PolyNewbie

The NIST report shows the temperature distributions. The temps shown are not high enough to even appreciably weaken the structure.

The perimeter was overbuilt by a factor of 20 the core was overbuilt by a factor of 6, so much more strength was there than was needed. It would, but you would still have to have some magic to make the tower collapse straight down. These stabilizing structures were all in failure as well. You would expect the tipping to occur in the most damaged side. The perimeter supports were failing during the collapse. The building does not behave how it was designed during a collapse. It was designed that way to resist a collapse but once a collapse actually starts to occur evrything the building was designed for becomes irrelevant. This is moot anyways, we know the buildings were blown apart from the videos and the fact that huge support beams were found very far away from the towers, some sticking out of other buildings like arrows. This and the fact that the concrete was turned to dust shows the buildings were blown apart. See Photo in second post

Not as of 40 or so years ago. Of course we don't know what they have today. What about lasers ? Besides the beam weapon advocates don't think it was in space anyways.

Any unbalanced force about the center of mass will cause a rotation. It does not have to be comming from the top of the building. If all the supports do not collapse at the same instant then you have an unbalanced force. Exactly what kind of engineer are you ?

The path of least resistance is through the air not the building Tipping does not require any kind of force on the top of the building. It requires that some supports fail before others. Stop it. Your scientific explanations and analysis are shown time over to be idiotic. You don't need a science degree to see how idiotic they are. I think you are doing this on purpose as some kind of psychological warfare method. No one can be this stupid.

The towers wtc1 & wtc2 were built to 20 times gravitational load around the perimeter and six times graviataional load in the center core. The damage removed 30 % of the support. The heat cut the strength of a few of the supports in half. The building natural frequency did not change after the impact or during the fires. Then it just started to blow up from top to bottom very suddenly.

It just is not possible for a building to collapse at very near free fall speed in a manner that looks identical to a perfectly executed controlled demolition as a result of asymmetrical damage and small fires . The building internal supports are mush stronger than air and would offer resistance that would slow the collapse down greatly.(wtc7) It is not possible for tall buildings to collapse straight down through themselves when the building collapses are unstable and the path of least resistance is for the building top to roll over and fall through the air. (wtc1 & wtc2) Therefore the official version of the events of 9/11 does not satisfy the requirements of Occams Razor - which is really junk logic in the first place anyways. Its not a proven law. Stating that "most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule" is stupid because whether or not an explanation is a conspiracy has no bearing on whether or not its true. You haven't demostrated anything scientific besides your own ignorance which can be proven. Your "analysis" is just a set of connected errors and I have been through most of your scientific explanations twice. I have explained why the building would tip. I don't want to get into any more scientific discussions with you.

Threat of the strap kept me in line on many occasions.

You have said such things in the past. If it wasn't OBL, then who ?

That has been said often and I am starting to agree with it. Pornography is another similar source of moral decay.

There is nothing new or magic about an energy beams. Microwave ovens, flashlights & loudspeakers all emit energy beams. One must assume that there are other types of energy beams that are weaponized that you have not seen mentioned in Popular Mechanics or on the Discovery Channel. What is important is that the collapses were a controlled event not how they happened. The fact that they were controlled events form strong circumstantial evidence for the events to be the result of an inside job by government.

No one scientifically competent would make such a statement and your correction is still wrong as I have pointed out. That is not your only scientific statement that can be shown to be wrong or in better terms "completely ridiculous". Stop waving you scientific stick around in these threads as if you are some kind of authority because you are not as clearly indicated in the quote below: "The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems." "Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

Many scientists have said a symmetriucal collapse violates the second law of thermo. Jeff King, Stephen Jones + others (Hoffman I think) have said it. You have shown that you have no idea about what you are talking about wrt scientific principle so please stop argueing about science. Engineers say World Trade Center collapse was planned Improbable Collapse This is your explanation of how a building can collapse perfectly straight down: "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." " The underlined statement above written by Riverwind proves that Riverwind is incompetent.

This has happened but only due to specific faults that would cause a shearing force to cause a specific type of fault that initiates a collapse - all the walls sort of tip at once and the floors come crashing down. Its happened during the contruction phase of a few buildings when the building wasn't properly braced. It happened in a shopping mall in Korea or Singapore ( I forget which) when the building was built in a way different from the design - the design was changed during construction and not verified as OK with engineering. The building sides tipped caused by a shearing force and the building collapsed onto itself. This can be caused due to a specific fault during or after contruction which provides the needed element of control for a perfectly symmetrical collapse. All of the examples put forth of natural building collapses brought forward by the apologists have their collapse initiated by exactly a shearing force. I can't draw it in here - but imagine how a card house collapses.

No, you have no scientific evidence to say it would. Everyday experience tells us that this is impossible. Things do not collapse naturally straight down with all supports breaking at the same instant. A simple force diagram would show this - after some supports break the remaining forces are not evenly distributed among the remaining supports - some get overloaded before others and the building tips. This intuition is backed up by the second law of thermodynamics. Stop trying to sell yourself as someone who "understands science" this is easily shown not to be the case.

No. That building was the one that was on fire and causing all the smoke that looked like it was comming from building 7. Building 7 only had a few small fires and comparatively light damage. wtc7 damage wtc7 did in fact collapse into its own footprint and only broke windows in a few places on other buildings that stood as close as less than 50 feet. It was an absolutely perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition and was text book example of how to CD a building. Its collapse didn't damage any other buildings. The damage to ther buildings were due to the projectiles being shot out from wtc1 & wtc2 during the explosions that gradually demolished the building from to to bottom. Anyone can see how the wtc7 went down perfectly on any of the videos. These videos also show wtc1 & wtc2 being blown apart. The propoganda will only be believed for so long - particularly when all the evidence you need to see explosions is right on video. People only fall for the power of suggestion for so long.

I'm reading about this stuff - John McMurty has a paper on Science for Peace website called The Regulating Group Mind that was interesting. I think these guys on here are working with the secret police or the have comfortable jobs and comfortable homes and think the globalists need them and that they will never be affected. Some are just completely ignorant - many are afraid of this truth. We have two more years before the bubble bursts - a globalist said this on the prisonplanet site so at least the economy won't break fora while. I'm concerned about Russia because the globalists are really mad at Putin - he has thrown the bankers and oligarchy out and doesn't want to go along with globalism - when the Bushes and Co came in to start wrecking the Russian economy and rob everybody the Russians woke up and arrested some of them and threw others out of the country. They learned what globalism is really about. The talk that supports this official version is coined in Europe as "Austrian Talk". I'm reading about the science of evil that was first written by a group of scientists in Poland in the 20's. Brzezinsky suppressed the manuscript. The book is called Ponerology - the science of evil. Anyways we have more time before everything caves in and we can wake up more people.

Harper on the side of nationalists now. Thats a joke since he is an internationalist. These guys will say anything that suits the moment. They have completely surrendered themselves to the dark side and destruction of the country.

You can't convince everyone that 9/11 was an inside job directly but showing that the viewpoints of people that support the official version have foolish reasoning might help. 9/11 & monetary reform are the main tools for waking people up about the beast. 9/11 exposes the underbelly, monetary reform is the weapon. The North American Union is more perilous but people automatically assume its a good thing because - I guess - we are neighbors and the word "union" sounds like a good thing. Of course they have no understanding of economics because they took it in school.

You find the structural collapse normal but yet know absolutely nothing about even the most elementary concepts in science as shown by your quotes below: "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." "Quantum mechanics is the theoretical underpinning for all matter" So, I would advise readers to ignore the parts of your posts that imply that you actually know something about science.

Switzerland & The Gun Lots & lots of guns - automatic rifles too - Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

so he meant "it might accidentally fall" when he said "pull it". Well, OK then.

People have come forward to report strange occurances in wtc1 & wtc2 wrt moving offices around, drilling, dust laying around, bomb sniffing dogs removed, strange security shutdowns. In the case of wtc7 it was mostly a spook and IMF / tax collection building so its unlikely that anyone would come forward. No one came forward after the Oklahoma building to talk about the installation of bombs in that building - they were found unexploded after the Murrah building "terrorist attack". As far as the above demolition goes, it doesn't look like the demolition of wtc7 but plenty of other controlled demolitions look identical to what was seen during the wtc7 collapse. The movie 911 Mysteries Part1: Demolition shows the strange occurances in wtc1 & wtc2 months before the demolition as well as many examples of controlled demolition that look identical to the wtc7 collapse. Its the best 9/11 documentary done so far - see my link to it in my signature. I don't think so. "Pull it" is a popular CD term - its doesn't mean "pull the firefighters" unless you need it to.

How ? It would put corporations in more of a ruling position because if people demanded more money they could just move - they will just keep moving to where the wages are lower. Workers have no bargaining position.

Of course any discussion of the Bush administration will eventually bring Hitler in because the two are linked - "PolyNewbies Law".