As we seek the truth in the world around us, we are faced with many challenges with actually reaching the truth. We have our own perception of the way the world works, and we have our own experiences that we have used to guide us. But to truly understand the world around us, sometimes we have to cast aside some of our closely held beliefs.
When we try and understand some of the bigger social and political issues in the world around us, it becomes increasing difficult to establish "truth", as most of these issues can not be proven by the laws of physics. They can only be debated by varying points of view and various perceptions of the world around us.
As an Engineer, the basic process of trying to solve a problem is to understand as much as possible about the problem, before coming up with a solution. To solve a problem, you must look beyond what may be a common perception, and, you need to go back to the very fundamental laws of physics, and principles of engineering. The events around 911 provide collision of world political events, and events that can (or can not) be explained by the laws of physics and engineering principles.
As I have read some postings and comments on the Daily Kos related to the events of 911, and the infamous Tin Hat expression is sure to follow in a comment somewhere. Let's look at various Tin Hat theories and the ability to come to some sort of truthful discussion.
UFO's? Interesting stories out there, but, not much evidence that can be scientifically proven.
Free Energy? No details out there, seems like problems with the laws of Thermodynamics, no go there.
Secret Societies? Always have been, always will - where is the plot going? Nothing to relate to the laws of physics there.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
When we move on to 911, we have planes crashing into buildings, buildings burning, buildings falling down. Lost of opportunity to apply the laws of physics. Here is where my story begins on how I became a Tin Hat.
I received a power point presentation via email some time ago; it was a series of photographs on the damage to the Pentagon. As a Mechanical Engineer, I spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads). Here is my assessment of what I saw on the pictures.
The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around handling the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.
If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.
This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.
We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.
But, before concluding that something other than a 757 caused this damage, I thought about this problem a long time. About impact dynamics, the fuel load, the engines, and even the social/political implications if the American people have been deliberately mislead by our government, mainstream press, etc.
But there is no other plausible explanation. If we are to believe that some how this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this final wall. It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle; you have to be able to focus energy in a very precise way. This simply can not be done in an impact of an Aluminum aircraft and reinforced concrete walls
How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shape charge. An explosive shape charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shape charge to enter what ever has been penetrated.
Much has been written about the collapse of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. Very easy to apply the laws of physics and engineering principles here. Once again it violates the laws of physics to have these buildings fall at nearly free fall speed. There is no plausible explanation in Popular Mechanics, a NIST report, etc that can properly explain this.
Many have stated the "official" story must be correct because "our government could not possibly have done this". But do we really know how our government works??
Many have stated that a major newspaper would break this story, but do we really know the truth on how political power is brought to bear on what shows up in the paper??
As average citizens, we can only speculate as to how our government really works, and who really controls what is printed in the mainstream press, but the laws of Physics provides an irrefutable explanation of what can and can not happen. It provides a clear window into the truth, an explanation for events that can be proven.
I can not explain why the New York Times has turned a blind eye to this. I can not explain why elected officials have not stood up and demanded a real investigation into 911. We can only speculate about that. What we can say with certainty is that events on 911, as portrayed by our government could not have possibly happened by their explanation, case closed. Anyone else want to put on a Tin Hat?
http://www.physics911.net/...
Be part of Citizens Counter-Coup, The Formula For Change Now
http://3c.911truth.org
Comments are closed on this story.