In that context, I had an email, and since it was open and sent to many other recipients other that myself, a public response is in order:
This is an open letter.Criticising, actually.
Dear Mr Horgan,
I read with interest your article snapping at Mr Fisk for questioning the official version of 911.
I suppose you did not study Physics at school, College or University - this is clearly evident from the Physically illiterate article you have written.Undergraduate level physics, as if it matters.
Can I confirm that I have read the NIST report in full, from cover to cover, and you are WRONG, the actual NIST report (not the fakes) states on 911 both the 110 floor building came to ground in less than 10 seconds. Indeed the NIST report claims one building fell faster than free fall speed in a vacuum at sea level.The US National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) says that the speed of the debris hitting the ground approximated that which would have been expected from freefall. What am I wrong about?
Indeed we have copious video evidence and seismic data which clearly proves both twin towers came down in less than 10 seconds each.Well, NIST don't think so:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Now look here, you can play your silly little political games and lie and cheat and basically make yourselves look like clowns, or you can start to accept Scientific facts and question the ludicrous "conspiracy theory" which is the official narrative.What political games? My party is in opposition in the UK? There are no scientific facts that support the 9/11 'Truth' industry.
For clear Physics proof of why 911 was a "False Flag" "Inside job" demolition (after jet impacts), I have enclosed a letter recently sent to the BBC , which clearly explains why 911 was a controlled demolition including the simple maths.This calculated that a very simple model of the twin towers shows a collapse time slightly more that 10 seconds. It does not contradict the observed facts, and it certainly provides no evidence of a controlled demolition.
I openly challenge the whole of Physics, Engineering and Science to prove this physics hypothesis and maths incorrect.What hypothesis? It is deeply flawed logic to calculate that mathematically the towers behave more or less as they did in real life, announce it must have been a controlled demolition and then demand to be disproved. If you have a theory the onus for evidence is on you, not on everyone else to prove a negative.
The claim is that the US government committed mass murder of its own citizens. I would have thought that if someone were going to believe that then they would have to have a weight of convincing evidence. Clearly, I was wrong.