PolyNewbie

The MSNBC poll that put him near the front both before & after the debate was pulled. I suspect the poll above is pure fiction.

Some idiot on here (forget which one) suggested that Ron Jeremy had a better chance of winning. That is no longer the case. He is in the running now - strong and near or in the lead.

I've listened to his interviews and speeches on infowars. Ron Paul scares me a bit. If he starts getting popularity the globalists will purge (execute) all the mid & low level political & civil leaders that have been supporting the pathocracy, put their psycopaths in place and we will enter a quick dissent into hell. The good folks on here that have supported these neocons will either be purged or become our ruling elites. I'm reading a book called "Polictical Ponerology" that lays this all out, but its based on collective works done in the 20's by scientists in Poland. Its translation has been repressed (by Brzezinsky) but I got a copy from Signs Of The Times. I'm going to have to read it again before I get the full gist. You can buy it in PDF form.

Great news.

Paul was asked if elected, would he work to phase out the IRS. His answer was "immediately". Without being the world police and getting rid of the Federal Reserve this can be done according to Ron Paul. I wonder how long this guy will live. I hope he gets elected.

People who believe official version of 9/11 are crazy Various doctors listed with hyperlinks, On a slightly different topic, here is a link leading to various structural engineers, physics Phd's, etc that say the same thing. PatriotsQuestion911

www.rense.com had the author of Seeds Of Destruction (Jeffery Smith) on the show today. He has written another book. He says the GM foods are causing gut bacteria to change inside the bees gut and their immune systems are dying. The electromagnetic radiation from cell phones is causing the navigation problems as well. Its a combination of things. Very informative show. (He also had Peter Schiff on. Some mainstream supporters may recall the name in economics in all the big mainstream economic sources. He says the economy is going to collapse for the same reason as everyone else, including Lyndon LaRouche. He suggests some investment stategy for protection.) This is "real news" and "expert interviews" not "propoganda" and "BS" and if more people would be willing to pay for this quality of info mainstream would stop lying and propogandizing all the time. Its about $10.00 / month.

Yeah but the military is just working for the Fed & the Standard Oil cartel. I wonder if Monsanto has gotten in to plant their GMO crops.

I like three legs. Ever notice that if you go into older restaurants with non flat floors and 4 legged tables that you will spill your coffee or beer because the table will rock at some point ?. If you have a three legged table it will never rock and this horrible calamity will never occur. Restaurant owners please take note.

A torque can be balanced by a counter torgue. No normal forces involved except those involved in creating the torgue. They are not coicident and cannot be added to form one normal force. Please stop. Take a course in basic mechanics. You are polluting this thread with garbage and I am not here to teach basic statics.

Seven Is Exploding: Italian Mainstream TV So there you go. Mainstream is now saying it. All you really have to know is that GlobalResearch is saying it because when GlobalResearch or Alex Jones says something you can take it as 100 % credible. See linked video on wtc7.

No it isn't. A normal force is not the same thing as a moment. Apples are not the same thing as oranges. You cannot model apples with oranges. No. I am claiming this normal force is silly and is another way of showing that you are completely wrong every time you make a scientific statement. No. Every single thing you say about physics is always 100% wrong 100 % of the time that is why it is all confusing. What kind of engineer are you ?

Even if the Americans withdraw now they have still won. The Federal Reserve is in Iraq and the American corporations own the oil fields. They need to remain long enough to build those walls and build up sectarian violence so that the country divides into three or the Iraquies will get togather and throw the banks and Standard Oil out.

No, it wouldn't. The bankers would have still invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and Haiti - or maybe it would have been Lybia and Syria instead. These countries don't have our banks - thats why they are being invaded. The name of the game is to get these folks paying income tax to the Federal Reserve.

No. The important thing to remember is that this is the internet and its full of annonymous posters who will try to sound like they know what they are talking about when in reality they have no idea. They are just out to waste everones time and make people think they know something. Its an ego sickness. Get help. Figleaf, BC and myself have all told you the exact same thing but using different language. At least two out of the three have taken engineering statics. Take your physics elsewhere.

Oh, OK. I get it now. You think the table is in equilibrium due to a single force normal to the leg supporting it while being supported by the one leg. Thats is why you think the forth leg would hold the weight of the table or it would collapse straight down. If the leg doesn't fail and the table stays up then the load of the table is brought down on that one leg, but it is not a simple normal force as you describe. Some of the vertical sections of the leg will be in tension and the other part will be in compression. So there is no single "normal force". the sum of these forces would be a normal force but it would be a meaningless summation because not all of the forces act on the same point in space - ie the summation would lead to an incorrect conclusion like adding 3 oranges to 2 apples and saying you have 5 oranges. Think of how your arm would feel if you were holding the table up from one corner with one hand - would it feel the same as if your were holding a barbell up weighing the same as the table top ? How would the table top react as you run out of strength ? None of your physics makes sense - its all wrong, but you had me confused with this whole table leg attached to the floor thing. Anyways your conclusions are all wrong even with that assumption being brought in when the leg fails and when the leg does not fail. (in both cases you are all wrong) I take then that if the wtc buildings were supported by only one support column at one of the corners and all of the other supports were broken and that single support somehow failed that the building would fall straight down. Is this correct ? Why can't you tell us what kind of engineer you are ? I'm really really curious.

I hope it gets defeated. One thing about the democrats you can be sure of: They are more evil than the republicans. Democrats will want to take the guns away, chip everybody, invoke global warming laws and invoke hate laws if elected.

Shadows on the wall.

That never ever happens - not even for an instant.

Nope (again). Steel bends and so does wood.

No, it means that I already know you are wrong when you introduce an unecessary and irrelevant variable such as time. Force diagrams never have time as one of the variables. Buildings collapsing, etc are not discrete processes and it does not take "time" for something to "decide" that its going to fail. You bringing time into it shows that you have no real understanding. Yes, but systems do not wait a certain time before something begins to occur.

Thats because its wikipedia. Not exactly the best source - anyone can put whatever they want in there. To do a thermodynamics analysis based on the first or second law one must have a defined system which is defined within a boundary. But systems have obeyed the laws of thermo before algegra was even invented. Boundraies can be drawn arbitrarily so do not form part of a definition. I have used thermodynamics to analyse electrical circuits since my first few assignments in circuit theory. Hoffman, Jones, etc must all be wrong when they talk about the laws of thermodynamics in the context of building collapses then. You do not have to have a closed system - just a defined boundary.

I have no problem with privatization as long as there is competition. The governments desired kind of privatization is to hand natural resources over to cartels such as the Standard Oil cartel and the banking cartel. We see this in Iraq as well with no bid contracts given to companies - likely based on their political donations because it isn't based on the work they do - we know this because they are not doing the work - they are just collecting the money. Our governments are put into power by these cartels and are therefore in favour of labeling these industries as "privatized" to sound benign and efficient and to hoodwink the dumbed down public. Our governments answer to these cartels and are not given any choice. If they speak up they get a bullet in the head - its that simple. When Harper privatizes the prisons & police the same banking cartel will own those and the police will arrest anyone that isn't paying enough income tax to the banks so that they can earn money from them by collecting money for their incarceration from the tax payers. The people that own stock in the corporations will implicitly demand this. The banks will want it too because it fits in with the often stated objectives of the New World Order - so the corporations work the way they do because the banks want it that way. Shareholders also want it that way because they only think in simple terms. Corporations always work the way the banks want them to because if they don't the banks won't lend them money, their stock prices go down and the required amount of control can be bought. All of the power is always in the hands of the people that print the money - implicitly or explicitly. The only way for things to ever change is for the public to wake up to the reality and force change from the grass roots.

Thats because mass is proportional to volume (a cube) and strength is proportional to area (a square). Its irrelevant here.

I don't call them proofs. The only thing I have proven is your incompetence and I have used your quotes to do it. Here they are again: (I show only 2 out of five to save space) Riverwind: "The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems." The laws of thermodynamics apply to all science everywhere and have for all time, long before humans or the idea of a "closed system" even evolved Riverwind: "Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses." Thermodynamics has everything to do with everything - even biological processes. If a scientific explanation breaks the laws of thermodynamics than that explanation has to be wrong. Its hard to "prove" things so simple but what has been proven with the above statements is your total lack of scientific understanding as a whole and therefore your explanations are the ravings of a fool.