In the blog post Downward Acceleration of the North Tower, by David Chandler, AE911Truth, Mr. Chandler deduces from the application of Newton's third law (For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction) to the visual evidence of the North Tower collapse, the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less that the force exerted by the top block at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred.

What follows is another way to apply Newton's third law to the problem, perhaps even easier to understand, and it yields the same result: Gravitational collapse theories are impossible.

No matter what your views are concerning who caused the events of 9/11 to unfold and the details of how those events were carried out, it seems very difficult to argue convincingly against the idea that the U.S. government has taken advantage of those events to restrict the basic freedoms that are enumerated within the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, due to our wonderful educational system and general public apathy from having it too good for too long, losing freedom is somewhat of an abstract idea—especially when it occurs incrementally over a sufficiently long period of time.

The concept of freedom is one that we all take for granted one that that we feel we understand, but I would contend that most people in fact do not sufficiently understand it at all. In all the history of human civilization, in fact, very few people have.

This is the thesis of "The Discovery of Freedom" by Rose Wilder Lane. This book was published in 1943 while a certain war was going on, and it is one of those books that can make you say "Ah, ha! Now I get it!."

Ideas penned over 60 years ago that aptly apply themselves today...

Excerpt from the chapter entitled The Humanitarian with the Guillotine, by Isabel Paterson
Reprinted from The God of the Machine by Isabel Paterson, published in 1943.

Here is an example of where a typical layperson can go horribly astray when confronted with what he or she may assume to be an elementary physics problem. Au contraire!

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time. Which one hits the ground first?

Answer: This is actually a bit of a trick question.

Prior to 9/11/01, 100% of Advanced Physics Degree professionals would have agreed with the lesser-educated, "common sense" crowd and said that the building with nothing but air beneath it would strike the ground considerably faster than the other, which, quite honestly, could not really be expected to burrow its way through a 90-story building to reach the ground at all.

Attached to this blog is a easily-downloadable (300K), 30 page pdf containing eleven 9/11 essays I have collected. These essays were not written to provide facts and hard evidence, but instead address the human psychological aspects of the 9/11 events.

From the introduction:

The essays that make up this document are not primarily focused on presenting evidence that supports the theory that 9/11 was an inside job. That evidence is so abundant and has been presented so many times and in so many ways that to restate it here would be redundant.

So let's begin with a literary passage:

It appears that the US is counting down towards an attack on Iran. The groundwork is currently being laid in the form of MSM propaganda designed to win the support of the public. Of course that will not be enough on its own—no matter how Iran is demonized through the media—and so something big and bad will have to happen and then be blamed on Iran in order for the public to back US aggression against that country.

The propaganda effort is painting the picture of a hostile and aggressive Iran that can easily and plausibly be blamed for any catastrophic events that may occur in the future. After all, this is a rogue state trying to develop nuclear weapons. Its government supports the Iraqis that are killing US troops by supplying them munitions and training. It helps fund terrorism, the scourge of the modern world. This is a dangerous country that has to be watched very carefully.

Any explanation for the collapses of the World Trade Center Twin Towers seems to necessarily involve a complex interaction of events, the evaluation of these intracacies best being left to the expertise of physicists and engineers. When all is said and done, we must respect their judgement on the subject because after all who are we, as laypersons, to question the conclusions derived by these learned professionals.

The title of this blog is 2+2=5, which you all recognize as a very basic mathematical statement. Is it a true statement? I possess a degree in mathematics, and I contend that it is. For those of you who do not possess advanced degrees in mathematics, I ask you—Who are you to challenge my assertion?

Well, I hope you simply would respond to me along these lines: "Because 2+2=4 is such a basic mathematical fact that one doesn't need advanced study to understand this simple concept, and so it is easy to refute your absurd 2+2=5 statement."

And you would be perfectly justified in your response. Now let's take this a step further. If I develop an intricate, mathematically-complex theory that has as its very foundation the statement 2+2=5, then you would be justified in discounting my entire theory, regardless of if you are qualified or not to understand all the subtleties therein, because it is based upon a simple assumption that anyone who is willing to exercise any type of critical thinking can identify as blatantly false.

Know someone who needs something "more convincing" than ironclad logic and undeniable physics? Read on.

Gravitational collapse believers have the idea in their heads that the tops of the Twin Towers (above the airplane impacts) fell down upon the lower portions of the buildings and crunched them. I have read the genius analogies like "imagine a bowling ball falling onto a stack of glass tables" that are used to paint a picture of these huge piledrivers effortlessly smashing the buildings below them. Of course the obvious response is that the tops and bottoms of the towers were constructed identically (actually stronger on the lower floors), so the analogy needs to be more like "imagine a stack of 20 or 30 glass tables falling onto a stack of 80 or 90 glass tables..." But anyway.

If you show the following link to (a reasonable) someone who feels that the tops of the Twin Towers crushed the bottoms, then I think they may be forced to change their mind on the subject. This frame by frame analysis shows the tops being destroyed much more rapidly than the bottoms at the initiation of the collapses. In the case of Tower One, the top above the plane impact crunches down a few floors BEFORE any of the floors below the impact begin to collapse. What does this mean, exactly? It means that if the tops were being destroyed even at the same rate as the bottoms, then after 20 or 30 floors of collapse there would be nothing left to drive the collapse (it couldn't even progress this far, as the ever-diminishing masses of the tops would cause a decelerating collapse which eventually would not be enough to further collapse floors below them). Nothing more than common sense at work here.

Here is a short little something you all may find to be good reading:

http://mobile.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/02/shameful_retreat_american_values/

Here is an example of where a typical layperson can go horribly astray when confronted with what he or she may assume to be an elementary physics problem. Au contraire!

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time. Which one hits the ground first?

Answer: This is actually a bit of a trick question.

Prior to 9/11/01, 100% of Advanced Physics Degree professionals would have agreed with the lesser-educated, "common sense" crowd and said that the building with nothing but air beneath it would strike the ground considerably faster than the other, which, quite honestly, could not really be expected to burrow its way through a 90-story building to reach the ground at all.

However, since 9/11/01, physicists have learned that the answer is actually "there will be no difference in the rate of descent between the two 20-story buildings. They will both strike the ground at the same time."

With rumors of an "October Surprise" coming, perhaps a break in the anthrax case is just what the NeoCon doctor ordered for November. First, history and conventional wisdom need to be changed a bit so we can pin the crime on an appropriate foreign source [My comments in brackets]:

FBI Is Casting A Wider Net in Anthrax Attacks

By Allan Lengel and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 25, 2006; Page A01

Five years after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, the FBI is now convinced that the lethal powder sent to the Senate was far less sophisticated than originally believed, widening the pool of possible suspects in a frustratingly slow investigation.

The finding, which resulted from countless [countless? like millions and billions?] scientific tests at numerous laboratories [which ones?], appears to undermine the widely held belief [see, it was just an urban myth; a rumor] that the attack was carried out by a government scientist or someone with access to a U.S. biodefense lab.

What was initially described as a near-military-grade biological weapon was ultimately found to have had a more ordinary pedigree [we have gone from "appears to undermine" to "ultimately found" in a single paragraph leap], containing no additives and no signs of special processing to make the anthrax bacteria more deadly, law enforcement officials [Law enforcement officials? Could we have a more generic term, please?] confirmed. In addition, the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned out to be more common than was initially believed, the officials said [Well, if the officials believe it, how can one argue?].

Make sure you and everyone you know signs the petition for the support of Professor Steven Jones at BYU. They are looking for 10,000 signatures, and are currently a little over 2,200. The petition began 9/11/06, and after a quick start, the number of new sigs every day has flattened out at only 50-60 per day. Let's give it a boost.

The petition states:

Dr. Steven Jones has done extensive scientific analysis on physical evidence pertaining to the attacks of 9/11/01. The importance of such work cannot be overstated. BYU, where he has been employed as a physics professor, has placed him on paid leave while it reviews his findings. This petition is in support of Dr. Jones, his work, the thorough examination by qualified professionals, and subsequent peer review, of physical evidence pertaining to the attacks of 9/11/01, and whatever conclusions or implications that are rationally derived from such data.

Go here to sign:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/525834923

This should send a chill...

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/24/ward.htm

If nothing else, pay attention to the third-to-last paragraph. World Can't Wait is trying to organize a national boycott/demonstartion on October 5. Get involved! Check out their website and find a local chapter:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/

There is information at 911truth.org as well:

http://www.911truth.org/index.php

All 911 truthers should participate, as this could be a great opportunity to spread the word.