[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[Kage]

What has terminal velocity got to do with free fall speed?

This goes to show that this discussion will go nowhere. If you can't grapple with the concepts of freefall and terminal velocity and how they relate how can you make "common sense" a centerpiece of your arguments? How can you say that the buildings fell at freefall when you have no idea what that means?

Your formula for hooke's law was wrong, and it may have been a typo, but hooke's law has nothing to do with inelastic collisions. Your theory on the necesity of a military plane shows your complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of the collision; the hardness of the nose of the plance has nothing to do with its ability to penetrate a building. It is the mass of the plane behind the nose that does the damage. Your "reasoning" seems to indicate that the plane entered the building like a spear but it did no such thing. The collision turned the plane into a jet of debris and a fireball. All of this has nothing to do with spring constants.

 

[MortFurd]

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.

Take a look at the photos here and tell me how the south tower was a sealed unit. Looks to me like it has an enormous hole in it that would let in plenty of air.

And while you are looking, remember that you are looking at a place where three thousand people died. At the moment those photos were made, hundreds were already dead within the buildings.

 

[CurtC]

Another 'scientific' question, do you know anything at all about the scientific principle of 'The Critical Angle'?

You mean the angle at which light hitting a material with a different refraction index, goes from simply refracting, to total internal reflection? That critical angle? Yes, I'm quite familiar with it, and can even explain it to you in terms of the speed of light. Why do you ask?

 

[gumboot]

Another interesting consideration in the fact that WTC2 collapsed first (aside from the asymmetrical damage, greater weight above the impact point, and higher speed of the aircraft) is that UA175 hit the core of WTC2 at the corner. The four massive columns at the corners of the core carried 20% of the entire gravity load of the core, with the remaining 43 columns carrying the other 80% of the loading.

If even one of these corner columns was severed (and potentially two were) that instantly means the load bearing capacity of the core has dropped by a minimum of 5%.

-Gumboot

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Vespaguy,

Good post. I suspect Malcolm will not address any of the solid points you made. He is blind to reason and logic. He wants his fantasy to be true, which will cause him to immediately reject any real evidence presented to him which goes against his CD theory, despite the solid science behind such evidence. I'm afraid this one's lost.

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.

Fool.

 

[Tirdun]

That I will never shift my position on the inside job that was 9/11 is quite correct.

Then this entire thread has been a colossal waste of time. We're debating a zealot and you aren't contributing anything to the debate.

Another 'scientific' question, do you know anything at all about the scientific principle of 'The Critical Angle'?

So you're going to introduce YET another pseudo-argument to this? And another physics quiz! Joy, I haven't had a physics quiz since college!

There's an optical effect involving "critical angle", a similar version used in sound and other wave physics (ham radio, ultrasound), a flight physics version dealing with stall speed, even a long range targeting term called "critical angle", but I doubt if that's a technical term. I'm also aware of a debate tactic and business deal term that both use "critical angle" in reference to a point of logic or deal that should always be central to the discussion.

Note that none of this matters because you aren't going to expand on this line of reasoning (such as it is) and

That I will never shift my position on the inside job that was 9/11 is quite correct.

There is no point in arguing, do you understand that Malcolm? You cannot be convinced by us, and you have yet to attempt to prove your position with anything resembling an actual fact. This statement ends the discussion:

That I will never shift my position on the inside job that was 9/11 is quite correct.

 

[peteweaver]

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'?

Some questions for you Malcolm:
Do you know anything about metallurgy ?

What are your qualifications relavent to the collapse of the twin towers?

At what temperature does steel begin to soften and lose its strength ?

 

[SOMERLED]

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

Why are you avoiding answering my question properly?

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

I refer you to post number 1870.

 

[SOMERLED]

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

With great difficulty until someone pressed the demolition switch and then it didn't matter. Those murders will be avenged, one way or another, make no mistake about that.

 

[Belz...]

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

HA! Typical. You blunder on your "equation" and when cornered, claim to have done it on purpose. You are quite a piece of work, mister.

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.

I repeat: have you EVER seen an open fire that burnt petroleum-based material ?

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

Well, maybe the huge hole on the side of the building helped.

That I will never shift my position on the inside job that was 9/11 is quite correct.

Thank you. You have just admitted that you are close-minded about this issue and that the truth is not important to you.

 

[SOMERLED]

[qimg]http://home.att.net/~south.tower/NTnapalm1_files/Holescompared500.jpg[/qimg]


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?

Thank you for putting up such a clear example of how powerfully the wings cut through the corrugated steel of the outside wall.
Why didn't the same thing happen at the Pentagon?

 

[SOMERLED]

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?

I refer you to my previous post and the question you were asked. This will continue until you answer the question. I don't allow people to dictate to me.

 

[Dave_46]

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

As should be obvious, I am talking about any part that glows visibly.

(Is "glows visibly" tautological?)

 

[SOMERLED]

Some questions for you Malcolm:
Do you know anything about metallurgy ?

What are your qualifications relavent to the collapse of the twin towers?

At what temperature does steel begin to soften and lose its strength ?

Steel is made to the customers specifications. Would you care to check those of the twin towers. I'm sure you can find them quite easily on the net. Or, perhaps you agree with a couple of my detractors, who believe that wood stands up to fire better than steel.
Do you believe that wood stands up to fire better than steel?

 

[SOMERLED]

Then this entire thread has been a colossal waste of time. We're debating a zealot and you aren't contributing anything to the debate.

So you're going to introduce YET another pseudo-argument to this? And another physics quiz! Joy, I haven't had a physics quiz since college!

There's an optical effect involving "critical angle", a similar version used in sound and other wave physics (ham radio, ultrasound), a flight physics version dealing with stall speed, even a long range targeting term called "critical angle", but I doubt if that's a technical term. I'm also aware of a debate tactic and business deal term that both use "critical angle" in reference to a point of logic or deal that should always be central to the discussion.

Note that none of this matters because you aren't going to expand on this line of reasoning (such as it is) and


There is no point in arguing, do you understand that Malcolm? You cannot be convinced by us, and you have yet to attempt to prove your position with anything resembling an actual fact. This statement ends the discussion:

Goodbye.
Anyone else care to bite at 'The Critical Angle', or have you all learnt your lesson with Hooke's law?

 

[SOMERLED]

Another interesting consideration in the fact that WTC2 collapsed first (aside from the asymmetrical damage, greater weight above the impact point, and higher speed of the aircraft) is that UA175 hit the core of WTC2 at the corner. The four massive columns at the corners of the core carried 20% of the entire gravity load of the core, with the remaining 43 columns carrying the other 80% of the loading.

If even one of these corner columns was severed (and potentially two were) that instantly means the load bearing capacity of the core has dropped by a minimum of 5%.

-Gumboot

So what happened to the top chunk. Why didn't it fall to the ground in one lump?

 

[jaydeehess]

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

I see now that you find it unimpressive because we were all talking above your level of ability to understand.

Yes, you can calibrate a spring to measure force and be relatively accurate with it. this is the priciple upon which spring scales are built.

This is possible because of Hooke's law which remains
F=-kx

this means that the extension will indeed be proportional to the force applied BUT you wrote that the extension is EQUAL to the force applied which is plain and utterly wrong because a length unit is not a unit of force.

In all equations you must conserve the units



You have demonstrated an utter lack of comprehension on both scientific and mathematical concepts yet believe that you are schooling us?

 

[Arus808]

That I will never shift my position on the inside job that was 9/11 is quite correct.

And with that, we should end the this one sided monologue, as you are not here for discussion and came here with the sole purpose of not listening (or reading) that what you claim has been refuted time and again on this forum in various other threads on the same subjects that you posted in your Opening post.


This isn't and has never been a debate. Case closed.

 

[SOMERLED]

You mean the angle at which light hitting a material with a different refraction index, goes from simply refracting, to total internal reflection? That critical angle? Yes, I'm quite familiar with it, and can even explain it to you in terms of the speed of light. Why do you ask?

Then there is the angle of incidence, sometimes related to the angle of reflection. It is the angle at which light is reflected from a surface.
Can that not now be related to solid objects, such that at a particular angle, an object will bounce off, rather than penetrate a surface?
Think of a dart thrown at a wooden fence. If the angle that the dart hits is shallow enough, then the dart will bounce off, rather than stick in the fence. Do we agree?