PolyNewbie

So what kind of engineer are you ? Why can't you answer this question ? I'd like to know where you got this idea of a pivot point required for rotation and would like to look at some text books that may be about building collapses in your discipline. It all sounds foolish to me. The same thing occurs with small masses. Large masses do not operate under differnt physical rules than small ones.

Its a stupid comment - actually a 500,000 ton structure behaves no differently than a 5 ounce structure wrt inertia. No building has ever collapsed the way the buildings did on sept 11 without the collaspe being caused by controlled demolition. The idea that the building is so heavy that it must only go straight down is utterly stupid and has no scientific basis anywhere. Its the dumbest thing that has ever been said by the government apologists that depend on government contracts to make a living. All supports all around the building had to give away at the exact same moment for the building to collapse straight down - impossible since damage makes loads less balanced, not more. "First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself." Thats not true. Anyone can see there are supports inside the buildings to prevent exactly that from happening - most of the supports that were in wtc7 were not damaged in any way. I wonder if the person who wrote that was sitting inside a building when they said that. "Second, there is no lateral load," If one support breaks before another the building will start to rotate. No lateral load needed.

The whole point is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about wrt science. Everything you say is wrong or shows that you are not educated - you have answered a few questions in a text book somewhere and probably got the answers wrong but even if you got the right answers this does not constitute an education. Not true. I can say that the wtc buildings would never float with the same degree of certainty that I can say there wasn't enough potential energy in the buildings to allow them to destroy themselves the way they did on 911. There had to have been bombs.

Al Gore = Lying new world order scum The Dying Bears

I said I would prove you wrong if you would go away and stop clogging threads with scientific nonsense. I also asked what kind of engineer you were.

What about these Riverwind Quotes 1. "The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems." 2. "Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses." 3. "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." 4. "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." So what kind of engineer are you ? All of the above scientific statements are absolutely wrong.

Educate me. How does science work ? What the f*ck is a razor anyways ? I'm a guy. I stuck with the name PolyNewbie so that morons could expose themselves by calling me "Polly". Its like leaving a $5.00 bill on the counter and testing a buddy who is to look after your place.

No. This is not the way science works. You constantly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea how science works and your statements in this regard can almost always be shown to be wrong. Neither of you understand Occams Razor. There are a few glaring anomolies in the official version that prove it to be impossible. The manner in which all three buildings collapsed alone shows the official version to be impossible. Occams Razor does not guarentee that the most simple minded explanation is the most correct. In that jeep example above, clearly other significant forces were directly involved in the accident than the simple explanation you would accept. In the case of 911, no one dissagrees with what is on video tape except the hot metal but there is plenty of other evidence that shows high temeratures other than tape of the actual colapses and the times immediately before.

No. There wasn't much damage to wtc7 at all - only a few fires. That is evident from photos shown in this link Von Romero / Rense. Romero has taken these words back and is now a highly paid lobbyist at the White House (ie paid off). You guys should tell NIST & FEMA how wtc7 collapsed because they don't know yet. Riverwind has claimed to be an engineer, perhaps he can teach NIST & FEMA a few things.

Where is this list ?

Stephen Jones is just investigating how the buildings were actually demolished. There is no shortage of scientific people that say 911 was an inside job. That includes structural engineers. Stephen Jones has a very impressive resume having been the principle investigator for cold fusion for the department of energy. Obviously the guy is very credible to be trusted with something as possibly groundbreaking as cold fusion by the government. Jones is good because he is finding physical evidence. Many people cannot understand that the fact that 911 was an inside job can be proven from only the videos and the expedient and organized collapse of the towers. Many people need something concrete to prove it.

This is ridiculous.

I don't think that you are an engineer and I do not think that you are qualified to design experiments of this nature or determine experimental validity. I think Stephen Jones is qualified to design experiments and draw correct conclusions.

Many of the NIST claims are not proven either, this one included. The evidence was destroyed. One can look at the link and decide whether that glowing red material is molten iron or it is molten aluminum with little bits of glowing red furniture that makes that material look homogeneous in nature. To me, molten aluminum with little bits of glowing furniture seems unlikely. There is ample evidence of high temperatures that would be associated with high temperature explosives. Stephen Jones will be comming out with new evidence of thermate being used. It will be announced tonight at U of Texas. We will likely hear about it and be able to see the video. The evidence consists of small spheres of iron with impurities of sulfur and aluminum. The spherical shape of these particles indicates high temperatures were involved. The U shaped bent beam would have cracks & stress lines in it if the beam was bent at fuel burning temperatures. The shape of this bent beam is unlikely created in any kind of normal circumstances. If NIST had any credibility the nature of this red hot material would be exactly know as the result of a properly conducted investigation. Apologists can explain things away using any unlikely scenario that fits withing the official version, but more evidence will always come to surface. The US government and the people that investigated the wtc collapses do not have a lot of credibility. The head investigator had a wiki definition that included the words "maintainance of public myths" in his own definition. This part of his own definition has since been taken down. The same engineers that investigated 911 investigated wtc '93 and the Oklahoma Murrah building. Funny that fire inspectors are not used to investigate these, rather, the government always turns to this same group to explain these highly suspicious events. In Oklahoma & 911 normal investigators were restricted from viewing the evidence. The Oklahoma bombing evidence has been buried and is still under armed guard.

FAQs 8 talks about sprinklers. Its irrelevant to this topic.

Jones had a video where he talked about the colour of melted steel vs melted aluminum and showed that aluminum in sunlight when melted is silver. Melted aluminum looks very different from melted steel. NIST Orange Glow Hypothesis / Stephen Jones You are asumming that the molten metal must be aluminum with no evidence. Unless you can provide some.. That was days and sometimes weeks after. Temeratures that high on the surface prove higher temperatures underneath. Molten steel was found underneath the piles. Lots of evidence of very high temperatures. FEMA mentions high temperature sulfidization. The bend beam (U shaped with no cracks and the meteor show very high temperatures) The lack of oxygen underground where these molten pools were found shows high temperatures. The "meteorite" (melted steel and concrete in a ball) shows high temperatures. Pictures of red hot steel are in this link. High Temps / Hot Spots Where ? The truthie sites I know use USGS data. The colour gives it away. Color is dependent on temperature and type of metal.

It was glowing red. It would be silver in sunlight if it was aluminum. Stephen Jones has pointed this out.

Evidence is shown for temperatures many thousands of degrees on that page. Half of the concrete being converted to dust is a generous assumtion. There is also the energy required to project the dust and building particles upward and outward during the process of the collapse. As I have explained , I can prove that the temperature of a material being heated can never exceed the temperature of the heat source quite easily, but I need you to agree to stop posting on 911 threads in response to my posts. The fact that you do not understand this shows that you are a liar for claiming to be an engineer. You scientific analysis cosistently shows idiocy.

Hot Spot Details, Various links I use that to show that the towers could not collapse that quickly while the kinetic energy of the towers was being used to convert the concrete to dust. The towers were gradually blown apart from top to bottom successively. The conversion to 100 micron dust during the collapse would slow the collapse down significantly. Deny it all you want but its right there on video - the dust is created during the collapse process. I can explain why the temperature of a material can never exceed that of the temperature of the source of heat applied. I have asked that you stop polluting my threads if I prove this and not post on 911 threads any more. You have claimed to be an engineer, you will not say what kind of engineer you are.

That confession was faked. It wasn't Usama that said that - it was a black guy with a pug nose that was 50 lb overweight, not a tall skinny middle eastern guy with a long nose. The supposed confessor that made that tape doesn't even look like Usama. Fake Usama Confession Tape

I haven't seen any evidence that supports the official version. I haven't seen any posts on this group anywhere that blame 911 on the masons, jews or evil corporatist cabal. This is just opne of those things that gets made up to discredit good arguement. Popular Mechanics does this in their 911 debunking. Its called using "straw men". We have scientists on our side that explain that the way the collapses occured would be impossible if the official story was true the idea that fires and structural damage caused the collapses is impossible - its a violation of both 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. People that argue against that point of view have nothing. Even the FEMA report cannot explain the collapse of wtc7 and only hypothesise the collapse of wtc1 & wtc2. The reasons for the collapse of wtc1 & wtc2 keep changing as previous explanations are proven to be impossible. The FEMA report even stated that the official hypothesis of events wrt wtc 7 collapse had only a "low probability of occurance". The reality of 911 is that the official story is nothing but smoke and mirrors. People who have a problem with that are using their own expertise to "debunk" scientific and evidential fact that supports the MIHOP point of view. Arguements against our view of 911 consist of making conspiracies up and then proceeding to debunk them. People assume that 1000's of people would have to be in on the conspiracy - this is a hypothesis based on absolutely no knowledge or experience of the intelligence community yet is held up as undeniable fact. Intelligence experts have said that only a government could pull something like this off (ex defence minister of Germany) As for Riverwinds comment above, my response to him has been made clear in previous posts.

People are waking up. 911 exposes the underbelly of the beast.

Its hard to believe there are people around like that in the sycophantic culture we live in. None of these guys that post here have had anything to say about the kiddie brothels or the trillions of dollars that have gone missing. They are too busy clogging up 911 threads with nonsense. Nonsense is the only defense they have when argueing 911.

Yes. If I do will you stop clogging this group with your "scientific expertise" such as that demonstrated below? I asked you what kind of engineer you were and if you were related to Bill O'Reilly. You have answered neither question.

New Patriots Added to Patriots Question 911 That list sure is growing quick.