9/11 Physics for Dummies

“That day is a day of wrath, … against the high towers.” Zephaniah 1:15-16

I believe a major reason why many have not grasped the issues of 9/11 is because they have not understood how the government’s explanation of the events is completely impossible according to the immutable laws of physics. This therefore is an attempt to explain the physics of 9/11 in terms that anyone can easily understand.

Would you believe me if I told you that I placed an ordinary cup of hot coffee on my ordinary kitchen table in my ordinary house, and it sat there undisturbed in any way, and I came back the next day and it was still steaming hot? I am sure you would say it couldn’t happen even once in a million times. Why? Because everyone knows that is contrary to the immutable laws of physics, though they may not use those scientific terms to describe it.

However, if I told you that I went camping, and in the evening built a campfire, and in the morning there were still hot coals, would you believe me? Probably yes. Why? This can only be explained by a source of energy, which was consumed gradually overnight so that some still remained in the morning.

The Metal didn't Break but Bent

The Metal didn't Break but Bent

Or would you believe me if I said “I was driving my car and it hit a big bump, and it just broke into pieces.” We all know that steel under stress bends long before it will break.

The Beams were Cut, not Bent

The Beams were Cut, not Bent

The clean edges and straight beams show that the steel in the twin towers was neither broken nor bent, but rather had to have been cut. The only explanation is explosives, most probably a special explosive called Thermate, which was found in the dust and rubble of 9/11.

Pulverized in the Air

Pulverized in the Air

Concrete and everything else is being pulverized in the air, but even crashing into the ground would not pulverize it to this extent. Where did the tremendous amount of energy necessary to do this come from? This picture also shows rubble being thrown upwards and outwards (arrow) up to several city blocks distant. Where did the large amount of energy necessary to do this come from? Huge pieces of steel were even impaled in neighboring buildings, all requiring great energy.

Molten Metal in the Rubble

Molten Metal in the Rubble

Molten metal was found in the rubble, hot enough and voluminous enough to stay molten up to several weeks. Where did this gigantic amount of energy come from? Molten steel resulting from explosives cutting the steel beams easily explains it. And no, the burning jet fuel from the airplanes was not enough to even soften the steel.

Partially Damaged by Hot Metal?

Partially Damaged by Hot Metal?

About 1400 vehicles were burned around the Twin Towers, up to 7 blocks away. Why was the rubble so hot to have burned the vehicles, and, why were they burned in this strange way? Blobs of molten steel from the cutting of the steel beams would explain it, like this case where it was burned where something hot touched it, but in other spots completely undamaged.

Explosion Visible within Tower

Explosion Visible within Tower

No doubt the large amounts of dust and pulverized materials were by design to hide the explosions within the buildings. However, a few explosions, like this one, showed through, so it was controled demolition designed to not look like it.

The laws of physics make impossible the government’s explanation of what made the towers fall, because they offer no explanation for a source of the tremendous energy manifested. By definition, an explosive is something that releases a very large amount of energy in a very short period of time. So, explosives are the only possible source of the energy.

Just by observing how the towers fell, it is 100% certain that they were brought down by explosives. It is not necessary to rely on circumstancial evidences such as inferences and personal reports to come to this conclusion.  The evidence is visible to anyone who will look.

So, how in the world could all these explosives have been planted in the building without everyone noticing? There was a building “power down” the Saturday and Sunday before 9/11, and many “workers” were seen entering the building then.

And, who planted and ignited the explosives in a very sophisticated manner so that the towers fell straight down only about 1 second slower than free-fall speed. Who could have had the skill, materials and access to the building to have pulled it off? Can any rational person believe that a group of Arabs, or any foreign entity (even the best Russian spies), could have planted hundreds of explosive charges in exactly the right spots, requiring much manpower, and ignited them in a precise sequence, without being detected beforehand? Certainly not. Only a US government entity could have done it. Could any US government entity have done it without the knowledge and complicity of the President and others at the top? Certainly not. And there is no lack of other evidence for this. Further, the massive evidence of a coverup points clearly to the government. So, I judge that it is 99.99% certain that a US government entity did it.

And if you are still not convinced because you believe something like “George Bush was such a nice man that he would never have done anything like that,” then you are basing your conclusion on your personal belief system and wishful thinking, not on the evidence. And if you don’t believe it because you believe “conspiracy theorists” are kooks, then you are basing your conclusion on Ad Hominem arguments, not on the evidence. If you disagree, then please base your arguments on refuting the evidence presented. If 9/11 conspiracy theorists are kooks (i.e. stupid), then refuting their logic and arguments should be very easy (if someone has done it, please let us all know).

If the US government was responsible for the events of 9/11, then it is a certainty that there would be a massive campaign of disinformation and coverup.  And there is massive evidence for such, though it is in general more circumstancial.  On the other hand, evidence for explosives does not rely on what people say, or inferrences, etc., but is right in front of your eyes.

This entry was posted in 9/11, 9/11. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to 9/11 Physics for Dummies

  1. Anna Myers says:

    From the evidence I’ve read, I think you’re right about this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*