|
Celsius 9-11
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
By Dave Heller
While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try.
We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11.
While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on
that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person
can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is
being forced upon us.
And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military
arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of
debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre, uninterrupted photo
op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the
remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of
Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been
shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.
But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
How I First Began to Question: WTC7
The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).
If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.
Viewing the Collapse of WTC7
The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both clearly show WTC7's implosion. Lower resolution Internet movies are also available. |
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.
What About Towers One and Two?
The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.
What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?
WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the buildings in gray.
Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed “pancaking,” which is the official theory.
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction — with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance — that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air — the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist — if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse — just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?
Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.
And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.
Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
What About the Fires?
The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.
|
It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.
According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”
Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.
The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the bottom) |
This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.
Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse "unknown."
Conclusion
So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.
Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?
There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously — and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.
A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes — each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers — two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't — all collapsed in essentially the same way.
The massive energy required to pulverize concrete into microscopic dust
suggests the use of explosivesOngoing Questions
But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?
This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn’t they want to cause even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they'd planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered hijacking and flying planes into them?
Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don't know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.
Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 — yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.
In conclusion, I'll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person
can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is
being forced upon us. And the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some level of government complicity or foreknowledge.
Please, read more for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Most of all, do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no “conspiracy theories” surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It's just a question of which conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn't mere coincidence that several hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade Center as a target. The real question is, “Who was involved in the conspiracy?”
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.
comment on this article >
hide comments
back to top ^
137 Comments on this Article
James Woods writes:
This theory of hi/low resistance regarding the WTC collapses is very good. It should literally be publicized everywhere. It should be endorsed by a university or several. It should be worded so that even the most average Joe can comprehend it. Heller's theory proves with irrefutable visual evidence that the government's theory of the WTC collapses is not just implausible, or low-probability. It is impossible. This proof could cause the unraveling of 9-11.
I hope everybody is paying attention to this man!
Posted Jun 14, 2005
Anonymous responds:
Mr. Heller should consider reviewing some of the work done by the NIST investigation instead of regurgitating dark-weaved nonsense from loonies.
Posted Jul 24, 2005
Dave Heller responds:
I didn't know that Isaac Newton was a loonie.
Posted Aug 18, 2005
Stephen P. of L.A. responds:
Sounds like someone watches a little too much Fox news. Maybe instead of attacking Mr. Heller's personality you would like to answer some of the questions - I would particularly like to know how Larry Silverstein had the foresight to claim insurance 2 months beforehand consequently making $7 billion on terrorist attacks that would occur on the World Trade Centers? This is a question based on fact, and it deserves attention, like all of the other questions Mr. Heller had. In my opinion, anyone who read any of the conflicting documentation should have these questions. It is unfair to anonymously call people loonies when they have well-founded questions; you exude the fear the "terrorists" want you to have.
Posted Sep 20, 2006
George Washington writes:
Thank you for Mr. Heller's outstanding article, Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center. I have been researching and writing on 9-11 for years (see for example this summary) and this is the single best article I've read on the physics behind controlled demo of the world trade center. It makes the anomolies apparent even for someone with no physics training, and puts it together in a more intuitive way than even Jim Hoffman has done.
Posted Sep 12, 2005
Lights of Duquesne, PA responds:
Wow! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to think the whole WTC collapses (especially No.7) looks more like a controlled demolition. I have no real training in this sort of thing, but have seen enough footage of controlled demolitions to strongly suspect that this is what was going on in all three collapses.
Plus there is the janitor who was in one of the sublevels of the Twin Towers and he distinctly said that he heard explosions...makes one wonder, doesn't it?
Posted Oct 4, 2005
Anonymous writes:
One wonders whether the hijacked airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania was meant for WTC7.
Posted Nov 9, 2005
Stratus Blue of Haleiwa, HI responds:
Good thinking sir. It is often pondered.
Posted Mar 11, 2008
John Cameron of Blackheath, Australia writes:
Dave, I did not believe the fairy story from day one. The towers collapsed too similarly to a planned implosion.
WTC7 was even more obvious. Then there's the insurance profits and the lack aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon.
Still, most experts follow the government like sheep. Unbelievable.
Best from Oz
Posted Nov 10, 2005
Carel Muller of Rotterdam, Holland writes:
I very much liked Dave Heller's article: clear, simple, no more conclusions than necessary and without hate !
I felt I could send it to people for whom the content is new. Thank you Dave Heller !
Posted Nov 21, 2005
Brian Meynell of Gold Coast, New South Wales, Austalia writes:
I recall seeing TV images of the aircraft 'Hitting' one of the towers and 'vanishing' into the building, immediately followed by a massive explosion. It was surreal! Then I thought, how come a plane made of light weight materials, flying at,as you say, 350mph, can hit a concrete monolith without disintegrating as it did so??? I am highly suspicious of any assurances coming from your President, or the military/industrial complex that is the U.S.A. Your media, led by 'the Dirty Digger' citizen Murdoch, has so shamefully let America down by regurgitating absurdities, lies, and complete bullshit from the neo-cons. God save America...from itself!
Posted Nov 25, 2005
Chris of Atlanta, GA responds:
A 767 weighing 396,000 pounds and moving at 350mph is expected to lose a battle against the facade of a high rise building? Impossible, yet that's what you expected to happen. Given the visual evidence that the plane DID in fact enter the building, AND the fact that there are pictures that even show the outline of the plane a the impact site, what is your hypothesis? It seems it is much easier to use the visual evidence and basic physics to explain exactly what happened, but instead you question it because of a lack of basic understanding of physics. That is no reason to disstrust anything but your own reasoning.
Posted Oct 23, 2007
Patrick of San Jose, Costa Rica responds:
Hi Chris,
Nobody (at least nobody I know) questions the fact that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were hit by aircraft.
What we question is whether this alone can bring the buildings down.
The official conspiracy theory says the fire weakened the steel.
The first building was hit straight on and the fuel all burnt inside, yet it stood far longer, eventually collapsing after the second building which had a corner clipped by an aircraft whose fuel burnt outside (as evidenced by the huge fireball). The second building could not have withstood as much structural damage as the first one and it fell after just ten minutes.
Go figure.
Posted Dec 20, 2007
Carel of Eelde, the netherlands writes:
I want to thank Mr Heller for exposing the smoking gun of 9-11. So clear and clean cut.
I am trying to find a way into Dutch newspapers with this simple fact: look, listen, see for your self. They fell too fast! Wake up!
Posted Dec 30, 2005
Alistair Morton writes:
Great Article! I found it as I have just started to look into the 'official story' myself. What I have found so far is quite frightening.
I hope you continue to look at this with the same non rose coloured glasses...
Thanks, A Canadian Friend
Posted Jan 13, 2006
Ahmed Azeddine of Frederiksberg, Denmark writes:
Thank you Dave for your courage to investigate and write about a tragedy that was masterminded, planned and executed in cool blood by the American Government and the Mossad. Being myself a civil engineer I never doubted that the collapse of the WTC's 3 buildings was carried out by controlled demolition techniques. My suspicion actually started the same day when I was unable to see any wreckage leftover from the plane which the government says had hit the Pentagon?
