, the 50 milloin cubic feet of air created a blast furnace condition.  Ever blow on hot coals to stoke a fire? Its the same thing.  Once things started coming doen, it forced that great big collumn of air downward and stoked the flames.

mu 0.02

David

[williamruck]

 ???