9/11

[Canadian Blue]

They are not silent. You won't see what they say on TV in North America. You keep saying silence is some kind of testimony. Even engineers that speak up over here lose their jobs. Jones (Phd physics), the leader of the truth movement lost his, so how can you be convinced that all these engineers would speak up ?

But their are always a few crazy academics. I believe a holocaust denier is teaching electrical engineering at Northwestern University.

Say poly, ever teach electrical engineering at NWU?

[Riverwind]

Really ? How is that ? Do you have any examples ?

He assumes that it would be possible to wire explosives in WTC without anyone knowing. He also assumes that these explosives could still be precisely controlled by the plotters even after massive fires rage through the building. His calculations of the time of collapse are complete fabrications based on inaccurate video evidence.

Even engineers that speak up over here lose their jobs. Jones (Phd physics), the leader of the truth movement lost his, so how can you be convinced that all these engineers would speak up ?

If there was any merit to the truthie claims then no power on the planet would be able to stop the facts from coming out.

If find it incredibly ironic that truthies do not hold themselves to the same standards of evidence that they seem to demand from the gov't. They look at the gov't reports and nitpik every detail and cry 'coverup' whenever some detail is not explained precisely. Yet, they wave their hands and say they have 'proved' it was a controlled demolition but they can't tell for sure what explosives were used. They can't explain why the building was blown up in the middle when the standard practice for controlled demolitions is to blow up from the bottom. They can't explain exactly how the explosives could have been planted in the three buildings without anyone noticing. They can't explain why the US gov't would even think of doing such a thing. They can't really explain why guilt ridden collaborators have not come forward and confessed their part.

Sure they wave their hands and claim that they have 'explanations' for all of these points - however, none of the explanations are backed up by the level of proof that they demand from the gov't. If fact most of it has no proof at all.

So Poly and any truthies out there. Nobody is interested in your 'science' and your 'analyses' until you come up with proof for all of the missing pieces that I listed. And when I say proof, I mean real proof - something that is at least as solid as what you seem to expect the gov't to provide. Nobody is interested in excuses about why you can't provide the proof that gov't agents killed all of the bomb planters - that shouldn't stop you from identifying specific missing people with the technical skills required.

Bottom line: stop whining about how the gov't has not 'proven' its case to your satisfaction when you don't even attempt live up to those standards when it comes to your own theories.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:He assumes that it would be possible to wire explosives in WTC without anyone knowing. He also assumes that these explosives could still be precisely controlled by the plotters even after massive fires rage through the building. His calculations of the time of collapse are complete fabrications based on inaccurate video evidence.

Lots of intelligence people believe the building could be wired without anyone knowing. Anyone could figure out how to get the building wired for explosives without anyone knowing. I certainly could have.

You think the video of the collpases was speeded up and that in reality the collapses took much longer ?

The NIST report says 9 seconds and 10 seconds. You obviously think all the "mainstream scientists" are wrong too. Perhaps you should be the head of a physics dept in a university or direct a physics society and edit their papers.

Riverwind:If there was any merit to the truthie claims then no power on the planet would be able to stop the facts from coming out.

No one has stopped the facts from comming out. They have come out on European TV but not American TV.

Riverwind:Yet, they wave their hands and say they have 'proved' it was a controlled demolition but they can't tell for sure what explosives were used.

All the 911 truthie scientists say its easy to prove 911 was an inside job using simple physics. Of course you know much more about science than all these Phds. Even if they say they have proven it and you cannot discredit their work doesn't mean they are not crackpots.

Proof is proof and the only thing that has been proven is that 911 was an inside job.

The offiocial government report isn't proof of anything. Its actually quite a joke - I read the 9/11 commision report. It doesn't prove anything its just a big suggestion or hypothesis about what happened.

I bet you will be watching Jack Bauer tonight eh ?

[Canadian Blue]

All the 911 truthie scientists say its easy to prove 911 was an inside job using simple physics. Of course you know much more about science than all these Phds. Even if they say they have proven it and you cannot discredit their work doesn't mean they are not crackpots.

Well, when only one or two out of thousand's disagree with the official theory, it's not really proof of anything.

Proof is proof and the only thing that has been proven is that 911 was an inside job.

Why haven't people been put on trial then who were involved in the "inside job".

I bet you will be watching Jack Bauer tonight eh ?

You bet sphincter boy, that show rocks.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:Well, when only one or two out of thousand's disagree with the official theory, it's not really proof of anything.

Physics isn't a democracy, neither is math. If everyone votes for 2+2=5, still 2+2=4.

[PolyNewbie]

People wonder why more engineers and scientists don't speak out about 911. I suggest that the reason for this is the same reason why more economists don't speak out about the banks. We have the most corrupt monetary/banking system that has ever been concieved.

See The Money Masters video (free on google to see why this is)

[Riverwind]

Proof is proof and the only thing that has been proven is that 911 was an inside job.

It has hasn't be proven at all. There are huge gaping holes in the truthie explanation. I pointed out many of them in my previous post. How can you expect anyone to take your claims seriously when these gaping holes exist? If you think the gov't has an obligation to prove that Saudi terrorists were on the planes then truthies have an obligation to prove that people wired the building with explosives. If a passport found the the wreckage is not enough proof then mysterious power outages on a few floors are definitely not proof.

At the end of the day that is why truthie science is junk: they claim that they believe in 'proof' and 'evidence' but completely ignore their self declared standards when it comes to filling in the critical gaps in their hypothesis.

At one level, I agree that the gov't has a theory about what happened on 9/11 and that the theory has not been proven. However, when you look at the big picture and all of the evidence the gov't theory is complete and consistent. This makes it infinitely more plausible than the truthie theory which relies on the script writers from James Bond and Austin Powers to explain many of the details.

So Poly, why don't you face up to your own hypocrisy? Why do you expect the gov't to meet standards of proof which you think don't apply to you?

[Riverwind]

People wonder why more engineers and scientists don't speak out about 911. I suggest that the reason for this is the same reason why more economists don't speak out about the banks. We have the most corrupt monetary/banking system that has ever been concieved.

If these corrupt powers really existed why haven't they be used to silence truthies like Hoffman and Jones? Any gov't willing to kill 3000 of its own people should have no problem shutting down a couple internet conspiracy hacks. Any gov't that can keep the 100s of collaborators silent could easily silence two more people. If you want to claim that they have been threatened then where is a the proof? More importantly were are the consequences? A face saving 'retirement' from BYU is hardly a serious consequence. Any police state worthy of the name would have gone after all of their relatives as well. You also can't use the argument that they are too well known - a gov't that perpetrated a hoax like 9/11 would be extremely vigilant and would have put pressure on these guys as soon as they first appeared - long before they were well known. Also, the same logic would apply to the missing collaborators - once they get their stories in the media they would be 'untouchable'. The fact that Jones and Hoffman are free to spout their nonsense is pretty strong evidence that the gov't has nothing to hide.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:If these corrupt powers really existed why haven't they be used to silence truthies like Hoffman and Jones?

This is because we live in what is known as a soft dictatorship. The banks control governments who in turn control the media and the corporations but the government wants people to believe that they live in a democracy. In a hard dictatorship people like this would be executed or imprisoned. In a soft dictatorship they allow this talk as long as its manageable.

Of course the illusion of democracy is being shattered by the war in Iraq and the number of people against it. People are also waking up about the banks and the control they have over society through new books and political parties dedicated to monetary reform such as The Monetary Reform party in the UK, the Canadian Action Party and Lyndon LaRouche in the USA.

Riverwind:The fact that Jones and Hoffman are free to spout their nonsense is pretty strong evidence that the gov't has nothing to hide.

You keep infering that these guys are idiots, these guys are both well published Phd's in scientific fields. How do you expect people to believe you when you say that ? What have you published ?

The government can get away with it as long as their are idiots that will defend their weak position rather than demand answers to important questions around 911. I guess you feel like you are identifying with the heroes on TV by doing this like Jack Bauer, but you are certainly irresponsible and foolish as a citizen. The TV set is the most effective weapon of mass destruction ever created because it attacks people from the inside, converting them to morons.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind, even if you believe that Osama Bin Laden did 911 you should be asking about the 2.3 trillion dollars that went missing from the Pentagon on Sept 10/2001 announced by Rumsfeld on mainstream TV. You may just assume that all the investigators of this fiasco except one was killed on 911 is another 911 coincidence. You may assume that the one that wasn't killed being promoted a few steps up on the ladder like Von Romero is just another oddity, so,

If you are not interested in all of this why don't you start asking questions about all the wars and the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq or why the heroine trade has increased as a result of us being in Afganistan. Or you may ask, "why are we invading Iran ? " How many times are we going to be fooled by the Rumsfeld/Cheney "weapons of mass destruction" hoaxes ? They did it in the 70's too to keep the money flowing for the cold war.

