[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
malcolm kirkman said:
I'm satisfied that it was grey and had no windows in it.
Whatever it was, it was not 175.
Click to expand...


That's not good enough, mal. What type of aircraft is it? I don't care what color you think it is or what configuration(ie cargo or military) you think it is. If you are unable to identify the type, how are you credible enough to say that it's not 175?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Fire alone has never dropped a steel framed building and never will. As I am sure you are fully aware. The fire just can't get hot enough.
Click to expand...

Do you EVER make sure of anything before uttering such nonsense ?

Fire CAN and DOES melt steel.

Fires does not NEED to melt steel in order to make it collapse.

Fire HAS dropped steel buildings.

How many more falsehoods to you have ?

Now you are saying that concrete survived for 26 hrs of fierce blazing in Madrid.
How come the WTC concrete turned to dust in 10 seconds?
Click to expand...

Nice try at a .
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
That's not good enough, mal. What type of aircraft is it? I don't care what color you think it is or what configuration(ie cargo or military) you think it is. If you are unable to identify the type, how are you credible enough to say that it's not 175?
Click to expand...
Because 175 had windows in it and would have folded up like a piece of paper the moment it saw a steel wall, never mind flew into it.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Because 175 had windows in it and would have folded up like a piece of paper the moment it saw a steel wall, never mind flew into it.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? What's your basis for thinking that an aircraft fuselage is that weak?

A minor point: the WTC was not a solid wall of steel as your post seems to indicate; there were windows in between those steel exterior columns. In other words, openings directly to the interior of the structure through which anything capable of penetrating glass could enter.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Then why do the steel structural elements in skyscrapers have fire-resistant material applied to them??

Also, do you understand that a steel structure doesn't have to melt in order to fail? Steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 deg. F, and the WTC fires reached temperatures of around 1800 deg. F.
Click to expand...
Where on earth did you get those figures from, Popular Mechanics?
 
NIST said:
All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600 °C, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength. At intermediate temperatures the strength is independent of time, but above 500 °C, creep, or time-dependent deformation, further reduces the load-carrying capability. To combat this loss of load-carrying capability, structural steel in buildings is insulated to keep it cool in fire.
Click to expand...

http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/techactv2005/ar2005_safety.html#wtc
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Where on earth did you get those figures from, Popular Mechanics?
Click to expand...


http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html said:
In the range of 900 to 1100 degrees Fahrenheit (500 to 600 degrees Centigrade), structural steel loses about half its tensile strength, and so begins to deform and buckle under loads. At 1400 degrees Fahrenheit (800 Centigrade), only about 10-20% of the strength of steel remains. The actual melting point of steels is nearly twice as hot, at temperatures difficult to reach outside the specialized conditions of a foundry or forge.
Click to expand...


Let me guess though, Architecture Week are "in on it" too.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Why do you think that? What's your basis for thinking that an aircraft fuselage is that weak?

A minor point: the WTC was not a solid wall of steel as your post seems to indicate; there were windows in between those steel exterior columns. In other words, openings directly to the interior of the structure through which anything capable of penetrating glass could enter.
Click to expand...
The outer wall was especially strong to give more floorspace. The windows had no effect on the strength, because they were sunk in the corrugation and only about 18 inches wide.
Here is one basis for a standard fusilage to be so weak,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q
 
Par said:
Let me guess though, Architecture Week are "in on it" too.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the US Military is in on it, as one can derive the same figures from MIL-HDBK-5, but one must be adept at reading graphs to get there (More conspiracy--expecting people to understand graphs and other arithmetic -like stuff!)

This is also easily demonstrated with a 2 lengths of steel bar, a scale, and a blowtorch
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Fire alone has never dropped a steel framed building and never will. As I am sure you are fully aware. The fire just can't get hot enough. That's why stoves are made out of steel, because fire can't melt steel.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the action of fire in buildings, do you?

malcolm kirkman said:
Where on earth did you get those figures from, Popular Mechanics?
Click to expand...

Look in a fire engineering text book.

Dave
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Where on earth did you get those figures from, Popular Mechanics?
Click to expand...

fact.jpg


See also my signature quote.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You pointedly make no reference to this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQ...elated&search=
or the other three videos I posted.
Click to expand...
That particular link goes nowhere.

Regardless, I've seen the "other videos". The penthouse takes more than 7 seconds to collapse into the upper floors of WTC7. The two videos of the collapse show at least a 7sec collapse of the North face after that, although it becomes difficult to find the final impact time amidst the debris. The seismic data shows a total collapse that starts 20 seconds before the penthouse fails (probably internal failures of steel structures) and lasts until 15 seconds after the penthouse roof buckles.

Freefall is (t=sqr(2*174/9.8)) 5.96 seconds

IF you pulverized the entire building into freefalling chunks, it would take 6 seconds for the last of them to hit the ground. It doesn't.

Your "fire/steel" arguments are old hat and tiresome. Fire weakens steel. As a species we've accepted and used this for centuries, and we have given you examples of buildings/structures that failed due to fire. There is ample evidence that WTC7 sustained huge damage from the debris of the Twin Towers, caught fire, burned for 7 hours and collapsed at significantly below 9.8m/ss. There is no reason to believe any other factors came into play, as explained by experts in every field applicable. There is no reason to believe that the building failed in a way that was outside the explanation endorsed by every major engineering firm in this country.

Your "common sense" and "gut feelings" and "obvious" conclusions amount to nothing if you lack the credibility, expertise or evidence to back your conclusions. I've met people utterly convinced that the Apollo missions were faked, that the world is 9000 years old and that Extraterrestrials live among us. Those people are no less earnest and they have exactly the same amount of evidence that you have put forward. Zilch. Stop posting grainy you-tube videos and citing lone Conspiracy Theorists as experts.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Because 175 had windows in it and would have folded up like a piece of paper the moment it saw a steel wall, never mind flew into it.
Click to expand...


Okay, I'll rephrase the question:

What type of airplane is 767 sized, has 2 engines, is made of steel(or at least has a nose section, wings and tail all made of steel), and is powered by measly CFM56s, and is seen in the WTC2 impact photos and videos, malcolm ?

Does it bother you that you're the only person in the "Truth" movement who believes that a commercial airliner cannot penetrate the WTC, but a military aircraft can?

Oh and no windows huh? What are these then?



And just for fun....where are the windows on this United 767?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0126935/L/


Or this one?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0003917/L/


Or this one?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0604814/L/


Or this one?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0590504/L/


Or this one?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0459680/L/


It's amazing what happens when resolution is increased; the windows magically just appear!
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Where is your evidence re,
1. the dogs
Click to expand...

The evidence refuting the myth about the bomb-sniffing dogs is here:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html

2. the power down(s)
Click to expand...


The evidence refuting the fantasist myth about the alleged "power-downs" is here:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html


Silverstein admits it here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS20kYHS5PU
Click to expand...


Your evil, agenda-driven movement tells many lies, but none has been exposed more often than the Larry Silverstein canard. No demolition specialists recognize "pull it" as industry jargon for "blow up the building." Stop and let that sink in. Conspiracy liars invented this falsehood out of whole cloth. To someone in the demolition industry, "pulling" means attaching cables to a relatively small structure (NOT a 47-story building) and literally pulling it off its center of gravity.

Please explain why Silverstein would ask a member of fire department to blow up his building. The FDNY is not in the demolition business. Do you ask your mail carrier to fix the leak under your sink?


Do you deny Giuliani had the crime scene swept up, or do you wish to contest the meaning of the word 'coincidence'?
Click to expand...


Incoherent drivel. The clean-up process lasted for months.


Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse, because he admits it here,
1 min to 1.04 min.
Click to expand...


You're lying, again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKHLok-RVNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKHLok-RVNw
Here is the BBC saying WTC7 was down, when it's not,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4&mode=related&search=
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sheer madness. You are claiming that your mathematically-impossible conspiracy selected the network most implacably hostile to America in general and Bush in particular and handed it a script describing an event that was going to happen in any case. I realize that you can't comprehend how insane this imaginary scenario is, but the rest of us can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom