[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[Belz...]

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?

Because the fire was OUT in that area, obviously. We can see the damage all around her. Why can't you see it ?

pretty soon, the smoke had turned black = not enough oxygen = a not very hot fire.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Since when is black smoke indicative of a cool fire ? Mostly, smoke colour indicates the composition of the stuff that's burning. Don't you know that ? And if not, why, and why do you keep arguing this if you don't ?

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.

How do you know they said so if the tapes are gone ?

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.

Really ? Tell me, Malcolm, what happens when you hit something on the way down ? Do you go right through it ?

There goes that common sense again.

Common sense tells you the Earth is flat. Why do you trust it ?

 

[Par]

[T]he smoke had turned black = not enough oxygen = a not very hot fire.

Oil well fires in the evidently low-oxygen Kuwaiti desert.

 

[Par]

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?

There was practically nothing to burn in that immediate quasi-two-dimensional plane-shaped hole in the face of the tower. The plane had bulldozed all of the consumables further into the building. Moreover, being as that same hole was the primary source of oxygen for the fire, it seems fairly reasonable to think that that’s where the coolest air available would have been rushing in from.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Grade Report

Student: Kirkman, Malcolm

Courses:

Fire Science I: F

Physics I: F

Statics: F

Strength of Materials: F

Thermodynamics I: F

 

[Z]

There's really nothing to see here, folks - Mally (Killtown) is just repeating the same old, tired, long-ago-debunked canards.

I suggest he be summarily ignored by all parties until he's demonstrated that he's read and understood the rebuttals available all across this forum.

Maybe some enterprising person could put together a thread of links to each of the debunked points he's raised?

Really, Mal, you've grown desperate if you've started in on 'cool fires' and 'no steel building ever collapsed due to fire', etc. It's like you're a first time CTer, systematically repeating the entire chain of dogma from the twoofers from day 1, like a review of the Best of the Stupid Mistakes on the Internet.

C'mon, Mally - you can do a LOT better than that.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

Well, no-one else seems to have done so, so I'll bite. There is no such equation. You have made it up. No-one else in the entire history of the world has ever used, or even written down, that equation. This is because it is wrong. In fact, it is not even wrong, it is complete and utter nonsense.

Units of extension are distance (m). Units of force are Newtons (kg.m.s^-2. These are not the same thing. What you call an equation is no such thing because the two sides are not equal. That is what the "equa" part of "equation" means.

What you are probably trying to get at is somthing to do with the extension and compression of springs. But that is not what you have actually said. You are entirely correct that the equations involving springs are incredibly simple schoolboy (or girl) equations. But you are apparently not capable of getting them right.

Now, if you will tell me what the actual equation should be and explain what the terms in it mean, perhaps then we can have a reasonable conversation. Until then you are just making yourself look even more ignorant of basic maths and physics than you are of simple English.

 

[MortFurd]

There's really nothing to see here, folks - Mally (Killtown) is just repeating the same old, tired, long-ago-debunked canards.

I suggest he be summarily ignored by all parties until he's demonstrated that he's read and understood the rebuttals available all across this forum.

Maybe some enterprising person could put together a thread of links to each of the debunked points he's raised?

Really, Mal, you've grown desperate if you've started in on 'cool fires' and 'no steel building ever collapsed due to fire', etc. It's like you're a first time CTer, systematically repeating the entire chain of dogma from the twoofers from day 1, like a review of the Best of the Stupid Mistakes on the Internet.

C'mon, Mally - you can do a LOT better than that.

If Malcolm is Killtown, that would explain a LOT.

What leads you to think that Malcolm is Killtown?

BTW:
Killtown was banned here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66750&highlight=killtown
If he's back under a new name, I'd think that's something the mods should be informed of.

 

[Par]

SpitfireIX:

So, did Malcolm Kirkman ever acknowledge that you were right about steel and its susceptibility to heat? I’m not certain, but I think that he may have just changed the subject without ever addressing the issue. Perhaps he’ll do the same with regards the relationship between the availability of oxygen to a fire and the colour of its smoke. Who knows!

 

[cloudshipsrule]

If tin crumples at 20 mph, then the faster it hits the wall, the faster it will crumple.

Answer me Malcom.

Read this and then state your opinion on it.

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html

You have no understanding of physics. NONE.

This has already been mentioned, but it's worth repeating. If you throw a bullet by hand at a 3/4" piece of plywood would it penetrate the plywood? If you're not sure about this I'll give you the answer; No. How about if you shoot the same bullet from a rifle? Answer; Yes.

Wow, the more speed an object has the more force it can exert when it strikes another object. (f=ma)

When you say things like the faster the plane travels the faster it will simply crumple and not penetrate the building you show a complete misunderstanding of the forces involved.

If you get nothing else out of this post, think about this:

A 767 airplane, fully loaded, weighs more than 300,000 pounds. Even if it violated the laws of physics and simply crumpled when it hit the wall of the tower, what did that 300,000 pounds of crumpled mass do once it was all bunched up? Do you think it should have just crumpled up and slid down the side of the building? You don't think 300,000 pounds of mass traveling hundreds of miles an hour should penetrate the building, at least a little bit? If you can't comprehend this, reasoning with you is a lost cause.

Go back to school, because your GED ain't cuttin' it.!

 

[CurtC]

pretty soon, the smoke had turned black = not enough oxygen = a not very hot fire.

From http://www.slate.com/id/2145891/ :

What makes some smoke white and other smoke black?

The type of fuel and how hot it's burning. In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn't work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.

I guess that must be an NWO disinfo site.

 

[gumboot]

Killtown is getting married?



-Gumboot

 

[CurtC]

Just a giant tin easter egg, thrown against a steel wall.

Did you not see the picture that Gravy posted earlier, of an aluminum block that was hit with a (much softer) plastic pellet? Here it is again.

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.

You're actually using the wind rating for the towers, and subtracting that from the plane speed?

Edited by Darat: 

Moderated thread

I'm sure you don't realize it, but you're demonstrating to everyone here that you have no idea how to do physics. The wind rating of the building has no bearing on its ability to withstand an impact from an airliner.

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

Edited by Darat: 

Moderated thread

It's not just not right - it's not even wrong. That's a nonsensical, meaningless equation you keep asking about.

What you are probably trying to get at is somthing to do with the extension and compression of springs.

So you think he's attempting to refer to Hooke's Law? I can just see him there, posting this stuff, furrowing his brow in a vain attempt to understand what it means. MK, you're way out of your league here. You should stick to the softer material, like who knew what and when. Physics is way beyond your grasp.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Well, no-one else seems to have done so, so I'll bite. There is no such equation. You have made it up. No-one else in the entire history of the world has ever used, or even written down, that equation. This is because it is wrong. In fact, it is not even wrong, it is complete and utter nonsense. . . .

QFE. Again invoking Wolfgang Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

What you are probably trying to get at is som[e]thing to do with the extension and compression of springs. But that is not what you have actually said. You are entirely correct that the equations involving springs are incredibly simple schoolboy (or girl) equations. But you are apparently not capable of getting them right. . . .

This also finally occurred to me when Malcolm posted his "equation" for about the 10th time. I think he's trying to state Hooke's Law^WP, but I'm not certain whether Malcolm's problem is merely one comprehension, or of both comprehension and expression. He's either trying to say "extension = a constant * force," in which case he's simply gotten the spring constant on the wrong side of the equation and lost a negative sign, or else he's trying to say exactly what his equation states, which means he's also mistaken "a constant * force" for "a constant force." Note that Hooke's Law could be expressed with the spring constant on the other side of the equation and no negative sign, but the constant would have to be the negative multiplicative inverse of the way it's ordinarily stated in physics.

Assuming the above is correct, however, what I'd like to know is what Malcolm thinks Hooke's Law has to do with proving that a 767 could not penetrate the wall of the World Trade center, as it only applies below the limit of plastic deformation. It might conceivably help us determine the aircraft fragments' expected path after penetration, but that's about all I can think of. Does anyone else have any ideas on this?

 

[HyJinX]

Killtown is getting married?



-Gumboot

Killtown actually got married...

 

[SpitfireIX]

SpitfireIX:

So, did Malcolm Kirkman ever acknowledge that you were right about steel and its susceptibility to heat? I’m not certain, but I think that he may have just changed the subject without ever addressing the issue. Perhaps he’ll do the same with regards the relationship between the availability of oxygen to a fire and the colour of its smoke. Who knows!

No, not a peep. I will reiterate, though, that he did acknowledge that he was wrong about the number of kamikaze hits on non-armored flight decks, and the number that penetrated. However, Malcolm went on to claim that his mistake did not totally invalidate his point.

 

[Z]

If Malcolm is Killtown, that would explain a LOT.

What leads you to think that Malcolm is Killtown?

Pure hunch, really. But the fact that Killtown often does this same trick - so much so, that his fellow CTers are absolutely sick of him - combined with Mally's obsessive hero-worship of Killtown - sparks that 'something's not right here' sensation.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Pure hunch, really. But the fact that Killtown often does this same trick - so much so, that his fellow CTers are absolutely sick of him - combined with Mally's obsessive hero-worship of Killtown - sparks that 'something's not right here' sensation.

Also alluded to here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2655418#post2655418

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

well I suppose you are attemptinmg to show the equation for force in an ideal spring.
f=kx

where k is the characteristic spring constant for a particular spring.

However, the way you wrote it has millimeters equaling newtons and that sir is just plain wrong. You again get a zero of your physics test.

Now perhaps you can regale us with your apopilcation of thsi to the towers?

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

Sorry, not when the pieces are bolted together and bolted to the floor underneath and the floor underneath that and so on, until you reach the ground. It's just not possible for materials that are bolted together to explode either upwards or outwards.
Anybody who denies that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, must have a private agenda.

 

[SOMERLED]

Because the fire was OUT in that area, obviously. We can see the damage all around her. Why can't you see it ?



That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Since when is black smoke indicative of a cool fire ? Mostly, smoke colour indicates the composition of the stuff that's burning. Don't you know that ? And if not, why, and why do you keep arguing this if you don't ?



How do you know they said so if the tapes are gone ?



Really ? Tell me, Malcolm, what happens when you hit something on the way down ? Do you go right through it ?



Common sense tells you the Earth is flat. Why do you trust it ?

Common sense might well tell you the earth is flat.
Common sense tells me that the earth is round.