• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
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.



Comedy gold.



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

How is that science ?



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



Yeah, aside from carpets, nothing burns. That's why wooden houses are immune to fire, and why tire fires are unknown.
Click to expand...
The South tower was not made out of WOOD.
The South tower was made out of STEEL.
There is a difference.
 
It's just not possible for materials that are bolted together to explode either upwards or outwards.
Click to expand...

Everyone besides Malcolm,

It's obviously a lost cause trying to convince Malcolm of anything he doesn't want to believe nor have the intellectual capacity to grasp. Might as well let this thread die!
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Which is it?
If it is an application of Hooke's law, where is it wrong?
Click to expand...

You wrote extension in mm = constant force in Newtons which cannot be calculated.
Hooke's Law is Fx=-kx Written out: Force (F in newtons) equals the force constant of a spring (-k, in n/m) times the distance pulled (x, in meters). Note the Newtons/Meters part which resolves the equation.

You can expand Hookes somewhat to other materials, but not to all and not for their entire stress range. So now we're all caught up on this "schoolboy equation". How, exactly, does this relate to anything on September 11, 2001?
 
MortFurd said:
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?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between a collection of loose sticks and steel girders that are bolted together, welded together and generally fixed to each other.
For such pieces to now go UP, instead of down, can only be the result of controlled demolition.
The MSM (Main Stream Media) supports the OTC (Official Conspiracy Theory).
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Which is it?
If it is an application of Hooke's law, where is it wrong?
Click to expand...


Hooke's Law, as I attempted to explain in my previous post:

F = -kx

where

F is the force exerted by the spring
k is the spring constant
x is the elongation of the spring

What you've written is ambiguous, and can be read several way (none of which are correct).

Possible reading 1:

x = k

where

x is the elongation of the spring in mm
k is a constant force in Newtons

You can't directly equate length and force, so this doesn't work (that's the purpose of the spring constant). Also, it implies that the force doesn't change no matter how far the spring is stretched, which is easily disproved with a simple experiment.

Possible reading 2:

x = F

where

x is the elongation of the spring in mm
F is a force in Newtons

This doesn't work because you can't directly compare length and force.

This reading assumes that by "constant force" you mean that the force does not change as long as the elongation does not change, which would be redundant, as the above equation already implies this.

Possible reading 3:

x = kF

where

F is the force exerted by the spring in Newtons
k is the spring constant in mm/Newton
x is the elongation of the spring in mm

This would work, but you'd have to use different spring constants from the way the equation is normally read. This reading of your equation also requires assuming that by "constant force" you actually mean "aconstant times force," which is something of a stretch (no pun intended).
 
Par said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can we agree that the fire had burnt itself out at the place where it started?
 
Tirdun said:
You wrote extension in mm = constant force in Newtons which cannot be calculated.
Hooke's Law is Fx=-kx Written out: Force (F in newtons) equals the force constant of a spring (-k, in n/m) times the distance pulled (x, in meters). Note the Newtons/Meters part which resolves the equation.

You can expand Hookes somewhat to other materials, but not to all and not for their entire stress range. So now we're all caught up on this "schoolboy equation". How, exactly, does this relate to anything on September 11, 2001?
Click to expand...

When you cross the equals sign, a division becomes a multiplication.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rense proves nothing except that there is no conspiracy or belief so strange that it won't find a home there.

You are clearly ignoring posts on the properties of steel and fire and cannot be convinced otherwise.

As we approach our 2,000th post I realize that I'm having difficulty keeping this post from earning mod attention, so I'll wash my hands of it for now. I am convinced that malcolm is either trolling or beyond rational discussion and I wish you all well in this Quixotic adventure.
 
MortFurd said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is mangled about it?
 
SpitfireIX said:
Hooke's Law, as I attempted to explain in my previous post:

F = -kx

where

F is the force exerted by the spring
k is the spring constant
x is the elongation of the spring

What you've written is ambiguous, and can be read several way (none of which are correct).

Possible reading 1:

x = k

where

x is the elongation of the spring in mm
k is a constant force in Newtons

You can't directly equate length and force, so this doesn't work (that's the purpose of the spring constant). Also, it implies that the force doesn't change no matter how far the spring is stretched, which is easily disproved with a simple experiment.

Possible reading 2:

x = F

where

x is the elongation of the spring in mm
F is a force in Newtons

This doesn't work because you can't directly compare length and force.

This reading assumes that by "constant force" you mean that the force does not change as long as the elongation does not change, which would be redundant, as the above equation already implies this.

Possible reading 3:

x = kF

where

F is the force exerted by the spring in Newtons
k is the spring constant in mm/Newton
x is the elongation of the spring in mm

This would work, but you'd have to use different spring constants from the way the equation is normally read. This reading of your equation also requires assuming that by "constant force" you actually mean "aconstant times force," which is something of a stretch (no pun intended).
Click to expand...

Is it right or wrong?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Can we agree that the fire had burnt itself out at the place where it started?
Click to expand...


Any such agreement on my part would seem anachronous. Surely, you should answer my original question first. So, do you now accept that steel can be weakened by fire in the way Spitfire IX originally claimed?
 
MortFurd said:
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?
Click to expand...

Have you any knowledge of 'false flag operations' or previous 'inside jobs'.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
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
Click to expand...

The steel does not need to melt. It loses half its strength at about 550 deg C.

There were flames visible. That means the temperature was at least 800 deg C.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
The MSM (Main Stream Media) supports the OTC (Official Conspiracy Theory).
Click to expand...
Why do you think that is? Possibly because the "OTC" (or OCT if you are trying to use an acronym of "Official Conspiracy Theory") is the one that best fits the evidence, or because everyone in the media is willing to cover-up the murder of 3000 people without any descention?

Often people who support theories involving vast NWO conspiracies refer to the actual events of 9/11 as the "Official" story. Meaning it is a theory only supported by the government. It would be more accurate to call it the generally accepted evidence based theory researched by scientist trained in various diciplines necessary to for the job and investigators private (mainly journalist) and public (law enforcement) from around the world. Of course the acronym would then be GAEBTRBSTIVDNTFTJAIPPFATW.
 
Par said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh yes it is.
 
Par said:
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.
Click to expand...
It didn't knock the building down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom