[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

I've been to both a slaughterhouse and a butcher shop. I don't really need your description.

The cow will fall at less than 9.8m/s2 because it still has some lingering support, including the energy required to bend the limbs and whatever lingering muscle support is available. Again, a useless analogy.

Your fascination with the slaughter process is not really adding anything to your insistence that WTC7 fell in any way resembling a cow in any situation. Technically the cow falling through the floor of the slaughterhouse is NOW in "freefall" and is moving at something like 9.8m/s2. It has still not been hit by flaming debris or burned for several hours.

Debatable but irrelevant.

If I jumped from the time of the first damage to the building I could have base jumped off the building a half dozen times, at least until I got tired of climbing the stairs. But starting from your "crimp"

Jumping from a height of 228m:
t=sqr(2*228/9.8)
t=sqr(2*23.265)
t=sqr(46.53)
t=6.82 seconds

Skydivers list 9-10 seconds as the time to reach terminal velocity for a human, so I'll disregard it. Drag calculations might bring this up a bit, but since it took more than 8 seconds for the penthouse to collapse into/through the uppermost story of WTC7 and more than 7 seconds for the north face to fall, it disproves your "Free Fall" claims.


And again, a slaughtered cow isn't in freefall until you drop the trap door, at which time it is still drastically unlike a building on fire for 7 hours and then collapsing due to structural failure of any sort.

What has terminal velocity got to do with free fall speed?
From where do you get 8 secs for the penthouse to hit the floor?

 

[SOMERLED]

WTC7 was only 174m high, and freefall from the top of it would only be 5.9s. Making the actual collapse time even slower, relative to freefall.

-Gumboot

What was the actual collapse time of WTC7?

 

[332nd]

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.

And you're going to do this sitting on a computer posting on internet forums? You see what you have posted as proof of mass murder and the people who were blamed, and taken responsibility for it actually didn't do it so what authorities have you sent this info to?

 

[SOMERLED]

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

Also wrong.

 

[Par]

I refer you to my previous post to you.

Said post claims that the fires in the World Trade Center could only have burned at around 500F and attempts to prove as much by linking to an email from Kevin Ryan. None of this, however, has anything to do with the question at issue.

So, do you now accept that steel can be weakened by fire in the way Spitfire IX originally claimed? If not, why not?

Further, can you please explain why, in light of the following photographs, you persist in your claim that black smoke is necessarily indicative of an oxygen-starved fire?

 

[SOMERLED]

Everything you ever wanted to know about Hooke's law.

http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/physics/GENERAL/KENNETH/HOOKE.HTM

I'm certainly not well versed in physics...but those who are may be able to explain this website to you.

Just trying to help.

Not quite everything,
The equation I posted was,
extension in mm = constant
force in Newtons

It now follows that the extension is proportional to the applied force.
It is a simple method of calibrating a spring balance in Newtons.
It is basic schoolboy science.
It has been variously described on here as,
1. CUDDLES
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.

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

3. Spitfire
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?

4. Jaydeehess
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.

5. Tirdun
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.

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

How is that science ?

7. Mortfud
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.

8. Spitfire
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.

Unimpressive all round. We're talking about calibrating a spring balance. Something 10 yrs old schoolkids do.

 

[SOMERLED]

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!

How long did it take WTC 1,2 and 7 to hit the deck?

 

[Dave_46]

Why do flames mean 800 degrees C ?

The gases are hot enough to make entrained particals (soot) radiate visible light. This happens from about 800 Deg C upwards.

Dave

 

[MortFurd]

"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.

Yes, they do. 19 terrorists hijacked four ariplanes and crashed two of them into WTC 1 and 2, one into the pentagon, and the fourth crashed near Shanksville, PA due to the herois efforts of the passengers trying to regain control.

Do you know what happens if I tell people here that there are Americans who think the US Gov. was responsible for the attacks on 9/11? They look astounded that anyone could believe such crap. Then they have a good laugh over the nut cases in this world who are stupid enough to believe that it wouldn't be found out (if it were true,) but simultaneously smart enough to remember to breath periodically.

If your evidence is so solid, and everyone believes it, why hasn't there been a revolution? Why haven't you taken it to the press in a foreign country and demanded an accounting from the US government?

For that fact, if your "theory" were true, how come you are still breathing at all? If the conspirators were half as ruthless as you claim, you'd have been pushing up daisies long ago for just suggesting that you knew the truth.

 

[Dave_46]

You are right about oxygen starvation and I hope you will agree that dark/black smoke is a sign of oxygen starvation.

I do not agree about the smoke colour. It has been pointed out by others here that smoke colour can be influenced by things other than oxygen level. I have burnt aviation fuel in a steel tray about 0.8m square, in the open air. It burns with plenty of black smoke and no shortage of oxygen.

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?

I obviously did not make myself clear. When the fire consumes oxygen locally, and spreads along the fuel load (building contents) it leaves unburnt fuel at the original place to be burnt when oxygen is available. There is more than "concrete, aluminium sheeting, palsterboard etc". Incidentally, and not directly relevant, plasterboard is a fairly fire-safe material. The failure parameter of the UK non-combustibility test is set so that plasterboard passes.

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

I have no comment on this as I do not speak on areas I do not feel qualified to address. Others here are more qualified to deal with it.

Dave

 

[MortFurd]

Not quite everything,
The equation I posted was,
extension in mm = constant
force in Newtons

It now follows that the extension is proportional to the applied force.
It is a simple method of calibrating a spring balance in Newtons.
It is basic schoolboy science.
It has been variously described on here as,
1. CUDDLES
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.

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

3. Spitfire
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?

4. Jaydeehess
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.

5. Tirdun
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.

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

How is that science ?

7. Mortfud
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.
8. Spitfire
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.

Unimpressive all round. We're talking about calibrating a spring balance. Something 10 yrs old schoolkids do.

Yes, mangled.

A more typical method to write that would have been:
(extension in mm)/(Force in Newtons)=constant.
Even clearer would have been:
x=extension in millimeters
F=Force in Newtons
k=constant
k=x/f

Now, would you please (10 pages later) finally explain what this:

Thank you for that,
Would you care to comment on,

extension in mm = constant
force in Newtons

From here.

Has to do with this:

False. The mass of the object the jumper struck is sufficient to absorb the energy of the mass of the jumper. This is not to say that it is not possible that the impact of the bodies would cause damage to the concrete on the surface. Please review F=ma.
From here.

You seem to have been going somewhere with it, and got side tracked by 10 pages of people trying to decipher your mangled equation. Or were you just tossing out equations for the heck of it?


BTW:
Copy and past loses the underline. Some of us saw only the copies, not the original.

 

[gumboot]

How long did it take WTC 1,2 and 7 to hit the deck?

WTC1 - at least 14 seconds
WTC2 - at least 16 seconds
WTC7 - at least 13 seconds

-Gumboot

 

[SOMERLED]

And you're going to do this sitting on a computer posting on internet forums? You see what you have posted as proof of mass murder and the people who were blamed, and taken responsibility for it actually didn't do it so what authorities have you sent this info to?

You write as if I'm the only person in the world with this information.
Let me repeat, everybody and their uncle knows and is creating, one way or another. 85% of americans know, have you noticed all the movements.
I say again, there is only the MSM keeping this fraud going and that is cracking. Rosie O'D, Charlie Sheen et al. Loose Change. It's all coming on top and not before time.

 

[SOMERLED]

The gases are hot enough to make entrained particals (soot) radiate visible light. This happens from about 800 Deg C upwards.

Dave

Are you talking about a minute area at the point of flame?

 

[SOMERLED]

Yes, they do. 19 terrorists hijacked four ariplanes and crashed two of them into WTC 1 and 2, one into the pentagon, and the fourth crashed near Shanksville, PA due to the herois efforts of the passengers trying to regain control.

Do you know what happens if I tell people here that there are Americans who think the US Gov. was responsible for the attacks on 9/11? They look astounded that anyone could believe such crap. Then they have a good laugh over the nut cases in this world who are stupid enough to believe that it wouldn't be found out (if it were true,) but simultaneously smart enough to remember to breath periodically.

If your evidence is so solid, and everyone believes it, why hasn't there been a revolution? Why haven't you taken it to the press in a foreign country and demanded an accounting from the US government?

For that fact, if your "theory" were true, how come you are still breathing at all? If the conspirators were half as ruthless as you claim, you'd have been pushing up daisies long ago for just suggesting that you knew the truth.

I refer you to my previous post to Redtail.

 

[SOMERLED]

WTC1 - at least 14 seconds
WTC2 - at least 16 seconds
WTC7 - at least 13 seconds

-Gumboot

14 secs to drop a 100 storey building and you say that's normal.
WTC7, you say 13 secs. You keep shooting yourself in the foot.
13 secs (according to you to drop 47 storeys).
Now tell me how 110 storeys managed to hit the deck in 14 seconds?

 

[gumboot]

14 secs to drop a 100 storey building and you say that's normal.
WTC7, you say 13 secs. You keep shooting yourself in the foot.
13 secs (according to you to drop 47 storeys).
Now tell me how 110 storeys managed to hit the deck in 14 seconds?

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but frankly I'm bored.

The times for WTC1 and WTC2 are to the top of WTC7, therefore still 174m above the ground.

I don't believe I said anything about "normal". I wouldn't think anything that occurred on 9/11 could be considered even remotely "normal".

I personally have estimated the full collapse of the exterior columns and floor trusses of WTC1 to have occurred in 18-20s, with collapse of the core extending the total collapse time to 25-30s.

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

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?

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 ?

While you're at it:

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

2-

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 ??

No, there is nothing wrong with the equation I posted.
I 'm confident you know that.

You equate force with distance, and you see nothing wrong with that ?

Okay, then. Tell me, how many newtons does 5 inches equal to ?

85 % of americans smell a rat.

I see you also have problems interpreting polls and statistics. Is there anything you're good at ?

Outside the USA, everybody and their uncle knows the truth.

That's an interesting claim. It has several problems, of course:

1 - It's irrelevant to the issue. This is not a popularity contest.
2 - I'm not sure you know this for a fact.
3 - It's false.

17 states are debating impeaching both Bush and Cheney.

Again, irrelevant to the issue. Unless you can show that this is related of 9/11. Shouldn't be too difficult, if it's true.

 

[Belz...]

You are right about oxygen starvation and I hope you will agree that dark/black smoke is a sign of oxygen starvation.

You mean you missed those nice pictures of oil burning ? Have you ever seen plastic burn ? Tires ? Anything made from petroleum ?

It certainly looks to be out in this photo.

Yeah, if you look at the 27th floor you don't see a fire, either.

It doesn't become wrong, because someone keeps saying so.

The problem is it wasn't just claimed. It was EXPLAINED.

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

That is precisely what we are saying.

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.

That's just hilarious. A red-hot sword will not support the same weight as a cold one.

I really can't imagine anyone failing to accept the evidence of controlled demolition depicted by the photos.

Anyone with an ounce of that common sense you keep talking about would realise that this means something's amiss. And the something amiss may not be on the opposing side.

My agenda is to see to it that justice is done for over three thousand innocent civilians murdered in cold blood.

How ? By arguing on a web forum ?

 

[Belz...]

Unimpressive all round. We're talking about calibrating a spring balance. Something 10 yrs old schoolkids do.

So, instead of adressing other people's points you'll just dismiss them ? Interesting.

You write as if I'm the only person in the world with this information.
Let me repeat, everybody and their uncle knows and is creating, one way or another. 85% of americans know, have you noticed all the movements.

And, somehow, no one's talking about it except truthers ?

Now tell me how 110 storeys managed to hit the deck in 14 seconds?

9.8m/s²