The Silence of the Physics Professors

[Justin]

Well done Anthony - a good initiative on your part. We'll look forward to the replies if they have the courage to do so.

Justin

[Garrett Cooke]

Anthony,

A good initiative - well done.

It is hardly surprsing that people are reluctant to get involved. Look at it this way though the professors you contacted did not come out and support the official view. They simply sat on the fence not endorsing but not throwing out your statement. Of course we are critical of their stance but they (presumably) are responsible for research facilities and require federal funding for their research programmes employing many people. A lot is at stake for them if they raise the ire of the Governement.

Be of no doubt though; it is impossible that a large plane hit the Pentagon. There is simply too much evidence that one did not.

Garrett

[Andrew Johnson]

Anthony,

Thanks for going that route - it's not one I have trodden much. I have engaged 2 academics and 1 friend who has a PhD in Microbiology.

The 2 academics have never requested further information or made any comments.

My PhD friend ended up saying (following a ping-pong re WTC demolition) "well perhaps the terrorists smuggled explosives aboard the planes".

I ended the discussion there (amicably), as it illustrated to me how people are willing to actually confabulate with the official story (without any evidence) to make it more plausible or comfortable for them.

In my experience, the %ge of people who will actively engage with the issue is currently about 0.1% or less.

But that said, I must follow your example and endeavour to engage more people.

Cheers

[freddie]

sorry, but I have to raise this one last time - Yes, it would be impossible to fit a plane in an 18ft wide hole, but that was only the damage to the 1st floor. The damage to the ground floor is more like 90ft wide. I don't want to debate anything here, but I really need to raise this - why is everyone still saying "18ft hole" when that is clearly incorrect?

[orestes]

Ok, so has everyone seen oilempire? I'm not convinced but they claim that you can see the damage the engines did:







In my opinion, this just shows weakening of exterior parts of the building adjacent to a hole and therefore the beginings of the structural failure that led to the collapse. What do people think? I think they are the only reasonably persuasive images they have.

This one makes me doubt their good faith. There's no damage on the left as their caption says. Unless they mean the left wing broke the window panes! Although the damage nearer the centre hole is interesting.

[freddie]

Anthony L,

I half get what you're saying - Are you suggesting that the wide damage to the ground floor wall and pillars was somehow caused after the 'impact'??



I can't see how that gap of almost 90ft was caused by anything other than the 'impact'. The only earlier photos that seem to show an 18ft hole are very misleading as they are covered in foam and most of the picture is masked.

orestes,

I think with a 60ft gap between the outside edge of each engine they could have fitted into the building, considering the gap is apx 90ft. (Before certain people spit their dummy out and have a go; I am not saying they definately did, just that I'm sick of hearing people say there is no possible way it could have happened).

I don't see any 'weakening' - I see columns gone and wall gone. No sign that anything is left so I must conclude it is gone. The only thing that could be interpreted as 'damaged' but still standing columns are the ones to the right (marked in orange) - but they are not columns at all and are clearly visable as collapsed floor slabs, bending down on their steel supports. This 90ft hole is one of the reasons I lean towards a largish plane hitting.

The 'left wing' damage that they point to shows that the limestone covering has been destroyed, along with some of the brickwork, revealing the now burned/damaged steel beams behind - That is certainly 'damage' in my books and I can't for the life of me see how that pattern of damage would be caused by a missile.

[orestes]

You see, here is my problem. (1)The picture you posted is a fantasy. There's just a bunch of lines. There is no justification for calling what is behind them 'damage'. Particularly the green lines! Come on! yOU CANT EVEN SEE THE WALL PROPERLY! Its utter nonsense. (wasnt suposed to be capitals). What is theleft vertical yellow line pointing to? It appears to apprehend no feature whatsoever. And on the right? Twenty six feet to a random grey bit of wall? And the hilarious 'scabby-wall' in green on the right above the purple. How can you take this site seriously when they print this drivel?

(2) If it was limestone damage from the wing on the left side (my photo)- where is the bloody wing! It would be lying in front of the 'damaged' wall - which just looks a bit charred to me.

(3) Of most suspicion to me. The 'breached limestone' they say (my first photo), and you agree. Now, if the engine had blasted through, why didn't it compel the 'limestone' inwards in front of the engine? Lets go slowly. If the engine pushed the innermost vertical feature in, it could have at most done the same to the next one. Yet that is not even true, they are all three 'on the wonk' as they say in north norfolk. It is unbalanced, but actually at an angle rather than pointing inwards. How could it be in such a position? It makes sense to me if there was an explosion at the centre point of the impact - behind the level of the facade and the structural integrity of the area had been weakened and therefore the supports, weakened by the explosion, leaned. Otherwise why are they not pointing inwards? Even more damning: they are supposed to have been hit by the engine. Yet, the engine is not there. Therefore it (the engine) went in the building. But it didn't push the struts in before it. All three of them. Including at least on that could not have been hit by it but nonetheless is bust in the same fashion as its companions. Very dodgy.

I'm convincable though, as I am officially agnostic on the pentagon. I just think these pictures prove nothing. Where the hell are the photos of the engines?! I agree with you about the 'dummies' comment. There needs to be more sophistication when quoting the hole's width. There is damage wider than that. The question is whether it is consistent with a jetliner.

I don't actually care much anyway: ten seconds under what forces? It also seems to make much more sense if they sent a plane at the pentagon. It just seems easier.

[freddie]

Orestes,

Before I get into it, it is worth mentioning incase people haven't properly looked over these images, that the justification for the lines is not in this picture - this picture is just for reference to the larger picture. The justification is found from a number of closer images; their damage measured in relation to building features and then put together to form these markings - simple as that.

(1) All the lines would make perfect sense if you see the key that should accompany the image - The vertical yellow lines show where the collapse area will be; so there is nothing suspect here.

[freddie]

Hello Anthony,

Cheers for the reply but it doesn't address my point. I don't care what some official story believers say - I care about what I can prove myself. You say that:

[Garrett Cooke]

Anthony,

Checking out Dewdney and Longspaugh's article http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm I note that they state the inter column distance as 3.1 metres and that 4 columns were taken out and a fifth bent (outwards) Total gap as stated in the text 15.5 metres. This is at varience (it would seem) with the diagram included in the article which gives 18.3 metres. However seems otherwise consistent as the 18.3 metres is not mentioned in the article (that I could find). My apologies for stating the 16 feet distance above: as we were told in physics lessons make sure you know what the units are!

I suspect the article you were looking for is by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins at http://www.earth-citizens.net/english.html he backs the idea of F77 hitting the Pentagon and the wings folding up and going in through the hole! Rest of the article is quite good though - as far as I recall.

Garrett

[freddie]

Anthony,

Cheers for pointing us to the article, but I'm afraid it's not convinced me just yet.

[freddie]

Hello Anthony,

Sorry for the delay, having a nightmare sorting out my website...

Before I can reply I need to ask which three columns were the 'damaged but not missing' ones. It appears from what you posted that these are the ones to the right of the hole - the ones that I say have gone and are replaced by slumped limestone / floor slabs.

If you could just clear that up for me,

And if that is the case, then how did the ASCE come to the conclusions that these columns were destroyed prior to collapse? - Was it from studying the rubble or was it from photos?

Peace
Fred