WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

cybercoma:Why am I bothering?

Thats what I don't understand. Don't you think the government should defend itself - or are you one of those super patriots that feel it is your duty to believe and defend what government says ?

Riverwind · April 20, 2007

I know you don't get it but if anyone else doesn't get it then I will explain it.

Evading again. Probably because your 'explaination' would get you a big zero on any physics test and demonstrates how little you understand physics.

Systems have been obeying the laws of thermodynamics since before a closed system was ever considered.

Sure. But without a closed system the laws of thermodynamics are useless as an analysis tool.

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

Riverwind: "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."

This is idiotic.

What kind of engineer are you Riverwind ?

Riverwind:Sure. But without a closed system the laws of thermodynamics are useless as an analysis tool.

Draw your boundaries wherever you want. I suggested the surface of the building before it collapsed.

Riverwind · April 20, 2007

This is idiotic.

What is idiotic is your constant repetition of a claim without any supporting argument. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Draw your boundaries wherever you want. I suggested the surface of the building before it collapsed.

Then you would have a situtation where an unknown amount of matter crosses the system boundary which renders any thermodynamic analysis useless.

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

Riverwind:What is idiotic is your constant repetition of a claim without any supporting argument. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Any one that has taken grade nine physics can see your analysis is idiotic and I'm no high school teacher thats why I'm not goin to teach why that is wrong unless someone besides yourself is willing to admit they cannot see the mistake.

Riverwind · April 20, 2007

Riverwind:What is idiotic is your constant repetition of a claim without any supporting argument. Why should anyone take you seriously?
Any one that has taken grade nine physics can see your analysis is idiotic and I'm no high school teacher thats why I'm not goin to teach why that is wrong unless someone besides yourself is willing to admit they cannot see the mistake.

Evasion. Your problem is you do not understand how normal forces work. You seem to think (bizarrely) that the normal forces on the remaining legs will stay the same after one leg collapses. That is 100% wrong. The normal forces will always increase so the force exerted by the remaining legs supports the entire mass. This can trigger a progressive failure which leads to a straight down collapse. You could nitpik about how the normal forces are distributed among the remaining legs (it would depend on where the center of mass is relative to the remaining legs) but nitpiking about that detail does not change the ultimate conclusion: that it is possible for a structure to collapse straight down after asymmetric damage.

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

Riverwind:You seem to think (bizarrely) that the normal forces on the remaining legs will stay the same after one leg collapses.

No. I think your analysis proves that you have no idea what you are talking about and you are just some annonymous internet poster trying to pass yourself off as some kind of authority to get people to listen to you. Or you are with the secret police and posting non sense as some kind of attempt at psychological warfare.

Riverwind · April 20, 2007

No. I think your analysis proves that you have no idea what you are talking about

Why should any take your opinion on that when you have made no attempt to back up your claim? The example I provided demonstrates that it is theoretically possible for buildings to collapse straight down. You know that you cannot refute the physics so you resort to personal attacks to try and avoid admitting that one of the key truthie claims is false.

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

Riverwind:Why should any take your opinion on that when you have made no attempt to back up your claim?

I have illustrated the stupidity behind each of your scientific claims twice on this thread and on others - except your force diagram. Its too obvious. Anyone can see its all wrong.

Riverwind · April 20, 2007

Riverwind:Why should any take your opinion on that when you have made no attempt to back up your claim?
I have illustrated the stupidity behind each of your scientific claims twice on this thread and on others - except your force diagram. Its too obvious. Anyone can see its all wrong.

I responded to your so-called illustrations here. Yet you wish to pretend that your claims are undisputed fact. Sorry it does not work that way. Your have not made your case. Nor have you demonstrated that the force analysis is wrong.

The only thing you have demonstrated is your cluelessness and your desperation to avoid information that disrupts your bizarre fantasy world.

ScottSA · April 20, 2007

ScottSA, speaking of avoidance you haven't yet explained the advantages associated with giving private bankiners billions of dollars in tax money for interest while they provide nothing in return. You sort of avoided that in the other thread.

I explained in rather more depth than it needed to be explained. Yoiu just never read what you don't want to know...not something I can help.

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

ScottSA:I am saying that what bankers do in return for us giving them billions benefits us. Someone else tried to explain to you the benefits of living in a house one has not yet paid for, as opposed to never living in a house because all the money one could have saved up for it would be spent in rent while trying to save up for it. I tried to point out how credit is essential for leveraging technology and everything else on the macro end of things. You just don't want to hear it, so you keep asking the same rhetorical question and then ignoring the answer.

That was your latest comment on the topic. Is this the explanation you were referring to ?

Riverwind:Nor have you demonstrated that the force analysis is wrong.

I will not either, unless someone else is willing to admit that they cannot see where it is wrong.

cybercoma · April 21, 2007

cybercoma:Why am I bothering?

Thats what I don't understand. Don't you think the government should defend itself - or are you one of those super patriots that feel it is your duty to believe and defend what government says ?

I'm sorry that I consider the actual events of 9/11 to be more logical than the fabricated bull you're going on about.

stignasty · April 21, 2007

I'm sorry that I consider the actual events of 9/11 to be more logical than the fabricated bull you're going on about.

I'm not sorry that I consider the actual events of 9/11 to be more logical than the fabricated bull PolyNewbie's going on about.

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

cybercoma:I'm sorry that I consider the actual events of 9/11 to be more logical than the fabricated bull you're going on about.

PNAC is real - A 911 like event was needed to get everyone wanting war for PNAC - thats real

The defence stand down was real - congressional testimony.

The evidence coverup & destruction was real

Three buildings really did collapse straight down into their own footprint in a very expedient and orderly fashion and physicists, engineers, ex senators, ex congressmen, military people - colonels, generals, etc have come out to say various things about 911 such as the official version is scientifically impossible.

The non existence of an investigation done by qualified people is real. The FAA & fire marshall were not allowed near the evidence or the investigation. They had a white house propogandist lead the team that wrote the "Comission Report" instead of an investigator.

The evidence for Worldcom, Enron frauds etc and the missing 2.3 trillion dollars has been destroyed - thats real. Now its 3.4 trillion stolen - they refuse to answer for it - more than enough for 500 fully equiped nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

The poisoned emergency workers are real - poisoned from Asbestos that Bush & Co said wasn't a danger after the collapses

The wars are real and Bush & Corp are making billions. You and yours will be taxed for them until you die. Your kids will pay for it. Their kids will pay for it - but Bush & Corp get their profits now - thats real. Some of you may even get to die for it all.

This site is real. All those people really are comming out about 911.

Bush and corp define "insurgent" as someone that resists their own foreign occupation and invasion - that is "double think" right out of Orwells 1984 - thats real.

***********

You think that USA was attacked by Usama bin Laden on 9/11 by his cohorts using plastic box cutter knives to take over cockpits occupied by some military fighter pilots because he hates our freedom - thats real 8-)

I think you have my posts confused with those confessions and the fake bin Laden confession. I think your posts prove that CIA mind control really does exist.

If this wasn't so serious you folks would have me so badly cracked up I would not be able to breath due to laughing so hard. This is funnier than Riverwinds posts regarding scientific fact.

Which confession about 911 do you guys believe about 911 bin Laden or the latest confession from Gitmo ?

cybercoma · April 21, 2007

All of your suggestions about the actual events on 9/11 do not prove a mass government coverup. It does not prove that the actual situation, which is supported by mountains of evidence is inaccurate. Nothing you have stated disproves the fact that jetliners crashed into buldings causing massive destruction at a time when no one would've even fathomed such a thing as happening. Hindsight is 20/20, but the world was truly shocked when the news unravelled during those first hours.

All of the 'supposed' evidence you use to support your claim that explosives were used does nothing but raise more questions that cannot be answered. Why do you continue to ignore the realities that are right in front of your eyes? Why don't you realize that the mountains of evidence that support the idea of hijackers flying jets into buildings and the subsequent damage is much more logical than the half-truths and assumptions of the 9/11 movement?

You're trying to convince me and everyone else on this board of a huge government plot that involves secretly destroying the world trade center towers and launching a missile strike against the pentagon (even though you haven't brought it up, no doubt you believe that line of crap too). Saying the government needed these things to happen in order to get the ball rolling is not evidence enough of a huge coverup. You need huge evidence to prove something so involved as wiring up the towers to explode. All of your 'smoking guns' have been thoroughly debunked time and time again and you flat out refuse to acknowledge the facts several posters have put forward.

I'm not going to say that it's impossible that the government plotted the destruction on 9/11, because it's certainly possible for the government to organize death and destruction on that scale. It's very, very improbable that this is what took place, since all of the evidence we've seen suggests otherwise. That is unless you want to believe the assumptions of 9/11 Truth movement. That is unless you need to believe those things and refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts that.

You suggest that the towers fell into their footprint, just as controlled demolitions do. The damage to all the buildings blocks away from the towers suggests otherwise. You suggest hotspots and molten steel indicate there had to be fires several times hotter than jetfuel can create. The fact that the jet was made of aluminum, melted and mixed with motlen glass and all sorts of other materials it flowed through before pouring out of the gaping hole in the trade center suggests otherwise.

Everything you say, disproved. Yet not a single shred of evidence to disprove the things that are being thrown at you. You simply resort to the tired line, "THE US GOVERNMENT IS EVIL!"

Well have fun going through life lying to yourself by looking for evidence to believe the things you WANT to beileve. Those of us with a grain of intelligence will continue to think for ourselves, examine all the evidence that's put forth and base our extent of belief based on the extent of evidence.

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

cybercoma:You suggest that the towers fell into their footprint, just as controlled demolitions do.
The damage to all the buildings blocks away from the towers suggests otherwise.

The buildings were converted to dust as they collapsed - the dust is ditributed evenly around the pin point of the building.

cybercoma: You suggest hotspots and molten steel indicate there had to be fires several times hotter than jetfuel can create.

Right.

cybercoma: The fact that the jet was made of aluminum, melted and mixed with motlen glass and all sorts of other materials it flowed through before pouring out of the gaping hole in the trade center suggests otherwise.

Huh ? What ...that ...doesn't make sense.

GostHacked · April 21, 2007

Ghost Hacked: On top of the 130 plus in that other thread. For some reason this was the only post that was worth replying to at all.

Thats why when you ask if we can work togather my answer is a definitive NO.

And now you have your reason why no one will support you. I told you to change your tactics. It is plainly not working here OR in the 130+ pages of the other thread. I am not sure if repeating the same shit over and over again will help, for anyone can just read a few pages of the thread and realize this and the other one will result in nothing you want to achieve.

Fine then Polynewbie. I have tried to help you in the past. No more nice nice from me then. I was willing to help and we could come up with much much more.. you know I AM A TRUTHIE TOO RIGHT???? But I guess now I see there are different levels and kinds of truthies.

If you all want this to stop. Just do not reply anymore. Polynewbie has not offered anything new in weeks. So come back in another year to read 100 more pages of dialogue that does not progress the argument of the inside job. I think rehashing the lines over and over again is against forum rules. But I am not sure.

I am a truthie and support most of what PolYnewbie says. See how many times I have responded to compared to many of the others who for what it seem like, they are not truthies. Just an observation.

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

Polynewbie has not offered anything new in weeks.

Its always been the same stuff they offer as proof and I debunk it. The same mantra gets posted with no support and I show how it isn't possible.

All you have done is get after me in these threads. If you have something positive to add then add it, but if all you want to do is criticise me then I'm not so sure your criticisms are well founded and I don't want to work with someone when all they do is criticise.

The quotes from various structural engineers are new. Its interesting how they first say "you have no structural engineers supporting you" then when I do they say the quotes are out of context ot that the people I am quoting are incompetent.

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

Air Craft Controllers on 911 (free MP3 / guns & butter)

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

cybercoma:All of your 'smoking guns' have been thoroughly debunked time and time again

I don't recall that ever happening, except in the case of Riverwinds scientific explanations which have been shown to be ridiculous in a way that even the most unscientific person can see quite clearly - all twice except for his force illustration which has only been corrected once on this thread and once on the other.

You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true.

cybercoma:Nothing you have stated disproves the fact that jetliners crashed into buldings causing massive destruction at a time when no one would've even fathomed such a thing as happening.

Rehearsals for such attacks were conducted at the Pentagon 6 months prior. A info booklet put out by the Pentagon has the towers in crosshairs, ...the Lone Gunman episode ... what do you mean no one could have fathomed ?...I think you are using the words of one of the WMD twins - which are always lies.

