R Anderson
WTC COLLAPSE STORY AN IMPOSSIBLE LIE:
Sat May 10 02:36:45 2003
208.152.73.65

home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes executed
highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known educational
background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the World Trade
Center towers and the Pentagon. If the remote controls were used, who was
operating them?

>-------- Original Message --------
Subject: SCIENTIFIC FACTS PROVE OFFICIAL WTC COLLAPSE STORY AN IMPOSSIBLE LIE: EXPERT--More on Bush 9/11 Complicity
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 20:43:12 +0000
From: R Anderson top_view@planetmail.com
Reply-To: top_viewer@yahoo.com
To: president@whitehouse.gov

http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm

Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
By Jerry Russell, Ph.D. = jerry@regena.com

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

(The Author Has A Master's Degree In 'Engineering' From Stanford
University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon)

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. A bomber strike to the
Empire State Building during World War II 'did not' harm that building.
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".

How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper?
Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example. A
nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits
from the city.

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.

How it was done. The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America
and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved
out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of
shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with
all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on
several floors; enough for at least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition.

There was more "magic" at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were
seen on the TeeVee.

The events of 9/11, summarized. Taken all together, the evidence
suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and
quite possibly were a collaborative venture of the Israeli and US governments.

Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in
flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school
in Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one researcher.

A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates
that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves
as art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the
Arabs as they moved about the country.

The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to
hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis
played in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever
was planned? It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these
Arabs were opposed in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It
would be very interesting to question the Israelis regarding their
knowledge of the Arab flight students.

At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers,
they might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot
should have quickly been foiled for two reasons. First of all, the
Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with remote-controlled
flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was stated by a
British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a former German
secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well
known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative
on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the hijackers.

Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet
to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are reported.
These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an
airliner cannot hope to match them.

For these reasons, the Arab hijackers' mission should have been an
ignominious failure. These measures (as well as pre-9/11 airport
security measures) have been effective enough that hijacking has rarely
been a problem for many years now.

But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the
planes home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes
executed highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known
educational background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the
World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. If the remote controls were
used, who was operating them?

The World Trade Center towers are '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. However, a cloud of dust was seen in the area of
building 7 immediately before the collapse of the south tower, which has
not been explained.

While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour) George
W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about goats, and the
US military did not respond to the first three attacks. A fourth flight
was also "hijacked" that day, but it was apparently struck down by some
sort of missile or bomb before crashing in Pennsylvania.

Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on Arabs and
specifically on Osama Bin Laden was begun, and this campaign has
continued to the present day. Our traditional American form of
government, unfortunately, may not survive -- the Patriot Act appears
poised to supersede the Bill of Rights.

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. It is
equally unlikely that the Israelis could have pulled it off alone. Yet
instead the US government is gathering up support for war against Middle
Eastern nations, a tragic response to the enigmatic events of that day.

----------------------
SEE:

By Jerry Russell, Ph.D. http://www.regena.com

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.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a87pkv%24ktc%241%40news.efn.org&output=gplain b

================================

Who would ever mistake me for "James Bond"?
By Jerry Russell
http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm

============================================

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. It is equally unlikely that the
Israelis could have pulled it off alone. Yet instead the US government is
gathering up support for war against Middle Eastern nations, a tragic
response to the enigmatic events of that day.

Here are links:

Justin Raimondo http://www.antiwar.com

Michael Rivero http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

Eric Hufschmid http://geocities.com/erichufschmid/index.html

Jared Israel http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm

Posted 3/28/2002 by Jerry Russell; Updated 3/31/2002

http://www.regena.com

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