[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[gumboot]

Well, let's not bring out the cake just yet. Hooke's Law is that for an ideal spring, the extension is proportional to the force applied. This law can be expressed in the equation:

X = -k F

where k is a characteristic of a given spring, the spring constant.

Please note, though, extension and force are both vector quantities. Vector division isn't for the faint of heart, so I question the merits of Malcom's X/F presentation.

I think Belz was referring to Malcolm Kirkman's assertion that the windows opened in the Empire State Building.

-Gumboot

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The photograph is a crude fake. The pertinent quetion is,
Why should you post a knowingly fake document?

Support this assertion, or retract it.

 

[Corsair 115]

The photograph is a crude fake.

By what criteria and by what methodology did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you analyze the photo yourself or are you claiming it's a fake just because some web site somewhere said it was?

 

[Arus808]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_158424671578650477.jpg

The photograph is a crude fake. The pertinent quetion is,
Why should you post a knowingly fake document?

that is not a fake Malcolm. That is what happens to steel compared to wood in a fire.


talk to ANY firefighter, they'd tell you which type of structure they trust the most when it comes to fire.

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm, out of curiosity, why do think that we (meaning those that have been arguing with you in this thread) do not believe that it was an inside job? You've explained your own side here, and I don't recall seeing this question brought up before although, mind you, this thread is now like 2000 posts long. Do you think we're naive, mislead, stubborn, paid-off or something else?

I thibk you are NWO supporters to a man (or woman or boy).
That can be for a variety of reasons.
Now I see fake photos posted. If you are so confident of the clear fraud that wood withstands fire better than steel. Why don't you get Popular Mechanics, or some other such NWO rag, to print your story on their front page?
Then everybody can have a laugh instead of just me.
I have asked this question a number of times, I have never received an answer. So I ask again

Edited by chillzero: 

Moderated thread

Is there anything whatsoever about the Official report that you believe is either incorrect or incomplete?

 

[SOMERLED]

If no one else posts ahead of me, this will be the 2010th post in this thread. Two thousand ten posts. Think on that.

The pattern so far has been:
- Malcolm posts an easy target for debunking.
- The assembled thread debunks him
- Malcolm ignores, denies, and ridicules and puts up another or even the same target.

There is no deviation in this. We scatter to find information to refute each easy target, fire accurately and nod in satisfaction, only to find that our straw target has been propped back up. There can be no victory, my friends, we are bogged down in a quagmire of misinformation and avoidance. He has already declared his fortress unassailable.

Show me one piece of evidence that the plane that hit tower 2 was 175 - one piece.
Then I'll agree that you have 'debunked' something.

Edited by chillzero: 

Moderated thread

 

[SOMERLED]

I stand corrected. This does not change the fact that this fromula has nothing to do with a plane hitting a building.

Hooke's law is most often used in small displacement approximations, such as a pendulum swinging over a small angle. This comes from:

F = -dU/dx where U is the potential energy and x is the displacement.

This means that where U is a parabola, F = kx by integration. Assume that x0 is a local minimum of U and U has a taylor expansion:

U = U(a) + U'(x - a) + (1/2)U"(x - a)^2 + (1/6)U'''(x - a)^3 + ...

Since U(a) is a local minimum:

U = U(a) + (1/2)U"(x - a)^2 + (1/6)U'''(x - a)^3 + ...

as U'(x-a) = 0. Assume (x-a) is small st (x - a)^2 >> (x - a)^3

Then

U = U(a) + (1/2)U"(x - a)^2 and F = -dU/dx = - U"(x - a) which is Hooke's law.

Contrast this scenario (small deviations around a local minimum) with that of a large jet plowing into the side of a building and you can clearly see how ridiculus an appeal to hooke's law is. Even more foolish than the clowdy day claim or the pedophilia allegations. Even if you were to hit a WTC sized slinky with a plane that has a giant spring on its nose hooke's law would probably not come up.

Let me correct you a second time. The question was to test the level of scientific knowledge. After two weeks I had to post the answer.

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm -- compare that to this image of what the actual exterior walls of the WTC towers looked like:

[qimg]http://i14.tinypic.com/61kj47q.jpg[/qimg]

See how that's not waves of solid metal but columns of aluminum-covered steel with glass in between them? That's quite a bit different.

No, it's glass and steel recessed. The word corrugated explaihs the facade well enough.

 

[SOMERLED]

Well, HawksFan, I've pointed out at least a half-dozen times that his falsehood about the imaginary armored planes has been exposed. I've asked that he apologize for resorting to outright lies to promote his thoroughly debunked canards. I have a feeling he won't be apologizing.

Remember, if he could acknowledge error, he wouldn't be what he is.

What is your definition of "thoroughly debunked".
I'm still waiting for one piece of evidence that the plane that hit tower 2 was 175.
If the FBI can identify a truck from the back axle, as at OKC. Then there must be some markings on the engine and landing gear that was found at the scene.
Show me one piece of evidence. Without that, I fail to see how you can claim to have debunked anything, don't you agree?

 

[SOMERLED]

Support this assertion, or retract it.

Not really, you show some evidence that's it's real.

 

[SOMERLED]

By what criteria and by what methodology did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you analyze the photo yourself or are you claiming it's a fake just because some web site somewhere said it was?

No, I say it's a fake.
Let's have it on thr front page of Popular Mechanics.
I have absolutely no intention of engaging in such a ludicrous debate.
Put the photo out to the world in say the MSM, that would be nice.

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm - Please read the third box down regarding Steel vs. Wood.

http://www.reavesbuildings.com/why_wood/myths.aspx

You people keep shooting yourselves in the foot.
I quote,
"Granted wood burns and steel doesn't".

 

[MortFurd]

Let me correct you a second time. The question was to test the level of scientific knowledge. After two weeks I had to post the answer.

Yes, you had to post the answer because you phrased the question so poorly.

There are conventions for writing out mathematics in text. You ignored them or don't know them, and posted a mathematical concept in an ideosyncratic way.

You might as well have asked a car mechanic why the flippity bit on the part of the engine where the gas and air come together is important. He knows his stuff, but he'll be hard pressed to figure out what you want - and he's got decipher your question before he can answer you.

 

[SOMERLED]

A website about open windows in the ESB? Not likely.

It's quite possible windows in the ESB do indeed open. It is, after all, a very old building. I am sure you're aware that, as a rule, windows in modern skyscrapers do not open.

The problem here, of course, is given your appalling track record with factual accuracy on this thread, I have no intention of accepting anything whatsoever based solely on your testimony.

-Gumboot

Your words,
"...as a rule, windows in modern skyscrapers do not open."
This would make them sealed units would it not?
Sealed unit was my original point when describing tower 2.

 

[SOMERLED]

And incidentally, Mr. Kirkman, neither of the Twin Towers were in any way, shape, or form "sealed." To suggest as much is remarkable. Please.

And while I'm at it, there is no "85%" of people who believe in any way, shape, or form that 9/11 was an inside job.

Perhaps you feel justified piling lie upon lie in order to support your agenda, but lies they are nevertheless.

(Edited for grammar.)

I refer you to my previous post.

 

[jsfisher]

I think Belz was referring to Malcolm Kirkman's assertion that the windows opened in the Empire State Building.

-Gumboot

Doh!!!

 

[Belz...]

The photograph is a crude fake. The pertinent quetion is,
Why should you post a knowingly fake document?

What makes you say it is faked ?

I thibk you are NWO supporters to a man

That would be impossible, as none of us here believe that this "NWO" exists.

Now I see fake photos posted. If you are so confident of the clear fraud that wood withstands fire better than steel. Why don't you get Popular Mechanics, or some other such NWO rag, to print your story on their front page?
Then everybody can have a laugh instead of just me.

I asked you to check with fire departments to verify that assertion. Have you done this ?

 

[Belz...]

No, it's glass and steel recessed. The word corrugated explaihs the facade well enough.

So now you admit that your use of the word "corrugated steel" was incorrect ?

No, I say it's a fake.

So it's a "hunch" ?

You people keep shooting yourselves in the foot.
I quote,
"Granted wood burns and steel doesn't".

Does that mean you didn't read the rest of it ? Immediately after the part you quoted, and presumably stopped reading, was this:

But steel is far from invulnerable to the effects of fire. In fact, wood retains its structural strength under extreme heat for a longer time, while steel loses strength quickly and begins to melt, even under short exposure times.

 

[Belz...]

Your words,
"...as a rule, windows in modern skyscrapers do not open."
This would make them sealed units would it not?

No.

As I'm sure you're aware, although the windows didn't open, the towers were not hermetically sealed, otherwise everyone inside the towers would suffocate.

Also, you migh have missed the giant hole on the side of the building once the "military plane" struck it.

 

[SOMERLED]

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.

My apologies for failing to address this point in my last post.
I think we both know that if I had written statements and witnesses in person, I would be conversing with senator's offices etc, long before now.
We each do our bit. At the moment my 'bit' is to highlight Offutt as the take off point for the attack planes. I seem to cut my teeth as I go along. For example, I didn't know about the engine on the pavement until I came on here. More flesh on the bones.
I know the attack planes came from Offutt, I now have to strengthen that knowledge until other agree. I work on the principle that I've got the bare bones and the flesh will come along. I use things that others on here ridicule.
Every journey has to start somewhere. I use a progressive process that starts with suspicion, which is a 'subjective' state = only I think it. The process then moves on involving things like excessive coincidence, to reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion now becomes an 'objective' test = I have to persuade a judge that there is enough to proceed. I have to persuade others.
What better place to do that, to 'cut my teeth', than here amongst confirmed disbelievers?
The first pointer to Offutt is the Celebrity Golf Tournament and my knowledge of human nature that a commander of such a base would, if left to his own devices, pick another day. That's common sense for many reasons.
a) None of your officers or their wives could attend.
b) There's just too much already going on that day.
That alone is enough for me.
From that there is so much more, until I have enough for an 'objective' test.
Which I have.
Candidly, can you see anything suspicious about the celebrity golf tournament being held at such a busy time for Offutt AFB?