Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Michelle Malkin (35 days and still no response e-mail) points out a barking moonbat-of-the-day article from a physics professor that thinks 9/11 and the WTC was an 'inside job':
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTCAs most of you know, while I'm not a physicist or even close to being a physicist, I am somewhat versed in the more basic laws of engineering, chemistry, and physics. I distinctly remember someone e-mailing me (how they tracked me, I don't know) a few years ago and trying - trying to convince me that those 'puffs of smoke' were actually pre-planted explosives detonating.The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
And I tried to explain to this person the basic understanding of Boyle's Law, which simply put is: p1V1 = p2V2, where Boyle's Law indicates that for a fixed amount of gas (fixed number of moles) at a fixed temperature, the pressure and the volume are inversely proportional.
My 'simple reasoning': as the upper structure of the WTC towers started to fail, i.e., the steel beams were crumbling/melting, the weight of the upper floors was too much to support and they started 'pancaking' - top floor falls onto the one beneath it, then that floor falls under the weight of its materials AND that of the floor above it that just fell, etc, etc.
Boyle's Law comes in here: as the upper floors collapsed and fell onto the floor(s) beneath, the volume of air on that particular floor was suddenly 'pushed' out of the windows - that's the 'puff of smoke' that appears to be a controlled demolition and that's a crock; with the pressure increasing from the sudden compression of the air on any given floor (from the ceiling falling down) and the volume being constant (as by design), the volume of air/smoke has to escape somehow and it does so by blowing out the windows.
Now before someone points out that I'm forgetting to include the dynamics of the fire that melted the steel in the building, YES I realize that.....that's why I've referred to my theory as 'simplified'.
As to why this physics prof is going out on a limb to 'prove' that this was a controlled demolition....I don't know. Maybe he's under pressure to produce a paper - on anything - just to keep his administrative bosses as BYU happy. Maybe he's inhaled too many industrial cleaning agents in the lab late at night.
And if my simplified explanation isn't enough for you, Michelle Malkin also points to all of these crackpot black helicopter theories being shot to Hell by Popular Mechanics. And any man with a modicome of mechanical knowledge knows that those guys at PM know their stuff - otherwise it would be another 'Home & Garden' magazine.
Okay, I'll confess. I was on the grassy knoll.
Read more in Boyle's Law on the WTC CollapseThese are the same morons who claim that the "passenger airliner" that my friend heard fly 75 fee
Read more in Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse
Mad Mikey said:
Your cohort Francis W. Porretto---the first comment posted above---describes himself as a "sof
Read more in Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse
Magna_Veritas said:
Your cohort Francis W. Porretto---the first comment posted above---describes himself as a "softwa
Read more in Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse
Mad Mikey said:
Oh, and how do you explain the molten metal found in the rubble? Or the fires that smoldered f
Read more in Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse
fastcomment said:
So you're a proponent of the 'pancaking' theory. (There are many official theories, all contradic
Read more in Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse
Trackback Information for Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/128039Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse'.
Comments on Boyle's Law on the WTC Collapse
Well, as it happens, I am a physicist, and what Jones has hypothesized is arrant nonsense. A demolition by planted explosives would have had an entirely different collapse profile, certainly not the "pancake" collapse we all observed from the television coverage.
You can tell him I said so.
|| Posted by Francis W. Porretto, November 13, 2005 04:32 PM ||So you're a proponent of the 'pancaking' theory. (There are many official theories, all contradictory.) Now why don't you explain why there was no stack of concrete/steel floors to be found at the base of the rubble pile? Why did the towers explode into dust -- as they clearly did not 'collapse'?
Oh, and how do you explain the molten metal found in the rubble? Or the fires that smoldered for 100 days? (Magical stuff, that jet fuel.)
I guess your misapplication of Boyle's law also explains the large squib seen OVER FIVE STORIES below the collapse zone. And the squibs going UP the wall of WTC7.
The idiotic PopMech hit-piece that was written by the first cousin of Vaterland Security chief Chertoff after the magazine was purged of dissenters is utterly annihilated here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
If you care about freedom, you will want to study that website.
|| Posted by fastcomment, November 13, 2005 07:02 PM ||Oh and to the alleged physicist in the comment above: the only difference is the order in which the explosives were detonated, in the towers the direction was from top to bottom. (WTC7 was a classic demolition.)
Oh, and how do you explain the molten metal found in the rubble? Or the fires that smoldered for 100 days? (Magical stuff, that jet fuel.)
Oh my God.....didn't I just write in the post that my explanation was a simplistic one!?! Can you not read?
If I had wanted to invest several hours in detailed analysis of the collapse of the towers, I would have done so. But it wouldn't have deterred you from posting the same moonbat comment.
To be honest, I don't have the time nor the inclination to attempt an analysis - I'll leave that for physicists/engineers more adapt at it than I am. My intent for this was to simply show that this physics clown from BYU must have been inhaling too many cleaning agents for his own good.
As I wrote, I attempted to discuss this with that emailing fool a few years back and got no where. I can see the writing on the wall where you are concerned and don't feel like wasting more time than is necessary.
The science of this clown's theory *might* have some merit, but since I don't see oodles and oodles of science guys coming out of the woodwork to back up his claim(s), I'll leave people such as yourself to sit and ponder your navel lint while pondering how to show something where there isn't anything to be 'seen'.
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, November 14, 2005 10:52 AM ||Your cohort Francis W. Porretto---the first comment posted above---describes himself as a "software engineer" on his Amazon.com profile. That makes him a "physicist"? No more than it makes you proficient in Boyle's Law---let alone spelling. Keep your scurrilous comments about a bona fide physics professor "inhaling cleaning fluids" to yourself, and don't offer commentary on arguments you obviously won't and can't refute.
|| Posted by Magna_Veritas, November 14, 2005 01:33 PM ||Your cohort Francis W. Porretto---the first comment posted above---describes himself as a "software engineer" on his Amazon.com profile. That makes him a "physicist"?
Unless you're a complete moron, most engineers - software or otherwise - have to take quite a few physics courses, from mechanics up to and including quantum physics. It makes him more of a physicist than most lay people.
No more than it makes you proficient in Boyle's Law---let alone spelling.
I'll take that as an admission that you're not close to being a physicist.
Keep your scurrilous comments about a bona fide physics professor "inhaling cleaning fluids" to yourself...
Or what - you'll email him and narc me out? Kiddo, you've not 'gotten' the point of a personal web log or 'blog' - I can say whatever the f*ck I want.
...and don't offer commentary on arguments you obviously won't and can't refute.
And you can? I eagerly await your minimum 2000 word, detailed analysis in my e-mail inbox by COB Thursday.....or are you just full of shit?
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, November 14, 2005 07:29 PM ||These are the same morons who claim that the "passenger airliner" that my friend heard fly 75 feet above his van on I-395 and WATCHED hit the Pentagon was really a missile.
Oh, yeah...
And there were no Jews killed at the WTC, no matter how many people with 'stein' in their last name you find in the first column of this list.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, November 15, 2005 06:56 AM ||Okay, I'll confess. I was on the grassy knoll.
|| Posted by Cait, November 18, 2005 07:30 AM ||