[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

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
F_{x * 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.}

_{No, there is nothing wrong with the equation I posted. I 'm confident you know that. Do you know anything about the 'critical angle'.}

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

Why do flames mean 800 degrees C ?

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

"Generally accepted theory", by whom?
There is only the MSM keeping this fraud afloat.
85 % of americans smell a rat.
Outside the USA, everybody and their uncle knows the truth.
Those people who agree to the OCT are in a shrinking minority.
17 states are debating impeaching both Bush and Cheney.
After that let's hope they get around to the likes of Rockefeller, Murdoch and O'Reilly.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

You are right about oxygen starvation and I hope you will agree that dark/black smoke is a sign of oxygen starvation.
I'm not so sure about fire spreading back, when it has nothing to spread back on. No carpets, curtains or paint. Just concrete, aluminium sheeting, palsterboard etc. What do you think?
It certainly looks to be out in this photo.
I'm confident that the woman in the photo would have been saved nad the building not been blown up. The fire is out, the building is standing, she and three thousand others would have lived had they not been murdered by the use of explosives. The net is closing.
http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/World_Trade_Center/no_towering_inferno.htm

 

[SOMERLED]

Well, what Spitfire wrote was right, what you wrote was wrong. This has now been explained to you about ten times. Are you going somewhere with this?

There is nothing wrong with what I wrote. It is correct. It doesn't become wrong, because someone keeps saying so. Any more than 9/11 was done by moslems, just because the MSM keeps saying so.
For MSM. I should write MSM - Rosie O'D.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

For evidence, would you accept government reports etc. Government paperwork?

 

[SOMERLED]

yes and Wood (used in buildings) have proven to perform better in fire than steel does. What's YOUR point?

Wood stands up to fire better than steel, is that what you are saying?

 

[SOMERLED]

So you're saying Purdue researchers are also in on the lie?

Indupitably, as is anyone who maintains that 9/11 was anything other than an inside job.

 

[SOMERLED]

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?

I refer you to my previous post to you.

 

[SOMERLED]

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?

Made pliable is not made weak. A swordmaker could run you through with a red hot sword just as easily as with a cold one.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

What have the NYPD got to do with a six foot or so length of wreckage with a window and a half in it being smuggled on to a roof?

 

[Z]

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 1000^o
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

I, also, choose to sign this petition, and urge my fellow forumites to do likewise, with one addition:

21. The Oklahoma City bombing was not an inside job.

 

[SOMERLED]

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?

I suggest you read posts other than your own. I take it you fall down on the side of the equation I posted being incorrect?

 

[SOMERLED]

Sorry, you're wrong.

Rense.com is an inaccurate and irresponsible source.

Innaccurate and irresponsible are rather wide meaning words. Would you care to narrow the field down somewhat?

 

[SOMERLED]

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!

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?

The most likely explanation is that they are weak individuals, who do not want to find themselves persecuted and driven out of a job as happened to Prof S Jones. You are up against a different kettle of fish with the likes of me.

 

[SOMERLED]

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 1000^o
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

Goodbye.

 

[The Mysterian]

Malcolm, could I ask you a question?

Edited by chillzero: 

Moderated thread

C'mon. You blow equations that anyone with with a basic knowledge of Physics would know! At least if they didn't remember them, look them up in a book. There are so many other things you've mentioned that are wrong. Your claims about freefall. Listen! Even IF the buildings were brought down because of CD, THEY STILL COULDN'T HAVE COME DOWN AT FREEFALL! There's still friction and debris that gets in the way! Period!

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

What has that got to do with this?
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html
Kindly forget the words, I do not agree with the concrete core idea.
I refer only to the photos.
Someone did liken me to this website, so I had a look.
The photos are excellent.
I really can't imagine anyone failing to accept the evidence of controlled demolition depicted by the photos.

 

[SOMERLED]

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

My agenda is to see to it that justice is done for over three thousand innocent civilians murdered in cold blood.
I have every expectation of succeeding.
I have every confidence that these murderers, who are up to their armpits in innocent blood, will be brought to justice, together with all their supporters.

 

[Arus808]

Innaccurate and irresponsible are rather wide meaning words. Would you care to narrow the field down somewhat?

what needs to be narrowed? EVERY article on that website is a distortion of facts, filled with lies, rhetoric, and quote mined.

if you can't see rense for what it truly is, then you are brainwashed beyond help.