I have been spending the last few hours trying to come up with a way to compare the explosive forces between the '93 bomb and the plane impacts of 2001. However, my lack of expertise in this area of physics, pertaining to kinetic energy, explosive force, pressure, etc. is preventing me from making any sort of informed conclusion. On the other hand the information I have gathered suggests ( and I use that term lightly) that a bomb ( on the order of magnitude used in the '93 bombings: The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa (Giga Pascal) and opening a 30-meter-wide (98 foot) hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_1993_bombings#Bomb_characteristics) planted in the sub-level basement (which houses the critical main support for the tower) had a much larger probability of collapsing the building than an impact of a 767 carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel nearly 1,000 feet up from the basement.

It's long but trust me, it's a quick read....

What do you all think about this? I remember the laws discussed in 8th grade science but I’m not into physics enough to know if any of this helps explain the "impossible collapse theory" . ANyone here into physics that could comment on this?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free-Falling Bodies
Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie

Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check

On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapsed. People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated ad nauseam on television for days.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, Robert Gates, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current Secretary of Defense stated (cached), “The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”

I have had the following discussion with Zdenek P. Bazant, co-author of
the 9/11 Twin Towers collapse theory article titled "Why did the Twin
Towers Collapse -- Simple Analysis." Unfortunately he has not answered
all of my questions regarding his model of the collapse, probably just
because he is busy or not inclined to do so. I am sure it is not
because he is unqualified to answer my questions or because he is
involved in deliberately misleading the public about the nature of the
WTC destruction as part of some conspiracy or something. So, I am
asking any physicists or engineers if they can shed light on this
subject. I would like to be able to understand how Dr. Bazant's theory
explains the utter destruction of the Twin Towers in the manner recorded
and witnessed on September 11, 2001.

MY FIRST MESSAGE:

> Date: Friday, May 4, 2007
> Subject: Re: Regarding your WTC collapse hypothesis
> Dear Professor Bazant,
>
> I have read with interest your 2001 paper entitled "Why Did
> the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis". I wonder
> if you might take some time out of your busy schedule to
> satisfy my curiosity.
>

Hopefully this embed script works, this was posted today on rosie's video blog. Im not sure how often she does this i just noticed the second one of two today, the previous one has no mention of 9/11. YOU GO ROSIE!!!

Flyby News Notes -
Editor - Jonathan Mark - flyby@flybynews.com
January 4, 2007 - Impeach the Crooks * Paulson Arrested
"
"He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. "

-- Agamemnon

This was quoted by Robert F Kennedy in his speech announcing the
assassination of Martin Luther King on 4 April 1968; and the epitaph
his family inscribed on his grave marker in Arlington National Cemetery.

1) 9-11 Fiasco – True or False
- - Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don’t Exist
- - Prof. Steven Jones Quits Scholars for 9-11 Confusion
- - Arrest and Try Bush & Cheney for Global Crimes of 9/11
- - Reopen 9/11 investigation, local group says
- - Impeachment - World Can’t Wait
- - The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War
- - Senseless 'Sacrifice' in Iraq Must End
2) U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Arrested in Europe

Editor's Notes:

Manuel Garcia, a national weapons lab scientist, has attempted to debunk 9/11 skeptics with a defense of the NIST appearing in Alexander Cockburn's leftist magazine, Counterpunch.
Garcia's analyses of the fall times and heat issues in the trade center collapses is quite skimpy and mostly irrelevant. I have talked with more than one physicist who is extremely skeptical of the government claims and hence wary of Garcia's analyses.
Cockburn also writes a column for the progressive magazine The Nation, which recently ran a lead article by English professor Christopher Hayes accusing 9/11 skeptics of fomenting paranoia. Physicist Josh Mitteldorf has publicly questioned Hayes' reasoning.
Garcia, who has championed the cause of Wen Ho Lee and fought polygraph testing at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has a PhD in aeronautical and mechanical engineering from Princeton University and has done plasma physics research for the weapons lab, where he has worked since 1978.
Previously, the noted scientist and socialist Noam Chomsky has pooh-poohed 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Further details are posted on my blog at znewz1.blogspot.com.
A relevant post is found at

There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
PHYSICS.
REACTION/deflection
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Then there is
TERMINAL BALLISTICS.