PolyNewbie

wtc7 looked like a conventional controlled demolition - exactly like one. There was no characteristic of the collapse of wtc7 that did not look like a conventional controlled demolition. wtc1 & wtc2 also look just like a controlled demolition, but not a conventional controlled demolition. How do you know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed masterminded 911 ? Did the corporate news & neocons tell you that ? Are they the same ones that keep talking about weapons of mass destruction ? They said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was thousands of Americans that died defending us from them - but they didn't really exist. Now they are saying that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction and they are going to invade based on this even though it has been reported be independents that Iran is nowhere close to developing weapons of mass destruction. Did you know that Russia wanted to make peace and end the cold war but the USA said no because Rumsfeld & Cheney said that they had hidden weapons of mass destruction even though the CIA and intelligence said there was no danger of this ? These guys might lie all the time about weapons of mass destruction to start wars or maintain wars but they would never kill Americans on their own soil to start a war. How many times do these guys get to lie to you before you wake up ? Three card monte anyone ?

There is nothing you have posted that I have ignored - at least if something is said. Your last two posts haven't said anything.

Thanks Sharkman, I appreciate your advice. But you are too late, there are many ways of showing that bombs were used to demolish the buildings and if bombs were used then 911 was an inside job. I know it makes you uncomfortable and your gut reaction is to say the government would never do this but that is not proof. Consider the points: (1)The fact that explosions occured before the buildings began to collapse is one way of showing 911 was an inside job (2)The evidence showing sulfidization on beams is another way of showing 911 was an inside job (3)The fact that the building collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions according to witnesses and on camera strongly suggest 911 was an inside job (4)The expedient and orderly collapse of the buildings proves 911 was an inside job, this explained by various demolition experts as well as scientists. (5)The fact that evidence was removed and/or destroyed suggests 911 was an inside job (6)Congressional testimony showing that Cheney repeatedly gave a stand down order in response to providing defense for the attacks suggest the government at least let it happen on purpose. (7)The fact that Philip Zelikow directed most of the investigation suggests 911 was an inside job. Zelikows specialty is the maintainance of public myths, not engineering or fire investigations. (8)The fact that the FAA and fire marshal was restricted from the investigation suggests 911 was an inside job. (9)The fact that multiple main stream sources reoported the elleged terrorists still alive after 911 suggests that 911 was an inside job. (10) The sites and sources that attempt to debunk this conspiracy theory can be shown to be lying or misleading all the time suggests that the conspiracy theories around 911 are likely true and this in itself suggests that 911 was an inside job. So what is your evidence to suggest that Osama did it alone ?

That poor Globalist. I feel bad fdor him

911 Eyewitness (free on google) does sthe same sort of examination from a different angle and applies this method to more video evidence to show explosions occured before the collapse. Watch 911 Mysteries starting at 14 minutes into the movie. The camera man hears the explosion then points the camera upward and then we see the collapse initiation. 911Myths is lying about this (and a lot of other things).

No ! 911Myths is lying again !!

"We’d suggest it’s realistic to assume the collapse started at 0.5 seconds before the clip begins, and perhaps a little earlier. " Who is "we" ?

That clip does show that the explosion does start before the collapse. the video 911 Mysteries leaves no doubt. This means an explosion initiated the collapse. Its another way of showing bombs were used and that 911 was an inside job. Keep exposing 911myth lies and I'll use them to prove my case !

FRom 911Myths: "We’d suggest it’s realistic to assume the collapse started at 0.5 seconds before the clip begins, and perhaps a little earlier. " False statement. The clip starts long before the collapse begins. The actual clip is in 911Mysteries: Part1 demolition (free on google video) Strange how they don't show the video

There is a lot of debate about this, however, the initial rate of collapse is free fall and that is all you need to show there were bombs. By the way, both Oklahoma and 911 were both investigated by the same group of 4 engineers, Gene Corely being one of them. In the case of 911, the investigation was directed by the same group of engineers. In both cases experts have come forward to say the buildings were demolished. Neither of these cases show that as being considered a possibility by the investigators. Both investigations have come under fire for conflict of interest. In both cases- 911 & Oklahoma the government decided to hire Gene Corely instead of the fire marshall and/or the FAA. Curious isn't it ? Do you think Van Romeros first statement about 911 having to be a controlled demolition, then retracting his statement two weeks later, then getting big promotions is just another one of these strange coincidences ? You would think that if he was wrong when he shot his mouth off he would get reprimended rather than promoted. Strange how being utterly incompetent in the eyes of the official version supporters leads directly to promotions as was also abserved with varous FAA officials as well. Being a total phuck-up has its benefits in the Bush administration, doesn't it ? Oh well, strange things happen I guess.

You include the fact that something would only take a few ms and a human observer would not notice it as if human observation has some kind of implication. You are talking about special relativity but do not realize it because you cannot talk the talk. If you can't talk the talk you can't walk the walk. If you think that the application of the second law of thermodynamics to this problem is wrong, then the world is your oyster. You will acheive a certain degree of fame because you will have managed to discredit some big people in science in a fundamental way - people that have published in very impressive journals. You will be doing the Bush administration a big favour by discrediting this movement in a very profound way. You could maybe join Van Romero and become a lobbyist for the weapons manufacterers. Why waste your time argueing with me ? I'm no one special - I've just got a degree in engineering - I will never make waves in the scientific community and will never be recognised for a theoretical contribution to science. Or just give it up. You are a Bool Schitter and nothing more.

I have shown how simple high school level physics can be used to show that 911 was an inside job. I have explained enough so that anyone with a knowledge of physics can figure out how to do the calculations. The buildings both fell in less than 10 seconds. The initial rate of collapse is timed and compared with a falling object on many 911 videos -in fact most if not all 911 videos show the initial rate of collapse that of freefall. This is impossible without bombs. Steel does not suddenly fail before first deforming. The steel was not deformed in such a way that it changed the shape of the structure before the collapse. The second law of thermodyanmics is not an unproven claim. If you don't believe me, look at what scientists say about how the second law of therodynamics applies to this problem, st911.org. You do not need it to prove 911 was an inside job. If you do not believe that the application of the second law is correct, I suggest you email these people that have Phd's in physics and inform them, or do a paper for the physics society. You would be doing the science a great favour and probably receive international recognition for showing that someone of Steven Jones caliber is actually wrong. You would likely get research grants and be able to participate in the weapons development for imperial hedgemony the war on terror. There are too many ways of showing 911 was an inside job. You have demonstrated that you do not know the difference between relativistic physics and newtonian physics. Your physics as a product of your own imagination and nothing more.

Riverwind: I'm not argueing about the table with legs anymore - yes your terminology is all wrong which proves you can't walk the walk. Keep argueing about it. It does not matter how things appear to a human observer. There you go, going relativistic again. Once a rotation starts it doesn't stop and thats called conservation of momentum. Most of your analysis on this problem is dead wrong. Its actually a very difficult problem. Stop BS ing your way into making people think you are an expert - this problem is WAY over your head - to the point where you do not even recognise this. What do you think of Van Romero ?

Actually, you are quackery - I've already shown that with your "Newtonian physics" and your "an observer" arguemnts in this. Anyone that has studied science in a university will recognise you to be the quack. I have shown that you cannot talk the talk and therefore cannot walk the walk. Really, ask yourself, how much do I really know about physics ? I am sorry to have kicked your @$$ over this season and you keep comming back for more. I know this reality is hard to deal with and many people cannot handle it. BTW: Why do you think the electric car dissapeared when there is global warming and we could build nuclear plants ? Where does money come from when you get a loan at the bank ? These things are actually related to 911 in a truth that many people simply cannot handle and dismiss because of an effect known as cognitive dissonance.

If the evidence was properly examined we would know, but that was destroyed. In what sense ? Do you mean that its impossible for the government to have done this? Not true. I've looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion that many others have- that the buildings were demolished. I came to that conclusion the dat it happened, before ever hearing about Alex Jones or the 911 truth movement. I am sorry- but that sentence doesn't even make sense. You are using double negatives. Bombs are the only thing that could bring the buildings down like that. The fact that there had to be bombs in the buildings proves it was an inside job. If you watch the video you will see some upward movement of dust from the buildings - how does this happen from falling ?

Riverwind: stop puting words in my mouth to attempt to discredit me. I have never said anything about endorsing a theory based on "energy beams". I have always said I do not know exactly how the buildings were demolished, only that they must have been given the expedient and orderly nature of the collapse. All of you sycophants are always trying to put words in my mouth to discredit me. Also, when I said that your static free body diagrams do not apply you iterpreted that as me saying that non Newtonian physics apply here. You also used the term "to an observer" which is itself a relativistic term. This proves beyond any doubt that you are BS ing your way through this talk on "physics" and have made up some physics in your own mind to justify 911. You can't talk the talk so you can't walk the walk and you should stop BS ing people into thinking you are some kind of expert.

Why do you suppose that they mis represented the construction of the buildings then ? ie: the "core denial" BTW, whic theory do you thing is the truth: Core meltdown (1st popular mechanics theory),column failure, truss failure, or the shockwave theory ? (The shockwave theory is a favorite amoung ameteurs according to Jim Hoffman who has published in Nature, Scientific American and others) What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance" and no matter how much evidence is put before you or how rediculous any of the official versions is shown to be, you will alsways believe them.

Riverwind: Some people can talk the talk without being able to walk the walk but if you can't talk the talk then you can't walk the walk. You cannot talk the talk - your terminologies are all wrong.

There is that and the free fall rate of collapse that proves 911 was an inside job, not to mention the stack of higly circumstantial evidence that supports the same thing.

I don't agree with your scientific arguement. I have never ever heard a scientific arguement like this used to explain 911 and I have read them all - there are several different ones and perhaps yours can be added to the list. Perhaps you can convince the 911 scholars (st911.org) or your scientific prowness because you cannot convince me. Larry Silverstein admitting the demolition by accident, Romero saying the buildings were demolished before being paid off, Patroit Act being on Bushes desk on Sept 10 th 2001, Cheney's stand down orders, the uninvestigated "annoymous" trade transactions (try and do trading annonymously sometime), Rumsfeld accidentally saying flight 93 was shot down (I can give you the video), Normal investigators (fire marshall /FAA) not being allowed near sites, illegal removal of evidence reight after crashes, 441 days before official investigation started, hot spots weeks after collapse, evidence of CD on beams, war machine in Middle East gulf before Sept 11 waiting to attack, Pentagon attack tapes not shown,...these must all be just coincidences because the government would never do something like 911. Just because the US government lied about WMD's in Iraq, did an anthrax attack on government officials, shot Kennedy & has Straussian / Nietzsche philosophy, doesn't mean 911 was an inside job because we know the government could not have done 911. Some other explanation must be true no matter how many coincidences that are required to justify it . Is that your position on 911 ?

Imagine 100 tables stacked and all four legs collapsing at each table all the way down. This arguement really has little relevance to this thread. Besides Romero said himself the collapse was too neat before he was paid off.

You mean like Romero ? This guy first says it must have been CD, then retracts his statement and gets a series of promotions starting in Jan 2002 now he is a washington lobbyist. CanadianBlue: Honestly, If Bush got on TV and admitted there were explosives in the buildings would you believe it...honestly...yes or no ?

StandDownOrders Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 911 Commission on May 23, 2003 and offered an interesting account of Vice President Cheney’s behavior as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon. 2 The essential testimony is in boldface. MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given? MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And -- MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the -- MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon. MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah. MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that. And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out. MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down. MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation. MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down. MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out. …

"New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal 1 Â and are reprinted below. Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." 2 Â His assertion of the official line in the second article is not backed up by any explanation or analysis. " Romero He later retracted this statement and got a big promotion Romeros Promotion He got another promotion too and now he is a top washington lobbyist. I think this explains why experts endorse the official version :angry:

Why would you say something like that ? I actually did quite well at E & M and have self studied quite a bit of DSP since graduating as well as taking it in school. I've also done original work in DSP. I've already pointed this out. No legs will collapse at the same time. As soon as one collapses you need a new free body diagram- which will give you another rotation. Your arguement doesn't change anything. Its not theoretically possible for a building to collapse straight down. I found pics on the web of various collasped buildings to emphasise my point but lost the link. I will try and find it again and post links of pics of various buildings that have collapsed. I won't have this arguement with you on here. Its too much like playing basket ball on an ice rink.