PolyNewbie

No, the tower blew apart at this point. Conservation of momentum says the tower just doesn't stop rotation. I did not say that Newtonian physics no longer applies. I stated that the system was dynamic and a static free body diagram no longer models it correctly. I said that its too hard to have a discussion about this without using diagrams and equations. I've shown how you are wrong. In the case of the three legs and the load and in the case of the rotating load. You can't BS your way through this discussion. I really do have a degree in engineering, you do not, nor do you have the equivalent. To suggest that I said Newtonian physics no longer applies because a free body diagram isn't applicable is another statement that proves you do not know what you are talking about.

The load on the table will begin to rotate toward the ground if a leg breaking causes a "failure". The load will never return to the other legs in a static sense. Thats why the top of the tower started rotating before it was blown apart with bombs. I don't want to talk about this table example any more. You cannot talk about science without being able to draw digrams & write equaltions. You cannot talk about a dynamic system like this using static free body diagrams.

If one leg breaks before the other the entire free body diagram becomes invalid because the forces all change. Your free body diagram only works up until the point of the first leg breaking then it is invalid and does not explain any further action. The two legs can never break at the same instant. You have to admit that you do not have the scientific background that you claim to have. You cannot BS your way through an arguement like this and make people think you have this knowledge. No, this is just an example is just a vehicle for which you have chosen to re express your opinion.

I'm not going to argue with you about table legs collapsing because I know that all three buildings collapsed at freefall speed. I've seen how things break before and I'm not interested in your opinion on this matter. The fact is that the buildings collapsed at freefall speed. If that dust was created by the process of the buildings collapsing through themselves the process would have been slowed by at least a few seconds with the most generous of assumptions in calculation. That dust was not created by the action of the building collapse, it was therefore created by some other process which must have been bombs unless you know of another way of creating that much dust from concrete. This proves 911 was an inside job and there can be no scientific doubt. Many scientists and engineers have pointed this out. They are not wrong, they are just not sycophant necon fascists that are willing to say anything to preserve their position in society. 2+2=4 not 5 and it doesn't matter how many professional organizations or groups that will try to offer another explanation for political or monetary benefit. The fact is that almost anyone can be bought in society today and the US government does horrible things like this to people all the time. Many people are in favour of all the wars and will say anything in their support - its the nature of war and its usually based on lies - like Pearl Harbour, Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Besides, the videos show the buildings being blown apart not pancaking.

OK CanadianBlue, which explanation do you prefer from the University Of Sydney, the shockwave version or the version without the shockwave. It seems their story is changing U Of Sydney Anyways, if the towers collapsed at freefall speed then there was no energy to produce the dust that was produced which means their had to be bombs. That is a scientific fact, irregardless of anyones opinion. Australia is in on all the wars as well and War Is A Racket

Its not that. I just am sick of hearing about Elvis, The Holocaust and the Never Ending Story. I've explained to you that I ignore your posts because you bring nonsense into a serious debate and you throw around baseless & stupid insults when I have shown that scientists, engineers, head economists, heads of FBI & CIA, senators, congressmen & intelligence heads of other countries agree with my point of view on 911. Its arrogant for you to call me a "nutjob" when I speak about 911 & the banks. This level of arrogance shows that you have no personal integrity and I no longer wish to debate with you. If you want to believe that buildings naturally collapse straight down as a result of asymetrical damage thats fine with me. Most people will be able to see the faults in your "analysis". This "analysis" is all wrong. It was all wrong at the start, in the middle and at the end. Its just your incorrect opinion applied to another example from which your initial analysis was so wrong as to lead anyone to see that you are not competent. It wasn't an anlysis of any kind. No, one leg would always collapse before the other causing the load to change its center of gravity as it rotates toward the ground. The other leg may or may not break when the table edge strikes the ground. No I am not and 911 doesn't show this. That part of the building that began to rotate was subsequently blown apart with bombs as it began to fall into the rest of the building. Anyone can see that from the videos. See See top video in this list

irregardless, my statement "This means that none of the supporting beams was even close to being plastic. " shows that the supporting beams did not go plastic after the attack and fire because the natural frequency of the building didn't change so the building wasn't significantly weakened before the collapse. My science does not require me to go around and repeat what anyone else says. Also I don't quote economists and philosophers. I quote engineers and published physics theoreticians. Since you just copies what you said about scrapers and wind load I'll do the calculation and see if you are correct. That table analysis proves that you are incompetent though. I know that no one likes getting their @$$ kicked over the holiday season. For that I am truly sorry.

