WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[kuzadd]

WTC3: 22 stories, WTC4: 9 stories, WTC5: 9 stories, WTC6: 8 stories, WTC7: 47 stories.

The buildings were completely different. It is irrational to claim that they should have behaved the same when damaged.

Yet, you are making that claim? wtc 1 and 2, were different buildings, from wtc 7, and yet they all behaved the same way when damaged. they globally collapsed. and wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plane, constructed differently, massively reinforced in the '80's , see link to article posted. and yet, collapsed in the same manner.

Now who is making irrational claims?

Furthermore, there is evidence that directly contradicts your assertion that the other towers were damaged more than WTC7 or that their were few fires were present. You are simply making facts up in a desperate attempt to support your 'demolition fantasy'.

Is there? show me

"Even if there was some wind at higher attitudes there is no reason to believe that wind was large enough to cause the building to tip.

Isn't there a reason to believe that the wind was large enough to cause tipping?( not necessarily of the entire building, why do you assume it has to be the entire building?)

sure there is.

clue: read about the buildings being subjected to windtunnels, as posted.

the towers were subjected to lateral load everyday visavis the wind.

eager's claim is BS. that there was NO lateral load, that is what he said.

"Also Eager says because the buildings were approx 95% air, this predisposed them to implosion. How is this so?? Given all buildings are approx 95% air, think about it. Buildings should be imploding regularily , yet they are not."

Do terrorists fly planes into these kinds of buildings regularily? I have not heard of any. The WTC towers came down because these kinds of towers cannot withstand massive structural damage and out of control fires.

the terrorist angle is irrelevant. if buildings are predisposed to implosion because they are 95% air, then any type of weakening of a structure, should cause a building to implode.

let's use as an example in a storm, a massive tree falls onto a house, using Eager's theory, the house should then just implode, Well having witnessed two such incident recently, I can tell you the houses forgot to implode, oooops!

I also note with great interest Eager DOES NOT address wtc 7, why?????????

[kuzadd]

wtc 7 was not hit by a plane.

You're right of course. It was hit by a 110 story building.

therefore I ask, what is your exact point?

My point is that you're calling a gigantic amount of damage "minor."

NIST and FEMA can't/haven't explain(ed) the collapse of wtc 7, when they allegedly had access to all the info.

why????

Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed (regardless of how many question marks you use).

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Neither NIST nor FEMA have explained the collapse, you acknowledge such yourself, by claiming they will be releasing a full report this spring, therefore, to this date, they have not as of yet, explained the collapse.

ok, so we are in agrement on that!

You're right of course. It was hit by a 110 story building.

so were 3,4,5, and 6.

they didn't completely collapse, were closer and were far more damaged

what's your point, again?

or do you think if you just keep saying the same thing over and over, that will actually mean something?

[stignasty]

Neither NIST nor FEMA have explained the collapse, you acknowledge such yourself, by claiming they will be releasing a full report this spring, therefore, to this date, they have not as of yet, explained the collapse.

ok, so we are in agrement on that!

No. What I said was:

Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed.

And while the report is a work in progress, they have explained the collapse.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

so were 3,4,5, and 6.

they didn't completely collapse, were closer and were far more damaged

Because you ignored it earlier, I'll repost it for you again:

The buildings were completely different. It is irrational to claim that they should have behaved the same when damaged.

Futhermore, WTC7 had an unusual design because it was built on top of an electrical substation. The effect of this unsual construction will be discussed in NIST's report when they release it later this year.

Furthermore, there is evidence that directly contradicts your assertion that the other towers were damaged more than WTC7 or that their were few fires were present. You are simply making facts up in a desperate attempt to support your 'demolition fantasy'.

what's your point, again?

or do you think if you just keep saying the same thing over and over, that will actually mean something?

If you ignore or distort what I, and others type, I will repost it in the hope that you will eventually read and understand what we're saying. I posted the NIST preliminary assessment of the collapse of WTC7, and you stated that they had made no assessment. Riverwind replied to your straw man that since other buildings didn't fall down, WTC7 shouldn't have either. Yet you chose to either make claims not supported by the comments or ignore them altogether. So to answer your question, I can repost this material as many times as it takes and if you eventually understand it, yes it will mean something.

[kimmy]

kimmy First off, he's not a "well respected scientist." He's a computer programmer and graphics expert. His contributions to Scientific American magazine consist of computer graphics for their articles. His contribution to the "PhD research in multidimensional surfaces" (or whatever it was) was, likewise, graphics.

Hoffman's credentials, like just about everybody else in the "Truth Movement", have been ridiculously inflated by the Truthies who want to appeal to his theories.

The math in computer graphics can be as sophisticated as anything else. Hoffman has shown that mathematical problems that were not solvable can be solved with computer graphics.

Sure, but that doesn't make Hoffman a "PhD", nor does it make him a "respected scientist", nor any of the other qualifications that Truthies have claimed he has at one point or another.

I think he has also proved theorems that had not been proven - not sure exactly but I know he has done groundbreaking math modelling research on material science solving problems that could not be solved any other way using graphics and his work has been published by the best publications. Its not easy to get published in Nature or Scientific American. I doubt any of your teachers could match that.

Yeah, but nobody's going around calling any of my teachers authorities on building collapses.

He did the programming grunt-work for someone's PhD research, and the Truthies declare him a PhD. He contributes graphics and models to Scientific American articles, and it's "research published in top scientific journals." Like "Colonel" Honegger or "theoretical physicist" Fetzer, or "doctor of thermodynamics and renowned forensic accountant" David Hawkins.

None of which really changes the fact that his famous calculation yields a result so extraordinary that it requires a belief in magic-like technologies to explain it.

Do you feel that believing in space-based death rays or nuclear weapons that cause destruction through some mechanism other than heat and kinetic energy is any more plausible than Evil Spirits or Orgones?

Stephen Jones is also very well respected having been chosen by the department of energy to head up the government research of cold fusion. I doubt any of your teachers were anywhere near as qualified in physics as Jones. He also did doctoral work at JPL.

These guys are way above a couple of structural engineers that get their paycheques from governments and investigate suspicious terrorist activities when the government doesn't want regular investigative authorities looking at the evidence ( I wonder why they are so careful about who gets to look at the evidence - national security concerns ? ).

Jones has also shown that the energy beam or nuke hypothesis is not a valid one.

...and got booted out of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" for saying as much, didn't he?

What's Dr Jones' stance in regard to Hoffman's energy deficit calculation? If Jones rejects the science fiction garbage being promoted by Judy Wood and others, then what's his position on the "energy deficit"? Does he accept it as a valid calculation? And if so, how does he propose that this massive sum of energy was contributed to the collapse?

-k

[kuzadd]

Neither NIST nor FEMA have explained the collapse, you acknowledge such yourself, by claiming they will be releasing a full report this spring, therefore, to this date, they have not as of yet, explained the collapse.

ok, so we are in agrement on that!

No. What I said was:

Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed.

And while the report is a work in progress, they have explained the collapse.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

so were 3,4,5, and 6.

they didn't completely collapse, were closer and were far more damaged

Because you ignored it earlier, I'll repost it for you again:

The buildings were completely different. It is irrational to claim that they should have behaved the same when damaged.

Futhermore, WTC7 had an unusual design because it was built on top of an electrical substation. The effect of this unsual construction will be discussed in NIST's report when they release it later this year.

Furthermore, there is evidence that directly contradicts your assertion that the other towers were damaged more than WTC7 or that their were few fires were present. You are simply making facts up in a desperate attempt to support your 'demolition fantasy'.

what's your point, again?

or do you think if you just keep saying the same thing over and over, that will actually mean something?

If you ignore or distort what I, and others type, I will repost it in the hope that you will eventually read and understand what we're saying. I posted the NIST preliminary assessment of the collapse of WTC7, and you stated that they had made no assessment. Riverwind replied to your straw man that since other buildings didn't fall down, WTC7 shouldn't have either. Yet you chose to either make claims not supported by the comments or ignore them altogether. So to answer your question, I can repost this material as many times as it takes and if you eventually understand it, yes it will mean something.

from your own post

"working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 "

they have a hypothesis, they are setting out to prove, will they, will they not, we'll see when the final report comes out, and there is NO conclusion, so why are you claiming there is??

Because you ignored it earlier, I'll repost it for you again:

name='Riverwind' post='205453' date='Apr 9 2007, 09:03 AM']The buildings were completely different. It is irrational to claim that they should have behaved the same when damaged.

You claimed I ignored it, actually I adressed it,

here's what I already said in bold, k?

Yet, you are making that claim? ( different buildings, behave in the same way) wtc 1 and 2, were different buildings, from wtc 7, and yet they all behaved the same way when damaged. they globally collapsed. and wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plane, constructed differently, massively reinforced in the '80's , see link to article posted. and yet, collapsed in the same manner.

