|
Science in
the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles
09/08/07 "ICH"
-- -- The majority of us accept as fact that the current
administration manipulates science for political ends. Few
were surprised to hear experts from industry challenge
overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change.
Frustration within the scientific community had grown so
much that by Dec. 2006 more than 10,000 scientists,
including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 recipients of the
National Medal of Science, had signed a statement accusing
the Bush administration of "distortion of scientific
knowledge for partisan political ends".
Scientific integrity within the administration has often not
been rewarded. Recently fired US surgeon general Richard
Carmona said after leaving, "In public health, as in a
democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or
marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by
changing political winds."
Truth, even when grounded in strong scientific evidence, is
the first casualty of war, and the US is at war.
The pattern is clear, and it affects us all.
On September 11th the whole world watched as jetliners
crashed into the World Trade Center. These heinous crimes
were labeled as acts of war. However, scientific principles
show much more happened that day than we were told. The most
striking feature of these World Trade Center collapses is
that each came down within a few mere seconds of the time it
would have taken a brick dropped from the buildings' tops to
hit the ground. Through the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) Committee Studies our government told
us that the damage from the planes hitting the buildings and
the resulting fires caused them to collapse at near freefall
speed.
What we were told is physically impossible without
additional forces to bring the buildings down.
We were told that the undamaged towers below the impact zone
offered very little resistance -- effectively little more
than air -- resulting in the complete destruction by the
accelerating mass of the smaller top sections cascading
downwards. But principles of physics starting with Sir Isaac
Newton's Laws of Motion show that what we were told happened
by the NIST Commission's Reports is not possible. Principles
like Newton's Laws of Motion are facts that cannot be
dismissed. The NIST Reports absurdly failed to carefully
consider these physics principles when it told us the damage
and subsequent collapse was caused by fires from the jet
fuel. The swift collapse we witnessed, in fact, could not
have been caused by the fires or any other damage from the
planes.
Applying 2 basic principles, conservation of energy and
conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly
unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in
their Reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of
the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down.
This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both
linear and angular momentum unless a large external force
caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from
that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the
intact parts below for each Tower, when their tops were in
virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous
volumes of study.
The only explanation supported by the physics is multiple
explosions in both Towers. Without an additional energy
source to blow the lower floor support structure out of the
way of the falling upper mass, the observed fall speeds were
unachievable. Any true scientific model must take into
account the fact that that the kinetic energy of falling
material would continually be dissipated to break more
structural energy of parts of the remaining building unless
explosions have already done the job. Thus, without
explosions this mandatory expenditure would continually
decrease the fall velocity through all the levels. In other
words,
the top portions of the buildings as they came down would be
significantly slowed down by the undamaged parts of the
buildings below.
Even if the fires had gutted the entire building, causing
universal structural weakening, the fall times would still
be about 2-3 times longer than the fall time observed. In
reality, the North Tower had 92 floors and the South Tower
had 77 floors of intact structure designed to withstand
major adverse damage below the impact zone and fires. If the
planes and fires did more minor damage to the buildings
before setting off the supposed critical fall, either
building would take
3-10 times as long for complete collapse than was observed,
even if complete collapse could occur and even then if it
occurred all at once.
Is there proof of how the buildings came down? Examining the
more technical details of the collapse shows direct evidence
that explosives caused the collapse. Videos and photos taken
clearly show the very-quick appearance of rapidly growing
dust clouds in the collapse of the both Towers. These clouds
expanded much faster than the gravitational pull could
produce, clearly indicating that explosive heat energy
caused that expansion. Multiple squibs (material ejecting
horizontally from high-pressure regions) traveling over 160
feet a second were observed in both towers, and could only
be generated by explosions. Several parallel squibs came out
of the South Tower just a floor or 2 below where the plane
hit less than an hour before, and these explosions that
caused the twisting of the top 34 floors that initiated the
collapse of that tower. Multiple squibs were also seen at
the times of collapse of building 7, which collapsed later
that day and was not hit by any plane. The appearance of
these squibs in all 3 cases came within seconds of the time
each building started to collapse.
These squibs provide clear direct evidence of explosions, as
simple math elaborates. Data taken from a photograph by KTLA
channel 5 news shows a streaming clear line of ejecting
material which is similar to several other squibs
photographed that day. This stream is mostly made up of bits
of material large enough that air resistance is small
compared to the ejection force, and after ejection from the
North Tower it has traveled nearly 70 feet in a horizontal
direction, whereas the distance it has descended because of
gravitational pull is small. If we estimate that the front
end of the ejecting material has fallen about 3 feet, then,
for material for which air friction is small (e.g. a 3-inch
piece of glass or 1-inch piece of steel) we find it has been
just under 0.5 sec since the front end first ejected from
the building. The material in that squib is traveling
horizontally at over 160 feet/sec.
Defenders of the NIST Reports have tried use to explain
these squibs as compressed air and gasses coming out of the
collapsing buildings, but that cannot begin to account for
the energetic focused horizontal blasts observed. Explosions
produced those extremely high speeds, making the ejecting
material into a swath of bullets shooting out of the
buildings.
So where does this squib hit the ground? Assuming the height
of ejection is about 1300 feet (400 m), gravitational
descent of that ejection to the ground lasts for 9 seconds
if air resistance is negligible. In 9 seconds that squib has
shot out almost 1300 feet, or about 1/4 mile away from the
building. There is unmistakable evidence of damage from this
high-speed material away from the Towers. Pictures on the
Web show remains of hundreds of autos that were broadsided
and severely damaged by such streaming material for blocks
from the collapsing buildings. Many such explosions were
necessary to produce these devastations scattered around
over the 40 acres of the site.
The evidence is mounting and accredited scholars are coming
out every day questioning the NIST Studies. In recent weeks
alone, former NIST scientist James Quintiere has declared
that he no longer accepts NIST's work and has called for a
new investigation. World-renowned scientist Lynn Margulis
strongly rejected the NIST Studies, suggesting that "the
glaringly erroneous official account of 911 be
dismissed...".. These are some of the finest scientists in
the world. Can the mainstream press catch on? Reporters and
pundits selectively use science to support less
controversial issues but is this an inconvenient science.
The rapidly expanding huge concrete dust clouds from the
towers, the very-quick appearance of multiple squibs on all
3 collapsing buildings, and the destruction of hundreds of
autos for several blocks around the World Trade Center from
these squibs, are some of the dramatic examples clearly
pointing to explosions. Scientific methods imply these were
the cause of our greatest destruction in the 21st century.
Crockett Grabbe is an applied physicist engaged in
research at the University of Iowa who received his Ph.D.
from Caltech. He has been profiled multiple times in Who's
Who in Science and Engineering.
Lenny Charles is the creator and producer of the
International News Net World Report, one of only 2 daily
alternative national televised news programs in America.
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