It is about time for the American people to open its eyes and raise its voice to say: No more lies from a government that has elevated gangster methods and lies to the level of State policy.
A Danish citizen
Posted Mar 6, 2006
Brent of Desert, CA responds:
Ahmed: You speak many words of truth, and with powerful conviction. Kudos to you, from an American citizen.
Posted May 22, 2006
Happy to read this of US writes:
Hey Dave, thanks for the article. I read one exactly like it on another site, and I feel really stupid not realizing all of this stuff before. But then again, I am in the 9th grade and just learned all of those scientific laws. I think that you could start some kind of organization or something to research who might have done this, and to spread the word to the rest of the American people.
Posted Mar 19, 2006
Debbie Upton of Kouts, IN writes:
Your article confirmed all of the feelings that I had about what I saw on 9/11. I did not study physics during the course of my education, but common sense says that one floor falling upon another would take far longer and leave a greater amount of debris than was indicated. Thank you so much for your insights. They have renewed my interest in the truth of September 11.
Posted Mar 24, 2006
H Matheson writes:
How could the explosive demolition charges have been planted without attracting any attention?
Posted Apr 1, 2006
JohnnyThePrick of melbourne, australia responds:
Who said they were "traditional explosives"? Let's not forget it was 2001 not 1901!
Posted Jun 19, 2007
Magnus Folaji of Jonesboro, GA responds:
Ever heard about the SR71? It didn't "exist" until it was retired after a few decades of service. Food for thought!
Posted Feb 5, 2008
H of Mighigan writes:
Thank you for something that finally makes sense!
Posted Apr 3, 2006
Diana Lea of North Ogden, Utah writes:
Count me in on this one. I have spent the past week reading up on it, and am convinced it was a controlled demolition.
www.gunsandbutter.net
Posted Apr 11, 2006
Mike of Oakland, CA writes:
I don't have enough physics expertise to know if your analysis is valid or not. If it is valid, why hasn't any major univeristy's physics department endorsed it (even perhaps a university from another country)?
Posted Apr 11, 2006
Patrick of San Jose responds:
They have.
Posted Dec 20, 2007
MK of Cleveland, OH writes:
Just read the article on the science of the 9/11 WTC implosion. Excellent.
Posted Apr 12, 2006
Pam of Wisconsin writes:
Great article. Clear concise and comprehensive. When I watched it happen, it didn't seem possible. Later the news reports came out and other parts of this planned attack didn't add up either. Thank you for the article. I will share it.
P.S. To H. Matheson re: 'how could charges be planted?' check around for this info. A 'Security Check' was done days before the attack. Marvin Bush was a partner for WTC security service, so pretty easy to do.
Posted Apr 13, 2006
Dave Heller of Berkeley, CA responds:
I will be writing an update to this article soon. I am still reviewing the NIST final report released at the end of 2005.
In the meantime, I'd like to respond to some of the comments posted.
To 'Happy to read this':
Who did 9/11 is pretty easy to figure out simply by the process of elimination. All we need to do is eliminate all the people who could not have done it and gotten away with it all this time. That leaves Bushco.
As far as starting an organization, we are the organization. It is up to us because, as Mike of Oakland points out above, there is virtually no discussion about 9/11 in a rational sense anywhere in the media, barely any even in the 'left' media, like Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. It is up to us, We The People, to, as Jello Biafra says, 'become the media'.
Most discussion that does exist is geared toward inflaming irrational emotional response (the Lee Harvey Moussaoui trial is a perfect example).
Now, there are some good reasons that most of the journalists are keeping their mouths shut.
If you remember, within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, militarized anthrax was sent to a handful of people. The first was a photo editor from a gossip rag that published photos of one of Bush's daughters stumbling drunk on the sidewalk. He died. Then the Democratic leadership all got their powdered warnings, as did some of the print and TV news media. Paul Wellstone's plane made a mysterious 90-degree turn moments before landing, crashed and killed all aboard. Muckraking Journalist Gary Webb 'committed suicide' by shooting himself in the head...twice. Hunter S. Thompson, who told a friend from the Toronto Globe he was about to come out with a story on 9/11 mysteriously shot himself in the head without using a bullet from his gun.
So, most journalists either understand their limits or are complicit in the cover-up, leaving it up to us to spread the word.
Also, people like Professor Steven Jones from, of all places, Bringham Young University (Google his name with 9/11), and Professor Judy Wood of Clemson, have taken very brave and courageous stands to expose the truth, literally risking their careers. (Because there is so much military money wrapped up in university engineering and science departments, they too can become dependent on never-ending war.)
Finally, as Pam from WI pointed out, Marvin Bush was a principle of Securacom, the WTC's security firm, and on the board of directors until shortly before 9/11. Also, Wert Walker III, Bush's cousin, was another principle, giving them unlimited access to the whole building.
Additionally, and part of the reason that they needed to destroy the WTC complex (aside from all the asbestos contaminating the building), they were never able to get much more than 50% occupancy rate in the buildings. This left about half of each building empty 24/7 to plant whatever they wanted to, whenever they wanted to.
Certainly this explanation makes more sense than the one about 19 guys with sketchy flying skills and box cutters evading our half-trillion-dollar military.
Posted Apr 15, 2006
Magnus Folaji of Jonesboro, GA responds:
Dave,
I'm an Electrical Engineer and have a question about any possible horizontal deflection of the building after the impact. If the plane weighs about 300K lbs, traveling at a speed of 350mph, is it possible that the building should have swayed significantly due to the impact? Also, if the plane so easily penetrated the building without disintegrating on impact, should it, or at least parts of it, for example the engines,not have exited the building on the other side? The large explosion immediately after the impact seems a bit strange.
Just wondering.
Posted Feb 5, 2008
Goldensun420 of Yonkers, New York responds:
Dave Great article. I'm from N.Y. and was living in Yonkers NY during the attacks. I watched the second plane supposedly impact on tower #2 on Fox News as one of their helicopters flew directly towards the buildings. And I remember asking my uncle why did we only see the plane seconds before impact? Couldn't the camera man and or at least the camera see the plane heading towards its target. The pilot or someone should have been screaming here comes another one. How many people were looking up that day???
Posted Mar 25, 2008
Jonathan Cotter writes:
Reading these 911 theorizing fills me with grief about the direction the left of center going. Honest to god you sound like creationists! If you hold strong views about how humans should treat each other and work together and work against war and hate, please be consistent with your skepticism. All these theories end up as a mush...do you belive GOD did it and put crosses and faces in the smoke(religious mystery theories)? or that NSA men carefully placed charges in all the right places (the undue government competence theories)? the no planes theory (airlines also in on it theory)? Oh and dont forget E=1/2 Mv^2 for your in-depth analysis, you might need that. Engineers are not anti-left. Save the pot smoking for good times and music. Yeah I know I'm being paid by the NSA. The libertarian right and left have to stop eating this crap up.
Posted Apr 17, 2006
J in San Diego of Escondido, CA USA responds:
Cotter, you seem like the type of person who believes anything you are told by a lying government. All Heller is doing is researching known facts and offering an opinion. No denying that his theories have some merit. It's not like our beloved president and his puppetmaster Cheney haven't lied before. Besides, if you truly are being paid by the NSA, your opinion means nothing.
The only thing I've read from Mr. Heller that I disagree with is that Bush is behind it all.
I don't believe a C-average, dyslexic man like Bush has the intelligence to pull it off.
Cheney is a different story.......
Posted Oct 16, 2006
Kat of Omaha, USA writes:
How did they plant explosives? Google Marvin Bush. He headed the company that provided the security of the WTC, Dulles (where one of the hijacked planed originated from) and United.
I'm no expert, but I can say one thing, common sense told me from day one that it didn't look right.
We're all conspiracy theorists. It's just which conspiracy is more plausible?
Posted Apr 25, 2006
Anders Madsen of Taarbaek , Denmark writes:
I think this article is very clear, logically and pedagogically. It is a presentation of the facts that convinced me that the explanation of the WTC collapse that I had believed is seriously flawed. I am a university mathematician with some knowledge of physics, so I obviously have great trust in Newton. I am intuitively very convinced by this article. But I would like to have more solid ground for some of the intuition. Apparently the argument goes that when the upper block starts falling then it should be decellerated a little every time it (cumulatively) hits the next underlying floor. Could you explain why this is so, and how you quantify this decelleration, preferably by reference to some guy as credible as Newton.
I feel sure that when I try to promote your views I will have this argument thrown in my face.
Posted Apr 29, 2006
Andrew of Coquitlam, BC, Canada writes:
Excellent article! I've suspected for a long time that the U.S. may have planned or allowed the attacks.
Posted May 24, 2006
Chris of Bavaria, Germany writes:
The evidence gives a schocking picture of what might have really happened the days surrounding 9/11. On the other side, the massive geo-politics shows who benefits (political and economic) from this day. I think most "interventionists" remain "dedicated to 9/11". It was a key event for people in the US and the rest of the world. First, for the many victims, and then for the many perople shot down or lawlessly arrested for "freedom" and "democracy". The other side is begging for truth and only gets no-answers or nonsense-answers. What game are these men playing?
With this mass of incredibility, lies, and cover-ups - how can they get through all this without being harmed? They live off of the "standard-bearers" or "patriots" who are watching and reading mainstream-media and telling the sceptics: "I've read nothing more about 9/11 than the 911-Comission - I don`t even wanna hear what you've got to say - but I know that YOU ARE WRONG!"
The evidence is so easy to see, you don`t need any long-haired-hippie-underground-fanatic-idiot-conspiracy; you only need some scepticism and a little trust in yourself.
For me it seems quite clear after researching for over 4 years. Nothing targets the other direction. I've found nothing that relieves the government or investigators of covering this up.
9/11 is stranger than fiction! For the anonymous poster: look at the NIST Report a second time and ask yourself: "Why the hell does the report stop at exactly that point where the real myth - the collapse to the ground - begins?" - Yes, my friend, NIST only examines "how the collapse could be initiated" - not how it really happened. That's only one example.
Another example: look at the new Pentagon Video Footage . Some newspapers wrote it "documented the impact" - huh? I can`t see a 757? Do you? Who does?
It's all about questions, and they want us to say "oh, don't ask, it's so bad, only the government can handle these secrets..."
Real freedom and democracy does not know stupid questions - it only knows stupid answers.
On a traditional court this case would be so conspicuous - no attorney or judge would believe these nonsense facts and opaque accusations. So they make their own court with their own people and their own laws? Yes, tragically that looks better for the cover-up and its perpetrators.
Posted May 26, 2006
Chris writes:
Ok, my question then is, why would we attack ourselves?
Whoever believes this is crazy. You are probably the same people that believe we didn't land on the moon.
A plane hit these buildings. They were not made to withstand these huge planes hitting them.
It wasn't the external steel that was melted that caused to collapse of the towers, it was the internal steel that held the floors. They are called trussles. These weren't made to withstand that heat.
Posted Jun 5, 2006
Michael Aguilar of Hemet, CA responds:
Why would we attack ourselves? To answer that, ask yourself, why would Roosevelt and Marshall withhold VITAL MILITARY INTELLIGENCE from their onsite military commanders in the weeks leading up to Dec 7, 1941. The answer is, Roosevelt and Marshall knew that the only way Congress and the American public would allow our entry into "The European War" was if we were attacked by one of the belligerent powers. Ergo, Bush knew that the only way he could get his Executive powers extended was to have our country attacked by those he wanted to attack. My opinion is that he and Cheney orchestrated the attacks with the help of the bin laden family; remember, the bin laden family's personal jet was the only non-military aircraft flying over the U.S. in the days following 9-11.
Posted Mar 1, 2007
Chris responds:
That's a load of b.s. If that is what you believe then answer me this...how come Clinton was able to bomb the hell out of Iraq without flying planes into anything?
Posted Mar 6, 2007
Mike Aguilar of Hemet, CA responds:
Uh, well, did Clinton invade Iraq without a declaration of war after the bombing? No. He never wanted to. Bush needed "justification" for a pre-meditated invasion of Iraq. Neither Congress nor the American public would have authorized either invasion without some sort of heinous act committed against our nation, exactly like what happened in December, 1941. Read up on your history. Roosevelt, Marshall, Morgenthau, Hull, Stimson and Churchill started discussing ways to get the U.S. into the war in Europe since mid-1940. Hull and Morgenthau even commissioned a "man on the street" poll to see if the public would be behind getting into the war. By a margin of almost 4 to 1 the answer was no. Hence Pearl Harbor.
Afghanistan was mainly a smoke screen for the actual prize of Iraq and the middle east. Take a look at the newspapers from the past month or so. Bush is antagonizing Iran, saying they are the ones supplying all the weapons for the insurgency now, yet shortly after the regime fell, we were being told that Hussein had hundreds of weapons caches created throughout the country so that his supporters (Saddam Feddayin) could resist us and whatever new government we created.
Oh, and Clinton didn't "bomb the hell out of Iraq." He had a few warplanes drop some munitions and maybe threw a handful of Tomahawks at them. Bush bombed the hell out of Iraq. And Clinton's bombing was justified by Iraq violating the "No Fly Zones."
Posted Mar 7, 2007
Steve of Louisville, KY, USA responds:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Krystal, Pearl, Feith, Ledeen, and more (these are all guys that are in, or have been in the Bush admin.), are all members of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Their stated goal is to spread democracy throughout the middle east...actual goal to secure oil profits for America. They believe that since the US is the lone superpower there is no one to get in their way, and that the US has the right to unilaterally attack if it can be proven that the target was a threat. Their own manifesto states that the American people would not support a middle eastern war without "a new Pearl Harbor". This is the motive to "attack ourselves". It is called a "false flag " operation and they have been used before to convince the public to go along with unpopular policy...Remember the Maine...Gulf of Tonkin...(Operation Northwoods was a plan to use passenger jets as missiles to attack Miami and blame it on Castro to convince the American people to invade Cuba...sound familiar?...it was never carried out of course, but we just learned of it through the Freedom of Information Act).
There is great financial profit to be made by the defense contractors and corporations that put the Bush admin. in power. Bush senior sits on the board of the Carlisle Group,(they own the company that builds the M1-Abrams tank, the Stryker and other weapons systems). Cheney will receive deferred profits from Halliburton after he is out of office.
There is no intention to end the war, in fact they want to expand it by invading Iran...look for a false flag to kick start that invasion...probably a manufactured attack on Isreal. Also look for another 911 type attack in America just before the '08 elections. Bush will use it to attempt to postpone the election indefinitely because they know the Republicans have a huge chance of losing the Oval Office, Senate and House...then the real investigations will begin and it will unravel fast.
I am an architect and those buildings did not come down by planes and fire alone. They had help from explosives. Buildings do not collapse symmetrically from asymmetrical damage. Potentially the floors above the impacts could have rotated and toppled as a mass, but they would have remained relatively intact until they hit the ground leaving the completely undamaged floors below the impact still standing.
Sorry to be so wordy...you can't explain this stuff with a sound bite.
Posted Sep 23, 2007
cruz_ctrl responds:
Chris writes: "A plane hit these buildings. They were not made to withstand these huge planes hitting them."
I wish people like you would have a true grasp of the facts before posting. The architects and engineers have explicitly stated that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of an airplane strike. This is well documented.
Posted Feb 4, 2008
AJ of NYC, NY writes:
Well done Dave. So many people have been afraid to speak the truth for so long; I thank God for people like you. I started doing my own research ever since I asked myself, Why did WTC7 also collapse? A must see video for everyone is called "Loose
Change." You can download it for free. Just do a google search on it.
We can stop wondering about how WTC7 collapsed. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC building, admitted that the building was demolished - or "pulled" as they call it. He said this openly on national television (PBS). The reason he gave was that he and the fire department thought it was the best thing to do for "safety reasons". Now, even if you believe his justification, could demolition experts have been able to meticulously place the dynamite in WTC7 amidst the ruins of the WTC1 and WCT2 that same day? That's a ridiculous claim. Ask any expert. It takes months to prepare a building for demolition.
The dynamite had to have been placed well before 9-11.
That's only the beginning of the facts anyone who decides to seek the truth will encounter. Or how about the fact that V.P. Dick Cheney took command of NORAD only months before the attacks? Did he do this just because he was bored, or so he could enforce a "stand down" by the military while the plot unfolded? Or how about the fact that at least 12 of the purported 19 hijackers are
still alive today, some working in coutries like Saudi Arabia? Did they come back from the dead? Or how about the fact that none of the black boxes from either plane that slammed into WTC1 and WTC2 were ever recovered, but Satam al-Suqami's passport miraculously made it through the fire, fell down 110 stories and was sitting atop a heap of dust, concrete and steal unscathed. Are we all fools? That's what this president and the mainstream media have played us for. The official 9-11 story is plain nonsense and the evidence which supports that is now overwhelming. For all who will take the time to seek the truth, more power to you.
Posted Jun 5, 2006
Dave Heller of Berkeley, CA writes:
To Anders of Taarbaek, Denmark:
If you're a mathematician, you should have no problem proving the collapses were due to fire and gravitational forces. The speed of the fall, about as close to free fall in a vacuum you can get without actually being in a vacuum, leaves no room for any other energy.
That means that there is no energy to throw massive beams hundreds of feet into adjacent buildings, there's no energy to pulverize most of the concrete into talcum powder like dust and there's no energy to even break all the thousands of weld joints and nuts and bolts holding the towers together.
I just did a radio interview with Professor Judy Wood of Clemson University who did an analysis of the towers collapse based on my article. Her article is a little more technical than mine, but should help you clarify any doubts you have.
Professor Wood holds a PhD and
teaches materials science at Clemson. Oddly, her colleagues don't dispute her science, just the obvious conclusions she makes from it.
Anders, I encourage you to get my email address through Tony if you would like to discuss this further. Also, Professor Wood (if that's really her ;-) )has her annonymous email address on the billiard ball site and I'm sure she'd be pleased to assist you as well.
Posted Jun 7, 2006
JP writes:
You people are all communist hippies.
Posted Jun 17, 2006
Ghosty Boy of Canada responds:
Wow. Thank you for clearing all of this up for us JP. I think that your succinct yet obviously exhaustive analysis has really put the matter in perspective, and we may as well close the books on this one.
And to think, all these well-spoken, educated folks who are trying to apply logical analysis and the laws of physics to find an explanation for the events of September 11th that is actually plausible -- they turned out to be hippies. Communist ones at that.
I declare the 9/11 mystery solved!
Now we can all move on with our lives and continue to swallow the ludicrous lies cultivated by our modern media without fear of
them being contested by the brave free-thinking individuals who demand truth.
Posted Sep 11, 2007
Tache Hyket writes:
Judy Woods analysis is flawed. It is amazing she still has a job as it is rumored she preaches this stuff in class!
Your ideas are flawed, you did not do any energy equations! You just say there is not enough energy! Show your work next time. (by the way there is enough energy to collapse the building push out steel and crush the concrete, dry wall, etc ,,, and if you would watch the collapse that is what happened. Or if you were capable of calculating it you could come up with the real story instead of you fiction)
You missed the speed of the plane hitting the building. The aircraft had the energy of a 2000 pound bomb when they smashed into the WTC towers. On a 200 by 200 foot building that does quite a bit of damage. Okay, it was more like flt 11 was 3.8 billion joules, and flt 175 was 6 billion joules, no wonder the second building fell first, it was damaged with greater energy at impact.
Your WTC7 is missing the hundreds of explosions that would be heard on a controlled implosion. I missed all the reports from all the explosions, gee I could hear them miles away when real controlled implosions take place. In real controlled explosions there are sounds like, Bang, bang, bang, bang, and not sounded like, they are real explosions, not floors failing.
You should pursue getting you money back for you physics degree since you were unable to see the mistakes of Judy Woods. However if you are just like Judy you are just making up stuff to mislead others. Remember it is rumored she actually rants in class about this stuff! She should be fired for making up junk about the WTC. Is anyone suing you for your lies yet? Or have you not really said anything liable?
Posted Jun 20, 2006
Mark Century of Charlottesville, Virginia responds:
Tache, you accuse others of not showing their work and then provide an empty rant without showing yours.
The architects of the WTC specifically designed these towers to withstand high-speed impacts by large airliners.
Please provide a link where you lay out your work showing how the gravitational potential energy available was sufficient to pulverize WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to dust at freefall speeds.
Since you claim to know a little about physics, you know that the building could only "fall" that fast if the lower floors provided no resistance. Yet the massive and undamaged lower floors provided an incredible amount of resistance.
You say there should have been reports of people hearing explosions. If you've reviewed the available evidence then hopefully by now you know there are many, many reports of people hearing explosions.
Posted May 2, 2007
Sechaba of South Africa writes:
This is all old hat. It's always been obvious that the American government (the anti-Christ) played the dominant role in what happened to the American people (the sheep). It's common knowledge that the CIA created and actively supports the Al-Qaida of today. They also supported Iraq during it's fight with Iran, even supplying technology and ingredients for the chemical warfare, which Saddam then used against the Kurds.
For as long as the American public prefer to watch CNN and Fox News, they will always remain ignorant about the role their government is playing in the destabilisation of global peace.
Posted Jun 21, 2006
Dave of United States writes:
This is an excellent article. As an engineer here in the US, when I first saw the buildings collapse on TV, I also noted how quickly they fell. In high school, in our AP Physics exam, the one problem I always remembered as an easy one to finish quickly was:
Determine the time and final speed it takes for a ball to fall from a building 500 meters high, disregarding air resistance.
My favorite equation to start that one with? mgh = 1/2 mv^2
I studied like hell for that exam, and passed with flying colors. So, can anyone tell me how the people who support the pancake theory (BWahahaha!) an engineer in MIT, and several others, would've fared on the exam? In the words of my high school physics teacher, an indian from IIT in India, "I FAIL YOU!"
Excellent article. I think this should become a standard problem on every AP Physics exam.
Determine the time it takes for a ball to fall from 413 meters, determine the energy and momentum for 10 floors falling and impacting on each other, determine time for those said 10 floors to collapse, and then show em a video clip of the WTC collapse.
Posted Jun 21, 2006
Kenneth M. Laster of Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee writes:
As we all know now, Mr. Silverstein said he had the fire department "pull" building no.7. This statement, based on science and facts at hand, will hang all the guilty parties without a shred of doubt as to who is complicit. No building of this size could be rigged to blow in such a short time. What in Gods' name are people thinking about? We should already be having Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all others in government who shirked their duties, tried and hung!!!!!! They have mocked the American people, and all peoples of the world, not to mention God himself with their lie. It is God they should worry about. He will not be fooled or mocked.
Posted Jun 27, 2006
Robert Jones writes:
First to Mr. Heller, great article, especially about the anthrax. That is a point many people miss. Military grade bioterror. Interesting about Hunter S. Thompson.
Chris writes: "Ok, my question then is, why would we attack ourselves?"
Very good question Christopher. There are many, many historical precedents, please pick up a decent history book for starters.
Or you could read "Project for a New American Century", a paper written by neocons prior to 911, whose adherents included Cheney, Jeb Bush and Richard Perle and/or Wolfowitz. In this paper, they write that America is slow to change so needs a Pearl Harbor type event for quick change. (Also see what these psycopaths write about biological weapons - these are a good thing?)
Just as Hitler detailed his despicable plans years before he took power in Mein Kampf, these nuts wrote exactly their plans in this paper. And indeed, this is matches the Reichstag fire in that it was an inside job, with the blame for a carefully planned catastrophic fire blamed on a nutty Dutchman with a few rags. Immediately after the fire, Hitler enacts the Enable Act, and rounds up his enemies, Bush puts into place the Patriot Act.
There are indeed traitors in our midst, trying to undo 200 years plus of democracy and freedom.
Posted Jun 30, 2006
Mike Aguilar of Hemet, CA, USA! and a vet! responds:
Let's also not forget an interview Bush did not long after 9-11:
"Of course, all that I'm trying to do here would be much easier if this country were a dictatorship."
Scaaaaaaaary words from a man that is supposedly "doing god's work" (his words, not mine, as you can see by my spelling, I'm not a believer)
Posted Mar 1, 2007
Andy of Martinsburg, Ohio writes:
Dear Mr. Heller, THANKS for this article! You da man. Finally some light thru all th' bomb dust! Keep up th' good work:} God Bless You. ~Andy~
Posted Jun 30, 2006
Jack Ryan of Toronto, Canada writes:
The seemingly perfect collapse of two 100+ story buildings into their own footprint while not doing any real damage outside the area itself is one one of the most spectacular engineering feats ever seen, even surpassing the contruction itself.
The human rights that so many americans have died for in the name of their country for so many years seems now to be a waste of precious life. Just like those who died on September 11. Shame on everyone who had a hand in this fraud perpetrated on the good people of America and the world. We are watching you!
Posted Jul 3, 2006
Pierre-Normand of Montreal, Canada writes:
I just read Judy Wood's article and it seems prety bad. She clearly does not understand the law of conservation of momentum. She believes that if a floor falling on a floor below looses kinetic energy through disintegration then there would be little energy left to accelerate the second floor downwards. How little? It is not physically possible that less than half the momentum be transferred to the floor below unless it all magically slips to the sides of the tower. She also seems to believe that a collision can both be completely elastic and still loose energy, which again violates the laws of physics.
Posted Jul 5, 2006
Ray of Visalia, California writes:
I'm definitely no expert, nor am I the least bit educated in all the science involved in the Twin Towers' collapse. However I do believe that they collapsed in much too smooth and identical a manner for being hit with airplanes entering at different floor levels and hitting the towers at different angles. I find it hard to believe that an even more dense object the size of the airplanes and travelling at the same speed, would have caused such an anomaly. After watching the collapse of WTC7 in the same identical manner, I have to agree that something appears rotten, and it's not in Denmark. In this evil world, I can believe anything, including what people in high places can and will do. With God being kicked out of the Country, satan and his minions will rule through our government as he does in others. Let's hope for the best, but expect the worst, 'cause I think that's what we're going to get.
Posted Jul 12, 2006
Jay writes:
I enjoyed the article, and indeed, it has me thinking. I like you're reasoned approach, but it also poses some questions.
1. If in fact there was no plane debris in the Pentagon explosion, then what happened to that flight? If something other than crashing into the Pentagon occurred, then why wasn't it described by the many passengers using cell phones at the time?
2. Who planted the explosives in any of the four buildings (WTC 1,2,7 & the Pentagon) and how long would that take?
Even if certain American conspirators arranged for such demolition, how hard would it be to keep all of those bomb technicians quiet for so long? If you're suggesting that they were all killed, then who keeps those killers quiet?
Posted Jul 13, 2006
The Dog of Palmdale, CA responds:
Jay, I think what confuses people about conspiracies is that they always evaluate them from their own moral idiom. The average person, who would never consider killing or torturing another human being, cannot understand someone who will. The average American can't accept that their government is evil or corrupt, because that somehow demeans themselves. The government is not and has never been the American people. That must change. Should you vote this November? I've heard that even if the vote is rigged, you still should vote just to make them steal it (again). Karl Rove promises an "October surprise" for the GOP; I'm hoping it's just Bin Laden's body, not another "terror" attack.
Wake Up!! FEMA has over 400 concentration camps ready for occupants, one just 12 miles from where I sit. No need to pack your bag for Gitmo, you've probably got a secret facility close to you. Can't happen here? It already did in WW2 and some of those old camps are open for business again. I know what you're thinking; why would they want to put me away?
Did you realize that people all over the world can't understand why the American people don't revolt and string these criminals up? George W. Bush isn't the Devil, Poppy Bush is. G.H.W. Bush has killed more Americans with war and drugs than any of our "enemies." And the average American recoils in horror when you accuse any President of treason or any high crime. You like Clinton? Can you say Mena, ARK, Waco or Oklahoma City? Now you're going to be given a choice of McCain(Corrupt), Hillary (Corrupt & A Bitch) or Jeb(Losing my lunch). It's not about parties or ideologies anymore, the globalists are in full charge. Isn't signing into the SPP an act of treason?
What's the solution? I fear that the only solution will be a violent one. Our political process doesn't work anymore.
Posted Oct 2, 2006
Guillermo of Florida responds:
To answer your question #2, the director of the company that provided electronic security for the World Trade Center and Washington's Dulles Airport -- both involved in September 11, 2001 -- was none other than the president's youngest brother, Marvin Bush. From 1996-2000, Securacom installed what was referred to as a new security system at the WTC, and Wirt D Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers, was CEO of Securacom from 1999-2002. Interestingly, these facts have not been made public. Was it only a security system that was implanted during those years, or was it also the wiring for a long awaited plan?
Scott Forbes, an IT specialist working in the towers on 9/11, reported an unexpected power down for almost a whole weekend prior to 9/11: "We were notified three weeks in advance of the power-down, by the [inaudible] authority, that was relatively short notice to plan to shut-down all of our banking systems. It was a big deal, it was unprecedented; we had a data center on the 97th floor, so our originating services were all there. During that weekend, the power down meant there was no security, and that the doors were all open basically and also the security video cameras were all off. There were guys in overalls carrying huge shoe boxes with wheels of cables walking around the building that weekend."
The employees at the WTC were notified that internet cables were being upgraded, but who were the strange workmen and what were they really doing? Having worked overtime to get his company's servers back up, Forbes took the day off on September 11, 2001. While he watched the towers collapse, he said he was sure this had been the purpose of the mysterious weekend work. He notified many authorities including the 9/11 Commission about the unusual and long outage but was ignored.
William Rodriguez, a WTC employee, and the media's 9/11 "Last Survivor", recalled: "All the power was shut down. If there was power down, that meant that everything was gone in terms of security, in terms of access to the building so anybody could have gone there and do any kind of setup."
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst, spoke of unusual evacuations that were ordered at the WTC during the weeks before September 11, 2001. Other employees reported that the security alert was mysteriously lifted days prior, and bomb sniffing dogs had been removed. What would the dogs have discovered had they remained on duty?
Posted Nov 27, 2006
Mike Aguilar of Hemet, Ca, USA responds:
I'm a security and access control system installer and most systems I've installed would lock down all controlled doors, except the really old lock types with the big magnets at the tops of the doors, instead of opening them all up. In other words, if the controlled doors did not have keys to unlock them, they wouldn't have been able to be opened.
Posted Mar 1, 2007
Chris of Atlanta, GA responds:
Several problems with your explanation of #2:
The power was off in only the top half of WTC2, and never off in WTC1.
Scott Forbes denies Ben Fountain's assessment of "unusual evacuations."
Most telling, if bomb sniffing dogs were removed only in the days prior, then the explosives most have been put in AFTER the dogs were removed. How long would it take to wire every floor (as is necessary according to this controlled demolition theory)? Impossible to wire buildings the size of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 over a weekend, without either massive manpower which would leave too many people knowledgeable, of which none have EVER come forward. I still doubt the possibility of the buildings being wired in a weekend regardless of the manpower used.
So the explosives had to be placed BEFORE the dogs were removed, and therefore had to be placed BEFORE the power outage.
The coincidence of Bush's brother being director is just that, coincidence, unless you believe that there was prior knowledge of George Bush becoming president in order for anything to be "planned" in the years prior to GWB taking office.
That leaves the timeline of 8 months to wire the buildings for explosives, which has not been explained how it could have been done without being noticed. The power down theory cannot be considered viable, since there was no power outage in WTC1, and only half of WTC2 was affected, and there were WTC employees in the building with unrestricted access to any part of the affected areas.
Posted Oct 25, 2007
Heizenreder of Kitchener, Ontario Canada responds:
You hit the nail on the head. It took me a while to understand that people at the top can be fully functional psycho killers.
Posted Oct 26, 2007
Henrik of Oslo, Norway writes:
Just one question: If demolished by explosives, shouldn't it be possible to hear explosions on some of the footage?
I actually remember that my co-workers commented on the buildings falling straight down without tilting at all, which as you state, looks like a perfect demolition job.
Posted Jul 13, 2006
Dave Heller of Berkeley, California responds:
Henrik-
There are many videos which quite clearly recorded the systematic explosions of the WTC buildings. There is one excerpt from a History Channel documentary ("First Responders")which not only has the sequential sound of the explosion recorded, but the video as well. The camera person was fairly close to the towers and the angle of the shot caught the outer columns' demolition which cannot be seen from the more orthoganal angles from afar.
Incidentally, this DVD also shows famed left wing Democracy Now! reporter Amy Goodman running away from the collapse of WTC7. It's at the 42:00 minute mark. She has never reported on nor asked any questions about WTC7. When I asked her about it, she admitted being there, but explained that the building had been burning all day. She added that there are many questions that need to be asked about 9/11. I retorted that she's a reporter and that is her job. Still, no questions from her regarding WTC7 and very little else about 9/11.
There is more reporting on 9/11 conspiracy on Fox News than in the "Progressive Left" media. Fox does the best they can to extinquish 9/11 truth. And the establishment (read Democratic Party) does the best it can to 100% ignore the issue, making them complicit in the crime.
Posted Oct 8, 2006
Michael Nicholls writes:
Dear Mr Heller,
Congratulations on a well written article and it's warm reception here. I am 20 and in college, and I have only begun to realize the disinfo that is spread through the media to the citizens of this country. It is very frightening to wake up from a dream to realize that we seem to have very little control over our own thoughts, we are spoon fed by parents, television, teachers, and so on and become incapable of forming our own opinions.
After watching Loose Change, the documentry by Dylan Avery, I feel the visual evidence alone is enough to suggest/prove a controlled demolition. The seismic activity just prior to the fall, the puffs of dust flying out from the buildings 20 floors beneath the so called "pancaking", the fact that the second tower to be hit actually fell first, and of course, an overwhelming amount of eye witness accounts, including media reports that morning, of multiple explosions. I am outraged that more of this country has not woken up. The US is very capable of inflicting wounds on itself to intervene overseas in it's attempt to secure its empire. It is about time something was done, we have the right to know the truth.
Posted Jul 17, 2006
Brandon Christensen writes:
I have been studying this issue now and it seems to me that there is an extreme lack of evidence supporting this theory. In fact the largest building to be toppled by a controlled demoliton was the J.L Hudson department store in Detroit. Link. This building took 24 days to just load the explosives and many months in planning with a thousand engineers on site. So I ask you with all these people involved. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!
The NIST has posted its findings on how the combined stresses of the airline hitting the buildings and the fires and heat have lead to the failure that sent the building down. Now I ask you for an open look at the evidence because several other people and I gave your article a fair, unbiased read now return the favor and give us evidence from a demolitions expert not just your opinion.
