[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

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

Do you find anything abnormal about the collapses themselves.

 

[hurdygurdy]

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

You mean here, at planet Earth? sources, please.

 

[SOMERLED]

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:

Has to do with this:

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.

I simply put up the equation to test the level of expertise I was dealing with.
The replies answer that question - in spades.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

Firstly, I have not called you ignorant. Please actually read posts before responding to them. Secondly, you are not educating anyone. Ignoring the fact that virtually everything you have said has been utterly wrong, all you have done here is asked a question about an equation. Asking questions is not education. If you had told us the answer you could have at least been attempting to educate us, but since you have the answer wrong you wouldn't have been doing it very well.

Thirdly, not only is the equation not a scientific law, it is not actually an equation, as I said previously. An equation, by definition, has both sides of the equals sign equal to each other. You have stated that a distance is equal to a force. This is not an equation, it is pure nonsense. Fourthly, I do know what it is and what it is called. You, apparently, do not.

I will not show you any respect until you show yourself deserving of it. Pigheaded ignorance about very simple scientific matters is not worthy of respect. So far you have shown that you do not understand simple English, as demonstrated by your refusal to believe certain words exist even after being shown proof, and you have shown that you do not understand very simple physics, which you yourself admit a 10 year old should be able to understand. Now that you have been corrected on these matters, if you wish to have respect you will have to admit to your mistakes, then, perhaps, we can take it from there.

 

[gumboot]

Do you find anything abnormal about the collapses themselves.

Yes I find the collapse of any building highly abnormal. I don't know about you, but in my every day life I am used to buildings consistently and universally not collapsing.

-Gumboot

 

[SOMERLED]

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?

[qimg]http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3333/fire11as3.th.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3016/fire1hv0.th.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/2169/fire10xm7.th.jpg[/qimg]

Fireworks will give you smoke of any colour.
As a general rule, the darker the smoke of the same material, means that the fire is becoming less severe. In this case, certainly due to oxygen starvation.
The south tower was a sealed unit, where was the fire going to get its oxygen from? There was no through flow of air. No inrushing oxygen to fan the flames. The sealed unit was full of smoke. The fire was going out completely, that's why they decided to set the demolition sequence off out of turn. That's why the south tower came down first.

 

[Tirdun]

I simply put up the equation to test the level of expertise I was dealing with.
The replies answer that question - in spades.

You posted a formula in a mangled wrapped text + underline format rather than the obvious distance/force = constant OR the accepted F=-kx, challenged us to identify it (which we did), sneeringly claimed this was some elementary level formula we should all care about all the while giving no connection to any other post and failing in any way to justify its existence on a thread about Flight 175, WTC2, 11 September 2001, or any other topic on this thread.

You've posted hundreds of unsupported claims, declared your own personal opinion as the final word on dozens of topics, refused to accept clear evidence challenging you on facts both off topic (WWII & word definitions), and on topic (carpet at WTC, properties of steel and smoke) and snidely proclaimed yourself morally and intellectually superior to all responders without any justification.

You have yet to engage in any meaningful debate on the thread YOU started, including the ridiculous list in the original post. You have yet to back up a single claim with anything but personal conviction, links to low-res video, links to other conspiracy web sites and general conspiracy paranoia. Each and every time you are corrected you've either ignored the post or made some new, slightly modified claim. Case in point: the carpet. You've expected the readers here to take time to read your claims, locate contrary evidence and spoon feed it back to you. When someone does you either move the goal posts, ignore the post entirely or wave it off as meaningless. Despite photos of carpet from all over the WTC you blow off this fatal flaw in your argument as not representing the status quo of floors at WTC. With absolutely no contrary evidence or reason! This pattern has been going on for hundreds of posts!

It has become clear that you will not budge on even the most elementary arguments, will not recognize the flaws in your claims and will never shift your position.

 

[Par]

Malcolm Kirkman:

I notice you still haven’t addressed those issues. You seem be under the impression that this discussion is simply a one-way street. That people are required to address each and every vagary of your argument, but it’s perfectly acceptable for you, on the other hand, to simply ignore posts that prove you unequivocally and comprehensively wrong. So, once again:

What rational reason do you have to dispute the numerous and reputable sources provided to you that state that steel can be weakened by fire in the way SpitfireIX originally claimed?

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

 

[Storm Warning]

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

Oooooo...finally a post that I have impeccable qualifications to address!

*stepping up to the mic...clearing my throat* I'm in Canada - which, despite what some people say is not now and never will be part of the USA. Born and raised here. I'm as Canadian as back bacon and frostbite in July. By some odd coincidence I spoke to my uncle the other night. He's Canadian too - for almost 80 years. And I can state unequivocally that MK is correct. We do know the truth about 9/11 here. And that truth is - terrorists hijacked four airplanes. Two were flown into WTC, where the resulting damage and fires caused them to collapse some time later. One was flown into the Pentagon where it caused significant, albeit not fatal, damage. The fourth plane crashed into a field outside of Shanksville, PA due to the actions of passengers who had heard about the other crashes and took it upon themselves to make sure that no other piece of America was taken away from its citizens.

So please, cut MK some slack. He was absolutely correct in this one observation. Outside the USA, everybody and their uncle does know the truth.

 

[SOMERLED]

You mean here, at planet Earth? sources, please.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/
http://911truthbristol.com/index.html - Bristol
http://www.911truth.org - USA
http://www.oxford911truth.bravehost.com/index.html - Oxford
http://www.septembereleventh.org
http://www.reopen911.org
http://www.hugequestions.com
http://www.911dossier.co.uk
http://www.pentagonlawn.net
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
http://www.legitgov.org
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://english.aljazeera.net
http://www.jihadunspun.net
http://globalresearch.ca
http://www.fromthewilderness.com
http://www.onlinejournal.com
http://www.medialens.org
http://www.scoop.co.nz
http://www.journalof911studies.com

 

[CurtC]

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

It's been explained to you over and over again that your equation is senseless. You can't have millimeters on one side, and newtons on the other. That's not an equation, and every person in the world who is familiar with physics can confirm this fact.

I'll help you out a little. The thing you left out of Hooke's law was the spring constant: d = k*F. The "k" term has the proper units to make it into an equation. What you wrote is not an equation. Now, where were you going with it?

Why do flames mean 800 degrees C ?

Because something at a lower temperature does not glow. If you can see the flames, they're at least 800 C.

Also, it's been explained to you over and over that black flames typically indicate a hot flame, because it produces a lot of carbon. Cooler flames leave larger molecules intact which are usually lighter colored.

Every little thing you have asserted so far has been shown to be wrong. I can't recall any previous poster with that kind of record. Everything from the performance of steel in a fire, to your nonsensical "scientific law" equation, to your claims that words such as "indupitably" and "verb transitive" are correct.

 

[VespaGuy]

I simply put up the equation to test the level of expertise I was dealing with.
The replies answer that question - in spades.

As a lurker who has been closely following this thread, I have to agree with Malcolm on this point. The replies to his equation has easily demonstrated the expertise he is dealing with.

Given a jumbled mess of an equation, people were not only able to identify it, but they were able to correct it and explain why your original equation was incorrect.

 

[SOMERLED]

Firstly, I have not called you ignorant. Please actually read posts before responding to them. Secondly, you are not educating anyone. Ignoring the fact that virtually everything you have said has been utterly wrong, all you have done here is asked a question about an equation. Asking questions is not education. If you had told us the answer you could have at least been attempting to educate us, but since you have the answer wrong you wouldn't have been doing it very well.

Thirdly, not only is the equation not a scientific law, it is not actually an equation, as I said previously. An equation, by definition, has both sides of the equals sign equal to each other. You have stated that a distance is equal to a force. This is not an equation, it is pure nonsense. Fourthly, I do know what it is and what it is called. You, apparently, do not.

I will not show you any respect until you show yourself deserving of it. Pigheaded ignorance about very simple scientific matters is not worthy of respect. So far you have shown that you do not understand simple English, as demonstrated by your refusal to believe certain words exist even after being shown proof, and you have shown that you do not understand very simple physics, which you yourself admit a 10 year old should be able to understand. Now that you have been corrected on these matters, if you wish to have respect you will have to admit to your mistakes, then, perhaps, we can take it from there.

You say it is not a scientific law, yet you say you know what it is ?
It is called Hooke's law, you say it is not a law?
This is what else you had to say about Hooke's Law,
"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".

 

[SOMERLED]

You posted a formula in a mangled wrapped text + underline format rather than the obvious distance/force = constant OR the accepted F=-kx, challenged us to identify it (which we did), sneeringly claimed this was some elementary level formula we should all care about all the while giving no connection to any other post and failing in any way to justify its existence on a thread about Flight 175, WTC2, 11 September 2001, or any other topic on this thread.

You've posted hundreds of unsupported claims, declared your own personal opinion as the final word on dozens of topics, refused to accept clear evidence challenging you on facts both off topic (WWII & word definitions), and on topic (carpet at WTC, properties of steel and smoke) and snidely proclaimed yourself morally and intellectually superior to all responders without any justification.

You have yet to engage in any meaningful debate on the thread YOU started, including the ridiculous list in the original post. You have yet to back up a single claim with anything but personal conviction, links to low-res video, links to other conspiracy web sites and general conspiracy paranoia. Each and every time you are corrected you've either ignored the post or made some new, slightly modified claim. Case in point: the carpet. You've expected the readers here to take time to read your claims, locate contrary evidence and spoon feed it back to you. When someone does you either move the goal posts, ignore the post entirely or wave it off as meaningless. Despite photos of carpet from all over the WTC you blow off this fatal flaw in your argument as not representing the status quo of floors at WTC. With absolutely no contrary evidence or reason! This pattern has been going on for hundreds of posts!

It has become clear that you will not budge on even the most elementary arguments, will not recognize the flaws in your claims and will never shift your position.

That I will never shift my position on the inside job that was 9/11 is quite correct.
Another 'scientific' question, do you know anything at all about the scientific principle of 'The Critical Angle'?

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm Kirkman:

I notice you still haven’t addressed those issues. You seem be under the impression that this discussion is simply a one-way street. That people are required to address each and every vagary of your argument, but it’s perfectly acceptable for you, on the other hand, to simply ignore posts that prove you unequivocally and comprehensively wrong. So, once again:

What rational reason do you have to dispute the numerous and reputable sources provided to you that state that steel can be weakened by fire in the way SpitfireIX originally claimed?

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

[qimg]http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3333/fire11as3.th.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3016/fire1hv0.th.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/2169/fire10xm7.th.jpg[/qimg]

I refer you to my previous post and the question you avoid.

 

[Cuddles]

The south tower was a sealed unit, where was the fire going to get its oxygen from? There was no through flow of air. No inrushing oxygen to fan the flames.

Should I ask how the people in the tower managed to breath or does someone else want to?

 

[stateofgrace]

The south tower was a sealed unit, where was the fire going to get its oxygen from? There was no through flow of air. No inrushing oxygen to fan the flames. The sealed unit was full of smoke. The fire was going out completely, that's why they decided to set the demolition sequence off out of turn. That's why the south tower came down first.

Maybe a big hole in the side of it had something to do with that, hey it's just a guess but worth considering don't you think?

 

[VespaGuy]

Fireworks will give you smoke of any colour.

The color you see when you watch fireworks is in the flame, not the smoke.

But just for the heck of it, how do they acheive different colors? Answer this carefully...

As a general rule, the darker the smoke of the same material, means that the fire is becoming less severe. In this case, certainly due to oxygen starvation.

Wrong. As a general rule the color of the smoke is dependent on the material that is burning. You've already been shown this several times, from several sources.

A simple question, Malcolm: What color smoke is produced when petroleum based products, like those found in offices, burn?

The south tower was a sealed unit, where was the fire going to get its oxygen from?

It would get it's oxygen through that huge gaping hole that was created when a plane crashed into it.

There was no through flow of air. No inrushing oxygen to fan the flames. The sealed unit was full of smoke.

Except for the hole. You seem to be forgetting about the hole. The huge hole. Did you see the hole? Malcolm, There was a huge gaping hole.

Sorry, but I just want to make sure that you haven't missed the hole.

The fire was going out completely, that's why they decided to set the demolition sequence off out of turn.

And they were able to set it off exactly from the location of the impact? None of the wiring was ruined? None of the explosives were knocked free from their positions? All of that damage and fire and the detonation went perfectly?

That's why the south tower came down first.

Or perhaps the South Tower was hit lower and therefore had more weight above it and succumbed to the stresses quicker than the other tower.

 

[Par]

Fireworks will give you smoke of any colour.

Given that the photographs depict oil well fires and not fireworks, do you now accept that black smoke is not necessarily indicative of an oxygen-starved fire? And if not, why not?

Further, what rational reason do you have to dispute the numerous and reputable sources provided to you that state that steel can be weakened by fire in the way SpitfireIX originally claimed?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You say it is not a scientific law, yet you say you know what it is ?
It is called Hooke's law, you say it is not a law?
This is what else you had to say about Hooke's Law,
"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".

Learn to multiquote, kthxdrvthru

That I will never shift my position on the inside job that was 9/11 is quite correct.
Another 'scientific' question, do you know anything at all about the scientific principle of 'The Critical Angle'?

Your continued displays of lacking comprehension of the scientific method is disturbing to say the least.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.
Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.
It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.
A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative (sic) growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful (sic) features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.
Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html