A Simple Little Law and Fact Dismissed by the U.S. Government on 9-11-01

[Peter Lemkin]

Empirical Observation of 9-11

August 25, 2014 by Dalia Mae
This is what a building collapse looks like. Even though the pillars of the building have been skillfully severed by explosives everything of weight is going DOWNWARDS.
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687.
327 years later society, governments and the mainstream media seem to have a problem with Newton. Ex Prime Minister Julia Gillard even called it in question in Parliament calling it "stupid and wrong" to question the collapse of the WTC towers (and WTC 7) when Kevin Bracken (Victorian Trades Hall President) was derided by Jon Faine on ABC 774 radio. (video)
September 11 is nearly upon us again.
So observe: This is one of the pictures that show how Newton's law was broken on the 11th of September 2001. It is easy to OBSERVE tons of steel and material shooting OUTWARDS and UPWARDS. Conclusion: This building has been BLOWN UP with sophisticated explosives.

Fascinating how Newton's law is applied every single day except on that one day (9/11/01). Newton would be stunned.
Mass hypnosis?

[Drew Phipps]

I always thought that the proof that the government was involved was that the collapses of the three WTT bldgs. were controlled demolitions.

[Drew Phipps]

here is a picture of a bottle breaking when it hits a table.



Notice that many of the large glass fragments have achieved some sort of component to their motion that is inconsistent with pure gravity (i.e. straight down). Some of the glass and water appears to even be moving up! Did the government plant explosives in my Perrier bottle?


Nope. Turns out Newton "discovered" more than just gravity. He has three other laws of motion, the third in particular which explains the apparent anomaly. Turns out, when one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts and equal (yet opposite) force on the first one; in this case, shattering the glass and driving fragments of glass and water up.


You can replicate this experiment at home with any available fragile material.

[Peter Lemkin]

here is a picture of a bottle breaking when it hits a table.



Notice that many of the large glass fragments have achieved some sort of component to their motion that is inconsistent with pure gravity (i.e. straight down). Some of the glass and water appears to even be moving up! Did the government plant explosives in my Perrier bottle?


Nope. Turns out Newton "discovered" more than just gravity. He has three other laws of motion, the third in particular which explains the apparent anomaly. Turns out, when one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts and equal (yet opposite) force on the first one; in this case, shattering the glass and driving fragments of glass and water up.


You can replicate this experiment at home with any available fragile material.

This is a very poor example to compare to the WTC towers! The recoil that might be observed with objects/parts of the WTC would be at the level of the first floor, at most. With a bottle the effect you site is due to its size [small], contents of water [liquid], and way that glass splinters - producing a incomparable event, and bad physics. There are a multitude of reasons that prove that more than gravity alone brought down the WTC buildings. One is that things fall straight down without a reason [read force] to push them laterally [at high speed, no less] and some even upward against gravity. There was also too much energy expended [more than that stored in the system due to potential energy [mass x height above ground]], which was less than the kinetic energy expended/observed. The difference had to come from some energetic substance, i.e. explosives and/or thermitic materials. How a building falls is seen in the upper photo. How a building is exploded is seen with the WTC towers 1 and 2 - even 7, but that is more complicated.

[Drew Phipps]

It is my understanding that the prevailing theory of controlled demolition is that thermite or nano-thermite was used to sever the supports of the building in a controlled fashion. Thermite, (and presumably "nano-thermite") work primarily by applying intense heat to melt stuff quickly, not by using kinetic force to blow stuff up molecule by molecule. Hitting a support column with enough kinetic force to sever it and send it flying a couple city blocks away seems terribly wasteful, and bad planning on the part of whoever designed such a demolition.

Most of the chaos that you observe in the building's collapse is attributable to just that, chaos, as hundreds of thousands (or millions) of individual moving parts begin to interact in ways which are eminently predictable for a small number of particles, but unpredictable when you have a sufficient number of them.

Even small numbers of objects behave unpredictably at times. Have you ever seen a basketball, baseball, or soccer ball strike a solid object (other than the floor) and bounce straight up? Invariably, that upward movement was not part of the original trajectory of the ball, and in most cases that result is entirely unintended, but it happens all the time.

I have a funny and true story along thse lines. My x-wife met my parents at a dinner. As she always did, my ex squeezed lemon juice into her iced tea. As she did that, some of the juice shot out of the lemon, across the table, and right into my mother's eyes, causing her pain, tearing up, and redness. Not an auspicious beginning, but illustrative of Muphy's law at least, that unintended and unlikely chaotic consequences can attend even the simplest of our actions.