9/11 Physics Debate for 2015
Pi Day (3/14/15 = 3.1415...) and Einstein's Birth Day
3:00 Dr. Griscom's time / 5:00 Dr. Barrett's
Suggested Topics / General Outline


As for subject material, I would like to have a chance to talk about shock waves, which occur only when the applied shock is faster than the speed of sound in the material struck.

In the case of the plane that struck WTC2 the shock of collision was way too weak to generate shock waves in the aluminum air frame, and thus the wings and tail did not fall off before they reached the building (contrary to Fetzer's view).
But consider the case of the steel spire on WTC1 caught in several videos going fuzzy, then undulating(!), and finally starting to brake up and disappear as it began to fall.  This is a classic case of what strong shock waves can do.  So what brought down the spire had to have been a high explosive like TNT placed to destroy the column lower down.  The initial pressure shock waves go up and down the column, constantly reflecting from the steel outer surface as tensile waves which cause spallation of the steel surface at about twice as fast as the intial pressure wave.  That's surely what caused the fuzzy halo. 
Ironically, the perps, with at least 10 years in the development phase, may well have discovered this phenomenon by trial and error.  I learned by reading the "bible" of impact geology, where a comet or asteroid strikes the earth at ~10 to 50 km/second, crushing the earth in its footprint to a depth of about one impactor diameter at which point the shock waves generated from the contact at the crushed bottom reach upward to the top of the impactor, whereupon the spallation created by returning tensile waves results in a mother of all explosions.

* Would Albert Einstein be a Truther?
(light, timely topics to start with)


Would Sir Isaac Newton be a Truther?

* Newton's 3 Laws of Motion and how they specifically relate to 9/11.

 1: Inertia: an object at rest tends to stay at rest,
an object in motion stays in motion,
unless acted on by an external force. 
What force could propel 4 ton beams laterally 600 feet at 60 mph?
It would take an explosive force - with explosives.

2: Force = mass x acceleration
What can account for such a force, besides explosives?

3: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
As the top floors crush down, the floors below crush up.
So there was less and less mass to exert on the lower, stronger floors

* List of physicists who question 9/11
Why do 9/11 Falsers still assume and claim to have scientists behind them?
when we have all the scientists who are saying anything about 9/11
and comparing their credentials with the NeoCons 

Bush Story of 9/11 Physics

Scientists for 9/11 Truth Physics

Story of the World Trade Center collapse and death of 3000 people that "justifies" preemptive wars of aggression, killing millions more.  BS911 is still used to take away our Constitutional liberties, and keep America in a perpetual state of fear and war, for military industrial complex profits.

Steven Jones, PhD
PhDs in Physics who demand a new, independent, scientific investigation of 9/11, justice for the victims, and prosecution of the real perpetrators. 

George Bush - Yale, BA History, Harvard MBA average
Dick Cheney - flunked out of Yale, U Wyoming MA Poli Sci
Donald Rumsfeld - BA Political Science, Princeton
Larry Silverstein - BA, Art, NY Univ, real estate billionaire
Phillip Zelikow - Tufts U Law School, myth specialist
Paul Wolfowitz - U of Chicago, Political Science
General Ralph Ebberhart - USAF, Navy War College
and more NeoCons at www.911Suspects.com

Dr. David Griscom - PhD, Physics, Brown University
Scientist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, NASA, DARPA
Dr. John Wyndham - PhD, Physics, Cambridge University, CalTech
Dr. Crockett Grabbe - PhD, Physics, CalTech
Dr. Steven Jones - PhD, Physics, Vanderbilt University
Dr. Guthrie Miller - PhD Stanford, Princeton, SLAC, LosAlamosLab

Dr. Timothy Eastman - PhD, Physics, U. Alaska, NASA scientist
and more physicists at
Dr. John Wyndham (Phd, Physics, Cambridge) paper to the www.IEEE.org convention
criticizing NIST

Co-Founder of ScientistsFor911Truth.org
and ScientificMethod911.org

 Paper at 2014 IEEE Conference


Dr. Carl Sagan's first wife Dr. Lynn Margulis  (1938-2011)
was a Truther, and featured on AE911Truth's Experts Speak Out

Carls son Jeremy Sagan is Truthers
(Jeremy would be a good guest on Truth Jihad.  He spoke on the 911FreeFall Show.

Would Carl Sagan be a Truther?

We contacted 28 universities and 2 physics societies

The idea was that these same physicists would be the judges of today's debate.

individual email addresses available

* Rick advertised for the debate on Michael Shermer's Skeptic Society forum,

  since James Randi and D.J. Grothe disowned the JREF forum, we criticized in last year's debate
  now running under the name International Skeptics Forum.  The ISF still bans
  me and other Truthers. At least the Skeptic Forum allows me to post
  and even start a thread called "9/11 Falsers are Dummies".
  They had no offers for a candidate for the physics debate. (see attached).

Here is a question that often pops up on the Skeptic Forum
accusing Bentham of being a "vanity journal".  
Here is my response.  A vanity journal has no peer review.  But Bentham uses peer review.
When a scientist pays $600 to be reviewed by Bentham, he has no knowledge of who the peers will be, much less any influence over them.  The payment is not a guarantee it will be published.  The scientist risks his money, and better be very sure his paper is good.  Or he loses his money with NO REFUNDS if it is not published.  If anything, that is a good filter.  It is a new model for the internet age.  The payment keeps the sponsoring society going, and pays the peer reviewers,often busy professors, and possibly a stipend for their time.
If it is ok to ask, are the Bentham peer reviewers paid from the $600 fee? 
It would be good to establish in this call, that Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones et al. did not know you were going to be one of the peer reviewers.
You came forward because you saw the paper being unfairly criticized.
How did you come to know about Bentham?
Do you know the other peer reviewer(s)?
Otherwise, I sincerely doubt that Bentham, or any journal, demands big money just to pass your paper off to referees.  I've had a few rejections by referees who were either jealous or clueless ...and I'm pretty sure that NRL didn't pay for those rejected papers (which I subsequently published elsewhere).  Referees are not paid by anyone, so a journal passing a manuscript to free referees is something a permanent secretary could handle rapidly at a cost of a few bucks.  And, no, no referee is ever told who the other(s) were.
Yes, I went forward partly to support their work, who I knew were being trashed. However, I outed myself as a part of my 2010/09/11 blog post featuring both the Haritt et al. paper, and the USGS flyovers, together with some original work of my own.
When I reviewed the then-Jones et al. paper, Bentham's MO seemed to me to be no different from, say, that of Physical Review.  And it is not uncommon for authors to suggest referees, which the editor will commonly accept if those people are from a different laboratory.  Whether they do so or not, they never tell the authors who their reviewers were.  (That said, I am a perpetual signer of my referee remarks, and I never reject borderline papers if the authors take advantage of the improvements that I commonly suggest.)
It is lucky that Haritt et. al. were able to publish in Bentham, because a lot of journals were probably pressured to reject it




Oystein's Question about "Vector"

Here is a question that "Papa Oystein" of the Skeptic Forum brought up,

criticizing your use of the word "vector" in last year's debate when you said:
"gravity's vector is directed downwards."   This would be good to resolve today.
Rick can be the "devil's advocate" or "empty chair" and ask Dr. Griscom questions from the Skeptic forum
Out of the 1000+ words you spoke, Oystein goes on and on about this.


Re: 9/11 Falsers are Dummies

... Making the font bigger will not make me answer stupid questions. He stated well over 1000 words, and you are trying to make a big thing about the word vector, which has several definitions in Wikipedia, including for mathematics and physics: "physical quantities that have both magnitude and direction". ...

Re: 9/11 Falsers are Dummies

... you shamefully avoided answering the question the previous five times: Is what Dr. Griscom said a correct statement: " The energy , its vector, is directed downward "? Please first admit that what he SAID was FALSE. Thank you. You would then have to prove that he meant something ...
by TruthMakesPeace
Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:13 am
Forum: Conspiracies
Topic: 9/11 Falsers are Dummies
Replies: 404
Views: 4035


Re: 9/11 Falsers are Dummies

... you shamefully avoided answering the question the previous five times: Is what Dr. Griscom said a correct statement: " The energy , its vector, is directed downward "? Please first admit that what he SAID was FALSE. Thank you. You would then have to prove that he meant something .
by Papa_Oystein
Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:25 am
Forum: Conspiracies
Topic: 9/11 Falsers are Dummies
Replies: 404
Views: 4035

Re: 9/11 Falsers are Dummies

...re Griscom: whether he spoke inaccurately about energy and its vector (and whether that can be written off as a minor mistake by someone talking spontaneously or whether it's like a Catholic Priest talking about the Holy Quadrangle instead of the Holy ...
by Papa_Oystein
Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:40 pm
Forum: Conspiracies
Topic: 9/11 Falsers are Dummies
Replies: 404
Views: 4035



Note on www.MarkBasile.org project - taking WTC dust to an independent lab.

It is coming along, although slow, and we should have a report soon.



.911 Bitcoin award

Rick will send .911 to Dr. Griscom via www.CoinBase.com
The transaction number will be posted so anyone can check it out in the public block chain.