[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

No, I write as if you are yet another truther who demands a new investigation and the real criminals be brought to justice yet does little or nothing outside of posting on forums or blogging.



Creating what?



.

Ah! So there will be mass protests any day now? They will march on Washington and demand justice? School is out now so the students will be able to go and if the 85% figure is correct then I'm sure it would be easy to get 2-3 million people there. IF the figure is correct.



So it should be easy to put in motion what are you guys waiting for?

It's coming along nicely, I'm not complaining. The longer the clean up takes, the more thorough it will be. It certainly needs to be thorough.

 

[SOMERLED]

goodbye? does that mean that you are not going to address any of the refutations brought up that long debunked your original claims and leave us? Yes its getting monotonous. Its getting repetitive as we have to repeat the same debunking over and over to someone who doesn't even bother reading and comprehending the answers we've given. Or has been shown to ignore the answers given and actually ask/make the same claim over again.

Just admit that you came here not to discuss, but just to spam this forum and waste our time.

I said goodbye because you said you were going.
Personally, I have to say that if this were a boxing match, the ref would have stoppedit some time ago.
Y'all have put forward absolutely nothing to support the contention that 175 hit the south tower - nothing.
One poster has admitted the same, but that's it.
I said that 175 did NOT hit the south tower. No one has shown any evidence that it did - no one.
I then went on to say that rather than best guess where 175 ended up. The better question to ask would be,
"As 175 didn't hit the south tower, then what did?"
That points most certainly to a plane from Offutt AFB.

 

[tacodaemon]

Is this an example of anything will do as long as it keeps him away from mentioning Offutt AFB and the place the real attack planes took off from?

Hey, I'm still wondering where you live that has such an oddball definition of "corrugated steel", since any fool can see that the exterior walls of the WTC were not corrugated steel or corrugated anything else.

 

[SOMERLED]

Why don't you check with a firefighter captain and transform belief into certainty ?

State categorically that wood stands up to fire better than steel.

 

[SOMERLED]

Oh, no. You're not going to sleaze your way out of this. You asked where the fire was getting its oxygen from. At least three of us answered. Do you concede that the fire was getting air from the hole, yes or no ?

Not enough to keep it burning bright, most certainly not.
Who is "us" ?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The wings of the 'Pentagon plane' folded back along the body and the plane turned itself into a dart, so fast and so thin, that there isn't a trace of it on the one video they handed out. That's some plane.
Also the videos, what can't they show the general public the videos?

Do you agree the walls of the Pentagon and the facade of the WTC towers were different, yes or no?

 

[Arus808]

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

Malcolm, this is a direct quote from you. Since you will never shift your position, then why are you here? We've supplied you with ample evidence that what you claim is based in pure kaka. You've shown that you do not understand what you are talking about; have no knowledge of what you are talking about; have an even weaker understanding of history; and elementary school knowledge of physics.

Since you will never shift your position; any thing we post will be and HAS been ignored by you.

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm, this is a direct quote from you. Since you will never shift your position, then why are you here? We've supplied you with ample evidence that what you claim is based in pure kaka. You've shown that you do not understand what you are talking about; have no knowledge of what you are talking about; have an even weaker understanding of history; and elementary school knowledge of physics.

Since you will never shift your position; any thing we post will be and HAS been ignored by you.

Show me one piece of evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was 175 - just one.

 

[SOMERLED]

Do you agree the walls of the Pentagon and the facade of the WTC towers were different, yes or no?

Yes.

 

[Belz...]

The photos you referred to show lots of black smoke. Black because there is not enough oxygen left inside either building (sealed unit) to feed the flames.

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

I refer you to post number 1846.

You know, my post had more than one point. Please learn to quote, also.

You don't have millimetres on one side and Newtons on the other.
They are both on the same side of the equals sign.

Really ?

extension in mm = constant
force in Newtons

I see only mm on the left side...

The wings of the 'Pentagon plane' folded back along the body and the plane turned itself into a dart, so fast and so thin, that there isn't a trace of it on the one video they handed out.

That's a lie. The wings did do damage to the building.

This is getting monotonous,
GOODBYE.

Sorry, you can't show people the door, here.

 

[slyjoe]

State categorically that wood stands up to fire better than steel.

Ok.

Categorically wood stands up to fire better than steel.

Now, this sounds like a pretty strong claim doesn't it? But let's flip it around.

Categorically, steel stands up to fire better than wood.

That too sounds like a pretty strong claim.

Let's ignore that you haven't defined "stands up to fire better". Prove either statement above is correct. Can you do it?

 

[SOMERLED]

Hey, I'm still wondering where you live that has such an oddball definition of "corrugated steel", since any fool can see that the exterior walls of the WTC were not corrugated steel or corrugated anything else.

I'm mystified as to how anybody can look at the facade of one of the twins and not notice it.

 

[Belz...]

State categorically that wood stands up to fire better than steel.

I do. That's why we need to install FIREPROOFING on steel elements in buildings.

But don't take my word for it, please. ASK A DAMN PROFESSIONAL.

Not enough to keep it burning bright, most certainly not.

Not enough ? How is a several-storey high hole not enough ?

Who is "us" ?

Forum members, Malcolm. There are more than two of us, here.

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

By the way, if you decide to change your mind, I certainly will not be one of those who'll snap that one back in your face and say "ha-ha!" Changing your mind is a good thing.

 

[CurtC]

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?

No, the critical angle that comes as a result of Snell's Law is due solely to the speed of the wave through the two different materials. Since a dart, or a plane, is not a wave and doesn't propagate through the materials, the critical angle concept as it relates to Snell's Law does not apply.

Curt,
You don't have millimetres on one side and Newtons on the other.
They are both on the same side of the equals sign.
On the other side of the equals sign is a constant.
Let's call that constant 2.

You still don't understand. The spring constant will not be a unitless number like 2. It will be something with units, like 2 mm/N, or 17 in/lb. It amazes me how you manage to maintain a condescending tone even when you've repeatedly been shown to be absolutely wrong.

Eventually Hooke's law was applied to metals and then years later of course, to calibrating galvanometers, ammeters, voltmeters etc. Good stuff eh, pity you don't know it.

Look, I got a university degree in electrical engineering in 1983, and for the last 24 years I have been working in the field of measurements of electrical signals. If the subject is electrical measurements, then you are now talking to a real Subject Matter Expert. Please drop the condescension.

I refer you to my post number 1846.

Here's a friendly tip - if you just tell someone to read a post by its number, no one is actually going to go back to find it. It would be more helpful to say something like "I refer you to my post number 1725, where I assert that the walls of the towers were corrugated steel."

The wings of the 'Pentagon plane' folded back along the body and the plane turned itself into a dart, so fast and so thin

What? What gave you that idea? They smacked into the Pentagon's outer wall so hard that they shredded into pieces. And since you've switched subjects to the Pentagon, can I assume that you're admitting you were wrong about every assertion you've made about flight 175?

Also the videos, what can't they show the general public the videos?

The public has seen all the videos. Are you aware of any others?

I'm mystified as to how anybody can look at the facade of one of the twins and not notice it [corrugated walls].

Chalk up one more word that MK doesn't understand the definition of. Hint: they were not corrugated anything.

 

[Arus808]

Show me one piece of evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was 175 - just one.

44 views of both planes hitting the WTC towers. Debris were found on top of nearby buildings from BOTH planes; all identified to the type of planes that hit the two towers. Even the debris still had some paint on them identifying which airline they came from; many contained serial numbers used by each airline to identify their planes.

Now, stop pissing on the graves of the 3000 people who died that day by claiming that Flight 175 didn't crash into South Tower.

 

[pomeroo]

Is this an example of anything will do as long as it keeps him away from mentioning Offutt AFB and the place the real attack planes took off from?

Uh, Malcolm, your fantasy about armored planes was exposed as a falsehood. You haven't apologized as yet.

 

[Storm Warning]

*sighs* I can't believe that I'm responding to this twit.

Originally Posted by Storm Warning
<snip>
I refer you to post number 1870.

Oh no you don't. You don't get to make a retarded [note to mod - feel free to replace that word if you must] claim like "Outside the USA, everybody and their uncle knows the truth." and then wimp out of it by referring me to a bunch of nonsensical webpages.

If your version of the truth is that an airplane didn't hit the South Tower, then that would mean that roughly six billion people outside of the USA know that this is true. I've just give you evidence (uh-oh, there's that word again) that you're either mistaken or lying.

So, which is it?

 

[Kage]

If you jumped off the roof of a four storey house, you would fall at free fall speed.
You would not reach terminal velocity.
Now what has free fall got to do with terminal velocity?

Again with the demonstrations of ignorance on the subject! There is no free fall speed. None. The ISS (international space station) is in free fall, it it is traveling faster than a person who jumps off a house. Which is traveling at free fall speed? In fact, the person falling from a four story house would not fall at free fall, but smart (or lazy) physicists ignore this effect because it is small.

Terminal velocity relates to freefall in that it is what happens when something falls in a fluid medium ( aside from a superfluid, but I digress). It relates to the discussion of the WTC collapse in that the WTC fell slower that free fall (much slower) and that given the density of the building material this is not explained by terminal velocity. Your wrongness is staggering.

 

[332nd]

It's coming along nicely, I'm not complaining. The longer the clean up takes, the more thorough it will be. It certainly needs to be thorough.

So when can we expect these mass protests from 85% of Americans and everybody and their uncle outside of the US?

 

[pomeroo]

Show me one piece of evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was 175 - just one.

Please take a look at the photos posted by stateofgrace (#1877). I understand how inconvenient these photos are to your delusions, but you do see where the WINGS of the plane sliced through the building, right? It's pretty hard to miss. They were crushed by the impact, agreed, but they didn't immediately fold up and transform the aircraft into a dart.

Let's summarize these photos:

They show a gaping hole which provides a source of AIR to fuel the FIRES.

They clearly display the imprint of the WINGS on the building.

You can ignore reality, but that doesn't make it go away.