Watch Dr. Shyam Sunder Lie to Us…

I would love to play poker with Dr. Shyam Sunder… Some people just aren’t good liars.

It’s no wonder this drivel didn’t see the light of day on the MSM.

Advertisements

27 Responses

  1. they decided which ‘theory’ could be the most creditable?
    that means ‘deseving some praise or credit’ or ‘that can be believed, or reliable

    they picked a theory that they hope most people will believe and accept as a ‘probable’ … it sounds good… they think.
    good grief… you are right ..it is ‘drivel’

  2. Jan’s being too kind when she refers to Sunder’s bullshit as drivel.

    By the end of that propaganda farce, Sunder’s arms must have been tired from shoveling all of that BS onto the American plate.

    Without the steel beams, girders, columns, etc. that comprised WTC 7 to investigate, then all NIST is doing is shoveling mighty loads of hot air and bullshit into and onto the American public, hoping some of it will stick.

    It’s interesting to note that neither CNN nor FUXD has carried this stinker, although I don’t watch much of either, only enough to see what the latest Bush/Cheny Junta BS story that those MSM outlets are carrying.

    If “thermal expansion” was indeed a valid theory, then the US Senate building would have collapsed a long time ago, due to all of that hot air impacting the structure.

  3. Yeah, right, Greg…. lol

    BTW Drivel was Willyloman’s word and I think it describes Sunder to t ‘T’…. it brings up someone just spouting complete nonsense and doing it just to be talking to pass the time…. which was what he was doing.
    The BS loading also describes his waving of his arms when he is delivering a more extreme portion of his drivel….lol

  4. You must be completely scientifically naive or a sellout receiving a blood-cheque to believe or advocate that fire can compel a consolidated modern steal structure to fall along the path of highest resistance and conveniently on it’s foot-print. I have a P.H.D in physics and these myths remind me how unethical and repulsive P.R spokespeople can become and how intellectually toxic they are to the average Joe.
    *By the way NIST, a simulation is used to verify and validate scientific theory. Your so called simulations are as serious as actual Disney cartoons because they can only validate fantasy.

  5. @TrueAmericanPatriot: What sort of physics is your “P.H.D.” in that you feel justified in questioning Dr. Sunder’s integrity? I think all you “conspiracy theorists” are deluded crazies . . .

  6. @Dexter: Skepticism is necessary for freedom of thought to exist. I strive to question everyone’s integrity including yours and mine. People can honestly believe that they are right, but that never makes what they say correct. In consensus reality, only corroborated evidence can lead one closer to truth.

    So when Dr. Sunder says that Tower 7 fell down in a controlled demolition-looking way due to fire, thus making it the first steel-reinforced concrete structure EVER to collapse due to fire, yes I tend to question his findings. He says it so matter-of-fact, without really giving any new data. There are tons of experts who say that, given the evidence presented explosives must have been involved.

    Dexter, I don’t have a PHD or even a BS but I feel like telling you that questioning what you’re told does not make you deluded it makes you sane.

    Can’t somebody just make a to-scale model of the damned thing and prove this once and for all???
    I mean, it seems like the given conditions are easily recreated…

  7. On second thought, the to-scale model thing is totally unnecessary. The physics of this event come down to simple mathematics.

    I would like to see some math! Anyone have links?

    Maybe TrueAmericanPatriot would like to write us a proof?

  8. Shyam Sunder must be sleeping wel these days, what with his bed being lined with blood money.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    have a look at this stuff. It’s infuriating. They state that evidence does not exist for a.) any subterranian explosion, b.) large quantities of molten metal, or c.) anything at all for tower 7… because they stopped hiring investigators. War fundning was cutting into their funsing, I guess. Never mind the written and video testimonies of people saying their legs were broken in the basement from the shockwaves of the explosions (Seconds BEFORE the plane impacted) or the firefighters who stood marvelling at the molten metal running down the stairs. The thing is, even if I believe this crap, where did the support columns go? If they didn’t melt but were weakened, where are the twisted metal girders sticking awkardly into the sky? The only peices of those support columns I ever got a glimpse at were neatly sectioned with identical diagonal cuts on the top and the bottom, with globs of re-hardened melt sticking around them. There were hotspots for days afterwards, most of them hotter than jet fuel can burn. But the indisputable fact that there was an inexplicable lake of molten metal under each tower is dismissed;

    “The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.”

    Aren’t we investigating the collapse? Is not this like a homicide detective ignoring the pool of blood under the body?

    Personally I believe the WTC towers collapsed because Bush needed a good reason to institute the homeland security package and plunder the middle east. His financial backers and the Morgan Metanational Bank (Who own all your money… check out how your economy works and you will find that you own not one dollar, as every single dollar is owed back to the central bank… With Intrest!) wanted a new mansion. On a new island. What choice did they have but to use your nation to achieve their ends?

    We must be sympathetic to the aristocracy, fellow plebs. After all, they are the rulers, and we are the ruled, and it has been that way for millenia upon millenia, and it will always be that way. Ours is not to reason why. Lock your doors and close your minds and work for 60% of your waking hours and keep the machine running, people, otherwise Mr. Rockerfeller might not get his empire. Just obey, okay? That could be the motto of the New American Dream (Being a usefull cog). Just Obey, Okay?

    Did that make you mad?

    Good. Now DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

  9. Video is titled Dr Sunder lies. Where’s the lie?

    • lie # 1. “Clearly buildings are not designed to with-stand airplane impact.” @ the :24 mark

      It took less than 24 seconds for Sunder’s first lie.

      Even the most cursory examination of the history of the design of the Trade Center will reveal that the architectural firm considered the “plane strike” scenario when designing them. In fact, according to one of the designers, they were designed to withstand not only a strike from a 707 (the largest airliner at the time) but they were designed to withstand two hits to the same tower. Evidence of this (aside from Googling video of his comments) is the fact that the building did in fact remain standing. Also, there is a section of the NIST report that states not only that the plane strikes didn’t contribute much in the towers collapse evidenced by the fact that they remained standing for so long afterward, but they start comparing the relative size of the 707 and the 757s, and they also admit that the original design had taken this potential scenario into consideration.
      That said, Sunder lied :24 seconds into the video. and that is just the first one.

  10. Let’s deal with the 24 second lie claim first. Can you cite any source (engineering journal for example) which says that buildings ARE designed to withstand an airplane impact – that is that this is standard design practice? I ask because I read his remark as a general comment related to the design of skyscrapers. He doesn’t say “these buildings” and he doesn’t say the WTC Towers or anything like that. He just says that buildings aren’t designed to take plane impacts which I suspect is true. Listen to the actual video and see what I mean.

    Then let’s move on to the second claim. Can you find any direct evidence that the towers were designed to take an impact of a 767 at the speed of the ones which hit them? I’ve read Leslie Robertson saying that he did a white paper after the towers were designed that showed that they could withstand a much lower impact (roughly 180mph in the quote), but I can’t find the paper in question which seems a shame. Nevertheless, the towers were already designed when the study was done in 1964 so there’s no contradiction here – design doesn’t mean “check it out later when someone asks us to – it refers to general practice.

    Incidentally, why would you imagine that anyone would design something to withstand a 500mph hit from a plane? There is no history of any large jet EVER flying this fast at 1000 feet or less over an American city until 9/11 as far as I can tell. So, it seems logical to design for a slow speed loss of control or direction kind of hit but quite strained to logically claim that a much greater velocity would be the design speed.

    Your third point is one I agree with which is that this has nothing to do with why the towers came down according to either FEMA or NIST. However, I’m still not seeing any lying here. Maybe you should go deeper into the video and show me my error.

    • Woodbourne;

      Why would I imagine that anyone would design a building to withstand a strike from a plane at 500 mph? Because I read the NIST report, for one thing and then I did some more research for another.

      “As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

      How does MIT sound? “The World Trade Center towers “were indeed designed to withstand the impact of a large commercial aircraft,” wrote Professors Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.” Professors Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

      A B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building… another near miss took place a few years later, due to fog.

      “WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.” http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

      This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.

      property . Boeing 707-320 . Boeing 767-200
      fuel capacity . 23,000 gallons . 23,980 gallons
      max takeoff weight . 328,060 lbs . 395,000 lbs
      empty weight . 137,562 lbs . 179,080 lbs
      wingspan . 145.75 ft . 156.08 ft
      wing area . 3010 ft^2 . 3050 ft^2
      length . 152.92 ft . 159.17 ft
      cruise speed . 607 mph . 530 mph

      http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

      So when Shyam Sunder said “Clearly buildings aren’t designed to withstand airplane impact” when he knows full well that this very thing was taken into consideration during “the design stage of the WTC”… then he knows, full well that it was taken into consideration and was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (which is similar too the mass and airspeed and therefore the momentum of a 767)… and that the evidence of that is in his own report. Ergo, he lied.

  11. Woodbourne;

    Why would they consider this possibility? Because it had happened before…

    “On July 28, 1945, residents of New York City were horrified when an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building, leaving 14 dead.”

    “So he started to make a little bit of a turn that brought him over midtown Manhattan, and as he straightened out, the clouds broke up enough for him to realize he was flying among skyscrapers.”

    The bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, the tallest building in the world at the time.” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92987873

    “It was partly due to this incident that towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft.” http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

  12. So finally Woodbourne, let me just conclude by saying, that Shyam Sunder is certainly more familiar with both the FEMA and the NIST reports than I am. What he is counting on, it appears, is that the average person will not be.

    Now all that aside, as the technical rationale for my conclusion that Dr. Sunder was lying during that conference… in the end, the real “tell” for me, is his behavior.

    Look at how he acts during the interview.

    Now I know what you are going to say, but, if there was nothing to the art of reading body language to determine the relative “truthiness” of a statement, would we have that new TV show about people detecting if someone is lying or not? (yes I am joking… but you know, you can tell when someone is lying or not. Do me a favor… forget what you want to hear and what you want the outcome to be… forget what I have just written, all the stuff about design, and the NIST report talking about the very thing Sunder is talking about… forget all that…

    … re-watch the video, with the sound turned off. Tell me what you feel from watching his actions, his body language, how his eyes move when he hears a question, what his hands are doing…

    Can you do that objectively and tell me that man doesn’t know he is lying through his teeth? You see a scientist is only as good as his reputation. Once he tosses that out, once he trades that, no one in his field takes him seriously anymore, except others that have also sold out for one reason or another.

    Sunder has the mannerisms of a man who is ending his career… or at least doing something that doesn’t sit well with him. And that for me, is just as big a part of why I wrote this as are the facts I have shared with you.

  13. The key to understanding why you are wrong about the design of the buildings, Willy Loman, is to do some research into:

    1. The nature of the 1945 crash which was by a plane which was lost in fog and occurred at 180 miles per hours. Since no airliner, to my knowledge, in the 19 years which followed has ever flown at 2000 feet or less over NYC or any other big US city at speeds over 200mph, no one would be likely to plan for that secnario.

    2. The most important point, though, is that all of these quotes refer to a single white paper published in 1964 after the WTC towers had already been designed. The man who did the study Les Robertson is still alive and has been clear over and over again, even on the Alex Jones show I believe, that the study was for a 707 traveling at “180 mph”. That is 1/8th roughly of the energy of the impact which actually occurred.

    You also selectively quoted from the FEMA report which cites the 180mph in a subsequent sentence, BTW. All of your quotes simply refer to the same study which was not conducted at 600mph as stated by the man who actually did it. Further, quoting third and forth hand parties to the study is a weak form or argumentation and has misled you.

    More importantly, the phrase “Clearly buildings are not designed to withstand……..” is present tense and is a general statement. There is no design standard for aircraft impacts. Buildings are not designed to withstand one. Can you find me a building code which states what kind of aircraft, what speed, angle, fuel load, etc is used to create a standard design.

    In reading body language, I cannot comment as my training is not in that field. However, if this is what you are relying on then I’d like to know what experts there are who agree with you. Now we’re just into interpretation and you’re welcome to yours, but I don’t really see your point. It’s just “hand waving” to me.

    • Did the buildings remain standing after being struck or did they not? According to FEMA and NIST, the jet fuel would have burned off completely after about 5 minutes… (remember that big orange fireball? That was jet fuel being burned up). The NIST report states what it states Woodbourne… anyone can read the quote I put up there, and anyone else can certainly watch his body language and formulate their own conclusions… I stand by mine; those buildings were designed to account for planes flying into them.. as evidence, there is testimony from people who were there, and from NIST themselves… Shyam Sunder’s statement was a lie. I have shown proof of that. His body language tells me that. The fact that the buildings withstood the initial strikes is testimony to the fact that what he was saying was irrelevant anyway.

    • Oh Les Robertson… you’re talking about the guy who assisted John Skilling (WTC designer) and who still had an engineering firm to protect in New York? A guy who stood to loose everything he had worked for his entire life if he gave the “wrong” answer? You mean that guy?

      This is what John Skilling said about the situation in 1993.

      “[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there.”

      Les Robinson

      “Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the Twin Towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further.” http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/

      “The Twin Towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.” http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

      Now, the important thing for you to understand, Woodbourne, is that Robertsons 180mph report is only one of TWO that was conducted that year… according to Robertson himself… of course, no one has ever SEEN his 180 mph study, that I know of.

      “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993). ” http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

      So, according to you, “the most important point” is that the study was the one Robertson did in 1964, that put the speed of the plane at 180mph… well, Woodbourne, that is NOT what Robertson has stated… he has stated there was an earlier report done in 1964 that used max speed of 707 (which only makes sense, why would anyone do a report on a slow moving plane to understand structural weakness?) at 600mph hitting the trade centers.

    • and finally, Sunder knows damn well, that those buildings were indeed designed to withstand the impact of planes crashing into them…

      using you own Les Robertson’s current website…

      “We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land.” http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

      So when Sunder says “Clearly buildings are not designed to withstand……..”, as you point out, Dr. Shyam Sunder is lying. End of story.

      “However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

  14. A few points to both of you:

    1. The only study that was done on this was done in 1964 by Robertson, not Skilling. Please cite an original source (NY Times in 1963?)for this claim. The link you provided only refers to one study about an aircraft as far as I can tell.

    2. You have shown no direct quote by either of them to indicate that they anticpated a 500mph crash. You did find something that repeated something which someone might have said which I is inferior to the actual repeated statements by Robertson who did the study. In fact, you even contradict your own views when you talk about airplanes in the fog if you believe it was designed to handle 500mph plus impacts.

    3. The reasons that a slow moving plane was the study target are pretty clear – planes don’t “cruise” at building height level, and the reason they did the study was that the ESB had been hit at that speed.

    4. The slur on Leslie Robertson’s character is interesting. What evidence do you have that he was “A guy who stood to loose everything he had worked for his entire life if he gave the “wrong” answer?”. This is a very rich 76 year old eminent engineer who would be hard to intimidate. What exactly would he lose if he said we designed them to withstand a collision at 500mph? (He could always say, as Skilling did, that we had no way to model the fires, etc, etc.)

    You simply don’t understand the use of the term “designed to” in this setting. What he means here is that there is no design code in existence which takes this into consideration. That’s why he changes tense – to make it clear to the listener that he’s now giving you the facts on building design and not discussing the WTC towers. Finally, you have two other problems with your contention of lying. First, the study was done after the design was complete, so the buildings weren’t DESIGNED to handle even a low speed impact. Second, you can’t really argue that in 1964 anyone had the computer tools to be at all certain of the result. (If you know more about this than I do, please give me some sources abound both of my contentions.)

    Incidentally, I read this and made the same mistake that you did – thinking that he’s talking about the WTC towers rather than building design. When I saw your video I decided to think about it a bit and I realized that I had not read carefully enough. Once I reread, I understood.

    • Robertson’s own website states:

      ““We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land.” http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

      You can argue “what the definition of “is” is” all you want, but the guy YOU mentioned says it was DESIGNED to resist the impact of a plane… so I have to go with that. Surely, even though you don’t want to concede even that simple and obvious point, it is a fact. Now get used to it.

  15. Shyam Sunder is caught in blatant lies about the WTC Twin Towers structure and strength at PBS’s “New WTC” site.
    Check out this link and listen to the MP3 on the thickness of the steel both at the top and bottom of the WTC.
    Dozens of reports and publications have established that the:

    Thickness of steel at the top of the WTC Twin Tower is 0.25 inch or (1/4) inch
    Thickness of steel toward the bottom of the WTC Twin Tower progressively increases to 4 inchs or four inchs

    Shyam Sunder claims with lies:

    Thickness of steel at the top of the WTC Twin Tower is 0.25 inch or (1/4) inch (This is correct, and not a lie)
    Thickness of steel toward the bottom of the WTC Twin Tower is 0.75 inchs or (3/4) inchs (This is an intentional lie, off or short by 3.75 inches)

    Click on the follow link
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

    Then click on the 911 Conspiracy Theories MP3 link on that page to listen to the interview with Larry Klein, a Nova producer, which reveals the lies as stated above. His whole speil is complete lies and deceptive and misleading falsehoods.

    He is a paid off government employed scientist, a propagandizing liar, put on Nova and PBS and other public forums to deceive the public.
    He is either that, or just a dumb, stupid, and incompetent scientist, with no confirmed scientific proofs, only false theories.

    Check out this site, below, if you wish to learn why the Towers should never have possibly collapsed, without explosives and cutting charges.

    http://chuckboldwyn.vox.com/library/posts/2009/03/

    or you can request my PDF by sending me you email address, as others, including agreeing Engineers have done at:

    cboldwyn@bellsouth.net

    Get the facts based on mass media publications and public announcements in Physics, Math, and Engineering form, based on my Collapse Equation proofs.

    Be highly entertained, shocked, startled, amazed, and literally blown away by my PDF blockbuster documented conclusive proofs…

    Not just another empty theory, but complete analysis and closure of this world perplexing issue…

  16. correction to previous atatement: of by 3.25 inches as stated by Shyam Sunder, the government “hit man” propagandist.

  17. Shyam Sunder is caught in blatant lies about the WTC Twin Towers structure and strength at PBS’s “New WTC” site.
    Check out this link and listen to the MP3 on the thickness of the steel both at the top and bottom of the WTC.
    Dozens of reports and publications have established that the:

    Thickness of steel at the top of the WTC Twin Tower is 0.25 inch or (1/4) inch
    Thickness of steel toward the bottom of the WTC Twin Tower progressively increases to 4 inchs or four inchs

    Shyam Sunder claims with lies:

    Thickness of steel at the top of the WTC Twin Tower is 0.25 inch or (1/4) inch (This is correct, and not a lie)
    Thickness of steel toward the bottom of the WTC Twin Tower is 0.75 inchs or (3/4) inchs (This is an intentional lie, off or short by 3.75 inches)

    Click on the follow link
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

    Then click on the 911 Conspiracy Theories, MP3 link, on that page to listen to the interview with Larry Klein, a Nova producer, which reveals the lies as stated above. His whole speil is complete lies and deceptive and misleading falsehoods.

    He is a paid off, bribed government employed scientist, a propagandizing liar, put on Nova and PBS and other public Zionist supported forums to deceive the public.
    He is either that, or just a dumb, stupid, and incompetent scientist, with no confirmed scientific proofs,no physics equations, Engineering equations, and no Math equations, only false word, story-book, fantasy theories.
    I beleive Sunder’s degree is in
    911 Political Science from the NIST University of New & Unbeleiveable & Unprovable Science

    Check out this site, below, if you wish to learn why the Towers should never have possibly collapsed, without explosives and cutting charges.

    http://chuckboldwyn.vox.com/library/posts/2009/03/

    or you can request my PDF by sending me you email address, as others, including agreeing Engineers have done at:

    cboldwyn@bellsouth.net

    Get the facts based on mass media publications and public announcements in Physics, Math, and Engineering form, based on my Collapse Equation proofs.

    Be highly entertained, shocked, startled, amazed, and literally blown away by my PDF blockbuster documented conclusive proofs…

    Not just another empty theory, but complete analysis and closure of this world perplexing issue…

    Thesis Equation:

    Collapse-Load(110) = 20 x Live-Load(110) = 20 x (5 x Dead-Load(110)) = 100 x Dead-Load(110) = 100 x (94/16) x Dead-Load(16) = 588 x Dead-Load(16) = 2.0 x 10^14 Joules = 48,000 Tons of TNT = 3.2 Atomic Bombs of the Hiroshima Type equivalent energy, most probably in the form of mini-nukes of the the suit case size.

    If your curious nature has become stimulated and you really want to see the concrete proofs, the mind-blowing proofs, then request my PDF or MS Word document by sending me your email address to:

    cboldwyn@bellsouth.net

    I expect, as requested of myself, to publish my 911 WTC Thesis in the American Free Press soon. I am doing the final edit and updating of this ongoing research, which may not be totally concluded for some long time to come, as more and more and more powerful evidence is uncovered to support and conclusively prove my Thesis.

    I especially encourage Physicists, Engineers, and Mathemeticians, and other scientists to request my research work, as you all are the professional people who will most likely be able to understand the physics, engineering, and math I use as proof supports for my Thesis.

    If you can not understand my Thesis, how can you ever hope to scientifically rebutt or debunk it.

    Chuck Boldwyn
    Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor
    4-25-2009

  18. Until one can get one’s proofs of 911 WTC Twin Towers Demolishments/obliterations/collapses into the Main-stream Media, not many people will even become aware of one’s proofs. One has to be published by the mass media to get wide enough credibility for potential action toward Re-Investigation becoming a reality, and for a real unbiased, without government or Zionist influenced interference, international investigation.
    I doubt that USA Government will even allow this, unless the re-investigation can be put on a voter’s ballot, thereby passing a law to mandate the re-investigation of 911, all aspects, and most especially the explosive demolishments of the Twin Towers.

    The Zionist are in control of the Media, our movies, our corrupted video documentaries, our newspapers, our tv news, our major magazines, even our school textbooks.

    Publishing the truth of what really happened on 911 is, in essence, anti-Zionist, therefore you will not be able to get published, at least by main stream mass media controlled by the Zionist Jews.

    The Zionists dominate and control all of the following in our USA:

    Finance
    Wall Street
    Corporations
    Politics
    Government
    Congress
    Senate
    Representatives
    President
    Cabinet
    Justice Dept
    Immigration Dept
    Military Agenda
    Elections
    Education publications
    Education Dept
    Banks
    Federal Reserve
    Housing
    Newspapers
    Magazines
    TV News & documentaries and educational channels
    Radio

    Hollywood
    WTC related documentaries from pro-media & pro-government & pro-Zionist point of view.
    PBS
    Nova
    Scientific American
    National Geographic
    The History Channel
    The Discovery Channel
    many more…

    The truths about the 911 WTC is still being discovered, both material and physical scientific evidence and especially factual & theoretical Thesis explanations

    It is just too bad that everyone does not have a degree in Physics, Engineering, or Math. If they did, then everyone would be competent enough to understand that the total collapses of the Twin Towers was a total impossibility according to the propaganda put out by the government and the mass media and their “hit-man” scientists who would be better called “QUACKS” with no hard core physics, engineering, or math equations evidence accompanied with quantitative evidence. Their Science is only Political Science of the Bush Administration type. They apply anti-Newtonian physics to attempt to prove their theories. They have corrupted the Sciene of Newtonian Physics.

    Chuck

  19. Chuck Boldwyn
    Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor says:

    The internet has repeatedly established the gravity based weight of a single Twin Tower as 500,000 Tons.

    DL(110) = 500,000 Tons

    The weight of the 16 Floor alleged falling block is much less than 73,000 Tons, as the steel is only .25 inches thick at the top, but we will consider the whole Tower to be of uniform thickness.

    DL(16) = 73,000 Tons or less

    The weight of the lower WTC 94 floor block is 430,000 Tons or more as the steel gets progressively thicker and thicker,until it reaches 4 inches thick toward the bottom floors.

    The top alleged falling 16 floor block is less than (1/6) the weight of the lower 94 block.

    Even though the top block was very massive, on a comparitive scale to the lower 94 floor steel, highly intact block, according to the laws of Physics, it could never collapse the topmost 94th floor, floor 94, with its gravity weight of force alone, much less the entire 94 floor steel tower below.

    The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight.

    CL = Collapse Load
    CL(94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, deceased, but published everywhere)

    The Live Load is confirmed by NIST 911 Commision Report Science Guy, Ronald Hamburger to be:

    LL(94) = 5 x DL(94)

    therefore:

    CL(94) = 20 x LL(94)

    and therefore:

    CL(94) = 20 x (5 x DL(94))

    and therefore:

    CL(94) = 100 DL(94)

    According to the above, the very unique Safety Factor is the Collapse Load Factor, whis is:

    100 x DL(110)

    It is not 5 DL(110)
    It is not 20 DL(110)

    It is 100 DL(110)
    & it is 20 x 5 x DL(110)

    Get over it OCT misguided dupes and misguided PHDs.

    This means the the lower 94 block of steel could support 100 blocks of 94 floors before possible total collapse could occur.

    This also means that the lower 94 block of steel could support 588 blocks of 16 floors before possible total collapse could occur, since one 94 block is equal to 5.88 16 floor blocks.

    588 Vector Force units of upward support (stressed Normal Force)against 1 Vector force unit of downward gravity weight force, all by its lonesome.

    Now apply Vector math Addition to opposing Forces to find that the top block could never in one’s wildest dreams totally collapse the lower 94 floor block of powerfully strong and very thick,
    4 inches, steel.

    588 Force units of upward support
    minus
    1 force unit of downward weight Force
    gives 587 force units of non-collapsing support.

    1 Force Unit(FU) = 1 DL(16)

    (588 FU up) – (1 FU down) = 587 FU up.

    No collapse can possibly occur…

    CL(94) = 588 DL(16)

    That is crushing and most devastating news for the Original Conspiracy Theorists in the Government and in the Mass Media.
    They no longer have a lying and deceitful or ignorant leg to stand on.

    Amen, story over using Vector Forces Physics. the Ultimate Truth and Proof.

    That is the Final & Ultimate answer as to why the twin towers could never, ever collapse under the conditions offered by NIST, the Government, the Mass Media, and the big name University and corporate PHDs.

    Since the confirmed discovery of the red and gray nano Thermite active and explosive particles in the WTC dust samples, there is no leg to stand on by the NIST, government and all the “quack” PHDs hired by the Government to do their lying diry work with the Mass Media.

    Game over. Get the Gallows and Guillotines ready!!

    Here is a little bit of shocking information for you OCT people and non physicists to digest.

    You would have to raise the top 16 floor block, the alleged falling block, to a height of 120 miles above the 94 floor block and then drop it. The 16 floor block would drop for 200 seconds and collide with the top of the lower 94 block at a velocity of 4,500 miles per hour with a colliding energy of 1.5 x 10^14 Joules of energy before total collapse could occur.

    That collision energy, 1.5 x 10^14 Joules, is the energy equivalent of 2.4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs or the equivatlent energy of 36,000Tons of TNT or a very large number of mini nuclear devices.

    This is attained only if there is no air resistance, in ideal conditions of Free Fall. Because there is air resistance, the Terminal velocity of about 1200 miles per hour will prevent the top 16 floor block from attaining the required collision velocity and the required collision energy to totally collapse the botton 94 floor steel tower.

    In other work, under any conditions it will be impossible to totally collapse the lower 94 floor tower.

    Amen….End of the Official Conspiracy Unscientific Theory of NIST, the Government, the Mass Media and the retarded PHDs from the Universities and Industry.

    All of those PHDs are shot down in flames, becoming the laughing stock of their students and peers. They all need to retire and spend the money they got for writing and supporting tnose stupid and foolish ideas and theories they have corruptly put forward. Their careers are doomed.

    Chuck Boldwyn
    Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor.
    cboldwyn@bellsouth

    You may request my detailed PDF research report to be emailed to you if you send me your email address at cboldwyn@bellsouth.net.

    You will be amaze and shocked when evaluating my blockbuster research findings.

    Bring on the debunkers, if they are brave and foolish enough to try their foolish best…

    • Is this guy really a Scientist or Just an Actor! HOW CAN THİS GUY STAND UP İNFRONT OF fAMİLİES AND SPEW SUCH NONSENSE WHAT OF MOLTEN STEEL THAT CONTİNUED TO MELT MONTHS AFTERWARDS? DR SHYSTER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: