[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cuddles said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't take kindly to being called ignorant when I am educating you.
The equation as it stands is a scientific law. You don't know what it is. You don't know the name of that law.
Show me some respect, otherwise stay in ignorance.
 
Z said:
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.
Click to expand...

As with all your other obsevations up to now, unfortunately not correct.
 
Par said:
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?
Click to expand...
BARE steel needs to be subjected to 3,000 F for SEVERAL hours, before it will melt.
The fires burnt at around 500 F.
Here is the proof, it ends with a plea for the reader to contact his elected representatives, I hope you will comply.
http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm
 
malcolm kirkman; said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8

At 2:36 you'll see "riveted" pieces "explode" in all directions. This is at 154% design load done gradually, imagine if it were subjected to 500% design load instantaneously. I hope this helps.
 
Malcolm Kirkman:

Do you now accept that steel can be weakened by fire in the way Spitfire IX originally claimed?

Do you now accept that black smoke is not necessarily indicative of an oxygen-starved fire?
 
Par said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are quite right when you say that there was practically nothing to burn in that immediate area. Why stop there? There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices. So what is there to burn?
 
Par said:
Malcolm Kirkman:

Do you now accept that steel can be weakened by fire in the way Spitfire IX originally claimed?

Do you now accept that black smoke is not necessarily indicative of an oxygen-starved fire?
Click to expand...
I refer you to my previous post, 1765.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Anybody who denies that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, must have a private agenda.
Click to expand...
A half dozen independent engineering firms/universities? All with the same agenda? That's quite a claim. One that you will not be able to back up, I'm sure. I'd love to know what would inspire the thousands of engineers at the ASCE, NIST, FEMA and NFPA to abandon their principles.
Common sense might well tell you the earth is flat.
Common sense tells me that the earth is round.
Click to expand...
No, science tells you the Earth is round. Standing in Kansas will convince you it's flat unless you've measured enough of it. This is an empty argument, however.
The equation?
The schoolboy equation?
Click to expand...
Is something you've either made up or have mis-stated. There is no delta mm=Newtons because it's an impossible calculation to make. Change in distance doesn't automatically produce force, so you are missing something. You are either attempting to measure tensile strength, some electromagnetic property or the basics of spring physics. If it is the latter you're looking for Hooke's Law, and you've written it wrong.
I don't take kindly to being called ignorant when I am educating you.
The equation as it stands is a scientific law. You don't know what it is. You don't know the name of that law.
Show me some respect, otherwise stay in ignorance.
Click to expand...
You've yet to earn one ounce of respect.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Common sense might well tell you the earth is flat.
Common sense tells me that the earth is round.
Click to expand...

It does ? Where, exactly, do you see a curvature ?

You have to trust pictures and people telling you that they've been high enough to see it clearly.

I don't take kindly to being called ignorant when I am educating you.
Click to expand...

Comedy gold.

The equation as it stands is a scientific law.
Click to expand...

How can you have an equation of a distance and a force ????

How is that science ?

BARE steel needs to be subjected to 3,000 F for SEVERAL hours, before it will melt.
The fires burnt at around 500 F.
Click to expand...

Close to 1000, actually. The steel didn't need to melt. The steel didn't melt. You are fighting a strawman.

You are quite right when you say that there was practically nothing to burn in that immediate area. Why stop there? There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices. So what is there to burn?
Click to expand...

Yeah, aside from carpets, nothing burns. That's why wooden houses are immune to fire, and why tire fires are unknown.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Anybody who denies that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, must have a private agenda.
Click to expand...
I deny it. Because they weren't. What is my agenda, Mr. Kirkman?

And what, again, is yours?


Stick to the topic; I will no longer approve the various bickering (not in just this post) that has recently come into this thread for approval. Any posts with personal attacks or bickering will be rejected without warning going forward.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Tirdun said:
A half dozen independent engineering firms/universities? All with the same agenda? That's quite a claim. One that you will not be able to back up, I'm sure. I'd love to know what would inspire the thousands of engineers at the ASCE, NIST, FEMA and NFPA to abandon their principles.

No, science tells you the Earth is round. Standing in Kansas will convince you it's flat unless you've measured enough of it. This is an empty argument, however.

Is something you've either made up or have mis-stated. There is no delta mm=Newtons because it's an impossible calculation to make. Change in distance doesn't automatically produce force, so you are missing something. You are either attempting to measure tensile strength, some electromagnetic property or the basics of spring physics. If it is the latter you're looking for Hooke's Law, and you've written it wrong.

You've yet to earn one ounce of respect.
Click to expand...

Which is it?
If it is an application of Hooke's law, where is it wrong?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fine. Take a cinderblock. Drop a brick on it from about ten feet up. Shards of cinderblock will fly upwards and outwards.

What agenda would an average guy have? If I were hiding something the size of the conspiracy you envison, I'd either have one more huge pile of money in the bank (lying about 3000 cases of murder comes at a higher price in my book than you can imagine - the number of zeros would stagger you) or else somebody would have basically a gun at my daughter's head.

In all actuallity, if I had that kind of info, I'd have spilled it to the press here in Germany. I wouldn't be sitting here in a hot room in my attic arguing with a numb nut on a forum.

If you've got proof, why are you arguing with us instead of taking it to the press?
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
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:



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.





"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
Click to expand...
The original seat of the fire had gone out. Is that or is that not correct?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I don't take kindly to being called ignorant when I am educating you.
The equation as it stands is a scientific law. You don't know what it is. You don't know the name of that law.
Show me some respect, otherwise stay in ignorance.
Click to expand...
How about you just tell us what you think that "equation" is?

There are some pretty sharp folks on this forum, and the best answers we can get 1)Mangled version of Hooks Law 2) Unintelligible gibberish.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
BARE steel needs to be subjected to 3,000 F for SEVERAL hours, before it will melt.
Click to expand...


As you well know, SpitfireIX’s original claim said nothing about steel melting at temperatures at or under those at which the fires could have been expected to burn. So, do you now accept that steel can be weakened by fire in the way his post originally claimed?

Further, your post does not address the issue of the smoke. So, do you now accept that black smoke is not necessarily indicative of an oxygen-starved fire?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You are quite right when you say that there was practically nothing to burn in that immediate area. Why stop there? There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices. So what is there to burn?
Click to expand...


A combination of office contents and several thousand gallons of jet fuel. If your argument is to be accepted and there was simply nothing available to burn, the fire suffered by the north tower in 1975 should simply never have been able to take hold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom