9/11

[Riverwind]

Riverwind:You need to produce statements from the people who participated in planning and setting up the demolition.

WOW. Why have courts ?

In this case, you are trying to make a completely irrational claim for which you have zero concrete evidence (saying WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition is _not_ concrete evidence). As a result, the onus is on you to produce concrete evidence that supports your claim. Testimony from people who participated in the coverup is one example. The political environment in the US has never been better for an anti-Bush whistle blower - the fact that none have come forward strongly suggests that there are none.

[Charles Anthony]

The collapse of both buildings started exactly at the point of impact. This fact alone rules out the possibility of a controlled demolition because it would be impossible to predict where the planes would hit and wire a building to start a collapse at exactly that point.

Technically, it does not rule out the possibility of a controlled demolition but for me, it is enough -- albeit, the only fact -- to tip (please accept the counter-pun) the odds of what happened. Finally, I am convinced that the Twin Towers fell solely as a result of the two planes. Thank you.

Now, I am left with WTC7 which still looks too clean.

Instead of "practice makes perfect", it's now "repetition makes perfect".

Interesting...

Try something different. Try another angle or something. Stop bashing your head on the wall.

I think I might have it...

PN008E, you started this whole thread with a challenge. Now, I have a challenge for you.

CAVEAT: Bird-brained idea below...

All of the Inside-Jobbians (myself included) should get our hands on the blueprints to all of those towers. Each of us could put our money where our mouths are and pitch into a pot. Raise enough money to buy some land in the desert, say, next to Area 51, and re-build the entire World Trade Center complex. The Outside-Jobbers could be invited to supervise and inspect and re-inspect the re-build. There would be no need to rush. We could invite every single structural engineer in the world. When everybody is satisfied with the construction, we send PN008E's remote controlled planes through the air and see what happens. If there was a conspiracy, we might even see it in whoever opposes such an experiment. Otherwise, I call The Truthers to stand down.

I should give this idea a name.

[Riverwind]

Now, I am left with WTC7 which still looks too clean.

NIST has not completed its investigation of WTC7 so it has no official explaination at this time. Some people have suggested that a design flaw in WTC7 could have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Critical design flaws have shown up in other structures so it is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

I originally thought that WTC7 was suspicious until I realized that once these large structures start to move it is very difficult to get them to do anything other than collapse straight down. The demolition experts that spend many hours prepping a building are primarily concerned with collateral damage and ensuring that the surrounding buildings are not hit with debris.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:This fact alone rules out the possibility of a controlled demolition because it would be impossible to predict where the planes would hit and wire a building to start a collapse at exactly that point.

You are not a CD expert and not a pilot, so did this "fact" come from your rectum ?

Of course its possible to know where the planes would hit. They can put bombs down chimneys.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:NIST has not completed its investigation of WTC7 so it has no official explaination at this time.

They have already had 5 official versions of what happened with wtc7.

Riverwind:I originally thought that WTC7 was suspicious until I realized that once these large structures start to move it is very difficult to get them to do anything other than collapse straight down

The problem is that your analysis shows that you have no idea what you are talking about wrt physics and evry bit of your analysis is wrong. You have confused simple Newtonian physics with relativity. You have got basic free body diagrams wrong. Your models do not in any way match observations. You are just a blow hard that has a computer connected to the internet.

[Black Dog]

They have already had 5 official versions of what happened with wtc7.

List them.

Of course its possible to know where the planes would hit. They can put bombs down chimneys.

I gotta wonder how the demolition set up would have survied the impact.

[Riverwind]

Of course its possible to know where the planes would hit. They can put bombs down chimneys.

We are not talking about guided missles - we are talking about 40 tonne passanger jets that are several stories high.

[White Doors]

More rectum ideas please!!

[Riverwind]

The problem is that your analysis shows that you have no idea what you are talking about wrt physics and evry bit of your analysis is wrong. You have confused simple Newtonian physics with relativity. You have got basic free body diagrams wrong. Your models do not in any way match observations. You are just a blow hard that has a computer connected to the internet.

POLYNOOB, I have explained many times that my explanation had nothing to do with relativity and I was using plain English terms that are understandable to everyone except you. The fact that you keep bringing the relativity red herring up over and over again simply demonstrates the nature of your obsession and how you are incapable of comphrending information that refutes your bizarre fanatasies.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: If I read through this whole topic and find where I introduce rotation to the discussion and you respond by accusing me of using non Newtonian physics will you go away and stop responding to my posts ?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:We are not talking about guided missles - we are talking about 40 tonne passanger jets that are several stories high.

I see. So you would know that because you are an aeronautics expert and a non linear controls expert. Or did you get this from your rectum as well ?

[Riverwind]

Riverwind: If I read through this whole topic and find where I introduce rotation to the discussion and you respond by accusing me of using non Newtonian physics will you go away and stop responding to my posts ?

I don't deny making such a comment. However, I was mocking you - just like I mocked you by comparing you to Wily E. Coyote. However, the fact that you keep bringing it up demonstrates how desperate you are. My physics is sound and you have no counter argument.

Riverwind:We are not talking about guided missiles - we are talking about 40 tonne passenger jets that are several stories high.

I see. So you would know that because you are an aeronautics expert and a non linear controls expert.

The chances of a jet that is 3 stories high managing to hit the exact story where the explosives were planted are infinitesimally small.

[White Doors]

yay! more rectum talk!

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog:List them.

There are 3 - sorry - 5 for wtc1 & 2 I think - or 6. Anyways first it was diesel tanks on fire melting and collapsing a row of supports all at the same time, then it was fires from falling debris.

Bush has also explained that there may have been explosives.Audio comes up when you access this page. George Bush has said there may have been explosives planted in wtc7 and I saw that on CNN (TV).

As far as Riverwind's science goes, consider this:

"No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse. "

This slide show discusses wtc7.

This disagrees with Riverwind but Hoffman has published in Scientific American and Nature. Riverwind has published on the internet and got most of his physics wrong. I give you the facts. You decide 8-)

I don't know what kind of a hockey puck cannot understand the importance of this video in establishing guilt. I'd like to hear what the lawyer has to say about this.

[Black Dog]

There are 3 - sorry - 5 for wtc1 & 2 I think - or 6. Anyways first it was diesel tanks on fire melting and collapsing a row of supports all at the same time, then it was fires from falling debris.

And this is relevant..how? I mean, given that they were able to carry out this plot with such precision, they sure didn't put much thought into the cover story. AFter all, surely they would have an explanation all prepared and stuck with that message. It seems to me that the multiple explanations speaks more to the difficulty in determining what really happened, given that the evidence is all rubble.

Bush has also explained that there may have been explosives.Audio comes up when you access this page. George Bush has said there may have been explosives planted in wtc7 and I saw that on CNN (TV).

He wasn't talking about WTC7 in that quote, but of planned attacks against unspecified targets.

Link

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

[Riverwind]

"No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse. "

It is not necessary to destroy all columns simulatenously to get a vertical collapse. Once one support collapses the load shifts to the other supports - if the other supports cannot support the new load then they will collapse also well. If the time between the collapse of the first column and the last column is short enough then the building will go straight down. This sequence of events has happened in the past with other buildings so it cannot be ruled out as a possibility. That fact that Hoffman does not understand this basic fact suggests that the rest of his analysis is equally uninformed.

You must remember that all truthie claims are based on the premise that 'no other explaination is possible'. This means these claims can be easily refuted by providing one other possible explaination. Truthies resort to these kinds of arguments because so other circumstantial evidence is stacked up against them so they seek to dismiss the mounds of counter evidence with their 'no other explaination is possible' claims.

Incidentally, what does Hoffman know about building construction? He is a computer programmer.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: This sequence of events has happened in the past with other buildings so it cannot be ruled out as a possibility. That fact that Hoffman does not understand this basic fact suggests that the rest of his analysis is equally uninformed.

I don't get it either. Why don't you explain.

[PolyNewbie]

Incidentally, what does Hoffman know about building construction? He is a computer programmer.

I think he is the kind of programmer that could model a collapse like this. The fact that you know nothing about buildings shows when you think you need to be a structural engineer to understand this problem. You do not need to be a structural engineer to understand this.

I really think Hoffman knows exactly what he is talking about on the twin towers and haven't heard him say anything stupid yet. But engineers supporting the official version have said some really stupid things, for example:

"Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports. 3 "

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." 4

"Each Tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape." 6

911 Research

Hoffman sounds like a guy that could get a simple free body diagram right every time. I doubt he would confuse Newtonian physics with non Newtonian physics and I bet he doesn't go around calling people idiots and incompetents when it is he himself who is wrong.

[PolyNewbie]

I think its very easy to see that the building supports should not have bent (or melted) after this damage and heat. You can look at the NIST damage profiles and the temperature distributions and see the the support load bearing capability isn't anywhere near being exceeded.

I think you can see this with wtc1 & wtc2 after the accidents. The buildings remained standing and solid. The heat diagrams from NIST show there would be enough heat to cause the steel to weaken to the point of failure.

Hoffmans slide show has these diagrams.

[Riverwind]

I don't get it either. Why don't you explain.

Progressive collapse is a well documented phenomena where localized damage causes an entire structure to collapse. For that reason Hoffman's claim that 'all columns must be simultaneously destroyed to cause a vertical collapse' is most definately false.

[obsidian]

hey i dug this up just 4 u polynewbie...

this link shows Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex openly admitting that wtc 7 was "pulled". this is construction jargon for demolished.

so here is a FACT, that wtc 7 was demolished.

but this makes room for more questions that support the truth movement.

1. how could the explosives be planted, during a fire, and still demolish the building?

2. explosives take weeks to months so set up. therefore without prior knowledge of sept 11th, there is no way the explosive charges could of been laid.

3. he gives no reason for the demolition other than "there had already been alot fo death and destruction", let me remind you there was minimal fire damage, no reason to demolish a building.

and the link the proof, it's the 2nd vid, the 1st one no longer works.

this was taken from a PBS documentary.

here is a video from a graduation ceremony at westpoint. wolfowitz is giving a speach and obsesses about pearl harbour and warns of "suprise attacks" 2 months before sept 11th.... and the site is http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2...07wolfowitz.htm

and if the buildings survived the initial impact, they had already absorbed all the kinetic energy. heat itself does not magically add mass to a building to make it collapse, it can weaken steal though. its also interesting to know the columns were covered with fire proofing, as are most. in 1945 a b-25 mitchel medium bomber flew into the empire state building, and resulted in only 14 deaths, and no collapse..obviuosly. wtc 1 and 2, aswell as almost ALL highrises in NYC are accomodated to survive a jet impact. wtc 1 & 2 were actually designed to wistand the impact of a larger plane...

[Riverwind]

I think its very easy to see that the building supports should not have bent (or melted) after this damage and heat. You can look at the NIST damage profiles and the temperature distributions and see the the support load bearing capability isn't anywhere near being exceeded.

I doubt you have actually looked the NIST report.

Here is what the report says:

The simulations and the visual evidence suggested that the duration of temperatures in the neighborhood of 1,000 °C at any given location on any given floor was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, temperatures were predicted to have been in the range of 400 °C to 800 °C on floors with active fires

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5FDraft.pdf

If you do a little research strcutural steel you find:

All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550ºC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength, Figure 31 shown below

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design...ire_resistance/

As you can see the NIST report indicates that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel of the floor trusses and cause them to bend.

[Riverwind]

this link shows Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex openly admitting that wtc 7 was "pulled". this is construction jargon for demolished.

People mispeak themselves all of the time. That quote is evidence of absolutely nothing. Silverstein himself claims he was talking about pulling the firefighters out of the building. This is a much more rational explaination given the available evidence.

[obsidian]

WHA-WHAT!? rofl man do you have ears. he said "the fire department comander were not sure if they were going to be able to contain the fire. you know i said there had been such a loss of life, the best thing to do was pull it. and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"

ok so lets get this straight, pull applies to "pulling the figher fighters from the building"

why wouldn't he say that if that's what he actually meant, you dont think he could of redone the scene, or the interview if it wasn't what he meant?

and when he says "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" we are to assume, using your logic, as soon as the firefighters left, the building collapsed, as they watched. and when he says "pull it" he actually means "evacuate the firefighters"...it just doesn't make sense. im interpetting this information litterally, and you distort it and put words in his mouth, like what many of you(possibly you) anti-conspiracy discredit conspiracy theorists for. extrapolating information. SEE YOU USE THE SAME TACTICS.

[Canadian Blue]

So all of the facts are based on a statement with reference to only one word which could have different meanings.

As well wouldn't it take alot of time to demolish WTC 7. I'm sure it takes a few hours, or even a few days to setup all of the explosives in the building.