3 votes

Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible

An explanation for the intelligent layman.

The impossibility of the official story of the WTC tower collapses on 911 can be shown by a relatively simple set of calculations. These will show that the fuel required for the steel structures to reach temperatures necessary for them to weaken to the point of catastrophic failure was simply not present. Discussions over the temperatures which the fires may have reached misunderstands the concept of heat transfer. Not only must the fuel, in this case office synthetics and kerosene, burn hot enough; it must burn hot enough, long enough, and over a wide enough area to heat the steel frame to the point of failure. Steel is an excellent heat conductor. The steel frames were well-connected with extensive cross-bracing and gusset plates, allowing for efficient conduction. Thus the heat applied to the steel would have dissipated throughout the entire structure, which consisted of about 96,000 tons of steel, according to most estimates. This is similar to how if you stick one end of a crowbar into a fireplace, you will quickly feel the heat on the other end. This is heat conduction. This well-known property of steel applies regardless of scale, whether we are talking about a crowbar or the end of an I-beam over a bonfire.

Every material has a property called a specific heat, which is the energy required to raise one gram or other weight unit of that substance by one degree. Whether it is water, wood, aluminum, steel, or any other metal, these are well-known and established scientific values. Heat energy is measured in calories, joules, or BTU, which like feet and meters, are simply different ways of measuring the same thing. By definition, the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree is called a calorie.

Some specific heats, in British Thermal Units (BTUs required to raise one pound of substance by one degree F):

aluminum: .22 BTU/lb.
copper: .09 BTU/lb.
iron: .11 BTU/lb.


Another well-established fact of science is that different fuels have different heat contents, that is, amounts of heat energy, measured in calories, joules or BTUs which a weight unit of that fuel can deliver.

Some heat-energy content values:

wood: 7870 BTU/lb.
paper: 6500 BTU/lb.
gasoline: 19000 BTU/lb.

How much heat is actually delivered depends on how "clean" the burn is, meaning how well-supplied with oxygen and how thoroughly it combusts. The kerosene in a jet engine is atomized, that is, sprayed into the combustion chamber as an aerosol and mixed with heated, compressed air, which fires a very efficient, clean burn into carbon and water. The role of oxygen in a burn is important. Open air fires are often described as taking place under "atmospheric" or "ambient" conditions, which means the air supply consists of only what is available in the surrounding environment. This is in contrast to combustion under a forced air supply which causes any fuel to burn much hotter and faster.

Anyone who has tended a fire knows that even if a fire is dying out, if you put a new logs into the coals and stoke them with a bellows or a newspaper, the coals will glow red hot and the new log will burst into flames. This same principle is how a blast furnace generates so much heat, so named because air is "blasted" through coal or coke, in order to melt iron ore or steel. Convection currents are still considered atmospheric pressure. The idea that convection currents can provide the kind of mechanically forced air supply needed to bring steel to high temperatures is nonsense. However, we will grant the assumption in the official story that convection currents somehow "sucked" air in from the gashes in the buildings and replicated the mechanically forced air supply of a blast furnace.

Using the specific heat of steel, let us calculate the amount of energy it would require to heat the steel in the towers to 1800F, a significant temperature increase even though steel does not melt until it reaches 2700F. Again, specific heat is the energy required to raise a weight unit of a substance, like water or steel, by one degree, and steel is an excellent heat conductor. The towers contained 96,000 short tons of steel, about 35,000 of those in the strong central core, and most of the rest in the perimeter columns. The specific heat of carbon steel is .12 BTUs per pound. Doing a weight conversion from tons to pounds of steel, this means the energy required to bring this much steel to 1800F would be approximately:

1800 degrees F x .12 BTU/lb. x 192,000,000 lbs of steel = 41.5 billion BTU of energy

Much of the energy of the fuel in a blast furnace is lost to the atmosphere or heating of the interior walls of the melting chamber. The proportion of the energy in a burning fuel which is actually transferred to the target ore or scrap metal is called heat transfer efficiency. In the steel business, in a typical blast furnace, heat transfer efficiency is about 30 percent.

Burning office synthetics, acrylic carpet, composite upholstery, partitions, and computer plastics, yields a maximum of 38 million BTUs of energy per ton in an efficient, forced air burn. Therefore, if the total energy required to bring one tower's 96,000 tons of steel to 1800F is 41.5 billion BTU, and one ton of office synthetics potentially delivers 38 million BTUs, then making the very generous assumption that heat transfer efficiency in the towers approached that found inside a blast furnace, the number of tons of the office fuels needed to raise the temperature of the steel in a tower to 1800F would be:

41.5 billion BTU/(38 million BTU per ton of fuel x .30) = 3333 tons

Some of the burning material would have been paper, but paper contains less energy than plastic, about 13 million BTU/ton, versus 38 million/ton for plastic. Therefore, by assuming all the burning material was plastics, we are continuing to err on the side favorable to the official story.

