[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[jsfisher]

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.

Physics says otherwise.

Why do you hate physics?

 

[Par]

What is a heat sink?

Since you’ve moved on to a different point, can we take it that you now accept that steel can be weakened by fire in the way Spitfire IX originally claimed?

 

[pomeroo]

I'm satisfied that it was grey and had no windows in it.
Whatever it was, it was not 175.

Undoubtedly you are satisfied. Rationalists, however, find it tedious to debunk recycled claims over and over. Most conspiracy liars abandoned the no-windows myth years ago. Photos of the wreckage show windows. Yes, yes, your mathematically-impossible planted all the evidence...

And on it goes.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Still ignoring momentum and kinetic energy I see malcolm.

Why do you hate physics so? Did your science or math teacher cause you great emotional harm at some point?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Still ignoring momentum and kinetic energy I see malcolm.

Why do you hate physics so? Did your science or math teacher cause you great emotional harm at some point?

I just thought of a good experiment for you..

You will need the assitance of an 8 year old girl and a full grown and welll muscled man.

First have the girl swing a pillow at you and have her let go just as it hits you.

Now have the man do the same as fast as he can get that pillow to move.

Same pillow, a pillow is much softer than you, it should just pile up against you so why did the guy nearly put you on your (rule 8) or very nearly suceed in doing so while the little girl could not?


this is much better than the previous experiment suggested to you in which one was to throw a bullet at you and then fire one out of a gun at you to prove that the softness of the material is irellevant. At least insomuch as it allows you to continue drawing breath.

 

[HyJinX]

What is a heat sink?

An environment capable of absorbing heat.

 

[Corsair 115]

The windows had no effect on the strength, because they were sunk in the corrugation and only about 18 inches wide.

But they don't prevent something from penetrating them, do they? And how many windows were on each of the four sides of the tower?

Here is one basis for a standard fusilage to be so weak,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q

First, it's fuselage, not fusilage. Second, your video did nothing to support your contention, all it showed was the explosion in the WTC tower. Have something more relevant? Something which might demonstrate the stength or weakness of an aircraft?

 

[gumboot]

This is what you call a fire,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIq6mNI0dzc&mode=related&search=
The building blazed for something like twenty hours, a proper blaze. Nothing fell down including a crane that was perched precariously right on the top of the building.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

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.

Utterly useless.

The Windsor Tower was a fraction of the size of WTC7. WTC7's fire is the largest office fire in history. The Windsor Tower is not a steel framed building. It is a steel framed building with a solid concrete core and concrete mechanical floors. Concrete resists fire better than steel. The Windsor Tower did not suffer any structural damage prior to the fire starting. Despite all of this the entire upper steel structure of the building suffered total collapse. The Windsor Tower fire is evidence that buildings can collapse due to fire.

If that's not good enough for you:

More than a quarter of a million dollars worth of hay has gone up in smoke after an arson attack in the Manawatu. The fire near Feilding thwarted the best efforts of firefighters and left one man's livelihood in ruins.

The fire on Reid Line West started at just after 2am on Sunday. At its peak, four fire appliances played a part in attempts to douse the flames. The river was pumped dry trying to deal with it. Two army water tankers from Linton were brought in to help as well as another tanker from Palmerston North. Feilding station officer Glenn Davies says the flames melted the steel shed causing it to collapse onto the bales, limiting the access for firefighters.

TVNZ

The fire spread rapidly throughout Building One, and the upper floors soon became untenable. The blaze blocked the stairwell at the south end of the building, so most of the workers rushed to the north stairwell. This meant that approximately 1,100 people were trying to leave the third and fourth floors through a single stairwell.

The first fire apparatus arrived at 4:40 p.m., their response time having been extended because of the relatively remote location of the facility and the gridlock conditions typical of Bangkok traffic. Arriving fire-fighters found Building One heavily involved in flames and already beginning to collapse, with people jumping from the third and fourth floors.

Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade could effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly collapsed at 5:30 p.m., and Building Three at 6:05 p.m.

The Kader Toy Factory Fire

The fire spread was very rapid due to the lack of compartmentalization, the large amount of fuel, and lack of means of suppression. The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire due to the same factors.

McCormick Place fire, Chicago

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

Sight and Sound Theatre fire, Strasburg

Once again, Malcolm, you are wrong.

-Gumboot

 

[tacodaemon]

The Windsor Tower was a fraction of the size of WTC7. WTC7's fire is the largest office fire in history. The Windsor Tower is not a steel framed building. It is a steel framed building with a solid concrete core and concrete mechanical floors. Concrete resists fire better than steel. The Windsor Tower did not suffer any structural damage prior to the fire starting. Despite all of this the entire upper steel structure of the building suffered total collapse. The Windsor Tower fire is evidence that buildings can collapse due to fire.

It truly never ceases to amaze me that truthers can look at this building and call it evidence that fire won't hurt a steel framed tower.

Before:

After:

Yeah, that really convinces me that fire is perfectly fine for steel-framed architecture.

 

[pomeroo]

Where on earth did you get those figures from, Popular Mechanics?

Are they different from the ones you invented?

 

[SOMERLED]

Still ignoring momentum and kinetic energy I see malcolm.

Why do you hate physics so? Did your science or math teacher cause you great emotional harm at some point?

Momentum and kinetic energy, all in the same post.
If you will now tell me whose law this is,
extension in mm = constant
force in Newtons
then we can hold a reasonable conversation,
I have been waiting some two weeks now. The above equation has been waiting for someone to identify it for two weeks. Let's hope we can converse, let's hope you can identify this schoolboy equation.

 

[SOMERLED]

An environment capable of absorbing heat.

What were the biggest man made heat sinks in the world?
I'll give you a clue, there were two of them and they got blown up on 9/11 2001, along with over three thousand innocent office workers, fire fighters and police.

 

[SOMERLED]

But they don't prevent something from penetrating them, do they? And how many windows were on each of the four sides of the tower?

First, it's fuselage, not fusilage. Second, your video did nothing to support your contention, all it showed was the explosion in the WTC tower. Have something more relevant? Something which might demonstrate the stength or weakness of an aircraft?

Fuselage it is. There is surely other stuff to make my point and I will trawl it up from the net. Time is pressing more each day now and there'll be no change for at least three weeks. I won't forget. For now if you liken a commercial plane to an easter egg, you'll be getting along the right lines.
There is no necessity, to make the front of a plane like a tank. All the front need do, is cut through fresh air. In the early days, all you had was a pair of goggles. Then somebody stuck up a windshield, Nowadays, the front windows in a plane, sit in a recess, so that when the plane is doing it's 500 mph it pushes the window into place more securely. Don't forget at five miles high, there aint a lot up there.
We live in a sea, just like fish do. We live in a sea of air. The higher up you go, the thinner our sea of air gets. So much so, that at five miles high, it's all gone. How strong a nose do you need to fly through that?
There's nothing else, no big engine in the nose, just a piece of tin and then the pilots knees. In this case not even the pilots knees.
Just a giant tin easter egg, thrown against a steel wall.
Furthermore, this steel wall had 180 mph give built in. That meant that it would take 180 mph winds, before it stiffened up, like a man turning his shoulder into the wind. You can knock 180 mph off straight away. Say 450 - 180 = 270. 270 mph, getting a bit more imaginable now.
If tin crumples at 20 mph, then the faster it hits the wall, the faster it will crumple. Common sense again.

 

[SOMERLED]

Undoubtedly you are satisfied. Rationalists, however, find it tedious to debunk recycled claims over and over. Most conspiracy liars abandoned the no-windows myth years ago. Photos of the wreckage show windows. Yes, yes, your mathematically-impossible planted all the evidence...

And on it goes.

One planted 6ft piece on a roof, doesn't cut any ice with me. It probably came off the back of the same pickup that delivered the Shanksville 'wreckage'.

 

[SOMERLED]

Utterly useless.

The Windsor Tower was a fraction of the size of WTC7. WTC7's fire is the largest office fire in history. The Windsor Tower is not a steel framed building. It is a steel framed building with a solid concrete core and concrete mechanical floors. Concrete resists fire better than steel. The Windsor Tower did not suffer any structural damage prior to the fire starting. Despite all of this the entire upper steel structure of the building suffered total collapse. The Windsor Tower fire is evidence that buildings can collapse due to fire.

If that's not good enough for you:









Once again, Malcolm, you are wrong.

-Gumboot

Sorry, the south tower fire was almost out. All that anyone was complaining about was the smoke. I'll dig up a photo if you insist, of a woman stood in the hole the plane had gone in. How hot could that be?
The fireball from the attack plane spent itself outside the tower immediately after impact, pretty soon, the smoke had turned black = not enough oxygen = a not very hot fire. The firemen's tapes said so, but then the Port Authority kept a grip of them for 12 months, no doubt losing the more incriminating fireman's tapes. What's a private firm doing holding on to public material and why?
Would you like me to find a photo of the woman?

 

[SOMERLED]

It truly never ceases to amaze me that truthers can look at this building and call it evidence that fire won't hurt a steel framed tower.

Before:
[qimg]http://i9.tinypic.com/6807rrm.jpg[/qimg]


After:
[qimg]http://i9.tinypic.com/4kx28f6.jpg[/qimg]


Yeah, that really convinces me that fire is perfectly fine for steel-framed architecture.

Why didn't the Madrid building do this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDt3mVlI8mk
You'll see plenty of evidence of explosive squibs. But, even more telling.
If you look at 1 min 40 secs to 1m 46 secs and again at 2 mins 50 secs.
You will actually see material going both up and propelled outwards.
When a building is coming down, no part of it is supposed to go UP.
The only reason stuff can go UP, is if it's Blown UP.
There goes that common sense again.

 

[gumboot]

Sorry, the south tower fire was almost out. All that anyone was complaining about was the smoke. I'll dig up a photo if you insist, of a woman stood in the hole the plane had gone in. How hot could that be?
The fireball from the attack plane spent itself outside the tower immediately after impact, pretty soon, the smoke had turned black = not enough oxygen = a not very hot fire. The firemen's tapes said so, but then the Port Authority kept a grip of them for 12 months, no doubt losing the more incriminating fireman's tapes. What's a private firm doing holding on to public material and why?
Would you like me to find a photo of the woman?

Yes the fires were so cool that they caused the engine of the NYPD aviation unit helicopter to overheat so it couldn't hover above the buildings.

The fires were so cool the NYPD aviation unit reported the columns of the building were glowing red hot.

The fires were so cool that hundreds of people leaped from the buildings; preferring a quick death to burning alive.

The fires were so cool that people trapped in the buildings above the impact point called 9-1-1 telling of raging infernos and collapsing floors.

The fires were so cool that people standing in the street below the towers described the heat coming off the fires - hundreds of feet above them - as "like an open oven".


The fireball from UA175 burned off at most 25% of the aircraft's fuel load, leaving over 28,000 litres of Jet-A fuel to start fires in the building.


Black smoke does not indicate a low temperature or oxygen starved fire. This is a myth invented by Conspiracy Theorists. You cannot determine the temperature of a fire based on the smoke colour. All hydrocarbon-based fuels produce black smoke when they burn, regardless of how clean or hot the burn is. Thus, at the very best we can say that if a fire does not have black smoke, it cannot be hydrocarbon based fuels burning. We can determine nothing else from the colour of smoke.


The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not a private firm. It is a governmental public authority. The FDNY communications on 9/11 were recorded through the PANYNJ's radio transponder on the PANYNJ's WTC5 building. Thus the recordings belong to the PANYNJ.

The recording I assume you're referring to is a communication from Battalion 7 Fire Chief Orio Palmer:

"... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

For your consideration, "10-45 Code One" is the code for reporting a fatality. An estimated 50 - 200 people were killed instantly when the port wing of UA175 smashed through the 78th floor of WTC2.

