portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

World Trade Center Fire-Induced Failure Hypothesis Violates the Second Law of Thermodynam

Article submitted 13 June 2019 to the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. Fire-induced failure hypothesis disproved. Conclusion relies only on WTC temperatures materially higher than fire. As a corollary, all models based on fire-induced failure can be rejected out of hand. Abyss of structural engineering avoided entirely (these were NOT building failures!).
See attached PDF

several basic Laws of Physics violated (according to 9/11 official story) 31.Dec.2019 19:45

See Also

The Continued Denial of Science in America

In 2017, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest the Trump Administration's denial of science. However, most people in this new science-promoting movement willfully deny basic laws of science when those laws relate to one particularly sensitive subject of national discourse.

For example, many Americans have denied the Law of Conservation of Momentum as it relates to the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. Although conservation of momentum is taught and understood by students in secondary school, the alleged violation of this law is widely accepted by those who are faced with the obvious, evidence-based alternative that explosives were used to bring the buildings down.

Similarly, Americans who support the official account have also denied the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In this case, the top section of the south tower rotated off its axis and should have continued rotating and falling intact along the side of the building but it did not. Instead the top section was simply pulverized in mid air by unseen forces.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy was also violated on 9/11, if one believes the official government account. One way in which this can be seen is with regard to temperatures needed to achieve the government's claim that steel softened throughout a wide swath of each building. The jet fuel and office furnishings in the Twin Towers did not provide the energy needed for the steel components to reach temperatures needed to soften steel. More importantly, molten metal was observed at the site of the WTC destruction and this fact can only be explained by the presence of thermitic materials, for which there is an enormous amount of evidence.

Who Exactly Destroyed The WTC Steel? And Can They Be Held Accountable?

File Cabinets In World Trade Center Towers On 9/11: Where Did They Go?


law of conservation of momentum

Angular Momentum

Conservation of angular momentum

Conservation of energy

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind The Motion

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

9/11 First Transparent, Unbiased Computer Modeling Of WTC 7's Collapse Released

Interview Transcript : Tony Szamboti : On NIST's 9/11 Sins Of Omission

9/11 Tower 7 - A Firefighter's Analysis

9/11 Free Fall 6/8/17: James Corbett and Richard Gage, AIA

9/11: The Pentagon's B-Movie

US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence

16 years on, the controlled demolition of the 9/11 official story

Sixteen More Reasons To Question 9/11

Propaganda Can't Melt Steel Beams (9/11)

Has 9/11 Been Forgotten?

AE911Truth Letter To Editor Of Boston Globe RE: WTC Skyscraper Collapses

9/11: Did Experts, Emergency Responders Know Twin Towers Were Going To Collapse?

Russia Conspiracy vs 9/11 Conspiracy: U.S. Corporate Mass Media

Real Americans Question 9/11

The New York Times' 9/11 Propaganda

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

How To Spy The 9/11 Lie

Architect vs. Blacksmith: Viral 9/11 Truth-Debunking Blacksmith Gets It All Wrong

For the undying 9/11 MORONIC replies

(Kathy Griffin) When Will A U.S. Celebrity Sacrifice Their Career For 9/11?

16 years on, the controlled demolition of the 9/11 official story

My signature statement going back many years. 31.Dec.2019 22:07

Daniel L. Katz PhD

My article amounts to an absolute proof invalidating the hypothesis of fire-induced gravitational collapse. There is a trick. It tends to be easy disproving a wrong but precise hypothesis. And in this context, the maximum temperature of fire is precise. That may be the only thing precise in the official hypothesis. Never mind NIST's vague models based on fire-induced failure. My signature statement going back many years: "A single inconsistency is sufficient to invalidate an hypothesis. This does the trick: Shortly before the alleged gravitational collapses, except for relatively small volumes involved in oxygen starved fires (less than 1,800 °F), the buildings would have been at room temperature. Nevertheless, markers of very high temperature, up to at least 5,000 °F, were ubiquitous in WTC dust and debris. The official gravitational collapse hypothesis would therefore require the spontaneous transfer of heat from low to high temperature, violating the second law of thermodynamics. Q.E.D. "