9/11

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:If you want to claim that the forces exterted by the remaining supports are less than the weight of the building then you have to explain why.

I did not claim that. You cannot seem to read and I am not debating undebatable things with you like the basic laws of statics. I normally get paid to teach stuff like this. The building didn't pancake. It was blown apart.

If you want to say this is pancaking thats fine with me. (see bottom of page for video)

Alex Jones interviews a structural engineer that witnessed 911 that day. He replayed the recording from that day when he interviewed the structural engineer (Masters in Structural Engineering) who saw the event first hand. The structural engineer explains that only explosives could do what he saw. That is on todays show, exactly 2 hours in I think.

[Roy Wilson]

PolyNewbie: are you related to a flathead that calls himself Kathasong?

[Riverwind]

I did not claim that. You cannot seem to read and I am not debating undebatable things with you like the basic laws of statics.

Great! You agree the that normal forces exterted by the remaining supports must equal the weight of the building. Therefore, you must also agree that if those normal forces exceed the load bearing capacity of the remaining supports then the building must collapse straight down. A building _cannot_ tip unless the remaining supports can support the entire load while it is tipping.

This is not a complicated problem. Trying to dismiss it as 'too complex' is a cop out because you don't want to admit that I am right.

I normally get paid to teach stuff like this.

My condolances to your students...

The building didn't pancake. It was blown apart.

That is your opinion - not a fact. You cannot prove that with the evidence available.

[Roy Wilson]

Ok , you conspirator whack jobs.

I was having coffee at 8:30 911 watching the news when I saw the first and the second plane hit. The planes had a full belly of fuel, jet fuel. A full belly is way more that the “it was an inside job” jerks have in their head.

Now do any of you freaking geniuses know anything about jet fuel? Well I do.

I have seen VN era jets go down with ½ fuel and take out an entire town, nothing left, no bodies no huts. That was one single jet. Two hours after you couldn’t get within 500 ft due to the intense heat.

As far as CD Explosives go there isn’t one person here has a clue how they work or how to deploy them.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:That is your opinion - not a fact. You cannot prove that with the evidence available.

The evidence of exactly what happened is right there on video ! Call it pancaking if you want but there are plenty of independent videos showing what happened.

As far as physics debating with you why don't you write a paper and post the paper with your analysis showing that the buildings can only collapse straight down, find a lawyer that wants to make an easy 500 K contingency and go to court for the million dollar challenge? Better yet, go into business as a CD consultant. Clearly these CD companies have been lying to the public about how tricky it is to make a building collapse into its own footprint. The world is your oyster. Go for it.

At least you should be able to write a paper showing that the buildings can only collapse straight down. Prove everyone in the truth movement wrong. Prove all those Phd's wrong !

I'm not debating physics with you because (1) you don't understand the basic principles (2) the laws of physics cannot be debated and (3) I'm not drawing diagrams and writing equations to teach you without being paid for it. Go to a physics forum and join the 911 thread - there are plenty and dazzle everyone with your knowledge of physics.

[Riverwind]

At least you should be able to write a paper showing that the buildings can only collapse straight down. Prove everyone in the truth movement wrong. Prove all those Phd's wrong

Once again you abuse the word 'proof'. I never said that I have proved that buildings can _only_ collapse straight down. All I have done is demonstrate that it is possible for a building to collapse straight down which refutes your endless assertions that it is 'unnatural' for a building to collapse straight down.

I'm not debating physics with you because (a) you don't understand the basic principles ( the laws of physics cannot be debated and © I'm not drawing diagrams and writing equations to teach you without being paid for it.

ROTF, PN you are a riot! Whenever I back you into a corner you come up with the most amazing excuses to avoid admiting you are wrong.

This is a simple problem - the fact that you cannot even come with a basic counter argument demonstrates that either 1) you don't really understand physics or 2) you don't want to admit you are wrong.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: Anyone reading these posts can clearly see how you contradict yourself all over the place.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind: Anyone reading these posts can clearly see how you contradict yourself all over the place.

Really? Shall I create a poll and ask what people think? My argument about the physics has not changed. I may have wandered in different directions because you keep evading the question and are hard to pin down.

This is a simple problem of static force anlysis. You have made the claim that a building will most likely tip over when a support is damaged. Tipping over implies that there is net force on the system that causes it to rotate about a pivot point. What is the magnitude of the forces at that pivot point? What happens if the pivot point cannot extert thoses kinds of forces? You could answer these questions without diagrams but refuse to because you don't like the answers.

[PolyNewbie]

Show the world your dazzling knowledge of physics. You should publish a paper and show all these people that think its impossible for buildings to collapse straight down at freefall speed without using explosives.

Go ahead, take a poll. I know what the sychophants on this board that I have been argueing on will say. They will say you are right of course. I don't care, physics isn't a matter of opinion.

[Riverwind]

You should publish a paper and show all these people that think its impossible for buildings to collapse straight down at freefall speed without using explosives.

People have to be taught that steel boats can float or that heavier objects do not fall faster than light objects. Popular misconceptions of physics are common and certainly not proof that they must be true. When I first saw the collapse of the buildings I thought it was extremely unlikely - however, once I did the calculations I realized that a symmetric collapse is a very likely outcome.

They will say you are right of course. I don't care, physics isn't a matter of opinion.

Right, and the facts that demonstrate the errors in my argument are where? You certainly have not provided any facts but you certainly have provided a lot of opinions. OTH, I have provided a logical argument with calculations and I have invited you to provide a similar analysis that demonstrates any flaws in my argument. The fact that your refuse to do so indicates that you probably cannot create such a counter argument.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: People have to be taught that steel boats can float or that heavier objects do not fall faster than light objects. Popular misconceptions of physics are common and certainly not proof that they must be true. When I first saw the collapse of the buildings I thought it was extremely unlikely - however, once I did the calculations I realized that a symmetric collapse is a very likely outcome.

Doing calculations now eh ? Show the world ! Publish a paper ! - show published physicists that they are wrong !

Riverwind:The fact that your refuse to do so indicates that you probably cannot create such a counter argument.

I have pointed out your errors in too many places. Go debate your version of physics someplace else, this thread is about 911.

[Riverwind]

I have pointed out your errors in too many places. Go debate your version of physics someplace else, this thread is about 911.

No you haven't - you raised a couple valid points and I addressed them. I restated the problem in very simple terms today and asked you to answer some basic questions. Yet you refuse to provide any answer or any counter explanation. I know why you don't: because you don't have any answer that supports your point of view.

Incidently, this topic is very much connected to 9/11. Demonstrating that buildings can collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage undermines of of the elements in the truthie argument.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Incidently, this topic is very much connected to 9/11. Demonstranting that buildings can collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage undermines the entire truthie argument.

Your calculations and determinations are all wrong. I pointed out your errors in the free body diagrams that no one competent could ever make. At that point I wanted to stop debating with you about physics.

If you think you can undermine the whole 911 truth movement then go do it !! Why waste time with me ? I'm just a guy with a bachelors degree in engineering. You should be presenting papers at physics conferences, not wasting your time argueing with guys like me. Maybe you can win a Nobel prize in physics since you can prove that buildings should collapse straight down into their own footprint without controlled demolition.

Really, Good Luck. I wish you the best. I'm just done debating with you.

[Riverwind]

Your calculations and determinations are all wrong. I pointed out your errors in the free body diagrams that no one competent could ever make. At that point I wanted to stop debating with you about physics.

LOL, I asked you direct question today that you refuse to answer and you question my knowledge of physics. I think it obvious who is incompetent.

Maybe you can win a Nobel prize in physics since you can prove that buildings should collapse straight down into their own footprint without controlled demolition.

You don't get nobel prizes for simply restating the science that is already well known. The only scientists that believe that symmetric collapses cannot happen are a tiny minority of truthies who do not have experience in building design.

Really, Good Luck. I wish you the best. I'm just done debating with you.

Glad to hear you concede defeat.

[Canadian Blue]

Polynewbie has just lost the debate, it's time to shut this down once and for all.

Now it seem's all he has left to debate with is himself.

I'm just a guy with a bachelors degree in engineering

Electrical engineering, not engineering, now you are trying to mislead everyone on here about your qualifications.

[jbg]

Go ahead, take a poll. I know what the sychophants on this board that I have been argueing on will say. They will say you are right of course. I don't care, physics isn't a matter of opinion.

I have little doubt that these conspiracy theories are wacky. We are being asked to deny what's in plain sight; the second plane hitting in that case.

[PolyNewbie]

jbg:I have little doubt that these conspiracy theories are wacky. We are being asked to deny what's in plain sight; the second plane hitting in that case.

Just because a second plane hit the towers does not mean the towers collapsed because of damage and jet fuel fires.

If you take a look at what the NIST report says you will realize that is says something very different from what people are lead to believe it says. The buildings should not have collapsed from the damage and fires written in the NIST report and the NIST report only hypothesises why the buildings collapsed. The first NIST report didn't even investigate wtc7.

What does destruction of evidence appear like in court ? Is that not guilty behaviour ? Why were the fire marshall and FAA not allowed to investigate ? Why did it take 441 days to convince Bush to start an investigation ? Are all accidents not investigated ?

If you think these collapses were caused by damage falling wtc1 & 2 then you are throwing logic aside in favour of dogma.

If you cannot see that this is not a pancake collapse then you are setting logic asise again and replacing it with dogma needed to start illegal & unjustified wars. What is causing those giant pieces of building to go upward ?

How can you ignore that, in congressional testimony, people with Cheney on 911 testified that he gave a stand down order when the plane was going toward the Pentagon. Planes were at Adwards AFB ready to be launched for defense.

[Canadian Blue]

How can you ignore that, in congressional testimony, people with Cheney on 911 testified that he gave a stand down order when the plane was going toward the Pentagon. Planes were at Adwards AFB ready to be launched for defense.

I read the testimony and it once again wasn't substantial at all. As well Adward AFB doesn't exist, its Edwards Air Force Base.

Polynewbie is done debating me, and anybody else that throws logic his way. It's really interesting when he gives you a link to a white nationalist website.

I'm not sure why its so hard to believe that terrorist organizations like Al Queida exist.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:It's really interesting when he gives you a link to a white nationalist website.

Its interesting when you say that because that is a straight out lie. I never gave you such thing. Thats why I don't debate you any more. You are just a scum bag that will say anything. I didn't give you the link and the link was to an article by Paul Craig Roberts but it wasn't for you to read because I don't care what you think.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents about making calls during a flight...

I was once on a flight from Vegas to Buffalo one Christmas Eve. Because of bad weather in Buffalo the flight was re-routed to Baltimore for some reason. People on the plane were pissed and put out, and a number of them started making calls to whoever was meeting them in Buffalo. Evidently there is no problem what-so-ever in being able to make cellphone calls from an aircraft.

[Black Dog]

I've been gone for a week and a half and this thread is still going on? Jesus.

[PolyNewbie]

Chuck U Farlie: I was once on a flight from Vegas to Buffalo one Christmas Eve. Because of bad weather in Buffalo the flight was re-routed to Baltimore for some reason. People on the plane were pissed and put out, and a number of them started making calls to whoever was meeting them in Buffalo. Evidently there is no problem what-so-ever in being able to make cellphone calls from an aircraft.

Right, shortly after 911 the Discovery Channel had a show about the airlines developing technology that would allow cell phone users to make calls from airplanes. About a year or two after that it was implemented. In 2001 you could not make cell phone calls from airplanes because of the switching speed between towers and anything beyhond 8000 feet was to high for transmission to reach. In 2001 it was essentially impossible.

New Announcement - cell phone useage in airplanes

This is well documented and not only supported by this link.

[Riverwind]

In 2001 you could not make cell phone calls from airplanes because of the switching speed between towers and anything beyhond 8000 feet was to high for transmission to reach. In 2001 it was essentially impossible.

The cell phone issue i sone of the more bizarre claims by the truthies. The calls did happen and they are a matter of public record. There is no way to know for certain what the position and altitude of the planes when the cell phones calls happened so anyone who claims that the calls were 'impossible' does not have clue what they are talking about.

[Roy Wilson]

In 2001 you could not make cell phone calls from airplanes because of the switching speed between towers and anything beyhond 8000 feet was to high for transmission to reach. In 2001 it was essentially impossible.

The cell phone issue one of the more bizarre claims by the truthies. The calls did happen and they are a matter of public record. There is no way to know for certain what the position and altitude of the planes when the cell phones calls happened so anyone how claims that the calls were 'impossible' does not have clue what they are talking about.

Obviously the cell calls were made well below the 8000 ft alt.Flt 93 .

[PolyNewbie]

The times at which the cell phone calls were made show that the planes were at normal operating altitude.