Attached to this post:

911_chapter_physicsforfuture.zip (821.54 KB)

my email to the author

 

Dear Mr. Muller,

Greetings from a conspiracy theorist who disagrees with your introductory chapter on 9/11.

Do you really agree with what you wrote? That the WTC buildings collapsed because of the fires? I hope you do, so that now I won't be contacting an agent of the true perpetrators!

Perhaps you have studied the volumes published by NIST, and found the errors and omissions negligible. Example of error: The second plane to hit the WTC struck the tower not at a 13 degree angle (which would more easily explain the starboard engine exiting the NE corner of the building), but rather very nearly perpendicular to the face. (Your statement belittling the unlikely precision with which the pilot guided the plane into the tower is called into question. Please see the detailed flight path study here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ .) Note also that the 1st plane hit within 1 meter of the center column. Moreover, "Flight 11" impacted floors that had been upgraded during recent construction (as did the 2nd plane) - http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272 .

I encourage you to watch video of the North Tower "collapsing" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acTcwA_YHuA - and to concentrate on the dust jet that develops on the west side before any piston/air pressure effect could possibly be the cause. Then you should take a good look at Ground Zero-- the quality and quantity of the dust made from glass, metal and stone. Please see the first parts of my video called "9/11 Debris" -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHJ2e6FnKxE -- and Thank You for your time considering this.

I picked up your book today (not purchased) because I figured 9/11 would have to be addressed, considering your title. My excitement to see such a mainstream work of nonfiction supporting the "inside job" thesis, obviously, was unfounded. Nevertheless, I cling to hopes that your physics expertise will discover - and help expose - the truth hidden behind the difficult psychological and social forces that guided your pen.

Again-- thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
Matt Nelson
http://www.911conspiracy.tv

the author's reply

 

Dear Matt,

Thanks for your comments. I hope you don't find your disagreement
with my 911 analysis to discredit the rest of the book in your eyes.

Yes, I really do think the collapse was caused by fire. The energy
released by the fuel was greater than that in the bigger of the North
Korean Nuclear tests. Jet fuel has 15x the energy per pound of TNT.

Buildings are carefully not overbuilt, because it would be dangerous
to make them a lot heavier. So they typically have a safety factor of
1.8. Steel loses half of its strength at 600C. It doesn't have to
soften or melt -- it just gets weak. The remaining fuel in the
building was more than sufficient to cause this much heating, and
after that, the top of the building came down like a pile driver.

Fire is more destructive than an explosion, because it is slow and
steady. In an explosion, most of the energy flies out and is wasted.

I appreciate your respectful disagreement.

Best wishes,

Richard A. Muller
Professor of Physics
U. Calif. Berkeley
ramuller@lbl.gov
www.muller.lbl.gov

elephant room

Nov 8 2009, 07:10 PM

here are the jpgs.

Quote:

 

Yes, I really do think the collapse was caused by fire. The energy
released by the fuel was greater than that in the bigger of the North
Korean Nuclear tests. Jet fuel has 15x the energy per pound of TNT.