• 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.
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?

Where the heck are you even getting this stuff from? The corridors were most certainly carpeted, as was Windows on the World and all the WTC office space I've ever seen. Most of the building was standard boring cubicle farms, and who ever heard of those being uncarpeted (including the lining on the cubicle walls themselves)?

4kd9onl.jpg

4q3vtr4.jpg


Elevator skylobby:
4pk3b6g.jpg


Skylobby elevator signs:
4ukwlf6.jpg


4t8vkf9.jpg

4xoq6vl.jpg

6bbghav.jpg

4xljgwp.jpg


Some companies paid through the nose for private stairwells between their floors:
6c417wz.jpg


Fancy a treadmill with a view?
5xdjg4k.jpg


Razor scooters were faddish about a year before the WTC came down (I remember seeing them all over Manhattan in late summer/early fall 2000):
626fgvk.jpg


dscn8191vigv7.jpg

dscn8138viml4.jpg
 
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?
No, now kindly answer my question.
 
When you cross the equals sign, a division becomes a multiplication.

:boggled:

Your formula, as stated, is wrong. You've ignored the spring constant and set a Delta distance = some force, which is not possible. If you "cross the equals sign" in the correct equation you would have
Fx * meters (From K) = Newtons (From K) * X meters This is still force*distance = force * distance, not distance = force. You got the formula wrong and badgered everyone about not recognizing it. Accept it and move on to whatever point you were going to make using Hooke's.
 
Can we agree that the fire had burnt itself out at the place where it started?

From my experience with fires in large compartments, I would say not necessarily. When a fire starts in a large compartment, it will burn until it uses the oxygen locally. That area will remain hot while the fire burns to the edges of the ventilated area, until fuel is used up and the fire can spread back. Now, I don't know for certain what the ventilation rates were, but I think that it would still be a ventilation controlled fire, so the fuel will only be able to burn when oxygen can reach it. So, no I don't think that "the fire had burnt itself out at the place where it started".

Dave

ETA I hope I've made myself clear.
 
Have you any knowledge of 'false flag operations' or previous 'inside jobs'.
Never had any, never will. If I had, I'd be shouting it from the roof tops and giving interviews on TV.

'Course, my definition of proof appears to be considerably different from yours. I'd need something definite, like pieces of demolitions equipment or verified letters from someone inside the conspiracy that would actually prove something. Wild speculation, cherry picking of witness quotes, and fuzzy photos of impossible things don't move me much. They don't seem to move too much of the rest of the world, either.
 
Malcolm Kirkman:

Again, answering your question would seem anachronous. Surely, you should answer my original questions first:

With regards the question of whether or not steel can be weakened by fire, the answer “[o]h yes it is” makes no sense. So, in light of your previous post, what reason do you have to doubt the numerous sources provided to you that state that steel can be weakened by fire in the way SpitfireIX originally claimed?

Further, whether or not it knocked down the building, 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. What do you have to say to this?

Lastly, your post still 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?
 
Originally Posted by Par
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?

Malcolm wrote:

No, now kindly answer my question.


Malcolm,

If steel can't be weakened by fire, how, exactly, were swords made before electricity was invented? Did fine sword makers use magic or harness lightening?
 
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'.


So, you admit that you are accusing the NYPD of complicity in your mathematically-impossible conspiracy.

The delivery of a large piece of airplane wreckage must have been noticed by dozens, if not hundreds, of rescue workers and guards.

Your fact-free fantasy is falling apart.
 
I don't take kindly to being called ignorant when I am educating you.



This takes us back to my original question: is this person the single most ignorant human on the planet, or he is putting us on?



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.


How is it possible to show respect to someone who manages to be wrong ALL THE TIME? Seriously, it is frighteneing to contemplate what life must be like for someone who is incapable of forming a sound judgment about ANYTHING.

Don't you ever suspect that the people you're arguing with--people who have backgrounds in technical fields--know vastly more about these subjects than you do?
 
Originally Posted by Tirdun
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?

When you cross the equals sign, a division becomes a multiplication.


,,,and ,,,what?

Given that Hooke's Law has

F=-kx

you can manipulate it and get

F/x=-k
OR
F/(-x)=k
OR
F/(-k)=x
OR
F/k=-x

In none of these and indeed never, does a force equal a distance.

Your posts are eerily similar to Killtown's demonstration of mathematical ignorance. IIRC he tried adding a length and a velocity.

this is not even an apples and oranges type of wrong since at least in such a case you still have fruit. No, yours is more of an apples and left boot comparison.
 
So you're saying Purdue researchers are also in on the lie?


I have a BA from Purdue, and I'm currently attending a regional campus part-time in mechanical engineering. I confess, we're all in on it--oh, the shame of it all! :rolleyes:

Now, Malcolm, do you seriously believe that the NSF is in on it? Exactly how big is this conspiracy?? How come no one has talked?

More to the point, however, why do you assume that no other engineers are going to notice and call attention to the glaring errors and fatally flawed methodology that this study must necessarily contain? Also, why would these Purdue professors do such a thing? Why become parties to this monstrous crime? Why set themselves up to look like fools if their study is exposed? Why not simply publish no study at all, rather than one that has to meet with the approval of the NWO??

Which brings me to another issue, Malcolm. You claim that it's blindingly obvious that civilian 767s couldn't possibly have penetrated the walls of towers. If this is so, don't you think that all of the aeronautical engineers in the world would have immediately realized it?? Why aren't any of them talking?? Are they all so terrified of the CIA?? Or are you just completely mistaken about this because of your lack of scientific and engineering knowledge? Which of these is the more likely explanation?
 
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.



Dear Malcolm Kirkman,

In this thread you have made statements on a myriad of topics, from piloting, to WW2 history, to physics, to fire analysis, to NORAD Exercises, to English vocabulary and grammar, and so forth.

On every single subject you have proven yourself to be grossly ignorant. Your errors have been corrected time and time again, and yet you persist. As relates to the above post, it has been clearly demonstrated that your equation is total nonsense.

Ignorance is not excusable once the facts have been pointed out to you. At this point the ignorance becomes dishonest and disrespectful. When that ignorance relates to the horrific murder of nearly 3,000 people, as witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, that ignorance becomes totally distasteful.

Until such time as you learn to acknowledge the legion errors you have made in this thread, you are deserving of no respect whatsoever.

It is never too late to learn, and I urge you to admit to your errors and take advantage of the wealth of knowledge present in the other people posting on this thread. You can gain much understanding by doing so.

I will not post any more in this thread until I see you, at minimum, acknowledge all of the following facts:

1. Japanese kamikaze aircraft in WW2 were quite capable of penetrating the wooden deck of US Aircraft Carriers

2. World War Two did not end until Japan surrendered

3. "Fantastical" is a word in the English language

4. There were no NORAD exercises on 9/11 that involved aircraft

5. The 9/11 hijackers were capable of getting their aircraft from the point of hijacking to their intended targets

6. Steel can be melted by fire

7. Steel is significantly weakened by fire at much lower temperatures than required to melt it

8. The colour of smoke is not an indicator of the temperature of the fire

9. The fires in the WTC reached upper limit temperatures of 1000o
10. The equation delta mm=Newtons is nonsense, and not a scientific law

11. There was ample material inside the towers of the WTC which would burn

12. UA175 hit WTC2

13. No civilian politician was ever put directly in charge of NORAD or the USAF

14. The USAF does not prefer daytime take offs, and special permission is not required for a nighttime take off

15. The phone calls from passengers on the hijacked aircraft were real

16. An aluminium airliner travelling at high speed is capable of breaking through steel columns

17. There are not flight engineers on every commercial long-haul flight

18. The entire east coast of the USA was clear and cloudless on the morning of 9/11/2001

19. All 19 of the 9/11 Hijackers died on 9/11

20. A fighter jet cannot get from Andrews AFB to above the Pentagon in 30s or 10s, or even five minutes.

Until you acknowledge all of the above facts, I have no intention of engaging with you anymore, as you clearly are not interested in a dialogue, but only in distributing your insane ideas.

-Gumboot
 
The South tower was not made out of WOOD.
The South tower was made out of STEEL.
There is a difference.

I see you've completely ignored my points about common sense, your "equation" and the melting of steel. Nice dodge, again.

In case you are unaware of it, office towers contain copious amounts of plastic. Computers, calculators, printers, carpets, desks, chairs, etc. That is, of course, not counting paper and all that other flammable stuff.

By the way, do you know what colour of smoke these plastic things produce when they burn ?
 
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.

Pray tell, Malcolm: how would those demolition charges push the debris upwards AFTER the collapse had begun ?

Have you any knowledge of 'false flag operations' or previous 'inside jobs'.

Irrelevant. Was THIS ONE an inside job ? That's the question.

Who funds the National Science Foundation?

Are you going to answer every point with a question, now, instead of reading the links or trying to understand the posts ?

It didn't knock the building down.

Irrelevant, again. Are you following this ? His point was about the 1975 fire. Byt your logic, it should never have been a problem, but it was. Ergo, you are wrong. Stop trying to move the goal posts.

So, do you now accept that steel can be weakened by fire in the way Spitfire IX originally claimed?
No, now kindly answer my question.

Then, why the hell do they put fireproofing on it ??
 
Where the heck are you even getting this stuff from? The corridors were most certainly carpeted, as was Windows on the World and all the WTC office space I've ever seen. Most of the building was standard boring cubicle farms, and who ever heard of those being uncarpeted (including the lining on the cubicle walls themselves)?

[qimg]http://i18.tinypic.com/4kd9onl.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i7.tinypic.com/4q3vtr4.jpg[/qimg]

Elevator skylobby:
[qimg]http://i19.tinypic.com/4pk3b6g.jpg[/qimg]

Skylobby elevator signs:
[qimg]http://i7.tinypic.com/4ukwlf6.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i8.tinypic.com/4t8vkf9.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i16.tinypic.com/4xoq6vl.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i18.tinypic.com/6bbghav.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i16.tinypic.com/4xljgwp.jpg[/qimg]

Some companies paid through the nose for private stairwells between their floors:
[qimg]http://i10.tinypic.com/6c417wz.jpg[/qimg]

Fancy a treadmill with a view?
[qimg]http://i15.tinypic.com/5xdjg4k.jpg[/qimg]

Razor scooters were faddish about a year before the WTC came down (I remember seeing them all over Manhattan in late summer/early fall 2000):
[qimg]http://i14.tinypic.com/626fgvk.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7823/dscn8191vigv7.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/826/dscn8138viml4.jpg[/qimg]
You've put up some nice photos, they take me back.
The vast bulk of your photos are the public areas. The foyer and mezzanine were not carpeted. Only some of the floors that were mainly used by visitors were carpeted. The vast bulk of the floors were not carpeted at the core or the corridor that surrounded the core. The cafes that were available mostly to people who worked there, were not carpeted. The bulk of the offices were not carpeted. That's my own personal testimony.
I could give you carpets all over the place, fully carpet the building from top to bottom.
Now what? I've seen house fires where carpets have burnt on wooden floors and done nothing more than singe a wooden floor. Such a carpet fire wouldn't affect a concrete floor one iota.
Have you anything else to burn?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom