Popular Mechanics - Prove ludicrous 9/11 theories in public

[Mick Meaney]

Open letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove your ludicrous 9/11 theories in public

By J A Blacker, Science Correspondent
RINF Alternative News

Direct challenge to “Popular Mechanics” - Show us the Physics & Maths to back up your ludicrous & “physically impossible” 911 gravity collapse assertions - PHYSICAL SYSTEMS (Lancaster England)

Here are the clear facts of the ~ 417 m tower destruction:

Physics Proof showing 9/11 was a Demolition.

by J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems) (Lancaster England)

First we must identify what we already know as FACT: -

Twin towers 1 & 2 were 1,368 ft and 1362 ft respectively. Let us take the taller to be conservative. We know near the surface of the earth at sea level we can use g = 9.81 m/s2 (metres per second per second), which is a scientifically accepted approximation. We know the towers fell in 10 Seconds due to the siesmic records and the copiouse video evidence. Secondly we must convert to SI units: g is measured in metres per second per second, d must be measured in metres, t in seconds. Distance fallen d = 416.97 Metres. g = 9.81 m/s2 . t = 10 Seconds Let us find out how much time it would take to fall the actual hight 417 m in an ideal vacuum.

We know that air resistance always slows a falling body, we will disregard air resistance & other slowing effects so as to keep the maths simple whilst at the same time giving a realistic accurate conservative value.

Read entire letter (contains images).

[spiv]

And what's the bet that silence will be the stern reply from Popular Mechanics - until, of course, we get another load of old cobblers next time a 'documentary' is being made.

The physics does indeed prove that the three trade towers just could not have fallen as the clowns in P/M say they did.

[Mick Meaney]

We've got receipt that it's been delivered to James Meigs, if they do ignore it it's going to work in our favour.. just a small stepping stone we have to take.

[Bongo]

Spiv, the Popular Mechanics issue is no different from the other issue with the BBC & Dr K Seffen that we are dealing with at the moment.

A lot of Flapping of gums coming from the controlled media, but no sensible words escaping through their slabbering gobs i'm afraid.

[Mick Meaney]

[outsider]

[Mick Meaney]

[TonyGosling]

Popular Mechanics owned and published by the devil himself?
Now these evil so-and-sos are propagandising for Fracking
what is the point of free speech when only the super rich and morally bankrupt have the right to be heard?
There's lots of money in lies

Is Fracking Safe? The Top 10 Controversial Claims About Natural Gas Drilling
Members of Congress, gas companies, news organization, drilling opponents: They've all made bold claims about hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the U.S. supply of underground natural gas. We take on 10 controversial quotes about natural gas and set the record straight.

And there are 11 more of these - wholly paid for by the liars of the energy industry
Claim No. 2
"HYDRAULIC FRACTURING SQUANDERS OUR PRECIOUS WATER RESOURCES."
Green Party of Pennsylvania, April 2011
There is no question that hydraulic fracturing uses a lot of water: It can take up to 7 million gallons to frack a single well, and at least 30 percent of that water is lost forever, after being trapped deep in the shale. And while there is some evidence that fracking has contributed to the depletion of water supplies in drought-stricken Texas, a study by Carnegie Mellon University indicates the Marcellus region has plenty of water and, in most cases, an adequate system to regulate its usage.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myt hs-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-2