The maximum amount of kerosene jet fuel which could have spilled into the buildings was about 30 tons, which was the fuel load for each flight. It is clear now that this amount of kerosene present, which also delivers a maximum of 38 million BTU/ton, comes nowhere near the more than 3000 tons of burning fuel required to raise the temperature of the steel frames this much, which is why the jet fuel is rightly dismissed as insignificant. This is also assuming every drop was retained in the buildings and none was lost in the fireballs, another generous assumption.

The fires in the WTCs were confined to a small number of floors, according to extensive survivor testimony and simple observation. However, in order to grant the assumptions most favorable to the official collapse theory, we will posit that fires were rampant across the top thirty stories of each building, the upper quarter of each. Tower One was hit at the 78th floor and Tower Two at the 92nd. Given our known energy requirement, and knowing that each floor of the Towers provided office space for an average of 136 workers, this means that the carpet etc. burning in the engulfed floors would amount to nearly 1 ton per worker of paper, computer plastic, carpet and cubicle partition, all burning in an oxygen rich, blast furnace environment, or over 120 tons of burning carpet etc. per floor.

Making the assumption fires were burning on every floor of the towers, then each of the 15,000 workers in each tower would have to account for over 400 lbs. of carpet, upholstery, and paper, all burning at maximum efficiency under a forced air supply. This would exclude the metal parts of computers like metal chassis, as well as metal file cabinets and server racks.

It is unlikely that heat was transferred from fuel to steel with anywhere near the heat transfer efficiency of a blast furnace designed for such a process, so the values arrived at here would most likely have to be doubled, tripled, or more under more realistic assumptions.

It is hard to imagine how each worker in an office can account for one ton of combustible office synthetics (again, excluding metal.) This is the weight equivalent of a Nissan Maxima parked next to every other worker. That's a lot of carpet.

Finally, one challenge which could be raised to this analysis is the assumption that such a scenario requires all the steel in the building to be heated to the same temperature in order to exhibit onset of failure characteristics. But if we discard the known fact that steel is an excellent heat conductor, and would wick the heat to all parts of the steel structure rapidly and evenly, and that the entire 96,000 tons was absorbing energy, and suppose that somehow all the heat was concentrated around the points of impact, which somehow melted or buckled only in these places, then we run across another problem. The problem with this hypothesis is that it leaves the 90% of the steel frames below the points of impact with all their strength intact, which would have made a free-fall collapse through the path of greatest resistance utterly impossible. We cannot hold that a free-fall collapse was possible because the steel in the towers was greatly weakened by the heat, then at the same time hold that the heat was focused in one place. One cannot have it both ways.

The "straw man" often used by defenders of the official story is that skeptics are claiming "fire does not melt steel," which is clearly absurd. Fire melts or makes steel malleable all the time, in a blast furnace. As always with such oversimplifications, the issue is not whether fire can melt steel, but what kind of fire, burning how hot, how long, and over what area. As we have seen, how high the temperatures may or may not have gotten is only one consideration. You can raise the temperature of the steel in a very small area to melting very quickly with the 5000F point flame of a blowtorch. But you are unlikely to take down the towers with that blowtorch. It is total energy delivered which is important.

The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down. But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the "momentum" from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.

Keep in mind 1800F is far short, by about a thousand degrees, of the melting point of steel of about 2700F. Much more fuel would have been needed to raise the temperature of the frames to the melting point. Even if the steel had weakened appreciably at this temperature, and we have seen that it is unlikely that this much fuel was even available, never mind burning, on the floors on which there were fires, chief WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

In order to focus the argument, speculation over how the towers did come down has been deliberately placed outside the scope of this essay. Our purpose is to establish once and for all, according to the basic laws of thermodynamics, how they could not have.


Cool weight, length, temperature unit converter

Specific heat unit converter

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If the fire was hot enough to

If the fire was hot enough to melt the steel beams holding up this marvel of engineering, why were the people able to wave clothes signaling for help? And if the fire was really this hot, why was the smoke black not white hot?

Just like the pentagon hit, how were people able to walk out the hole in the front of the building if a jetliner full of fuel just crashed through it?


"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

This is a deceptively simple proof that the fuel was not present

to heat the steel to anywhere near failure temperature. People get hung up on temperatures without understanding the laws of thermal dynamics. Even if every bit of office contents and jet fuel were burning at forge efficiency it could not have begun to weaken all that steel.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Yes. Making steel malleable or melting it requires

forge like temperatures impossible to achieve in the absence of mechanically forced air supply. Even at 1000F the people in the windows would have been burned to a crisp.

Christians for 911 Truth forum:


A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

The official 9-11 story....

Will be resolved in eight years. After the re-institution of all the courts.....

There I said it, it'll be long after this is over.

Although I'm not buying the official version

there are a couple elements in the alternative versions that stick in my craw.

1. I've heard that steel buildings are very susceptible to fire damage because, although they seldom get hot enough to melt, they weaken dramatically at temperatures far below melting. Melting point may therefore not have been needed in the WTC collapse.

2. Temperature of jet fuel combustion is not the only heat criterion to consider. What about radiative heat? The fire was large enough to cause radiative heat build-up toward its thermal center, meaning that melting temperatures might have been reached at points in the structure.

An example of how this principle works is the reported cooking of beached whales once their heart stops. The body-temperature heat radiates in all directions and, without the circulatory system carrying it away, the points inside the whale that are surrounded by the most radiating mass build up to temperatures hot enough to cook.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.


First - #1 is not true at all, Steel acts as a thermal conductor and radiates heat away from its source. The concrete also does so in a smaller way. The more steel involved in a structure the less it is effect by fires.

The 2nd point is also false due to the nature of steels thermal properties. Also due to fuel burn off this includes the plane fuel and fuel found in the office. It will burn of expand the starve behind the advancing flame. The heat will be most intense at its advancing front and just behind it briefly then quickly drop off as it is radiated through the steel and concrete. This is nothing like a blast furnace where the flame is fully contained and fuel is continually introduce to one location. Which is what would be needed to produce the scenario you mention in #2.

To further compound the issue at hand a global symmetrical collapse would require that same blast furnace scenario at each and every support column at the same time. Even then symmetrical collapse on one floor or even ten or twenty would not be enough to destroy even a few of the floors it impacted on. Worst case scenario is the top 20 floor fall into the lower 80 crush 1-3 come to a sudden halt then either stop or tip to one side and continue to the ground leaving the 80 lower standing.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Debunking bad debunkers

Everything acts as thermal conductor and radiates heat away from the source.
The first point is NOT false. If it was, welding would be impossible. When you forge a knife or any other metal substance you only heat the part you want to form. This works also in soldering. When you heat steel to form it you work on particular parts of the metal at a time.

The fuel would starve the fire if it was in an insulated oven. Being that the planes dumped there fuel hundreds off the ground, oxygen was not in shortage.
The Second claim is also not false.

Third Claim, When a wrecking ball hits a building its momentum carries it through. It does not hit the wall, stop them regain energy.

Think of the towers like a soda can. It is very hard to crush until it is dented.

Having worked with steel, copper, aluminum, and silver

I can tell you that steel is by far the least heat-conductive. Also, back when I gave earth-sheltered construction seminars I was told by an engineer that in a fire heavy wooden beams, especially big laminated beams, are more stable for roof support than steel I beams due to the latter's loss of 80% of its load bearing capacity at 1000 degrees F, a temperature quickly reached when the fire's heat collects at the top of the room or building.

Here are some images of steel beams that failed in fires:
(Scroll down to first photo.)
(Scroll down to sixth photo.)

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Why do I get the feeling they aren't going to start

building skyscrapers with wooden beams, though?

You'll find plenty of deformed steel examples from very hot fires, but always partial and piecemeal failures. There have been many much hotter, larger, and longer-burning fires. If the WTCs collapsed as a result of fire, they should have collapsed too, since the fires were even hotter and more widespread.

In 1991 One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, burned for 18 hours, did not fall down. In 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors
collapsed, but the underlying floors did not. The Windsor Towers fire in Madrid 2005 was a true raging inferno. It burned for 20 hours much hotter than the WTCs due to 40mph gusts of wind. The tower looked like a giant torch.

This kind of fire does not let anyone stand nearby in the windows, like the WTC fires did. If you've ever watched an engulfed building (I have) you can feel the heat from a block away, and firefighters can't get near it, only hose it from a distance. It's just too hot. The Windsor suffered partial collapse in some places, but it was slow and
in pieces. But a sky crane remained perched on the roof. Here is a timeline of the pieces of the collapse for Windsor Towers:

Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor
gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle
section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire
broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

In your favor, I think the much heavier core structure

was coated in a thick asbestos-type layer and even if the floors had pancaked at free-fall speed I would have expected the core columns to remain standing or at most topple, not disintegrate vertically. Therefore I do take seriously the theory that column-shearing thermite charges were placed in advance in all three towers. The bizarre actions of the administration relative to the Pentagon strike, seemingly designed to aid the attack, have to be figured into the related WTC attack inquiry.

IOW, I'm mighty suspicious but I think some of the conspiracy arguments are a bit too simplistic. Clearly burning steel-framed buildings do collapse in a heap, even if the WTC was engineered not to.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

OMG!!! Finally A Challenger To The Exploding Concrete Theory

Expounded on by the one and only Rhino...

"An example of how this principle works is the reported cooking of
beached whales once their heart stops. The body-temperature heat
radiates in all directions and, without the circulatory system carrying
it away, the points inside the whale that are surrounded by the most
radiating mass build up to temperatures hot enough to cook."

here latest on another inside job

"underwear bomber" -

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

This is good information.

I watched 9/11 happen live on my tv that day, like a lot of people. I was off work and started watching just after the first plane hit. My (ex-)wife woke me up when they announced the first crash on tv. I watched the 2nd plane hit live on tv, and didn’t leave from in front of the tv until early the next morning. As I was watching that day, a few things really struck me as odd…

#1. I couldn’t believe that the WTC towers collapsed the way they did. It just defied logic somewhere in my head. I guess I couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that a 110-story steel skyscraper collapsed into a pile of dust after being hit by an airplane made mostly of aluminum.

#2. It didn’t really look like a plane crashed at the Pentagon. Or in Shanksville, PA for that matter. I never saw a plane at either location. The Pentagon had a smoldering hole that looked too small to be an airliner. Shanksville had nothing but a small crater.

#3. WTC 7 collapsed around 5:30 that day. It was a 47-story skyscraper. When they showed the collapse on tv it just seemed unreal to me. What is going on? Big skyscrapers collapsing into piles of dust in seconds? Over and over??

I didn’t suspect the government though. I didn’t really have an explanation. I didn’t really even see it as something afoot… I was more just in awe at what was happening. It seemed unreal to me. Not just the calamity of it all… but the actual events that were occurring. It all seemed like something out of a far-fetched adventure movie.

I just blew it off and accepted the official story for the longest. It's amazing how easily we accept the state's propaganda. Anyway, I guess it was the first version of "Loose Change" that made me start looking at the 9/11=inside job thing. The problem I had at first was the fact that the Truthers did spread a lot of incorrect information back then. It was a new movement and people were running around saying all kinds of stuff... some of it taken out of context... some of it just incorrect. But...

There were still so many weird coincidences and strange occurrences that day, and the government seemed to be trying to hide something... so I never went back to being a believer in the official story. Since then, a new/final cut of "Loose Change" was released...much more accurate and informative than the first. Many other documentaries have come out since then as well.

What it all boils down to is this...


The collapse of the towers, the way they fell, and the fact that they collapsed at all is all the evidence you need. To accept the official story of a pancake collapse, floor by floor, you have to accept the fact that all of the floor joists gave way at once, the whole way around the building. Otherwise you will have an asymmetrical collapse and the top of the building will fall over to the side, toppling off the top... not driving STRAIGHT THROUGH the path of most resistance.

Even if all the floor joists gave way at once, and a pancake collapse did occur... it would take much longer than 10 secs. It's been calculated that it would actually take around 90 secs for a complete pancake collapse to occur. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

Plus, look at the mushrooming that occurs... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/mushroomi...

There were steel beams weighing more than a jetliner embedded in buildings 300 feet away. How does that happen??

Too much that can't be explained by the official story. I could go on and on... but I won't. Some people would never believe it no matter how much evidence you gave them.

One pancake collapse,

but 3? !!! How does anyone blindly accept that? It baffles me. Forget all of the scientific and technical explanations. How can anyone not havr SERIOUS questions about the whole thing? Blows my mind when people act like the ones questioning are nuts.

I have been suspicious of some "truthers"

I suspect either entire groups were used as controlled opposition or individuals had infiltrated serious groups.

I think that was why many here saw 9-11 truthers as kooky. They were but they weren't interested in the truth and that gave them away.

Free includes debt-free!

SteveMT's picture

wpsmith, Great synopsis of thoughts/info surrounding 9/11

You made me remember a lot about what was going through my mind at that time.

BTW, Congrats. You just turned the big 3 on the DP!

3 years 32 min


That's crazy. I had no clue. Seems like just yesterday I was a sheep!

Red herring

I have never heard anyone say fires brought down the buildings.
The official 9/11 story states the building fell after his by a massive planes. filled with fuel that drenched the buildings and further contributed to the collapse of already weakened steel. In other words total is greater than the sum of its parts.
There are several fallacies in the OP address, that however does disprove that 9/11 was not some sort of conspiracy.

What in the world . . .

are you talking about?

drenching steel in jet fuel weakens it?? Are you moronic??

Hit my massive planes. Yes.

collapse of already weakened steel. "already"

as in when? Already weakened when the planes hit?

you make no sense.

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

Planes hit the building

Planes hit the building, weakening the steel
The fires were working on steel under tremendous weight and that were just weakened by a massive plane crash.

Try shooting an empty beer can at a 45 pound

barbell weight from a bench press and see if it weakens the steel. Better yet, see what happens to the can.

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali


The can would bounce off crush not denting the weight....

When the planes hit, did they bounce off? Either you analogy is way off, or you secretly discovered what happened to tower 7

I heard it a few times.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it. But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." - Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." - -structural engineer Chris Wise.

sources for above at:

The plane hits were no more gnat bites to towers this size and mass. If you scale down the core and perimeter column steel to 100 lbs., the planes would weigh as much as an empty aluminum beer can with an ounce of kerosene in it. They were shredded as if they were flying into a cheese grater, which is why no large, intact pieces besides engines and landing gear (the heaviest parts) came out the other side. Steel is three times denser than aluminum, and jetliners are basically hollow aluminum tubes with wings. They have to be light; a steel jet would never get off the ground.

Mass of structural steel in one WTC tower relative to mass of the jetliner:

So the plane hits didn't bring them down either.

The official story depends on the idea of steel weakened by heat because people understand steel well enough to know that it doesn't collapse all by itself. When you dispose of this idea through simple science, the official story falls apart.

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

But you can not treat them as sperate events

The mistake is saying that neither an upper or a left cross will knock person X down.
That may be true but an uppercut followed by a left cross may very well be sufficient.

reason and science indeed

note how the disinformationist legions in the basement of the Ziofascist Mossad take these talking points and reverse them, saying "truther retards, look at the SCIENCE!" Just how f-ing stupid do they think we are?

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Simple calculation, lengthy explanation.

How's this for simplicity: Show me ONE picture of a commercial aircraft anywhere near the Pentagon, and I'll shut up and swallow the "official" story. But you can't, becuase it doesn't exist. The most heavily surveillenced building in the WORLD, and not a single photo....it's criminal because the criminals are running the Country - not your baby kissing Congressmen.

alan laney

I'd say the flying job Hani Hanjour supposedly did

into the Pentagon is even better, 280 degree corkscrew dive from 7,000 ft., pulling level with the ground at a screaming 500mph (?) to hit a target 70 ft. high. All in an airliner that handles like a Mack truck. Top gun pilots say 'want to buy a bridge?' if you believe this.

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

SteveMT's picture

That maneuver could not be duplicated by any pilot, in any...

flight simulator.

Hani Hanjour's maneuver and the undamaged passports found blocks away from the WTC are both equivalent to the magic bullet in the JFK assassination.

Now, ya think we really went to moon in 1969?

I would have placed that (moon landing stuff)

in wild conspiracy land up until a short time ago. Knowing what I know now about what the government is capable of, evidence could be presented to me. Not that it is anywhere near as important. At most it justified an outrageous NASA budget. It didn't draw us into 2 wars, bankrupt the country, and shred the Constitution.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

dumb luck, wouldn't you know it? In our naivity and

certainty that all the world loved us they hadn't bothered to turn the cameras on that day. Don't throw eggs, I'm saying these are the insane lengths of denial which people will go through to not believe what they already know inside, but which terrifies them. The beauty of physics and math is there is no escape. 2 plus 2 = 4.

The strength of the disinformationists is the room for play in all the factors involved, twisting of the steel, gigantic big fires, JET FUEL JET FUEL JET FUEL! We start crunching numbers and closing the escapes one at a time. 911 is starting to resemble nothing less than a battle between reason and superstition. We are fighting for the Enlightenment all over again, and are on the edge of being thrown back into the Dark Ages. We are returning to the days of high priests who do magic and tell us how many of us must be sacrificed. Fight the darkness with the light. Reason, science, and truth must win.

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali