PolyNewbie

The government loves you. Go back to sleep. Are you suggesting that the tape was faked or that it was an accident ? What about the CNN report ? You don't think that the media having foreknowledge of this event is significant then ? So you admit that there are efforts to manage BBC and that the CEO resigned after poo poo ing the war on terror but still don't think they would be pressured to cover up 911.

The BBC says they lost the tape. If that were the case they would have known the tape was faked and exposed that. There is another CNN clip showing the same thing but done an hour before. See Jones Report: BBC & CNN prior knowledge of wtc 7 collapse. Remember there was no one inside the building and they didn't bother putting out the two small fires. Many fireman & police have said they were going to "take it down". Plus it looks like a perfectly executed textbook conventional controlled demolition. There is nothing about this collapse that doesn't look like a perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition. Enron records were destroyed and the ongoing investigation ened. The Pentagon was hit where the trillions that went missing were being investigated. See Seven Hours In September. Means, motive & opportunity have been demonstrated for showing 911 was an inside job. There are piles of circumstantial evidence and direct indisputable physical evidence of controlled demolition in all three buildings that cannot be explained in any other way except by some self proclaimed experts on the internet who can't even do basic free body diagrams and don't know the difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.. Even the FEMA repoort acknowledges that the official version of wtc7 collapse has only a very low probability of occurance.

Satanism has permeated the politics here as well. We know from Alex Jones videos that these people are Satanists. I know one lawyer in Canada that is a very proud nihilist & Luciferian and will do anything - has no morals whatsoever and doesn't believe in them. Ted Gunderson, an ex high level FBI official says that a disproportional number of children dissapear around summer and winter solistice in the USA. This is when Luciferians worship.

So the demonstration of prior knowledge by the BCC means nothing. I had to be an error, just like when Silverstein said "..pull the building..." he meant "pull the firefighters". Interesting. I sure am glad we have an expert like you to clear these things up.

Ryan himself clears this up on an interview on Guns & Butter. Page 3 of 17 in the archives. They have a few interviews with Ryan on this site. Guns & Butter is one of the best sites on the web for 911 interviews of eye witnesses and experts. They also have Hoffman interviews on this site. Riverwind, do you think that there is any significance to the fact that the above video link shows that the BBC had foreknowledge of this event (wtc7 collapse)? What is your expert opinion on this ?

He makes it sound so simple - tests at 2000 deg C for several hours and no sagging. hmmmm. So you don't think he was fired because he spoke out ? You don't think the prior knowledge of this video posted means anything ? Donald Rumsfeld accidently admitting that '93 was shot down doesn't mean anything ? Larry Silverstein saying the building collapsed was just another concidence ? Yes it is. But Ryan details tests of full size sections. I wonder why they bothered doing it. Maybe you could do some consulting for them and straighten them out on these things.

Kevin Ryan got fired for reading these test results and going public saying that the tests showed the building would have stood even with temps of 2000 deg C. They didn't say why he was wrong they just fired him. I wonder why the floors didn't sag in 1975 when the fire burned more intensely and hotter.

I don't really know what Lyndon LaRouche says about Jews. I have only listened to his stuff on economics which does seem to make a lot of sense. I'm a monetary reformer and if you understood what monetary reform is then you would understand my position on things because I take the position of a monetary reformer on every issue. Now you can be a little bit more precise as to what my beliefs may be when stating them in the future.

People that are curious about what links Al CIA da to the Bush adminsitration should watch the movie about Straussian Phiolosophy called "The Power Of Nightmares". Here it outlines some philisophical histopry between Bin Laden and the USA and how both want fear to control their populations. The movie is free on Google.

I understand that heat weakens steel. I just don't understand how this particular quantity of heat in the steel with these loads would cause the building to fail. There is too much of an overbuild factor - its at least 6 everywhere to withstand fire and hurricanes. With any kind of reasonable safetly factor this just doesn't add up. The fire only caused the steel to lose half of its strength, of course the building steel is designed to hold up the building even if half of its strength is gone. We know from the 1975 fire that burned hotter and lasted much longer that fire isn't enough. When you look at the structural damage it is less than 25 % of the support.

I think its very easy to see that the building supports should not have bent (or melted) after this damage and heat. You can look at the NIST damage profiles and the temperature distributions and see the the support load bearing capability isn't anywhere near being exceeded. I think you can see this with wtc1 & wtc2 after the accidents. The buildings remained standing and solid. The heat diagrams from NIST show there would be enough heat to cause the steel to weaken to the point of failure. Hoffmans slide show has these diagrams.

I think he is the kind of programmer that could model a collapse like this. The fact that you know nothing about buildings shows when you think you need to be a structural engineer to understand this problem. You do not need to be a structural engineer to understand this. I really think Hoffman knows exactly what he is talking about on the twin towers and haven't heard him say anything stupid yet. But engineers supporting the official version have said some really stupid things, for example: "Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports. 3 " Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports. "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." 4 "Each Tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape." 6 911 Research Hoffman sounds like a guy that could get a simple free body diagram right every time. I doubt he would confuse Newtonian physics with non Newtonian physics and I bet he doesn't go around calling people idiots and incompetents when it is he himself who is wrong.

I don't get it either. Why don't you explain.

There are 3 - sorry - 5 for wtc1 & 2 I think - or 6. Anyways first it was diesel tanks on fire melting and collapsing a row of supports all at the same time, then it was fires from falling debris. Bush has also explained that there may have been explosives.Audio comes up when you access this page. George Bush has said there may have been explosives planted in wtc7 and I saw that on CNN (TV). As far as Riverwind's science goes, consider this: "No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse. " This slide show discusses wtc7. This disagrees with Riverwind but Hoffman has published in Scientific American and Nature. Riverwind has published on the internet and got most of his physics wrong. I give you the facts. You decide 8-) I don't know what kind of a hockey puck cannot understand the importance of this video in establishing guilt. I'd like to hear what the lawyer has to say about this.

I see. So you would know that because you are an aeronautics expert and a non linear controls expert. Or did you get this from your rectum as well ?

Riverwind: If I read through this whole topic and find where I introduce rotation to the discussion and you respond by accusing me of using non Newtonian physics will you go away and stop responding to my posts ?

They have already had 5 official versions of what happened with wtc7. The problem is that your analysis shows that you have no idea what you are talking about wrt physics and evry bit of your analysis is wrong. You have confused simple Newtonian physics with relativity. You have got basic free body diagrams wrong. Your models do not in any way match observations. You are just a blow hard that has a computer connected to the internet.

You are not a CD expert and not a pilot, so did this "fact" come from your rectum ? Of course its possible to know where the planes would hit. They can put bombs down chimneys.

WOW. Why have courts ?

Its funny to hear how you guys argue this. Soon you will be saying "OK OK 911 was an inside job but thats OK too because it happened 6 years ago and its time to forget it". The woman is standing there reporting building 7 collapse before it collapses. The video shows wtc7 standing in the background !!!

Now building 7 doesn't look like a controlled demolition 8-) Building 7 Collapse videos on this page Here are the characteristics of controled demolitions: Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition. The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls). The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint. Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event. The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high. The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum. So Black Dog, how is it that building 7 collapse does not look like a controlled demolition ? When I say that the Pentagon and Pennslyvania crashes are a waste of time I mean that there is strong evidence that 911 was an inside job and can win an arguemnt based just on the facts of this but we have definitive proof - the collapses in NY. That above video I posted is already being removed.

A BBC clip reporting that building 7 had collapsed a full 20 minutes before the collapse. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=14...4824&q=Building 7 BBC And Larry Silversteins comments - think about it. Look at this link (not for 'hockey pucks') before they snatch it.

Its called the "security & prosperity patnership" and its not a secret. go to www.spp.gov. Its been on CNN. Both Loud Dobbs & Keith Oberman (MSNBC) have talked about this. Oberman has even mentioned the detention centers that I keep talking about.

Ravens use sticks in their beaks to pull insects out of holes. Parrots can be trained to eat with a fork.

The semitic people are Arabic. They are the ones that most often get accused of being anti semitic. Thats sick part of all this douyble speak designed to trap dissenters. Soon it will be legal to shoot anti semites and anti semites will be anyone that doesn't like the banks or thinks 911 is an inside job or stands against the imperial conquests and massacres of women and children and MEN too.