No one is argueing about jetliners crashing into the buildings that I know of on this thread.

cybercoma:Saying the government needed these things to happen in order to get the ball rolling is not evidence enough of a huge coverup.

Right. Its motive. PNAC clearly illustrates motive. (PNAC = Plan for the New Ameican Centrury). Motive is necessary for a crime to take place.

cybercoma:Everything you say, disproved.

where ? one example ?

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

Ghost Hacked: I told you to change your tactics.

Since when am I required to take orders from you ? Are you another all knowing all seeing type of poster like some others on this thread ? Should your word be accepted as gospel ?

If you want respect you have to earn it or threaten people who can't defend themselves to get it.

Lets see if you can add something to this thread besides attacking me all the time.

GostHacked · April 21, 2007

Ghost Hacked: I told you to change your tactics.

Since when am I required to take orders from you ? Are you another all knowing all seeing type of poster like some others on this thread ? Should your word be accepted as gospel ?

If you want respect you have to earn it or threaten people who can't defend themselves to get it.

Lets see if you can add something to this thread besides attacking me all the time.

You are not required to take orders from me. You are not even required to reply to my reply.

If you want respect, you simply have to earn it. The moment you threaten someone, you can no longer get the respect you want. From anyone. EDIT LE. And if you want respect, calling others names is not going to help, eventhough they all call you names.

You are taking it out of context. I told you in the other thread : If you want to really convince people that 9/11 was an inside job, you will need to change your tactics. So you are using the same ones and still not making ANY headway at all.

So go ahead and keep smackin the heads against the wall.

I have tried to add to the thread, but you even go on about how you do not deal in theories and shit like that. I had proposed a couple theories on how the money went missing and how big corporations had a play in it. Large monopolistic companies. That was in your 130 page thread. That was something new to offer. Yet you do not deal in probabilities and theories and went back to WTC7.... Another reason I may not have had anything else to contribute to the threads, is that, hell there is already pages of it there. I do not feel the need to reiterate the same stuff over and over again. You know it works for the Right and those in charge. Say A, eventhough B happened, enough and often and people will beleive it. Wake them up this way. Say, A is A regardless. Say it once. Say it with conviction. Then let that sit in their brains. Then let them start asking the questions and let them wake up on their own.

YES I believe it was brought down by demolition. It simply looks like one. And I agree that WTC7 is a major key in showing the attacks were LIHOP or MIHOP. Now you need more than just WTC 7 for 100 pages.

Globalists this, Alex Jones that. Professors this, engineers that.

Tune back in later. Same stuff. only 100 more pages of it.

Another EDIT LE

All you have done is get after me in these threads. If you have something positive to add then add it, but if all you want to do is criticise me then I'm not so sure your criticisms are well founded and I don't want to work with someone when all they do is criticise.

Smiles, opinions, sarcasm, critisism are all something I give out freely. And at anytime. Expect it. And it is not just me critisising you. I am trying to help you fine tune your critisisms of the official story. Sorry if I am stepping on your feet here.

Polynewbie. I deal with these people often in my day. I say it once, give them some info and then let them find out some answers for themselves.

cybercoma · April 21, 2007

cybercoma:You suggest that the towers fell into their footprint, just as controlled demolitions do.
The damage to all the buildings blocks away from the towers suggests otherwise.

The buildings were converted to dust as they collapsed - the dust is ditributed evenly around the pin point of the building.

cybercoma: You suggest hotspots and molten steel indicate there had to be fires several times hotter than jetfuel can create.

Right.

cybercoma: The fact that the jet was made of aluminum, melted and mixed with motlen glass and all sorts of other materials it flowed through before pouring out of the gaping hole in the trade center suggests otherwise.

Huh ? What ...that ...doesn't make sense.

The buildings obviously weren't turned entirely to dust, since there are pieces of the structure still standing and WTC7 was gouged out 20 floors up by the debris. Not to mention, as I said in the last post, the buildings for blocks that were damaged or destroyed by the collapses. You're entirely wrong about the buildings falling neatly into their footprint, not to mention the amount of explosives that would be needed to turn a building of that size TO DUST from TOP TO BOTTOM. It just doesn't add up. It's not logical and you've provided no evidence to suggest otherwise.