You say that and if I prove that you are wrong will you stop participating in this thread and stop trying to pass yourself off as a scientific expert on this forum ? Because for that I will go to the trouble of proving my statement. Its not difficult. There are simple formulas for wind loading on scrapers. They tend to be anchored to the ground which is why they do not blow over. You said there was four legs.

These things I say can be easily looked up. Anyone reading this has google. As far as the table leg silliness from our resident technical expert, one only needs to remove one leg of a normal square table to know that these are unstable and sometimes tip with almost no weight applied. This shows that the opposing leg bears almost no load.

Yes they are. The biggest load in a scraper is caused by wind, not gravity and it wasn't windy that day. The building held steady after the crash and fire and its natural vibration frequency did not change. This means that none of the supporting beams was even close to being plastic.

Its a matter of public record that he was arrested and the bank that he worked for - Brown Brothers Harriman was closed for it. The criminal element in the US government got him off, but not for lack of evidence. Thats it - I'm not answering any more of your posts.

No. Your analysis is wrong. No one with an elementary knowledge of mechanics would come up with that. Intuitively its wrong. The leg furthest away from the one removed in this example would bear almost no weight.

A simple grade 10 thermodynamics analysis of the collapse shows an energy deficit- they can be taught about bonding energy and do elementary calculations. Although grade ten students do not often know that they are doing thermodynamics when sometimes they are. I know that because I have taught many kids how to do basic physics as a tutor while in school. There is nothing complex about the physics knowledge required to prove 911 was an inside job. I did the energy calculations for concrete being broken up into 120 micron spheres which is very generous considering the surface area/ volume ratio of a random piece of concrete would be higher than a sphere. When I did these calculations I assumed that the towers fell in 12 seconds and 14 seconds respectively (a generous assumption by Hoffman in video analysis and his calculations for his proof). I came to the conclusion that this calculation was too close. I assumed that only half of the concrete mass spilled over the side or was ejected from the building, the rest was allowed to continue falling straight down. This is a generous assumption as well since we know that the floors were converted to dust and there was no big dust pile at the footprint of the buildings after the collapse. In reality I have found that the buildings collapsed at very close to freefall speed which means even with the above calculations and assumptions an energy deficit would exist that could not be explained. 911 Mysteries clearly shows the collapse speed. I also got in an arguement with one of the scholars with me saying collapse time was longer and was shown to be wrong. A more realistic set of calculations would have the dust particles much smaller - 60 - 80 microns for pyrocrastic flow and there would be a shape correction factor because the little bits were not perfect sheres - perhaps more like snow flakes. Plus there are the steel parts that were ejected, one must account for this breakage as well, and the explanding dust clouds - which if you use PVT laws will give the least amount of energy equired to make the cloud (PVT laws conserve energy) Judy Wood models the collapse using pancaking and assuming every floor turned to dust on impact and goes over the side. This is realistic when you consider the clouds generated during the collapse and the lack of a dust pile at the footprint after the collapse. She gets a time of over 100 seconds. These types of simple calculations have been used various ways by different scientists to show that there is an energy deficit, no matter how you model this. An energy deficit proves that bombs were needed. I have also argued this with many engineers. The engineers that I argue with seem to either forget or ignore basic science and make gross errors in both their modelling and their understanding of physics. Some try to use invalid complex models that a senior high school student would come up with. Frankly, I worry when I go in a big building, given what I have heard from some engineers about 911. Before you start going on about Judy Wood being nuts, consider her CV: Judy D. Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Professor Wood teaches courses in the areas of engineering mechanics and experimental stress analysis.

They never inteded to win. The idea was to break the country into three parts as in the "Clash Of Civilizations". Saddam was a nationalist and nationalists need to be destoyed to make way for a new fascist world government based on collectivism. Remeber WMD's ? Remember how Americans thought Saddam was working with Bin Laden and they needed to invade Iraq ?

No. I said the demolitions were not conventional. Don't put words in my mouth. I have looked at seismic data (that I know wexactly how to read) and the collapses show 8 seconds and 10 seconds. Where did the enregy for pulverization come from ? If the official explanation is to hold you have a big energy deficit to explain. So the size of the building makes the physics different ? Things cannot tip because of the size ? So to get a building to collapse straight down would require some "well placed charges'. It wouldn't just happen naturally ? And you think the fact that there is a war on terror and that there are open borders and this does not raise any suspicion on your part ? And even though Larry Silverstein said "...pull the building..." he must have meant "pull the firefighters" ? How long can you keep grasping at straws like this ? Can't you connect the dots ? All this after they lied about the Iraq war and caused deaths of millions, allow legal torture of little kids and have people locked up in Abu Graib for no reason you still base your thinking on the fact that "the government would never do this to its own people.." Do you have kids ? What kind of future do you want for them - a job with motherland fatherland homeland security ? Will you mind when Bush drafts them ? There were three additional bombs found inside Oklahoma building and that is in both police reports and mainstream media (local TV), proving Oklahoma was an inside job yet still, the government would never do this !!! Who do you think shot Kennedy ? Did you know that 80 % of the bombs in Viet Nam were dropped on South Vietnam before the USA rushed in to save them from the scourge of communism ? Did you know the Bush family financed Hitler just before he ran out of money and was going to lose the election ? Do you really expect to convince anyone that this collapse was natural ? You must be getting frustrated. A belief system like yours is hard to hang onto, yet 16 % are still hanging on. After all, you are argueing on the same side as Henry Kissinger, the Prince Of Darkness & George Bush. You need to learn about banking. Only then can you understand how the USA works. Everything depends on money and runs on money. Rockefeller owns the USA. They vote and choose between the Rockefeller Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans. Your idea of democracy is an illusion and if you and people like you do not wake up, one morning to will awaken to NAZI Germany hell on earth and you will and should blame yourself for it. Read books like Money by John Kenneth Galbraith to confirm what is in this video: http://www.themoneymasters.com/ read quotes from this site of presidents and head bankers. You can see that video on Google.

Here is more of what Bowman had to say about 911 (Keep in mind this guy had two engineering Phds' and directed the SDI program under Ragan) You should read this carefully, it brings up a lot of interesting questions besides why the borders are being left open during this war on terror.

There is nothing conventional about how wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished. It was not a conventional controlled demolition. We know it was a controlled evnt because somehow all the sides of the buildings collapsed at the same instant all the way down. If it wasn't controlled, at some point one side would have begun to collapse faster than another side causing the remainder of the building to tip over to one side. This is what Fetzer & King refer to as the second law of thermodyanmics but anyone with common sense sees this intuitively. All he knows is what a conventional controlled demolition looks like. We can see that it definetly was not conventional. Many firefighters had reported an explosive wave going down the building ahead of the collapse. So you still think a few fires and damage on one side of the building would cause the collapse to initiate at the bottom and the whole building would collapse perfectly evenly ? Thats a very good point - he assumes it was obviously a controlled demolition until someone tells him it happened on 911. Why do they need CD experts when all you have to do is light a few fires, stand back and watch the thing collapse right into its own footprint ? I have seen CD guys brag about how much planning that takes. I assume from your posting here that they must be full of crap. Anyone could set up a building to collapse ito its own footprint. When contractors here about this they won't be hiring CD teams anymore. No this is a perfect example of neocons twisting the evidence and examining it out of context to draw conclusions that may make just enough sense to justify the official version in their own mind. You are speaking about the open borders here. It just seems odd to me that the country has just been attacked by foreign invaders and the danger is so bad that they have to start wars (a comming draft) and implement a police state yet they are not concerned about this enemy getting across an unguarded border. It makes the whole idea of the danger of terrorists seem like its made up - that there is really no danger at all and they know it becasue they set up 911. One would think that they would not need to have the motherland fatherland homeland security if they were willing to leave the borders open. Well you can time it yourself from the videos. Others have. The longest estimates are 12 seconds and 14 seconds. This still leaves a tenfold energy deficit as Hoffman points out. If the buildings floors coolapsed apon one another in a pancake style collapse, where does all the dust come from ? Why wasn't there piles of concrete at the collapse site ? OK. He meant to say pull the firefighters out (there were no firefighters in the building but he may not have known that) so he actually meant something else when he said "pull the building", he meant "pull the firefighters". At least you have one thing going for your beliefes. 16 % of the US population does agree with the official version like you do.

What about the dutch expert ? What about the open borders - How can you believe a war on terror is real when the borders are left wide open ? What do you think of Silversteins statement ?

Riverwind: The borders are open yet the military is fighting this world wide war on terror and they are militarizing police to defend the fatherland homeland and leaving the borders wide open. Don't you think this is contradictory ? Or do you think this is just irrelevant ? If they are afraid of terrorists doesn't it make sense to close the borders ?

You don't need to do a full analysis to show that this was an inside job. Knowledge of the fact that the buildings fell at nearly free fall speed leaves one wondering, where di the energy come from to pulverize the concrete to dust + break up all that metal. You get an energy deficit right there. Jim Hoffman has done this analysis and even if you assume PVT laws apply to dust clouds you get a bigger energy deficit. The first official version had the floors sagging due to heat and thats what initiated the pancake collapse. True - desks, computers and files add quite a bit of mass, but the etemps were not all that high. No fires or smoke - just molten steel that remained hot because the heat was trapped. How do you explain the beams that look just like they were cut with cutter charges ? What do you think of the various CD experts that claim wtc7 was a CD ? CD expert Structural engineering experts: link for quote below "Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde. " translated: "In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives". What do you think these guys would have to gain by saying this ? Do you think that Silverstein saying that they decided to "pull" the building is irrelevant ? Do you think that the fact that they did not use the fire marshall & FAA to investigate and chose the inexperienced NIST & FEMA instead is irrelevant ? Its the most important accident in US history and the government delayed investigation by 441 days then hired people that had no expertise in investigating these things. It seems like a white wash to me.

What does building design have to do with non linear chaotic processes ? Why do you think that a person who designs buildings is qualified to analyze a collapse ? Why don't they have GP'd doing autopsies ? Why don't they have aeronatical engineers analyze air crashes instead of the FAA. Specialized investigators investigate accidents and it draws a wide field of expertise and experience. A layman can be fooled into thinking structural design has something to do with collapses but really structural design is something people practise to avoid collapses not explain them when they do happen. Thermodynamics has everything to do with all science. No process can violate the laws of thermodynamics. If an explanation regarding a scientific event violates the laws of thermodynamics then the explanation has to be wrong. Its been shown that the official version of events surrounding 911 violates the laws of thermodynamics and therefore is not a correct explanation. You by saying "People who 'analyze' building collaspes with thermodynamics are quacks seeking to make it sound like they know something" have just proven your own lack of scientific sophistication. You do not have a degree in physics or engineering and that statement makes it very clear. No theory is "designed". The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including electric circuits, acoustics, magnetics, cooking, material sciences, any engine, - every imaginable science or scientific process involves energy and therefore thermodynamics. This arguement has nothing to do with creationists. Anybody can read about an experiment and see that if the floors were heated to 2000 degrees F for several hours and did not fall apart or bend then some of the official investigation is a lie. It doesn't take much to figure that out. There is also the 1975 fire that burned hotter for many more hours and had a much graeter load applied to the structure. There was no structural damage. You would think there would be metal fatigue or something - but nothing ! - no damage to the structure. Building construction is not the same as building collapse and people that do speak up against 911 lose their jobs. Civil engineers depend on government contracts. There are lots of CD experts that have said the buildings were demolished. Why don't you believe them ? It seems that you only trust people that are associated with government. So how do you explain the hot pools of molten metal that were still liquid weeks after the collapse ? Why were the normal authorities that investigate these things restricted from it while NIST and FEMA were used to explain the official version ? How do you explain that Silverstein said they "..decided to pull the building then watched it collapse ..." Are you one of the folks that will insist "pull" means pull the firefighrters out and not initiate a CD ? There is video of them saying "..OK, we are going to pull building five now.." just before its remains were demolished. Are you aware that the neocons are Straussians ? Straussian philosophy involves lying to populations to maintain myths necessary to guide societies. How can you trust a government that has people like Bush, The Prince Of Darkness, and Henry Kissinger at the helm ? Did you know that Kissinger is wanted for war crimes all over the world ? Did you know that a Bush was involved in both Kennedy assasinations (cover ups), MLK assasination, both Gulf wars, financing Hitler, legalizing torture of children, using chemical weapons in Iraq & financing Hitler ? If the war on terrorism is real why are the borders between US & Mexico being left open ? Why is it that you avoid many of my questions.?

Hawkings is a Phd physicist that specializes in thermodynamics. He can be found at HawksCafe

If there is any question about what killed you, you are autopsies by a pathologist. They don't go to a regular doctor to figure it out. When buildings collapse from fires or there are air accidents they go to the FAA and fire mashalls to investigate because thats what they do - its their specialty to investigate accidents. Why wasn't this done for 911 ? Isn't it strange that the gov closed evidence off from these guys and employed people that have absolutely no experience in investigating accidents to do the job ? In addition to this, the investigation was incomplete and not done using standard methods ?

You can go through civil engineering or mechanical engineering and get a Phd without ever modelling a single building collapse. In fact modelling building collapses is rare because civil engineers design for this not to happen. Once it does happen the details are unimporatnt - the only detail that matters to engineers is if they made an error in their linear math that caused the collapse. Collapses can be modeled on computer by engineers and this is almost always done with accidents, except in the case for 911. I wonder why. Modelling is done by adjusting initial conditions until the collapse has a debris field or post conditions that approximately that matches the evidence. This is commonly done even for car accidents. Coiuld it be that they couldn't make the model do what it needed under the assumption of pancaking ? Or was it just unimportant ? You must know all the math is different. In designing a building not to collapse linear math is used and its an organized system. Modelling a collapse involves non linear math and the system is chaotic. Totally different although a laymen can be fooled into thinking otherwise. Without computer modelling, a thermodynamic analusis must be done and this is done by phycisists. Fetzer is a theoretical scientist and has published in a large number of physics journals. He teached theoretical science. Paul Craig Roberts has a degree in engineering. Every Phd is a philosopher but Fetzer studied pure science, not applied and a mixture as well. You gave a bunch of government associated people. The people that do ask questions about 911 and are suspicious of it get fired. So its unlikely someone from FEMA or NIST would say its an inside job. How do you explain the hot pools of molten metal that were still hot weeks after the collapse ? If the building pancaked, how is it that the floors turned to dust ? These are contradictory. Kevin Ryan worked for NIST but started questioning the NIST official story because he knew of experiments that showed the floors would remain in place with temps of 2000 deg F and several hours. They fired him for pointing this out. The FBI put a gagg order on all NY firemen and cops. but you can find out what they said before the gag order in many of the videos of 911. They describe a CD.

Since when do structural engineers have any expertise in how buildings collapse ? I thought structural engineers designed buildings not to collapse. Why wasn't a simulation done if it was so obviously due to heat and fire ? The heat and structural damage was obviously not enough to cause the collapse. The building remained standing firm after the impact and most fires went out. There was no evidence of bending from the outside of the building. Its natural frequency did not change. FEMA was tasked with explaining the collapse in the context of the official version of events. The idea of controlled demolition was not considered. FEMA had only questions, one of which was regarding the sulfidization of beams that can really only be explained by CD. See sect 8 of FEMA. A few CD experts have said it was definetly a controlled demolition - no doubt. Then some a few days later completely changed their mind 180 degrees. I can find links of controlled demolition experts from around the world saying wtc7 was definetly CD, no doubt. Any civil engineer that goes against the official version can kiss gov contracts goodbye. Who on that list actually says CD is wrong ? Or do you infer that because they do not consider it ?