Why the 9/11 WTC Twin Towers Could Not Have Collapsed

[James H. Fetzer]

911Boldwynn.pdf

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Hello all, this is Chuck Boldwyn, the scientist who wrote the Blockbuster Thesis you wish you could understand, only if that lack of understanding applies to you, personally.

Yes, Jim Fetzer has understood my 911 WTC TT Impossible Collapses quantitative Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, & Mathematics Thesis, a Thesis that has been called "iron-clad" and "excellent work" by Engineers who have carefully peer reviewed it.

The Thesis has not been scientifically nor quantitatively debunked since its inception, almost 2 years ago, when I began my quest for the conclusive and irrefutable answers to the impossible collapses. I am very confident that my Thesis is the correct one that all of the 911 researchers have been looking for, all of them, barr none. They have never been able to determine the accurate nor even near accurate Forces and Energies required to bring down a Tower so as to evaluate what possible energy devices or energy sources were appropriate to use for the massively explosive demolishments or obliterations of the WTC TT.

My 911 WTC TT Impossibel Collapses Thesis is the first thorough and accurate Quantitative Analysis ever given for those catastrophic events inflicted upon the Towers. This is the only presentation is existence to explain the total Forces and total Energies requires and demanded to bring down the Towers

The greatest problem with getting my "original" Thesis to be understood by the public is lack of basic education in the areas of Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, & Mathematics, even at it's most elementary and rudimentary levels, i.e., Middle & High School levels. I am quite sure that I could make my thesis, at least the basic part, easily understandable to 6th grade Middle Schoolers. There is nothing advanced about my science, not calculus, not Trigonometry, no geometry, no angles involved, no high level physics, no high level Engineering, no high level Chemistry, and certainly no high levelMathematics, but only the most simple of Algebreic manipulations and appropriate mathematical substitutions where required to move on to the next step in my derivations and calculations and conclusions.

Other that that, you only need to know Addition, subtraction, Multiplication, and Division, how to square a quantity, how to take the square root of a quantity, and the meaning of units like meters, miles, kilometers, seconds, kilograms, tons, , Newtons, and Joules, which apply to concepts like: displacement, distance, time, mass, weight, velocity, terminal velocity, acceleration,Force(Gravity vs. Atomic and Molecular and Nuclear), and Energy(Potential & Kinetic). Other than that, a few very, very elementary Physics equations and how to Algebreically manipulate them, and you are in "911 WTC TT solutions" territory with the necessary intellectual ammunition to be able to solve the Impossible Collapses.

Now that that is all clearly understood, get to reviewing my PDF Thesis, so you can make some intelligent responses, and not have to go another 8 years looking for solutions, at least quantitative solutions, as they are already here, waiting for the scientific communities comprehension and acceptance, so this Movement can get on with the necessary unbiased re-investigations, indictments, prosecutions, internments or executions, hopefully on live worldwide TV.

Without a working scientific background, you are completely out of your element and cannot even begin to scientifically and quantitatively debunk any proposed scientific Thesis. Now get to work, get them old middle school science textbooks out and study until you are up to snuff, up to parr..., up to understanding this Thesis.

If you need help, Jim and I are always here for your tutorial guidance. We can hold your hands all the way through the presentation, if you like.

You may be an expert in your field, and even a PHD, or even have multiple PHDs, but without the required and fresh scientific background, you are completely in the wrong intellectual ballpark, out of your element. Get over it and review your science and math and join us in our scientific quest to get the absolute "TRUTH" out to the world.

Jim and I are looking for intelligently qualified debunkers who are willfully risking making a fool out of themselves, and that goes for "Truther Debunkers" as well as for Mass Media devotee-type debunkers, like Schermer, Roberts, Eagar, Sunder, and on and on......all of the misguided and false computer tweaked cartoon-like fantasy-land simulations scenarios, which are nothing but guessing games and very unscientific 911 Political Science propaganda ploys aimed at the non-understanding and non-scientific public. They have even fooled, duped, decieved, most of the 911 scientists, in many ways, still...

Your comments are welcome...

[James H. Fetzer]

Delete Comment Yes. I was calling to ask if this is a fair summary. Sorry it is so late.
[6/14/09 11:32:16 PM] James H. Fetzer: Are you OK?
[6/14/09 11:36:12 PM] Charles J Boldwyn: Yes I was having difficulty with skype
[6/14/09 11:36:19 PM] Charles J Boldwyn: got it working now
[6/14/09 11:36:46 PM] Charles J Boldwyn: yes your synthesis of my thesis is correct and very put and clearly

So I awakened the man at 12:36 his time to address this issue. He added that

yes, but include terminal velocity factor which does not allow the 16 floor block to reach the required velocity of 4500 miles per hour

which means that, if there were no terminal velocity--if the 16 floor block were falling in a vacuum--then it could acquire sufficient energy to cause the collapse. But because of air resistance, that is an idealization: even from 120 miles above the target floors, it could not acquire sufficient kinetic energy to bring about a collapse of the bottom 94! I think this is terrific stuff. After recaping it, of course, I could have been off in my remark about Jenkins' analysis: perhaps 2.4 atomic bombs is closer than one! In any case, that's the score. The author has confirmed that I have understood his work clearly and correctly. Now, have you?

[James H. Fetzer]

There's an unavoidable overlap here between the comments on "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community".

Comment by James H. Fetzer 37 minutes ago
Delete Comment Chalk that one up to a "senior moment", if you like, Ralph. I am doing my best to figure out what happened on 9/11. Visit 911scholars.ning.org, for example, and read through my blog, which includes about a dozen studies, half or more of which I authored. I take it you are unfamiliar with Elias Davidsson's studies showing that there is no evidence the hijackers were aboard any of those flights; John Lear's observation that, before a commercial pilot (I think you are one, aren't you?) can pull away from a terminal, he must submit an "envelope" including a flight check list, yet none of them have ever surfaced; or the observation by Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), that, although each of these plane has hundreds or even thousands of uniquely identifiable parts, the government has never produced even one! I can't wait to hear your explanation of these three data points! If you are serious about JFK, go to assassinationscience.com and you will find "The Latest on JFK", including several recent studies that confirm the recreation of the Zapruder home movie. Or for even more, go the the on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK that I co-edit with John P. Costella, Ph.D., the leading expert on the film in the world today. If you think I'm going to bite at your bating, Ralph, you have me all wrong. It's remarkable to me that, each time I think you are a decent human being, you prove me wrong--again! I hope you can bring yourself to consider the evidence about both cases, including, for example, recent articles of mine including "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". You just might learn something. And thanks for "patching things up" with Russell. You are a prince, Ralph! A real prince! Everyone should have a pal like you.

Comment by James H. Fetzer 22 minutes ago
Delete Comment By the way, Ralph, now that I have your attention, are you aware that there were 47 core columns in each of the towers, that there were some 240 external support columns, and that they were connected with steel trusses, bolted and welded to the support columns and welded to the core? that 4" of concrete was poured into those trusses, creating an acre of concrete, 4" thick, on each floor? that Flight 175 allegedly hit the South Tower at an angle and would have impacted with four or five of those 4" concrete-filled trusses, which should have shredded the plane like a carrot? Gee, I guess you really aren't familiar with the construction of those towers, are you, or you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself on this forum? Think about it, Ralph. Do you REALLY think that a 767 could enter that building with no decrease in its velocity? that the resistance of this 500,000 ton building was no greater than that provided by air? Is that your considered opinion? Egad! And I thought you were on one of those lists where I explained all of this over and over again. I must be mistaken, because you wouldn't be asking again if you had understood me the first time. It's really good to have you here, Ralph. You comments alone clarify everything there is to know about 9/11. Thank God for Ralph Omholt! The world is at your command. Speak out and share your wisdom with others, Ralph. Then the world will know you for the real Omholt I know you to be. Thanks again. I really don't know where we'd be without you! You really are "one of a kind"!

Comment by Michael Morrissey 1 minute ago
Delete Comment Ralph, I don't think there is much to discuss. You have not yet answered Jim's question, as far as I know, about visual fakery (If the speed is impossible, how can the videos be real?), and Jim refuses to answer my question about why Greg Jenkins is wrong in his argument against DEW. Jim would rather talk about a paper by Charles Boldwyn that he (Jim) does not understand any better than I do, or refuses to explain it. He would rather insult me for admitting that I do not understand it, and for not wishing to discuss something incomprehensible written by an admirer of David Duke. This is not the path to mutual understanding! Jim will be better off in his own forum, where he can control such matters.

Comment by James H. Fetzer just now
Delete Comment Egad! I didn't realize you wanted me to talk about Greg Jenkins, Michael, because his argument, like that of Boldwynn, is mathematical. The bottom line on Jenkins is that he insists it would take "more energy" than the world can provide to destroy the buildings using directed energy weaponry. Judy replied, "Then I guess they are still standing!" I replied, "That's nonsense, since an atomic bomb would do it!" I apologize if I missed the intent of your inquiry. I am sorry about that. With your desire to eschew mathematics, I did not realize that you wanted to talk about Jenkins' paper. Anyway, in your terms--in down to earth language--that's my take. I would rather be here with you, Michael, if you were not so zealous in the commission of ad hominem and genetic fallacies, not to mention guilt by association. I still hold you in high esteem, but I am getting the impression that my standing with you is slipping. Sorry about that. I have never had any problem admitting that experts in other fields know more about those fields than do I. I guess we are alike in that respect. But I am willing to have them around for the benefits they provide, which seems to be the point at which we diverge. I am keenly disappointed that we seem to be parting ways, but I find it very odd that you cite "experts" in the Jones camp to dismiss the mini-nuke hypothesis while baring discussion of Charles Boldwynn's work, which is far less sophisticated in its mathematics. I'm no math wizard, either, Michael, but I certainly respect the benefits that it provides in offering more exact and precise formulations that are easier to test and verify or falsify. And I thought that Jack Sunn was here to keep Charles honest--and us reassured that something important is at stake here, which I firmly believe.

Comment by James H. Fetzer just now
Delete Comment About Boldwynn's paper, his thesis is very clear: that it would have taken the equivalent of 48,000 tons of explosives to equal the kinetic energy (energy of motion) that the top 16 floors of the North Tower (taking the plane to have hit at the 94 floor and subtracting 94 from 110 = 16) would have had to exert upon the bottom 94 floors for their "collapse" to have initiated the collapse of those 94 floors. John Skilling, one of the senior engineers of the firm that built the towers, had observed that they could carry 20 times the expected "live load" (that is, physical steel and concrete structure plus office furniture and human beings) that they would ever be expected to carry. Charles believes it was actually much greater than that, but even using Skilling's more conservative figures, he has calculated that the force required to collapse the lower 94 floors (using vector addition and subtraction of forces) which would have required the combined weight of some 588 16-floor equivalents (taking into account that those uppermost 16 floors were not as heavy as lower 16 floor units because the steel was not as thick) before collapse would ensue; or, using the thought of those 16 floors falling through space downward onto the lower 96, that that 16-floor unit would have to be elevated to a height of 120 miles above the remaining 94 for it to possess enough energy of motion to collapse the remaining 94; or, alternatively, that the energy required would be equivalent to that of 2.4 (Hiroshima sized) atomic bombs, which clearly was not available from the miniscule potential energy tthat was allegedly released by the fires weakening the steel and causing the top 16 floors to collapse on the bottom 94. Honestly, Michael, I thought you were simply opposed to posting a mathematical treatment, even one that covers the ground (or should I say "space") as well as this does. I even featured Charles on my radio program on 10 June 2009, which should be posted at radiofetzer.blogspot.com in the next few days. I guess we are really not communicating very effectively, my friend (or is it now "former" friend?). I would have much preferred to stay here, but you made it impossible to continue to pursue the truth about 9/11 within the boundaries of your narrow conceptions about anti-Semitism, guilt by association, and abhorrance of all things mathematical. It was impossible to continue under those constraints, which is a pity, since I still think you are, in every other way, a marvelous chap! So there you have it! I guess if you are throwing in with Ralph Omholt, the prospects of reconciliation between us are not great. That, alas, is a real shame. But there you have it! I hope you get it. It's not really that hard.

[James H. Fetzer]

Yes. Fr. Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest and first reponder, told me twice (as my guest on "The Dynamic Duo") that the buildings were actually destroyed below ground level. Compare that with 5-6 floors of "pancakes" at WTC-7 and you begin to get the idea. See my piece, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", which I need to repost.

[Mark E. Smith]

Of course the towers couldn't have collapsed. It doesn't take a scholar to figure that much out. So the question is how they were demolished.

Those who blow shit up for a living, know how to blow up the most shit with the least amount of explosives. That's their business. An ordinary controlled demolition doesn't involve enough explosives to pulverize an entire building, just enough at key points to demolish the building's supports. So a small amount of explosives, properly placed, causes a building to collapse into it's own footprint at near free-fall speed.

It is the pulverization that leads to speculation about exotic weaponry, not the collapse.