What about the electronic voting boxes ? Why would the governement spend all that money to implement electronic voting when there was always plenty of volunteers to count votes ? Don't they know that no one has ever built a computer that could not be hacked or was hacking their intention ?

Why have Bechtel not been investigated for child sex slave trading ? Who are all those detention centers really being made for ? If they are for foreigners then why is the USA/Mexico border open ? If there is a war on terror how come the Mexico/USA borders are open ?

Why is the US locking refugees in these concentration camps rather than turning them away and sending them back home ?

Why are there so many people in the White House that are closely tied with NAZI philosophy and supporting NAZI's ? Isn't Henry Kissinger recognised as a war criminal in most parts of the world ? Why is a war criminal in the White House ? What is so special about the USA that allows them to set the Geneva convention aside ?

Are you sure that you want to defend people who think its OK to torture children in front of their parents by manipulating their genitalia with a set of pliars ?

What would it take for you to stop defending these kinds of people and making excuses for them ? Are you with the secret police are are you really just this stupid ?

Are you going to watch Jack Bauer tonight ?

[Riverwind]

This is because we live in what is known as a soft dictatorship. The banks control governments who in turn control the media and the corporations but the government wants people to believe that they live in a democracy.

What no proof? Just a mindless statement that you expect people to treat as fact? So typical of your double standard when it comes to 'proof'. If the gov't makes a claim you demand irrefutable proof yet you think that all you need to do to make your case is throw out some unproveable claim.

You keep infering that these guys are idiots, these guys are both well published Phd's in scientific fields. How do you expect people to believe you when you say that ? What have you published ?

The fact that they believe a controlled demolition brought down the WTC towers makes them idiots. In any case, Hoffman is not a Phd - he is a computer programmer with an unknown educational background. He co-authored a few papers that were printed in some magazines on completely unrelated topics. He has zero expertise in structural engineering. Jones actually has a Phd but his specialty is physics - not civil engineering. He was fired from a tenured position for incompetence - it is very hard to fire someone from a tenured position because tenure exists to protect academic freedom. The fact that he was fired anyways is evidence that his scientific case is extremely weak as far as the rest of the academic community is concerned.

Riverwind, even if you believe that Osama Bin Laden did 911 you should be asking about the 2.3 trillion dollars that went missing from the Pentagon on Sept 10/2001 announced by Rumsfeld on mainstream TV....

Yada, yada, yada...

What exactly does that have to do with why the towers went down? You are evading the question yet again. How can you support a 'scientific' theory with such gaping holes in it? You accept unsubstantiated claims from truthies as fact yet you reject well-substantiated claims by the gov't as unproven hypotheses. Why won't you admit that when it comes to proof that you have a ridiculous double standard?

You must remember that even if you deny this double standard - it is painfully obvious to anyone who looks at your arguments objectively.

[kimmy]

I'm not going to read anymore of these physics explanations that are a product of peoples imaginations. Once the building starts to tip it will keep on tipping because tipping is easier than going through a building

Even if it started tipping, it doesn't tip very fast because there's not enough net force in any one direction to send it that way very fast. You don't have a believable explanation for how the thousands of tons of falling mass would get pushed over far enough to fall through the air.

All of these ideas about tipping being the logical outcome are based on peoples' experience seeing trees sawed on one side, or on building stuff out of Lego blocks or Jungo Stix. It ignores the fact that unlike trees or Legos or Jungo Stix, the girders in the WTC were being subjected to enough force to compress and distort them. Your experience regarding chainsawed trees and Lego blocks and Jungo Stix is useless in this context.

- which would not happen anyways because the building was strong enough for (1) maintain stength after the initial damage after the accident and during the fires

Pure conjecture.

& (2) the top part would have enough impulsive force to smash through the building from falling.

I've read this over and over and still haven't figured out what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's pure conjecture.

You guys use whatever part of your scientific imagination to make you believe the official version of 911. Keep in mind these arguements you are using are YOUR arguements and not the results of any investigation.

You guys (yourself, blackasoil, and members of the Truthies) keep offering up nuggets about how "it's obvious" that such and such would have happened, because of such and such law of physics.

"It's obvious that mass meeting mass would have slowed down the collapse." Conservation of momentum shows that the effect is minimal.

"It's obvious that it would have tipped over!" Why? Where's the force required to accelerate the mass laterally?

And of course when this stuff is pointed out, the focus always shifts. "Look at all the pieces being exploded upward!" ... uh? I guess you need Truthie-Vision Goggles to see them?

I can hardly wait til we start hearing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics again. Have you got that one straightened out yet?

What I am saying is the result of scientific investigation and validation.

like what?

-k

[PolyNewbie]

Kimmy:Pure conjecture.

(wrt building strength after collision) Actually this is verifiable. One needs to know that the buyilding outside was overbuilt by 20 and the core overbuilt by a factor of six. The most damage that could have been done by the planes is 1/4 strength.

kimmy:I've read this over and over and still haven't figured out what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's pure conjecture.

Seee papers on st911.org. The top part of the building falling through the air through 1 story of height would not have the impulsive force - even if it actually collapsed from fires and the airplane.

Of corse we all know the buildings were designed for such impacts and to remain standing.

kimmy:You guys (yourself, blackasoil, and members of the Truthies) keep offering up nuggets about how "it's obvious" that such and such would have happened, because of such and such law of physics.

"It's obvious that mass meeting mass would have slowed down the collapse." Conservation of momentum shows that the effect is minimal.

So Judy Wood, professor of civil engineering & material science is wrong then ?

And of course when this stuff is pointed out, the focus always shifts. "Look at all the pieces being exploded upward!" ... uh? I guess you need Truthie-Vision Goggles to see them?

You just need to look at the videos.

I can hardly wait til we start hearing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics again. Have you got that one straightened out yet?

All these things are said by the 911 scholars for truth, not me. I don't conjecture anything about 911, there is lots of science to draw from.

So tell me, instead of asking questions about the wars, the pilliaging of the economy and the lies, you prefer to stick up for these people, why is that ?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:What exactly does that have to do with why the towers went down? You are evading the question yet again. How can you support a 'scientific' theory with such gaping holes in it?

Whyat gaping holes in it ? The 911 truth movement has proven that the towers came down as a result of energy added that was not in the potential energy of the standing buildings therefore bombs were used.

I didn't see any gaping holes, I just see you attacking people when you cannot attack the arguement - typical neoliberal fascists sycophant strategy.

Hoffman didn't just write a few articles in some rags. It was Scientific American & Nature and he has invented new ways of looking at material science.

You keep insisting that civil engineers are the ones to consult for building collapses. I went to school and hung out with civils - I never heard of any of them studying a building collapse. In fact they build buildings so that the collapse never happens.

You go to a nutritionist and excersise at the gym to prevent getting sick, but you don't go to the gym or the nutritionist when you are sick - you go to the doctor.

don't miss Jack Bauer tonight. I think tonight is TV night isn't it ?

You should grab yourself a book sometime. Look up the Hagelian Dialect.

[Riverwind]

Whyat gaping holes in it ? The 911 truth movement has proven that the towers came down as a result of energy added that was not in the potential energy of the standing buildings therefore bombs were used.

It is not possible to prove such a thing. You have a theory which you claim is supported by the evidence yet you have no evidence that someone actually planted the bombs. You haven't proved what type of explosives were used. You have not explained why the buildings were demolished in the middle instead of from the base. You have not found any of the collaborators that planted the bombs. You have not shown exactly how the buildings could have been wired in advance without anyone noticing. You have not explained how the bombers could have still detonated the towers once the planes crashed into them and started massive fires.

You cannot look that the physics of the collapse of the building in isolation; you must look at the entire picture. Your theories regarding the collapse of the building are simply irrelevant if you cannot provide convincing answers for all of the questions I raised.

I didn't see any gaping holes, I just see you attacking people when you cannot attack the arguement - typical neoliberal fascists sycophant strategy.

I am attacking your theories using _exactly_ the same tactics you use to attack the gov't theories. I am pointing out holes in your explanations and insisting that you must the same level of irrefutable proof that you demand from the gov't agencies. The fact that you evade the issue simply demonstrates that you can 'talk the talk' when it comes to science and evidence based analysis but you can't 'walk the walk'

You keep insisting that civil engineers are the ones to consult for building collapses. I went to school and hung out with civils - I never heard of any of them studying a building collapse. In fact they build buildings so that the collapse never happens.

And how exactly do they do that without understanding why buildings might fall down?

[kimmy]

(wrt building strength after collision) Actually this is verifiable. One needs to know that the buyilding outside was overbuilt by 20 and the core overbuilt by a factor of six. The most damage that could have been done by the planes is 1/4 strength.

So? Being 6 times stronger than necessary to carry the static load is rather meaningless once the load ceases to be static. Surely an "applied physicist" such as yourself recognizes that there's a world of difference between keeping a system stationary when compared to stopping a moving mass.

kimmy:I've read this over and over and still haven't figured out what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's pure conjecture.

Seee papers on st911.org. The top part of the building falling through the air through 1 story of height would not have the impulsive force - even if it actually collapsed from fires and the airplane.

The truthies have proof that the remaining structure would have been strong enough to absorb and dissipate the energy of the falling section of tower once it started moving? I'm intrigued. This should be fascinating.

Of corse we all know the buildings were designed for such impacts and to remain standing.

Sure, they might have been designed for that. Doesn't mean that the design worked. They were designed in an era when there was no capability of simulating what effect damage like this might have.

"It's obvious that mass meeting mass would have slowed down the collapse." Conservation of momentum shows that the effect is minimal.

So Judy Wood, professor of civil engineering & material science is wrong then?

Professor of civil engineering and material science? She's researching prosthetic teeth, isn't she?

Anyway, if she's saying that the mass added as the collapse progresses would have slowed the collapse noticeably, then yes, she's wrong. The conservation of momentum proves that the effect is not more than a few percent. If she's done calculations that show otherwise, I'd love to see them for myself.

And of course when this stuff is pointed out, the focus always shifts. "Look at all the pieces being exploded upward!" ... uh? I guess you need Truthie-Vision Goggles to see them?

You just need to look at the videos.

Ok, you said that the pieces don't show up well enough in the videos Black Dog posted. So, please show me where I can see video that shows it more clearly. The link you provided earlier (at www.reopen911.org) doesn't work. (perhaps the CIA shut it down and put the webmaster in a concentration camp )

I can hardly wait til we start hearing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics again. Have you got that one straightened out yet?

All these things are said by the 911 scholars for truth, not me. I don't conjecture anything about 911, there is lots of science to draw from.

First time you talked about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I did some searching for it and while I found lots of truthies repeating the claim over and over, I never actually saw anybody demonstrate it. It seems to have been an urban myth. I suspect that a lot of the truthie "science" is much the same: somebody says something, and other truthies repeat it over and over to each other and soon it's been said so often that people take it as fact.

So tell me, instead of asking questions about the wars, the pilliaging of the economy and the lies, you prefer to stick up for these people, why is that ?

I don't stick up for the Bushies at all. I think going to Iraq was a terrible decision, I think they intentionally mislead people, I think there are lots of questions about whether they ignored intelligence prior to 9/11, I think they've done a terrible job of managing the situation in Iraq. I think the Patriot Act and its relations are troubling. I think they've made a complete

I don't think they've done anything right. I just don't think they perpetrated 9/11.

-k

[kimmy]

Whyat gaping holes in it ? The 911 truth movement has proven that the towers came down as a result of energy added that was not in the potential energy of the standing buildings therefore bombs were used.

Ok, show me where I can read the analysis of this claim. I'd like to see their support for that conclusion for myself.

Hoffman didn't just write a few articles in some rags. It was Scientific American & Nature and he has invented new ways of looking at material science.

Hoffman's biography says that he *produced graphics* for some Scientific American articles, and did computer modelling *for* a researcher who was researching mathematical surfaces.

You keep insisting that civil engineers are the ones to consult for building collapses. I went to school and hung out with civils - I never heard of any of them studying a building collapse. In fact they build buildings so that the collapse never happens.

As if the issues were completely unrelated.

You go to a nutritionist and excersise at the gym to prevent getting sick, but you don't go to the gym or the nutritionist when you are sick - you go to the doctor.

So, when we want to know why buildings fall down, we should ask an electrical engineer, an IT guy, a philosopher, a computer graphics programmer, a dentures expert...

BTW, from what institution did you get your electrical engineering degree? I'd like to download their syllabus so that I can determine how mucn you actually have to study mechanics to get an electrical engineering degree from that school. I checked in the University of Alberta course calendar on the issue and found that the answer is "practically none" at the U of A, but I am open minded that perhaps things were different at your school.

-k

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:So, when we want to know why buildings fall down, we should ask an electrical engineer, an IT guy, a philosopher, a computer graphics programmer, a dentures expert...

All you need to know is a bit of basic physics. I'm certainly no expert but I have done courses in mechanics and a half course on material science + one on strength of materials & structures. I know a lot more about this than I need to know to see that 911 was an inside job. You don't need a mathemetician to tell you that 2+2=4 and not 5.

Hoffman's bio is around somwhere - I'm sure you can find it. Why don't you educate me and tell me where you think Jones & Hoffman are wrong ?

You are hardly in a position to assail someones character - being an annonymous poster on the web !

I only argue facts.

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:Ok, show me where I can read the analysis of this claim. I'd like to see their support for that conclusion for myself.

Look up Jeff King or Stephen Jones, they have audio files of their presentations. You must have listened to these already to be going around and saying these guys are not qualified - or at least that is what I assumed.

The best overlal source of info on 911 is the free google video: 911Mysteries : part1

You would best go to Judy Wood for energy specifics on 911. She is a Phd in civil and materials so she is probably the best one in your eyes. I don't think that the fact that she studies dentures is anything - I mean these people don't study sky scrapers because they are comparitively simple and its been done. I doubt that there will be new science in skyscrapers, although there may be new methods of construction, I'm sure the math is already done on these.

How can you arguye your point of view when you don't even know what the truthioes are saying ?

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:So? Being 6 times stronger than necessary to carry the static load is rather meaningless once the load ceases to be static. Surely an "applied physicist" such as yourself recognizes that there's a world of difference between keeping a system stationary when compared to stopping a moving mass.

The buildings were static after the crashes then all of a sudden just collapsed in 9 or 10 seconds several minutes after the crashes - static conditions - no wind.

[Riverwind]

The buildings were static after the crashes then all of a sudden just collapsed in 9 or 10 seconds several minutes after the crashes - static conditions - no wind.

But lots of fires that were heating metal and causing it to weaken.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: But lots of fires that were heating metal and causing it to weaken.

Fires were not hot enough - they only made the steel half strength.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind: But lots of fires that were heating metal and causing it to weaken.

Fires were not hot enough - they only made the steel half strength.

Half strength steel in combination with severe structural damage caused by the plane impact is more than enough to trigger a collapse.

Why don't you answer the questions in this post

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:

Riverwind:And how exactly do they do that without understanding why buildings might fall down?

Understanding why buildings might fall down and designing to stop that is not the same as understanding what happens during an actual collapse. The idea is to design so that an actual collapse never even gets started.

Its like how much to boat designers know about what happens to a ship while its sitting at the bottom of the sea or how much a nutrionist knows about treating someone who is sick because of lack of nutrition.

I'll answer the rest of that post when I hear why you are so in favour of sticking up for Bush,Rumsfeld and Cheney. Do you want to work for them torturing children or killing innocent people or plundering the American economy ?

[Riverwind]

Its like how much to boat designers know about what happens to a ship while its sitting at the bottom of the sea or how much a nutrionist knows about treating someone who is sick because of lack of nutrition.

Rediculous analogies. The design of a boat is not affected by what might happen to at the bottom of the ocean - the design of a building is very much affected by what may cause it to collapse. A nutrionist would be expected to know how to treat people with lack of nutrition.

I'll answer the rest of that post when I hear why you are so in favour of sticking up for Bush,Rumsfeld and Cheney. Do you want to work for them torturing children or killing innocent people or plundering the American economy ?

Don't waste my time with strawmen. Whatever Bush and Cheney have done is irrelevant to the question of how those buildings come down. The fact that you insist on trying to link the two is simply more evidence of your inability to 'walk the walk' when it comes to scientific and evidence based analysis.