PolyNewbie

Lets see if qc1765 believes that you are an engineer.

We have an engineering student in the forum. Why don't we ask him what he thinks of your scientific statements. I'm not here to teach high school science. Anyone here that has studied it should see that you have no idea what you are talking about. Care to comment on Riverwinds science qc1765 ? All of your comments are flat out wrong. There is no way they can be taken as correct in any way. If qc1765 doesn't agree I will comment. Right. They just need the grant money. They can apply for that from Rockefeller (and others) - same guy that puts presidents in power and benefits from all the wars. Bankers decide who gets the grant money from foundations. Thats why people that graduate with economics and business degrees have no idea how money is created or where it actually comes from.

Look for it in the other thread moron.

I've quoted your physics. (They are all stupid and that should be obvious to anyone that passed high school physics - I ahve said I would explain why the ones are wrong that I haven't already explained but only if you go away when I am done) I will here again: "The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems." "Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses." "Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following: 1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable) 2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse. 3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid. In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare. Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses. At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing." "Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame." All 100 % wrong.

Architect Talks about 911 truth and colleagues

So what kind of engineer are you ? I keep asking this because I want to look up "pivot points" and rotation and why you need a pivot point for a rotation. Why won't you tell me what kind of engineer you are ? You have already said you were an engineer.

The NIST report hypothesises on what initiated the collapse, has changed its story a few times, and in no way explains the global collapse of these buildings. FEMA even says the official explanation they worked out for wtc7 had a low probability of occurance. That is left to presstitutes and government apologists. These reports do not say what presstitutes and government apologists say they do. If the above explanation the "pancake" theory ?

This would never happen. Any university who structural engineers seriously challenged the NIST report would find itself short of funding. Any working structural engineer that challenged 911 would be out of a job just like Jones & Ryan. I did post a link on the other thread regarding a Phd structural engineer doing a speech in Ontario about 911. I forget who is name was but he was a full professor of structural engineering and did say the official version was rediculous because I met someone that saw the presentation and they told me about it. He was a full prof from Queens or McMaster. You don't understand the basics of science and cannot really understand this problem or who is qualified. Forensic people such as fire engineers and the FAA typically investigate accidents like this for a very good reason. There is a good reason why these people were not allowed anywhere near the evidence or investigation of 911 and instead a propogandist was hired to direct the investigation.

I think some of the confusion about who is or isn't qualified to look at the structural engineering of 911 arises from the fact that most people would not understand that design and analysis are two very different things. Engineers ahve to consider a variety of factors when doing design but actual analysis of a given design is comparatively simple. Its pretty easy to see from the NIST report itself that the structures (wtc1 & wtc2) should have remained standing with the damage reported in NIST and the specs of the building given in engineering journals. The outer perimeter was designed to hold 20 times the static weight of the buildings (wtc1 & wtc2) and the inner columns (of which we are being mislead by NIST and others regarding dimensions) was designed to hold six times the weight of the building. The building had about 30 % damage and its strength was cut in half (maximum reduction of strength) in a very few parts of the supporting structure. Its obvious why the NIST report was composed of unqualified forensic scientists and was headed by a propogandist.

Hoffman on Wilkinsons 911 analysis Its just a series of bad assumptions and obviously contradictory logic. The Australians are in all the wars too through profiteering or fighting and they are playing on the same team as the Bushes.

There are lots - they just are not Americans. Demolition experts and structural engineers both say 911 was an inside job on the other side of the pond. I've posted links on this thread. Next time you get a stomach ache - go see a nutritionist or go see Philip Zelikow so he can con you into thinking you don't have one.

Thats a stupid example because the wtc buildings did not have a wood house frame hold up 300,000 pounds. You cannot seriously believe the crap you write on here. No one could.

The real experts are not civil engineers - they only study how to build buildings that cannot have any kind of structural failure that would lead to a collapse- not what happens during a collapse itself. You visit a nutritionist to eat well and stay healthy but you visit a doctor when you get sick. In the same way engineers are hired to build buildings and airplanes but fire authorities and the FAA are normally called to investigate accidents. Plus, the building structure under the wtc's was much stronger than necessary to hold up the weight of the building just like a house is much stronger than is needed to hold up its roof. This is why for the same reasons a house will not collapse straight down, neither will the large buildings. The idea that the large buildings behave under different laws of physics is rediculous and could only be said by engineers that are paid off by government to explain away these events rather than the normal authorities charges with investigating such accidents (fire investigators & FAA) - which is why the normal authorities were not allowed near the evidence and the evidence was quickly removed - both in Oklahoma and on 9/11. The NIST report was a white wash written by people that have no experience investigating accidents. These people were not hired for their ability to investigate the accident, they were hired for their ability to cover up the truth and thats why they had Philip Zelikow (self admitted propogandist) direct the operation rather than a qualified forensic investigator. I suppose that if we want to understand the dangers of GM foods we should consult with people that work for Montasanto 8-). If we want to know who shot Kennedy we should ask George HW Bush 8-) ScottsA you need to look up the definition of implosion before you start offering up unsolicited advice.

Hunt Confession E Howard Hunt directed the assasination of Kennedy according to his deathbed confession. I put "bears" in here so that idiots would have a choice too.

Jones got kicked out of Scholars for 911 truth for some reason - probably a dissagreement of some kind between him and many other members of this group. Allthough there is dissagreement amoung the scholars for 911 truth I haven't heard any dissagreement over the huypothesis that there is a massive energy deficit. Jones may be argueing this point in his future presentation. There is a presentation next Saturdy night on new evidence that Jones has uncovered that futher reinforces his hypothesis of controlled demolition using an explosive variety of thermate. You haven't explained what you think of normal investigative authorities being restricted from viewing the evidence at both the Oklahoma Murrah building and the buildings in New York on 911. I find it strange that the normal fire investigative authorities were restricted from viewing the evidence or carrying out their investigations as normally practised at the scene of accidents. Instead the government brought in these same other engineers (not fire or forensic investigators) to investigate both of the incidences. I wonder how you cannot find this suspicious.

They are Luciferians. They worship evil. Evil to them is what good is to you.

I'm not looking for respect on here.

Does your engineering discipline have something to do with logic ? Are you a mathematical modelling engineer ?

The math in computer graphics can be as sophisticated as anything else. Hoffman has shown that mathematical problems that were not solvable can be solved with computer graphics. I think he has also proved theorems that had not been proven - not sure exactly but I know he has done groundbreaking math modelling research on material science solving problems that could not be solved any other way using graphics and his work has been published by the best publications. Its not easy to get published in Nature or Scientific American. I doubt any of your teachers could match that. Computer graphics can go a lot further than getting computers to draw straight lines using basic like you would learn in high school. Stephen Jones is also very well respected having been chosen by the department of energy to head up the government research of cold fusion. I doubt any of your teachers were anywhere near as qualified in physics as Jones. He also did doctoral work at JPL. These guys are way above a couple of structural engineers that get their paycheques from governments and investigate suspicious terrorist activities when the government doesn't want regular investigative authorities looking at the evidence ( I wonder why they are so careful about who gets to look at the evidence - national security concerns ? ). Jones has also shown that the energy beam or nuke hypothesis is not a valid one.

Its only the countries that are not already under IMF control that the USA has a problem with. It is a big plot by the international bankers to own the planet. You may figure it out before they stick you on a train to one of those camps. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that those who print the money run things.

I think people that make remarks like this suffer from the fact that no one in real life has any respect for what they have to say and they get on these message boards just to say something and be heard.

Alex Jones was talking about this on his show today. He knows quite a bit about bees having talked with experts and having family that is involved with bee keeping and researching the topic last week. He has quite a bit of access to world experts on a variety of subjects given the popularity of his show and the number of leading experts he has had on as guests. He thinks its a big big problem. I don't think Jones overstates things - all that stuff about child prostitution and CPS farming out kids to foreign brothels sounds entirely believable to me because I actually knew a luciferian nihilist. He sounds unreal to many who do not actually know anyone that is not like them or anyone that is just purely sick & evil.

Yes kimmy there will be speculation on how the buildings collapsed. The thing that is obvious is that they did not collapse like that under their own weight and no one has ever seen a collapse like that. Something caused that concrete to turn to dust, those big explosions and all that heat that melted the metal and made it glow red hot. It wasn't the potential energy of the buildings. You being a high school graduate should know your own limitations and probably not attempt to make a fool out of a well respected scientist who has published in respected scientific journals throughout his career. He may actually know more about science than your teachers. Of course fanatasy technologies exist. The public is not privy to the most advanced programs in the US military. The blackbird aircraft was around since the 60's yet its existance didn't become mainstream knowledge until the eighties when it decommisioned then recommisioned for NASA. Scientific knowledge grows exponentially. You would have to be an ignorant fool to say that these fantasy technologies that stretch the imagination do not exist.

Why don't you guys write into NIST and explain to them why wtc7 collapsed. It seems that they should be taking advice from you apologists on this forum because they cannot figure it out. I wonder why that melted metal was never tested to see if it was aluminum or structural steel. Don't you apologists ever wonder about this ?

I am curious to know if you have ever taken a course in science or for any other reason could have the slightest idea about what you are talking about on this thread. You just echo the beliefs of others that obviously have no scientific background either - I suspect because you think its cool.