Now who is making irrational claims?

who is making irrational claims? the official conspiracy is.

Yourself and Riverwind are in fact making that very claim, as allegedly believable, that buildings built differently and damaged differently irregardless, would globally collapse. You call that credible?

[Riverwind]

Yourself and Riverwind are in fact making that very claim, as allegedly believable, that buildings built differently and damaged differently irregardless, would globally collapse. You call that credible?

Structural damage is a necessary but not sufficient condition to trigger a collapse. Out of control fires and the design of the building are other factors that affect what happens. 7 towers were damaged on 9/11 - 3 of them collapsed completely on that day. There is no reason to believe that all 7 should have collapsed or all 7 should have survived. If you roll 7 dice do you consider it suspicious if you don't get the same number on each die? That is what you are claiming. you are claiming that all of the buildings should have behaved in the same way. Why should they? Why wouldn't there be differences? You will almost never get 7 sixes when you roll 7 dice. For the same reason, you should never expect 7 buildings to behave exactly the same way when damaged.

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy ...and got booted out of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" for saying as much, didn't he?

What's Dr Jones' stance in regard to Hoffman's energy deficit calculation? If Jones rejects the science fiction garbage being promoted by Judy Wood and others, then what's his position on the "energy deficit"? Does he accept it as a valid calculation? And if so, how does he propose that this massive sum of energy was contributed to the collapse?

Jones got kicked out of Scholars for 911 truth for some reason - probably a dissagreement of some kind between him and many other members of this group.

Allthough there is dissagreement amoung the scholars for 911 truth I haven't heard any dissagreement over the huypothesis that there is a massive energy deficit. Jones may be argueing this point in his future presentation.

There is a presentation next Saturdy night on new evidence that Jones has uncovered that futher reinforces his hypothesis of controlled demolition using an explosive variety of thermate.

You haven't explained what you think of normal investigative authorities being restricted from viewing the evidence at both the Oklahoma Murrah building and the buildings in New York on 911. I find it strange that the normal fire investigative authorities were restricted from viewing the evidence or carrying out their investigations as normally practised at the scene of accidents. Instead the government brought in these same other engineers (not fire or forensic investigators) to investigate both of the incidences. I wonder how you cannot find this suspicious.

[ScottSA]

the terrorist angle is irrelevant. if buildings are predisposed to implosion because they are 95% air, then any type of weakening of a structure, should cause a building to implode.

let's use as an example in a storm, a massive tree falls onto a house, using Eager's theory, the house should then just implode, Well having witnessed two such incident recently, I can tell you the houses forgot to implode, oooops!

"Oops" is an appropriate term here. While I'm in no way an engineer and have to therefore rely on the testimony of real experts and an application of common sense, I do have some limited expertise in English, and I can see that you're a bit confused as to the meaning of "implosion".

The term "implosion" is not synonymous with the phrase "sponaneously generated implosion", nor is it necessarly the opposite of the term "explosion". "Implode", used in this case, simply means that it collapsed into itself instead of tipping over or exploding outwards, as it undoubtably would have were it a solid structure.

Even from a background of rough construction while in university, I know that houses don't implode because the 2X4 or 2X6 frame construction and a dearth of weight on the roof are sufficient to leverage the building sideways. If, on the other hand, the roof weighed 300,000 tons and was dropped on the framework from above, leverage that would normally take place is irrelevant and the house would implode really really fast. One assumes that the same thing happened with WTC, since the real experts explain that's what happened.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottsA:One assumes that the same thing happened with WTC, since the real experts explain that's what happened.

The real experts are not civil engineers - they only study how to build buildings that cannot have any kind of structural failure that would lead to a collapse- not what happens during a collapse itself. You visit a nutritionist to eat well and stay healthy but you visit a doctor when you get sick. In the same way engineers are hired to build buildings and airplanes but fire authorities and the FAA are normally called to investigate accidents.

Plus, the building structure under the wtc's was much stronger than necessary to hold up the weight of the building just like a house is much stronger than is needed to hold up its roof. This is why for the same reasons a house will not collapse straight down, neither will the large buildings.

The idea that the large buildings behave under different laws of physics is rediculous and could only be said by engineers that are paid off by government to explain away these events rather than the normal authorities charges with investigating such accidents (fire investigators & FAA) - which is why the normal authorities were not allowed near the evidence and the evidence was quickly removed - both in Oklahoma and on 9/11.

The NIST report was a white wash written by people that have no experience investigating accidents. These people were not hired for their ability to investigate the accident, they were hired for their ability to cover up the truth and thats why they had Philip Zelikow (self admitted propogandist) direct the operation rather than a qualified forensic investigator. I suppose that if we want to understand the dangers of GM foods we should consult with people that work for Montasanto 8-). If we want to know who shot Kennedy we should ask George HW Bush 8-)

ScottsA you need to look up the definition of implosion before you start offering up unsolicited advice.

[PolyNewbie]

If, on the other hand, the roof weighed 300,000 tons and was dropped on the framework from above, leverage that would normally take place is irrelevant and the house would implode really really fast.

Thats a stupid example because the wtc buildings did not have a wood house frame hold up 300,000 pounds. You cannot seriously believe the crap you write on here. No one could.

[ScottSA]

ScottsA you need to look up the definition of implosion before you start offering up unsolicited advice.

I certainly don't need language instruction from you, but thanks for the offer of advice. Hey, I don't expect you to change your mind...short of EST, I suspect you'll go to your grave believing everything is a big plot...I'm just trying to clear up the confusion that Kuzzad seemed to have over the term "implosion". Sorry you don't like the actual meaning of words...perhaps it's a big plot by me to mislead the world about the meaning of english terms?

[Riverwind]

The real experts are not civil engineers - they only study how to build buildings that cannot have any kind of structural failure that would lead to a collapse- not what happens during a collapse itself.

This has to be one your most aburd claims. Civil engineers need to know how to design buildings so they won't fail down and that makes them the most qualified to figure out why buildings fall down.

Thruthies know that and they would desperately like to find a structural engineer that will support their theories but have found none (an architect is not an engineer). In order to compensate they created the bizarre rationalizations that you posted above.

It is clear that the truthies are publicity hounds that are seeking 15 minutes of fame. They love the attention and will say anything to keep themselves in the limelight. I don't know why anyone would assume that any analysis produced by truthies is credible - they have a vested interest in showing that their theory is correct and never accept evidence that says otherwise. This makes them more biased than any government contractor.

OTH: Here is a PhD in Structural Engineering from Australia. He does not depend on the US government for income and he is not seeking to fame and attention. He supports the widely accepted explaination for why those buildings came down: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[PolyNewbie]

Thruthies know that and they would desperately like to find a structural engineer that will support their theories but have found none

There are lots - they just are not Americans. Demolition experts and structural engineers both say 911 was an inside job on the other side of the pond. I've posted links on this thread.

Next time you get a stomach ache - go see a nutritionist or go see Philip Zelikow so he can con you into thinking you don't have one.

[PolyNewbie]

Hoffman on Wilkinsons 911 analysis

Its just a series of bad assumptions and obviously contradictory logic.

The Australians are in all the wars too through profiteering or fighting and they are playing on the same team as the Bushes.

[Riverwind]

structural engineers both say 911 was an inside job on the other side of the pond. I've posted links on this thread.

I looked into the names you provided before and could not find any independent evidence that they actually support the thruthie theories. Out of context quotes from people on thruthie sites are not enough to back up your claim.

Can you provide any links to papers or websites written by structural engineers on the faculty of any major university that support thruthie theories?

[PolyNewbie]

I think some of the confusion about who is or isn't qualified to look at the structural engineering of 911 arises from the fact that most people would not understand that design and analysis are two very different things. Engineers ahve to consider a variety of factors when doing design but actual analysis of a given design is comparatively simple.

Its pretty easy to see from the NIST report itself that the structures (wtc1 & wtc2) should have remained standing with the damage reported in NIST and the specs of the building given in engineering journals. The outer perimeter was designed to hold 20 times the static weight of the buildings (wtc1 & wtc2) and the inner columns (of which we are being mislead by NIST and others regarding dimensions) was designed to hold six times the weight of the building. The building had about 30 % damage and its strength was cut in half (maximum reduction of strength) in a very few parts of the supporting structure.

Its obvious why the NIST report was composed of unqualified forensic scientists and was headed by a propogandist.

[PolyNewbie]

Can you provide any links to papers or websites written by structural engineers on the faculty of any major university that support thruthie theories?

This would never happen. Any university who structural engineers seriously challenged the NIST report would find itself short of funding. Any working structural engineer that challenged 911 would be out of a job just like Jones & Ryan.

I did post a link on the other thread regarding a Phd structural engineer doing a speech in Ontario about 911. I forget who is name was but he was a full professor of structural engineering and did say the official version was rediculous because I met someone that saw the presentation and they told me about it.

He was a full prof from Queens or McMaster.

You don't understand the basics of science and cannot really understand this problem or who is qualified. Forensic people such as fire engineers and the FAA typically investigate accidents like this for a very good reason. There is a good reason why these people were not allowed anywhere near the evidence or investigation of 911 and instead a propogandist was hired to direct the investigation.

[Riverwind]

The outer perimeter was designed to hold 20 times the static weight of the buildings (wtc1 & wtc2)

The NIST report explains that the buckling of the floor beams caused the outer perimeter supports to bend. This weakened them to the point where a collapse started.

The NIST explaination is clear and makes sense to anyone who is interested in understanding why those buildings came down.

You don't understand the basics of science and cannot really understand this problem or who is qualified.

ROTFL. That is rich coming from someone who cannot understand basic principles of physics such a force and momentum.

There would be a long list of structural engineers producing peer reviewed papers around the world if there was any merit to thruthie theories. What we have is deafening silence from the academic community. The only rational conclusion is the truthie theories have no merit.

[PolyNewbie]

The NIST report explains that the buckling of the floor beams caused the outer perimeter supports to bend. This weakened them to the point where a collapse started.

The NIST explaination is clear and makes sense to anyone who is interested in understanding why those buildings came down.

The NIST report hypothesises on what initiated the collapse, has changed its story a few times, and in no way explains the global collapse of these buildings. FEMA even says the official explanation they worked out for wtc7 had a low probability of occurance. That is left to presstitutes and government apologists.

These reports do not say what presstitutes and government apologists say they do.

If the above explanation the "pancake" theory ?

[PolyNewbie]

ROTFL. That is rich coming from someone who cannot understand basic principles of physics such a force and momentum.

So what kind of engineer are you ? I keep asking this because I want to look up "pivot points" and rotation and why you need a pivot point for a rotation.

Why won't you tell me what kind of engineer you are ? You have already said you were an engineer.

[Riverwind]

So what kind of engineer are you ? I keep asking this because I want to look up "pivot points" and rotation and why you need a pivot point for a rotation.

I explained here:

Acceleration requires a force acting over a period of time and angular acceleration requires a torque (which implies a pivot point). If the force disappears then acceleration stops, however, motion does continue. The amount rotational momentum acquired depends on how long the force was applied. An isolated body in space would rotate forever.

However, the top of a tower is not an isolated body in space. When the pivot point collapses gravity will cause the tower to accelerate straight down. In theory, it could tip over if it acquired enough rotational momentum before the pivot point collapsed. However, this is extremely unlikely because these buildings are not designed with enough redundancy to allow a pivot point to support the entire weight of the building above it. If the pivot point collapses quickly the top of the building will hit the ground before it can tip over.

Why won't you tell me what kind of engineer you are ? You have already said you were an engineer.

Because it is irrelevant. Unlike you, I try to explain myself and will directly address scientific arguments. If you have a problem with my physics then try actually providing a counter argument.

[PolyNewbie]

Architect Talks about 911 truth and colleagues

[PolyNewbie]

Because it is irrelevant. Unlike you, I try to explain myself and will directly address scientific arguments. If you have a problem with my physics then try actually providing a counter argument.

I've quoted your physics. (They are all stupid and that should be obvious to anyone that passed high school physics - I ahve said I would explain why the ones are wrong that I haven't already explained but only if you go away when I am done)

I will here again:

"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

"Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses.

At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing."

"Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame."

All 100 % wrong.

[Riverwind]

All 100 % wrong.

A claim that you have not backed up with a single rational argument. OTOH - I have explained several times why those statements are correct when placed in the proper context.

So why don't you explain how the top of a building can start rotating without a pivot point? Is there a magical force that only you know of? Perhaps we can call it the 'Polly Effect'?

[gc1765]

Can you provide any links to papers or websites written by structural engineers on the faculty of any major university that support thruthie theories?

This would never happen. Any university who structural engineers seriously challenged the NIST report would find itself short of funding. Any working structural engineer that challenged 911 would be out of a job just like Jones & Ryan.

A University has no control over what a (tenured) professor researches.