Open letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove your ludicrous 9/11 theories in public
By J A Blacker, Science Correspondent
RINF Alternative News
Editor James Meigs
POPULAR MECHANICS
300 West 57 Street
New York, NY
10019-5899
Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI
Physical Systems
Lancaster
England
LA2 6JJ
Saturday, 06 October 2007
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.
(Click on title to see the math)
————————————————————–
It is physically impossible for the strongest, heaviest and (3 times working design load) bottom 80+ floors to offer near zero resistance to the falling floors except when there is a controlled demolition. Period!
Popular mechanics claims in public literature that on 911 it is perfectly acceptable for a falling body to take, what is, the path of greatest resistance.
Physical Systems (Lancaster England) openly and publicly challenges “Popular Mechanics” magazine New York, to demonstrate one single experiment, which shows a falling body taking the path of greatest resistance (Reproducibly), or they remove and recant their ludicrous & physically impossible gravity destruction scenario from the public record.
If 6 months from the date of this formal public challenge (Saturday, 06 October 2007) “Popular Mechanics” Magazine can not reproducibly demonstrate a falling body taking the path of greatest resistance as a result of Gravity alone, then it is Ample evidence to everyone that the Popular Mechanics Magazine assertion that Gravity alone could destroy the twin towers and building 007 at near freefall speed IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE “Popular Myth” & deliberate “Popular Mechanics” DECEPTION or indeed honest misunderstanding Re the laws of Physics.
Physical Systems (Lancaster England) can demonstrate that a falling body ALWAYS, without exception, takes the path of least resistance (Reproducibly). In the case of controlled demolition the path of least resistance is often within the building footprint as seen with the destruction of WTC001, WTC002 & WTC007 on Sep 11 2001 and many other such demolitions.
Kind regards
J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)
False Flag Section has more related reports
