[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[Corsair 115]

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

Uh, the rest of the building was in its way.

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?

The problem is that you are defining "free fall" in a way no else is. This is kind of like how you define "World War II" in a way no one else does. If you are using definitions which no else uses or are not in common usage, it it quite clear misunderstandings are going to arise.

To clear this up, perhaps you had better define what you mean by "free fall" and "terminal velocity."

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.

You are claiming this again - so where is your source for this? You have been shown photos of fires issuing thick, black smoke that had access to plenty oxygen. So why are those fires giving off thick, black smoke?

Furthermore, you were shown in post #1877 two photos showing the ENORMOUS HOLES in the sides of the WTC towers made by the aircraft impact. How can you call the buildings sealed when there are enormous holes in the sides of them? Additionally, how would thise enormous holes NOT let in plenty of oxygen to the fires? What would stop the outside air from being drawn in through those enormous holes?

 

[Hamradioguy]

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

On a structural basis wood DOES stand up to fire better than steel. Don't believe this? Just ask any firefighter. Hell, even a "probie" knows wood stands up to fire better than steel.

 

[SOMERLED]

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



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



Really ?



I see only mm on the left side...



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



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

The proper equation is written down a dozen or more times. You now pretend that you couldn't read it properly.
NO, you got it wrong. The same way you get most everything wrong about 9/11 and then pretend, like some pretentious schoolboy, that you can talk your way out of it.
You deliberately put the wrong meaning on my words, in this case my word "Goodbye", which was in response to some one saying they were going.
Then you tell me that I can't show people the door on here.
Let's see shall we. I find your posts deliberately obfuscatory. In consequence, I will not be answering any more of them.
Goodbye.

 

[Kage]

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.
Now can you tell me, where all this WHITE smoke came from.
Three thousand people didn't die, until one of the murderers pressed a button to start off the controlled demolitions.
[qimg]http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html[/qimg]

If it was so sealed, how did the people who worked their breathe? There also where nice big plane sized holes that one would suspect let a lot of oxygen in.

Like all threads started by truthers as the thread grows longer, the density of plausible assertions made by ctists approaches zero. This density is greatly inflated by the times where ctists get the date of the attack right.

 

[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.

Not ignored, ridiculed perhaps, but not ignored.
Show me one piece of evidence that the plane that hit tower 2 was 175 - one piece of evidence - just one.
The reason you'll never be able to do it, is because it didn't happen.
175 did NOT hit the south tower. It now follows that you will never be able to produce one genuine piece of evidence that it did.
If McVeighs van at OKC could be positively identified by a number stamped on the back axle.
Surely there must have been something stamped on the whole ENGINE that was found on 9/11.
So let's have it,
Show me the evidence.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

Flight 175 did NOT hit the south tower.
Show me these serial numbers.
I'm interested as to how your post got through?
Language like that from me, certainly wouldn't have done.
Getting a bit desperate are we?
Show me these SERIAL NUMBERS.

 

[SOMERLED]

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?

You are insulting my intelligence really.
I'll answer this one post, but probably that will be all.
You burn wood in a steel stove. You don't burn steel in a wooden stove.
If you can't lift the level of discourse above the ridiculous, then I am not going to answer any questions in future, that are beneath my dignity.

 

[SOMERLED]

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


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?

Have you read this thread at all?
175 did NOT hit the south tower. A plane from Offutt AFB did.
From 65 to 80 % of the american people believe 9/11 was an inside job and/ want a new investigation. Why do you not?
For the moment, a plane did hit the south tower, it just was not 175.
Furthermore you can't show me one piece of evidence that 175 did hit the south tower. Don't mix up evidence that a plane hit the south tower with evidence that the plane that did hit the south tower was 175.
An engine was found, are serial numbers not stamped on engines anymore?
If so, show me one. If not, then why not?

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

If there is no such a thing as free fall.
Then how can this be correct, in your words,
"...the WTC fell slower than free fall..."

 

[SOMERLED]

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

You seem very dismissive of the truth movement. Is there nothing about the official version of 9/11 that you disagree with?

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

I am talking about the walls of the Pentagon.
You are talking about the walls of the south tower.
I hope this was a genuine mistake on your part and not deliberate obfuscation.

 

[SOMERLED]

Uh, the rest of the building was in its way.

The problem is that you are defining "free fall" in a way no else is. This is kind of like how you define "World War II" in a way no one else does. If you are using definitions which no else uses or are not in common usage, it it quite clear misunderstandings are going to arise.

To clear this up, perhaps you had better define what you mean by "free fall" and "terminal velocity."

You are claiming this again - so where is your source for this? You have been shown photos of fires issuing thick, black smoke that had access to plenty oxygen. So why are those fires giving off thick, black smoke?

Furthermore, you were shown in post #1877 two photos showing the ENORMOUS HOLES in the sides of the WTC towers made by the aircraft impact. How can you call the buildings sealed when there are enormous holes in the sides of them? Additionally, how would thise enormous holes NOT let in plenty of oxygen to the fires? What would stop the outside air from being drawn in through those enormous holes?

The rest of the building was not in the way. The top chunk was falling off, going sideways.
It takes some realising as to what exactly is happening. Perhaps I should say, that it takes some working out.
What actually happens is best illustrated by reference to tower one, where you can see the mast.
The mast actually moves first. This is because the base of the core has been taken out and thus the core is the first thing to head down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-n3XOb3uAQ
There is no doubt, you can move this next vid frame by frame.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html
In the south tower, because so much of the east wall has been taken out, as the core moves down, it pulls that floor in, thus causing the kink.
With regard to free fall.
In a nutshell, nothing between you and the ground. You would thus be falling free or in free fall. Some of my detractors on here are becoming tiresome with their insistence on schoolboy definitions, rather than accepting the point.
If you'd have jumped off the side of WTC 7 at the same moment the building started to fall. Had I been in the Penthouse, we could have held a conversation on the way down. It wouldn't have been a long conversation, somewhere between six and a half and eight seconds. We would have come down together.
You are coming down through fresh air. I'm going down through thousands and thousands of tied together welded, bolted etc steel columns. joists, floors etc.
How can that be without controlled demolition?
It cannot.

 

[Corsair 115]

A plane from Offutt AFB did.

And your proof of this claim is...? You have documents which indicate this perhaps? Maybe photos? The testimony of persons who prepared this flight? What?

You constantly repeating the claim does not make it true.

The rest of the building was not in the way. The top chunk was falling off, going sideways.[/QUOTE} Uh, are you saying the part of the building leaning should have kept leaning over until it fell off the rest of the building, rather like the way a tree falls down when cut down by a lumberjack? Is that your assertion?

With regard to free fall.
In a nutshell, nothing between you and the ground. You would thus be falling free or in free fall.

See, therein lies the problem. That's a rather loose definition of the word, and certainly not the meaning more technically-minded folks would take from the phrase.

If you'd have jumped off the side of WTC 7 at the same moment the building started to fall. Had I been in the Penthouse, we could have held a conversation on the way down. It wouldn't have been a long conversation, somewhere between six and a half and eight seconds. We would have come down together.

And how do you arrive at the bolded conclusion, considering that:

You are coming down through fresh air. I'm going down through thousands and thousands of tied together welded, bolted etc steel columns. joists, floors etc.

My path through air offers far less resistance than does your path which requires you to go through the material which comprises the building, and naturally, offers more resistance to movement than does air.

And yet you claim we'd both hit the ground at the same time. How is this possible? Or have you inadvertantly misstated your case?

 

[SOMERLED]

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


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?

You asked for sources, have you read them?

 

[SOMERLED]

On a structural basis wood DOES stand up to fire better than steel. Don't believe this? Just ask any firefighter. Hell, even a "probie" knows wood stands up to fire better than steel.

Where you live, stoves, pots, pans, ovens, car engines etc are all made out of wood are they?
You do know you are in the realms of the ridiculous don't you.
Can you plait sawdust?

 

[SOMERLED]

If it was so sealed, how did the people who worked their breathe? There also where nice big plane sized holes that one would suspect let a lot of oxygen in.

Like all threads started by truthers as the thread grows longer, the density of plausible assertions made by ctists approaches zero. This density is greatly inflated by the times where ctists get the date of the attack right.

I know it's a long thread, but speaking for myself, I would catch up somewhat before I joined in. I have already answered this question. The last time I posted the same answer a number of times, I was warned about 'spamming'.
At the risk of being warned again, my answer to how they breathed is "with great difficulty". That's why so many jumped or got shaken off when the basement expolsions took out the base of the core.
You can witness the basement explosions here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-tieJFVGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_DDi1wq1Bc
Then, the floor explosions took out the floors and the people in them, over 1,000 vapourised bodies still to be accounted for, as you can see here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx1E2B5oAEs&mode=related&search=
Vid 1 is the North tower, vid 2 is the south tower.
There is no doubt, none at all and people like me, will not be going away.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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

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

So what law or scientific principle does apply to a dart being deflected because the angle is too narrow?
Hooke's law is becoming something of a millstone around your neck.
It is for calibrating. In Hooke's day the units would have been ounces or pounds. With an ammeter it will be amps, a voltmeter is volts.
It's difficult not to be condescending when conversing with you.
You do keep shooting yourself in the foot.
I really don't care whether someone refers back to a post or not.
With regard to the Pentagon, kindly respond to this question,
How did a plane with underslung engines, manage to go through a ground floor window, without leaving its engines in the lawn?

 

[Dave_46]

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?

You are insulting my intelligence really.
I'll answer this one post, but probably that will be all.
You burn wood in a steel stove. You don't burn steel in a wooden stove.
If you can't lift the level of discourse above the ridiculous, then I am not going to answer any questions in future, that are beneath my dignity.

malcolm kirkman. By this reply to slyjoe's post you have shown that you do not understand fire or heat transfer/losses.

Burning timber in a stove * will not cause major damage to the stove because heat is lost from the outer surface due to convection and radiation. This will limit the temperature of the stove, and hence the reduction in strength due to temperature rise. The walls of the stove will be thick enough to retain enough strength in the hot condition to maintain the stove's shape.

*I think in the UK it is more likely to be made of cast iron than steel, but that doesn't invalidate what I'm going to say.

In a building fire the heat tranfer/losses are more complex, primarily because building fires are uncontrolled. There is also much much more heat involved.

Dave

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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

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

Uh, the rest of the building was in its way.

The problem is that you are defining "free fall" in a way no else is. This is kind of like how you define "World War II" in a way no one else does. If you are using definitions which no else uses or are not in common usage, it it quite clear misunderstandings are going to arise.

To clear this up, perhaps you had better define what you mean by "free fall" and "terminal velocity."

You are claiming this again - so where is your source for this? You have been shown photos of fires issuing thick, black smoke that had access to plenty oxygen. So why are those fires giving off thick, black smoke?

Furthermore, you were shown in post #1877 two photos showing the ENORMOUS HOLES in the sides of the WTC towers made by the aircraft impact. How can you call the buildings sealed when there are enormous holes in the sides of them? Additionally, how would thise enormous holes NOT let in plenty of oxygen to the fires? What would stop the outside air from being drawn in through those enormous holes?

Let me apologise for failing to include the smoke in my previous post.
I use the term 'sealed unit' because that's what the twins were. You could not open a window. Workers in there were totally reliant upon air conditioning.
That was one of the reasons that they were a pair of white elephants. Other reasons leading to two certificates being refused were the asbestos content and the cladding etc. There is so much evidence, that's it's sometimes difficult to stay precisely on topic.
Black smoke up top. Where did the white smoke come from?
Here is evidence of white smoke,
This piece is from this webpage,
http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/911.html
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.
-------
Access to the roof had been closed for, I think two days. No doubt the perps didn't want the public to see a host of people going down into the smoke like passengers on the Titanic. This meant that there was no through flow of air to feed the flames. You will see the smoke darken as time goes on. All of a sudden, when the button is pressed, all you see is white 'smoke', which is actually vapourised concrete, including of course people.
There is no doubt the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, no doubt at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&mode=related&search=

 

[SOMERLED]

malcolm kirkman. By this reply to slyjoe's post you have shown that you do not understand fire or heat transfer/losses.

Burning timber in a stove * will not cause major damage to the stove because heat is lost from the outer surface due to convection and radiation. This will limit the temperature of the stove, and hence the reduction in strength due to temperature rise. The walls of the stove will be thick enough to retain enough strength in the hot condition to maintain the stove's shape.

*I think in the UK it is more likely to be made of cast iron than steel, but that doesn't invalidate what I'm going to say.

In a building fire the heat tranfer/losses are more complex, primarily because building fires are uncontrolled. There is also much much more heat involved.

Dave

Total, complete, utter and absolute nonsense.