Having read the NIST report, I am sure you aware that the 78th floor of WTC2 was the lowest floor hit by the aircraft, and did not have office spaces, therefore very little materials to burn. Also, I hope you're aware that heat travels upwards. If you've read the NIST report you'll also be aware that they concluded the most severe fires were in the floors above the 78th.

Finally, can you please tell me what you think "isolated pocket of fire" and "two lines" means in firefighting terms?


For the record, here's the entire transmission:

Of note, Palmer was in the stairwell at this point in time, and therefore could not see the entire floor. In addition he gives you a clue to what "two lines" means with his last remark.

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

"That woman" was Edna Cintron. Perhaps, if the fires weren't hot as you argue, you should be attempting to explain what she was doing in such an incredibly dangerous place; right at the edge of the building in the middle of the most severe structural damage. The only source, as it happens, for fresh cold air.


-Gumboot

 

[MortFurd]

Why didn't the Madrid building do this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDt3mVlI8mk
You'll see plenty of evidence of explosive squibs. But, even more telling.
If you look at 1 min 40 secs to 1m 46 secs and again at 2 mins 50 secs.
You will actually see material going both up and propelled outwards.
When a building is coming down, no part of it is supposed to go UP.
The only reason stuff can go UP, is if it's Blown UP.
There goes that common sense again.

First off:
Squib:
1. a short and witty or sarcastic saying or writing.
2. Journalism. a short news story, often used as a filler.
3. a small firework, consisting of a tube or ball filled with powder, that burns with a hissing noise terminated usually by a slight explosion.
4. a firecracker broken in the middle so that it burns with a hissing noise but does not explode.
5. Australian. a coward.
6. an electric, pyrotechnic device for firing the igniter of a rocket engine, esp. a solid-propellant engine.
7. Obsolete. a mean or paltry fellow.
–verb (used without object) 8. to write squibs.
9. to shoot a squib.
10. to explode with a small, sharp sound.
11. to move swiftly and irregularly.
12. Australian. a. to be afraid.
b. to flee; escape.

–verb (used with object) 13. to assail in squibs or lampoons.
14. to toss, shoot, or utilize as a squib.

That is NOT an explosive device used as a demolitions charge, nor is is a gout of dust and smoke as seen in the 9/11 videos. A squib might cause a (very) small puff of smoke, but that's it.

Next:
Go outside where there's dust. Get a big rock and drop it in the dust. Dust will spread outwards. To do that, it will have ot go upwards to some extent. How did it do that? You only dropped a rock on it. Must have been some explosives in the dirt to make the dust go upwards.

Now, take a big brick. Drop it on some gravel. Watch closely. Pebbles will spray out from around the brick. In order to move laterally, they've got to go up to some extent to get over other pebbles. Hmmm. Explosives everywhere.

Take your brick and drop it in a tubg full of water. The water splashes UPWARDS. Damn. Who snuck nitroglycerin in there?

Things that are moving downwards can impact on another object and be redirected. Under the right conditions, they can be redirected upwards.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Right. Never mind that these things must endure lift-off and landings, winds, etc.

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.

"Especially strong" doesn't mean invincible. Have you ever seen the results of tornadoes ?

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 ?

And while you're at it, why don't you read the above and learn something.

 

[Belz...]

What were the biggest man made heat sinks in the world?
I'll give you a clue, there were two of them and they got blown up on 9/11 2001, along with over three thousand innocent office workers, fire fighters and police.

Yeah. Those towers weren't office buildings, they were heat sinks for Manhattan.

Where do you get those factoids, anyway ?

We live in a sea, just like fish do. We live in a sea of air. The higher up you go, the thinner our sea of air gets. So much so, that at five miles high, it's all gone. How strong a nose do you need to fly through that?

Yeah. There is no air at the top of the Everest. That's why climbers wear spacesuits, there.

Oh, wait...