Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Terrorising the laws of physics

What do 9/11 and the liquid bomb plot have in common? They both replace reality with make-belief by seriously violating the laws of physics. And they represent a propaganda effort by today's war governments Joseph Goebbels would be proud of, thereby demonstrating that the masses in a democratic society can be easily fooled through the repeated use of media and are thus unable to make informed choices - dictatorship by consent.

Let's start with 9/11: According to the propaganda the heat of burning kerosene fuel from the aircraft which hit the high-rise buildings melted the steel reinforcements and made the steel/concrete structure collapse. This is an impossibility unless all the teachings of physics are going to be more radically revised than ever before: the hottest possible temperature of burning kerosene is 825°C, whilst steel starts melting at 1510°C. If burning kerosene melted steel or other metals (such as aluminium, with a lower melting point), airo engines would arrive liquidised before any jet plane ever made a safe landing. Even if the steel melted, the collapse of the building would have been gradual and not immediate; instead it simply disappeared into its own footprint with all the concrete being pulverised and none of the lower floors putting up resistance to the collapsing upper ones. According to the current state of the art of physics, this can only be achieved by a controlled demolition, and recent finds of thermite in the rubble support this claim. Yet, the myth wins over the facts.

Likewise with the liquid bomb plot for which three alleged Muslim terrorists have just been convicted of plotting mass murder in the sky. According to the official propaganda story, the key ingredient was hydrogen peroxide, readily available as hair bleach or medicated mouthwash, albeit at low concentrations. To buy it at the high concentrations needed for manufacturing an explosive would spark an immediate detection. But as the story goes, this was to be mixed with sulphuric acid and acetone (also known as nail polish remover) and smuggled in drinks bottles onto an aircraft together with detonators. Fantastic! Here's the physics of it: if you mix high-strength hydrogen peroxide with sulphuric acid it gets very hot, so you do get some kind of a mini explosion, or more likely a big splash. It would also soon melt through the plastic drinks bottle you were going to carry it in. To turn it into a potent explosive you still have to mix in the acetone, which has to be done at below zero temperatures, typically around -78°C, if you want an explosive you can ignite later. Now it does get very cold in the upper airways, but not inside the pressurised aircraft cabin. The very best our wannabe terrorist could achieve is to injure himself in the airplane's bathroom. The wild stories of ripping open the fuselage of the aircraft are pure imagination. By the way, airport security were not at all bothered about the potency of the liquids: On the day John Reid announced the discovery of the plot, they simply poured all liquids confiscated from the travelling public into one big container, and nothing went bang. Of course, the foul smell of sulphuric acid and acetone would immediately have revealed any harmful chemicals from amongst the gallons of harmful water and body shampoo taken of the unsuspecting public.

The stuff described makes for a nice chemical experiment with the potential to cause serious injury to the experimenter. It does not make a liquid explosive with the potential to blow a hole in an airliner, such as e.g. nitroglycerine. There are no ready-to-mix liquid explosive components out there, which detonate when mixed together, and any self-respecting chemical scientist knows that. All the whole saga tells us is that the teaching of physics and chemistry in American and British schools is very poor. And that the jury members were schooled in Britain.


At 8 September 2009 at 17:20, Blogger Celt Islam said...

Excellente Dear Sidi thank you for this artical

At 9 September 2009 at 02:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice article. When will the people learn the truth of the matter?

At 9 September 2009 at 23:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this guy lying about the explosives then?


At 9 September 2009 at 23:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

please see this bbc video

I am interested in the truth, please email me on romm95@googolemail.com to let me know what the truth is, links etc.

At 10 September 2009 at 08:57, Blogger Mustaqim said...

The two links given from the Beep are indeed examples of how disinformation works: yes, liquid explosives are powerful, but ask the BBC whether they carried the stuff onto the plane as components and mixed it there. They probably won't want to tell you, but they definitely didn't. Yes, the ingredients are available as simple household stuffs, but only in a 3% solution, whereas to make an explosive you need 70% strong hydrogen peroxide. Partial truths mixed together to give a semblance of reality still add up to falsehood in the end.

At 11 September 2009 at 23:07, Blogger Dr Nasir Khan said...

The Anglo-Saxon reactionary political establishment of Britain and America makes a mockery of the intelligence of ordinary human beings. The pathetic warmongers of these two countries have the political power, which they use to spread misinformation with a view to cover their war crimes against humanity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.They have little concern with truth, but they have a total mastery over the technique to mislead and manipulate. And they name their deception 'security policies'!

At 12 September 2009 at 12:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stopped readin right here:

"According to the propaganda the heat of burning kerosene fuel from the aircraft which hit the high-rise buildings melted the steel reinforcements and made the steel/concrete structure collapse."

Wrong. Nobody claimed that the reinforcements melted. Thus, the premise of your argument is wrong, invalidating the rest.

At 12 September 2009 at 13:02, Blogger Mustaqim said...

If the fire didn't melt the steel, then how come the building isn't still standing? In fact some of the steel bars were cut right through, another indicator of the use of thermite.

At 12 September 2009 at 17:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the beeb carefully mixed the ingredients and detonated them and any terrorist would have to mix them on board an aircraft which would be too difficult and impossible? And they would need 70% strength but they could have bought it? Also the convicted patsies intended to do the crime does that not make them guilty?

At 12 September 2009 at 17:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A conspiracy to do 9/11 would have involved hundreds of people would it not be very risky to keep it hidden?

At 12 September 2009 at 18:36, Blogger Mustaqim said...

Of course there are both lunatics wanting to cause damage and those set up by the security services to look like lunatics wanting to cause damage. The guys who drove a car into the crash barrier of Glasgow airport wanting to blow it up with home made explosives are no doubt guilty of a crime, but the only damage they managed to inflict was the severe and fatal burns they sustained themselves. Sensibly, nobody has since demanded that all petrol canisters should be banned within a five mile radius of any airport. I am not making any excuses for the lunatics nor the agent provocateurs, I am simply stating what is and what isn't possible. To carry the ingredients for a liquid bomb on board of an aircraft and mix it there into a potent explosive during the flight in order to blow a hole into the fuselage is not possible. Whether those who were convicted of trying knew that it was impossible or not, does not interest me. What annoys me is that those in charge of security at British, European and US airports who confiscate water bottles and shampoo from passengers know that it is an unsubstantiated hype. For a building to collapse into its own footprint without any delay purely by burning is also impossible. The official investigation carefully avoided the issue and did not probe into anything meaningful that could have shed light on what really happened and who made it happen. My simple point is, if the official version is impossible due to violating the laws of physics, then the actual truth must lie elsewhere and deserves looking for.

At 13 September 2009 at 07:33, Anonymous Slave of God said...

Dear Brother,

The world assumes that the version given out by zionist owned media in US and UK is true.


The "official" 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense
by Justin Raimondo, September 11, 2009

Yet the 9/11 Commission did not so much as mention this aspect of the 9/11 story. Nor has Fox News ever followed up on Cameron’s reporting: they haven’t disavowed it, either. They, along with the rest of the "news" media in this country, simply pretend it never happened. When Arianna Huffington purged me from blogging on the Huffington Post, she cited my own reporting on this story as the reason: "Oh, come on, Dhaaa-link! You know dat’s anti-Semitic!"

At 13 September 2009 at 18:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the fire didn't melt the steel, then how come the building isn't still standing?"

Please cite the section in the offical report, or rather cite ANYONE of authority who is claiming that the buildings collapsed because the steel was melting.

How on earth do you think that you can refute the offical story when you don't even know the absolute basics about what it's saying?

At 13 September 2009 at 18:36, Blogger Mustaqim said...

Your are correct, the official report only speaks of thermal expansion. Thermal expansion of steel can be an issue on miles of railway, but in steel girders even at 825 degree Celsius it is only some 2mm per inch and thus entirely negligible, putting the NIST report even more into cloud cuckoo land than the idea that the steel supports melted. We're talking of quite substantial girders here, not tooth picks.

At 15 September 2009 at 19:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great! I've falsified the original claim and now the goal-post-shifting and ad-hoc-hypothesis-creating begins.

People who believe in conspiracy theories are all the same: you refute on claim, they make up another.

Way to go! How about you cite the specific parts of the official report you don;t agree with and then falisfy them properly?

At 15 September 2009 at 23:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the UK 'airline explosive plot',

Sarwar's lawyer, Malcolm Bishop, told the court it was virtually impossible that the men could have constructed the bombs and carried them onboard undetected.

It took government scientists 58 attempts over six months, and at a cost of £650,000 ($1,078,000) to create a viable bomb using the plotters' design, Mr. Bishop said. Judge Henriques dismissed his argument.

(source:Wall St Journal, September 14 2009)

More research is here.

At 16 September 2009 at 09:15, Blogger Mustaqim said...

Read it again: my post has never been about debunking the official report, it does not have sufficient credibility to be taken seriously as a starting point. My argument has simply been that it would have been impossible under the laws of physics as we know them for the towers to collapse as they did due to aircraft collision and fires alone, and that argument still stands, no matter how much money and expertise is spent on trying to make it seem otherwise. We had aircraft impacting high-rise buildings of weaker constructions before then and since, and they never caused any more than localised damage. Equally, the damage on 911 would have been restricted to the upper floors (unless explosives were used) had not the laws of physics been suspended on that day.

At 18 September 2009 at 18:29, Blogger Mustaqim said...

"Anonymous" keeps pestering me about disproving the commission's findings: here is a link to Charlie Sheen's open letter to president Obama about reopening the investigation, which includes details of a majority of commissioners themselves expressing serious doubts about the validity of the findings:

At 19 September 2009 at 18:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are too many problems with the official 9/11 version of events. Search Dancing Israelis 9/11, and you will find articles about 5 isrealis dancing doing high fives and taking pictures as the building were hit. They were arrested and released after 5 weeks when someone at the top insisted they are released.

Look up Lavon Affair, to see how in the past Isreal bombed British and American assets in Egypt and tried to pin it on the Arabs, these people will do anything and they will make black look like white if they want.

Be careful brother may Allah Protect us from their evil.

At 9 November 2009 at 10:34, Anonymous Tom Rawlinson said...

It's sad that, when some of what you say looks good, you destroy your credibility on others. Steel girders both soften and distort when heated and the 911 towers really did come down as we were told. If they'd been wired for demolition there'd have been no need to fly planes into them - in fact, a truck bomb at the base would have been an easier and better cover for a much bigger disaster. And, while the explosives used might have disappeared almost without trace, the wires or cord necessary for detonations would have been scattered all over Manhattan. The real clincher for me was seeing the relatively credible Richard Gage (of 911 A&E) on a documentary in the company of people who refuse to accept it was an airliner struck the Pentagon.

At 29 April 2010 at 05:56, Blogger Jazminwilss said...

Yah exactly the main issue of the passage article will described the all information about the propaganda the heat of burning kerosene fuel from the aircraft which hit the high-rise buildings melted the steel reinforcements and made the steel/concrete structure collapse.
Such a fabulous writing of the post...
With Regards
Jazmin W
Datarecoverysoftware Effective solutions


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home