by dbeach » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:58 pm
more or less fule for the fire<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rense.com/general73/phy.htm">www.rense.com/general73/phy.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>"Physicist's Letter On <br>911 PHYSICS To <br>Rocky Mountain News <br>10-3-6<br><br><br>The following letter was sent by Eric Harrington, a physicist who lives in Ojai, CA, to Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News... <br> <br>Dear Mr. Carrol, <br> <br>I am responding to your article slandering the legitimate questions posed by numerous scientists, engineers, pilots, even international (often Republican) politicians regarding the flaws in the "official account" of 9/11. <br> <br>"Let us dip our toe again into" a couple of the bogus rebuffs posed by the "experts" at Popular Mechanics. <br> <br>Pop Mech- "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat, pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns." <br> <br>Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at a point when the fires had greatly diminished. <br> <br>In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6 hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request. <br> <br>But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can understand that. <br> <br>And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox. <br> <br>Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe. And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as long as it can be videotaped for posterity. <br> <br>I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale, while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered. <br> <br>As for your contemptuous tone of which I have tried to mimic in this reply, to quote Shakespeare, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much." <br> <br>Sincerely, <br> <br>Eric Harrington <p></p><i></i>