Posted Jul 21, 2006
Joelle of France responds:
Mr Brandon Christensen, your reference to the controlled demolition of the J.L Hudson department store in Detroit attracted my attention as I am still trying to sort out arguments in this debate. While clicking on the link you gave, I immediately realized that you forgot to quote a major part of the article: the Hudson department store was one of the greatest dynamic structural control challenges the demolition company had ever faced. If you look at the picture of the building, you easily understand why. The structure of the building is nothing like a simple shape like the one of the WTC 1, 2 and 3. The authors of the article even mention that: "No structural drawings of the facility were available, making structural analysis and implosion design a considerable task for CDI. The interdependency of the 12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section of the structure which CDI's demolition program had to cope with."
I am also not an expert but I am surprised that while suggesting that the planning of the WTC demolition would take at least as long as the one of the Hudson building, you forget to mention these important elements. It seems from the shape of the WTC building that planning their controlled demolition would have been a pretty easy task. In addition I doubt no structural drawings were available for the WTC buildings, which means that the engineers could easily plan the demolition from their offices without needing to spend 24 days on the site. And in case WTC 1, 2 and 3 hadn't fallen really straight and caused some collateral damage, I don't think that the planners would have really cared anyway. After all, everyone would have understood that a building which is hit by a plane doesn't fall perfectly. So I guess they could easily take the risk to do it fast so as not to attract public attention.
Posted Sep 13, 2006
Douglas Watts of Augusta, Maine writes:
The nature of the collapse of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 towers is of interest because of their marked resemblance to the intended goal of a controlled demolition (ie. a building falling quickly and within its own footprint). Basic probability suggests that 3 buildings structurally weakened by completely uncontrolled damage would tend not to all fall in such a markedly similar fashion to each other, nor in a fashion so highly similar to that of a controlled demolition. Out of three buildings, all other things being equal, one would expect that through probability alone, one building would sway or topple sideways, just as a coin randomly lands on heads or tails in three tosses.
I am also intrigued about the ability of burning jet fuel and combustible building debris near the top of a building to so thoroughly weaken the steel supports of a building adjacent to the localized heat source that the entire building collapses very quickly rather than the weakened steel at the top of the building giving way and the top of the building sliding off and falling while the unweakened steel near the base of the building remains relatively intact. This bothers me because it seems counter-intuitive, and would constitute an enormous design flaw for a multi-story steel building. By definition, a first order task for engineers would be to design a very tall steel building in such a way that a severe fire in the top 3/4s or 2/3s of the structure would not cause the entire structure to disintegrate, which clearly occurred at WTC1, 2 and 7. This, by definition, would represent an extremely unsafe building design.
Assuming that burning jet fuel acted like a cutting torch at the impact point of the jets at WTC1 and WTC, and the jets struck the buildings on one side, not all four sides at once, this would cause heat to be concentrated near the impact point with lesser amounts of heat with distance from the impact point. Thus it seems to me the building would most likely be sheered at the floors in which the impact occured, because this was where the temperature reached a point to weaken or actually melt the steel. Because of this, one would expect the building to careen and sway prior to collapse, or even lose large chunks of itself, first at the point of impact, and only afterwards spreading outward, upward and downward from the initial point of impact and subsequent fire.
As an analogue consider a house fire which begins in the second floor, well above the foundation. In general, the fire will move upward and begin to consume the roof. Rare is the house fire in which only the top floor is actually aflame, yet those flames cause the unburned and relatively cool foundation of the house to completely buckle and collapse. It seems to me that if this behavior were the norm, firefighters would not risk entering a house with a roof fire through the ground floor due to the imminent risk of the entire building collapsing on them, even if the ground floors were not burning and at normal temperatures.
As morbid as it may sound, the poor firefighters of the NYFD became tests of this hypothesis. Had the blazing fires in the upper floors of WTC1 and 2 somehow caused the ground floors to be superheated or otherwise obviously unsound, the firefighters would not have entered the buildings and conducted such extensive rescue efforts. These men and women do understand the physics and behavior of building fires. If all fire science indicated that a fire 60 floors up could cause an entire 110 story building to instantaneously collapse, the NYFD firefighters would not have entered the building in the first place. These issues trouble me, so if people who know more on these technical subjects can enlighten, it would be appreciated.
Posted Jul 24, 2006
Gibby of Cape Girardeau, MO writes:
Mr Jones, you are referring to the "Gliewitz Incident," correct? If so, nice historical correlation. There are a lot of similarities between the two incidents if what some people are saying is true. Project for the New American Century says that "the New Pearl Harbor" would awaken America and make it clear that we need to emphasize even more on military dispite the fact that the cold war was over. It doesn't really forecast it. But it should still raise a couple of eyebrows. It's written by everyone currently in Bush's administration along with a few other lower profile neo-cons in 1998. But I am being too politcal.
When you break it down, science and the irrefutable laws of physics hold the truth. If anyone feels that there is something fishy about 9-11, put your faith in science and reason. Igonre any and all political implications, etc.
Mr. Heller, would you like to help a group I recently joined called "The 911 Truth Project"? It is made up of college students on The Facebook who seek more answers about 9-11. It's not political. We just want qualified people to set up tests that prove/disprove the official/conspiracy stories that we have been told since 911 and the ones that have been floating around the internet. I know little to nothing about physics. But the Law of Conservaiton of Matter seems to refute everything the official story says.
Please email me if you read this sometime soon. We are looking for members of the scientifc community to come in unbiased with no political baggage and test this out. We want people who represent both sides of this debate to help us out.
My email is mtgibson1s@semo.edu
Posted Jul 25, 2006
Steve of LA, CA writes:
Hi, Mr. Heller, your article is absolutely excellent. However, my realization of the WTC demolition theory is not from your article but from a video made by a american student who believes that 9/11 was a domestic attack and a plot executed by the Bush administration to open war on the whole Middle East. The video said exactly the same thing as you said in your article, including the free fall theory and how absurd it is that the "Media" acutally try to convince everyone in this country that the WTC towers acutally collapsed due to the impact of the airplane. How can a building designed to withstand almost any natural disaster collapse because its top 15% was damaged? The most possible scenario should be the top part of the WTC fell off sideways, assuming the jet fuel actually could melt the steel that's tested to stand up to 3000 degree heat.
I think the reasons many Americans still believe in the official story about 9/11 are:
1) Many of them indulge in their luxury life inisde America and therefore neglect whatever has happened if it doesn't bother them.
2) Americans are actually the most severe victims of American entertainment. Many Americans are experts on dating and partying instead of putting any interest in science and intellectual knowledge. Mr. Heller, I think you probably know that even if your article were shown to everyone in American, probably more than 50% of them will have no clue what you talking about. (In America, a person is a much bigger loser without a girlfriend than someone who can't pass Algebra)
3) Patriotism; Loving United States of American is absolutely right to do, but serving Bush Administration and their ambition is wrong. Many people are unable to distinguish these two.
Posted Jul 25, 2006
Curtis Scott responds:
You hit this nail on the proverbial head. The primary problem with much of the culture in the USA is the fact that ignorance & debauched thinking is idolized. Homer Simpson is real & he probably lives in the average US home (or at least next door)! The really tragic part is that people have a choice as to what they'll submit their mind to. Since the bread & circus mentality is easier to consume than the whole grains of mental disciplines like math, science & fundamental law, the mental results will most likely parallel the metaphorical illustration. Anyone feeling "deficient"? Probably not: As "stupid" doesn't know just how stupid, stupid is.
But "stupid" loves to voice his opinions (which are like what, I've heard...)! and since "stupid" can't figure out how he'd have pulled of "this or that", he figures it's beyond the scope of anyone. Stupid hasn't considered what evil men armed with intellect can pull off. Stupid's too busy paying off the 30-year mortgage (on schedule & sooo proud of it) & other 'responsible stupidities' they've willingly taken on. "Extended warranty! How can I lose!"
Unfortunately, "Stupid" is often inbred with "Lax". I've discovered this because even after stupid is put on notice, his first reaction is to declare the problem so large as to be irresolvable (the implied message being that it should just be ignored).
"Don't ask me to give up my box-seat tickets in order to help out your cause. Don't you know that it's too big for anyone to do anything about!" - Stupid
Fortunately, there are people who have a moral sense deciding to toss out the TV-service & bring in the broadband. As they grow in number (thanks to a small vocal minority) - some very amazing things are bound to happen (and at some point - some motivated person is going to plant a single stone between the eyes of what appears to be an unstoppable giant).
At the end of the last revolutionary war, Judge Lynch was having British-sympathizers strung up so fast that the English language got a new word. There is one facet about history that is a constant: It tends to repeat itself. All we need is some good old Common Sense to prevail.
Posted Jun 14, 2007
Jon P of IL, USA writes:
Brandon Christensen made a post citing the logistical enormity of rigging a Detroit building for demolition, as evidence to refute the strong case for demolition at the WTC. Not content with Mr Heller proving scientifically that this was a demolition, Brandon Christensen wants us to use conjecture to explain how it was all set up! Mr Christensen: Mr Heller has put forward a sound theory based on hard evidence. Instead of ignoring that theory, why don't you directly address it? Explain to us all, for example, how 110 floors 'pancaking' into each other, offer such insignificant resistance as compared to freefall in air.
Posted Jul 31, 2006
Jim writes:
To the person who said we are communists - get your Public Enemy right - it's terrorists that your government wants you to be afraid of now...get with the times dude!
Posted Aug 1, 2006
Jon of Virginia writes:
How many people were in building 7 when it collapsed? Were any deaths attributed to its destruction?
Posted Aug 4, 2006
Dave Heller of Berkeley, California responds:
WTC7 (including the Office of Emergency Management) was evacuated shortly after the 2nd plane hit.
By the way, the Director of the Office of Emergency Management, Richard Sheer, was at the ground floor of WTC1 walking back and forth in front of the NYFD's incident command station with a walkie talkie (which never gave a response to him) saying that a third plane was on its way.
Was he just trying to frighten and confuse the fire crews?
Posted Oct 15, 2006
Anonymous writes:
Planting enough explosives without those exploives being noticed would be nearly impossible to do. Have you ever seen the wiring done to down a 20 story casino let alone a 110 story building. The type of prework that needs to be performed, often times pre cutting steal to control direction, removing some supports to increase explosive effectiveness etc. Taking out walls etc. To set and prepare a 110 story builidng for controlled demolition is much more unlikely than an unfortunate collapse. Sometime people in america feel they need a reason for eveything. This is in fact how religion came about, so when something tragic happens it seems there are two answers: beacuase God did it or the Government did it? The article is nonetheless interesting and a nice story, kind of like the bible.
Posted Aug 7, 2006
anonymous responds:
Wireless transmitters for the explosions would explain why all the other wireless stuff was not working. The government has weapons we don't know about... so no wiring was needed (I am guessing).
Posted Aug 26, 2006
Anonymous responds:
The Bible is based on faith and some supporting factual evidence, but more on faith if you are to believe in it's basic message.
The WTC collapse is based on hard evidence as pratically every human on earth saw it on film. All one has to do is question "how" it happened..and science will give you the facts.
I suppose our government would like us all to have "faith" in their explanation...that the cause of WTC7's collapse is "unknown". Yet elementary science has already proved that there is only 1 explanation...demolition explosives.
Maybe you should rethink your comparison of the WTC collapse with religious belief. I think you got it backwards.
Posted Sep 7, 2006
Patrick of San Jose responds:
I don't have an idea about the cut steel, but for the wiring I could imagine that they used the redundant Ethernet cabling, as suggested before.
Posted Dec 20, 2007
Spencer of Salt Lake City, UT writes:
Actually, the towers were designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts according to the designers.
Posted Aug 9, 2006
Eleonore Rodriguez writes:
My lingering thoughts with regards to all the inconsitencies and conspiracy theories related to the decision to invade in Iraq.
Related sites:
www.theassassinatedpress.com/fetzer.htm (was Sen. Paul Wellstone murdered?)
www.rense.com/general26/susp.htm
(anthrax scare and threat to 2 Democratic senators)
The timeline in all of these events are suspect as it correlates with the war in Iraq.
Posted Aug 10, 2006
Bob of Cape Girardeau, MO writes:
The most troubling evidence in my opinion is the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7. Watching the different videos of this event, it is easy to see the plumes of smoke (from thermite explosions) coming from the front and side windows. No plane hit this massive 47 story structure, and yet it came down miraculously in its own footprint supposedly due to fire. Even more amazing is that there was not a thorough investigation into this event since steel framed skyscrapers could (in theory) succumb to collapse by fire. Has insurance on steel framed buildings gone up in the days since 9/11 with this taken into account? Mr. Heller has done a good job of presenting the facts and unanswered questions in a clear and concise article. Bravo!
Posted Aug 10, 2006
alysheba1987 writes:
This kind of thinking makes me scared to send my kids to college. Too much education can be worse than none at all.
Posted Aug 13, 2006
Brent of Palmdale, CA responds:
Gee, and Mrs. Laura Bush, the ex-librarian is pushing for education for the young and innocent. This is a woman who is exposed to scary thinking every day. Her kids have protectors looking after them. Even though their "daddy" has put their lives in jeopardy through his actions and deeds.
I say make yourselves more intelligent, learn as much information as your brain can handle.
Just follow some old basic laws and principles, that ask one to be nice to your friends and acquaintances. Not deliver threats to them. Fling arrows of disintent. Attempt friendship.
Some say that the problems caused by this current Administration will take a long time to mend. Should impeachment follow through, as the state of Illinois has intended, the net results could help with the healing process.
Posted Sep 18, 2006
Jon of USA writes:
Anyone who is interested in this article should pull up the declassified documents concerning the "Northwoods Project," showing that the US was contemplating setting up something a lot like 9/11 to justify a war on Cuba. The plan was never carried out because it became apparent that Cuba was not going to be a big threat.
View the document here:
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430
Click the link "Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp."
Amazing. Great article.
Posted Aug 15, 2006
| 
