Laws of Physics Suspended

It's hard to exaggerate the importance of scientific debate over the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Morgan Reynolds
Chief economist US Dept. Labour 2001–2002

It is said that truth cannot be told but only
presented in the hope of investigation and acknowledgement

1. Galileo’s theory on the laws of falling bodies is a basis of modern science and is an absolute.

The theory would indicate a free fall collapse time of approximately 10 seconds which is about the time the towers took to disintegrate. This time takes no account of any resistance from floor to floor as the core and exterior columns were said to “buckle and give way” progressively due, it was said initially, to the pancaking of the floors. This is now retracted and under revision by NIST. (1)

Put simply, if you could cut the top 15 floors off an identical tower and hold them at the same height as the North Tower, with just clear air underneath, then release these 15 floors at exactly the same time as the North Tower began its decent - we'd find the "identical 15 floors" would hit the ground as a solid steel and concrete structure around the same time the bottom floors of the real towers turned to dust and rubble. [See TV interview] Richard Gage, Architects for 911 Truth

2) To achieve this miracle other laws of physics would have to be suspended for the day; the law of conservation of momentum, the law of thermal conductivity, the basic law in physics that you don't get something for nothing. [Gordon Ross] engineer.

The towers dropped to below ground level in around 12 seconds, 110 floors that’s about 1/10th of a second per floor. But where did the energy come from? To have pulverised much of the mass of the twin towers, without slowing down the free fall rate of collapse, is contrary to the laws of physics.

To question the official explanations of the collapse of two 110 floor towers and the 47 floor Soloman Building B7, leaves us vulnerable. Our self respect and common sense are challenged by the idea that we are so gullible that political leaders and the media can feed us outrageous nonsense knowing that if not believed absolutely, will still not be challenged seriously.

Up until now, despite the growing list of credible dissidents to the official tale, there has not been sufficient outrage to force an independent inquiry. Below are just some of the reports detailing fundamental questions of science, empirical evidence and eye witness statements contradicting the 911 Commission Report and the NIST findings.

Gordon Ross holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. Gordon Ross challenges 911 Commission and NIST on the physics of the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. A site with numerous links to photographs and video challenging the science of the official reports.

Video interview on Canadian OMNI T.V. with Richard Gage founder of ae911truth.


Jim Hoffman on the June NIST Report

Griffin duration of kerosene fires

CNN tapes of fire fighters

Kevin Ryan: Steel softening


(1) NOVA simulation. Excerpt scientific paper presented for peer review.

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government
Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan,
Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
3. Pancake Theory Not Supported

NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”.3

Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7 The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

The paper is here:
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

No comments: