- The following letter was sent by Eric Harrington, a physicist
who lives in Ojai, CA, to Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News...
-
- Dear Mr. Carrol,
-
- I am responding to your article slandering the legitimate
questions posed by numerous scientists, engineers, pilots, even international
(often Republican) politicians regarding the flaws in the "official
account" of 9/11.
-
- "Let us dip our toe again into" a couple of
the bogus rebuffs posed by the "experts" at Popular Mechanics.
-
- Pop Mech- "As the fires blazed and the temperatures
rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during
impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns."
-
- Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC
video's carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the
corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core columns.
It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a substantially
larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial impact and for the
most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the south tower which
fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at a point when the fires
had greatly diminished.
-
- In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible
for the thermal testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples
tested for the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg
for 6 hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that
is without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns
at only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not indicated
by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was nothing contained
within the buildings that could have raised this figure, and those that
use the example of ancient furnaces that tempered steel as a argument,
again, do not understand the principles involved. I suggest
that if you want the truth, and wish to actually act like a journalist
for a change, you broach this subject with a real expert, Mr. Ryan. I can
put you in touch with him upon request.
-
- But more important than the issue of the likelihood of
the steel failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the unimpeded
acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the roof, at the
moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at the same time
as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened at the fire zone)
that the when the top section of the building began to fall it managed
to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and undamaged steel -- literally
thousands of huge beams and concrete pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE
(i.e.. slowing of the rate of fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir,
is physically impossible and verging on the absurd, and I (a physicist),
and anyone with a shred of knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain
common sense can understand that.
-
- And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date
unanswered) to anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging
little problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct,
it lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE
beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left standing
like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors pancaked symmetrically
around them. The less resistance to this collapse scenario exhibited by
the building's design, the more likely the central core would remain virtually
untouched. It is a paradox.
-
- Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts
and the scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so
at odds with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe.
And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these issues
with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as long
as it can be videotaped for posterity.
-
- I will not even get into the dozens of other patently
absurd explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills
and publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical evidence
at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale, while suppressing
the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but suffice to say that
when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely
with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the truth, and
not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and simply request
that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents be pursued with
the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common mugging would be
given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive and growing in this
country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade to nothing more than
corporate propaganda machines, and deface the sacrifice of the 3000 who
were murdered.
-
- As for your contemptuous tone of which I have tried to
mimic in this reply, to quote Shakespeare, "Me thinks thou dost protest
too much."
-
- Sincerely,
-
- Eric Harrington
- Ojai, Ca
|
