Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,021
- 198
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8[/ame]
9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?
- Thread starter PhysicsExist
- Start date
Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,021
- 198
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9HY1XHqjYA&feature=more_related[/ame]
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #184
Stop ignoring the Facts, you are afraid.
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #186
- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,567
- 185
His understanding of Science is about the same level as the amount of oxygen in the air
At 10,000 feet.
At 10,000 feet.
dipshit, what percentage of the air is Oxygen?
hes an idiot
somehow he thinks air is 1/3rd O2
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #191
21% Oxygen, 78% Nitrogen, 1% Other
Oxygen makes up 1/3.7th of air.
You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC.
In air, you have 1/3rd of the Oxygen you would normally have.
You have to heat up molecules of Nitrogen & others in order to get a hydrocarbon based fire to reach steel's melting point.
You can only get 1/3rd of the temp needed to melt steel OUTSIDE of a blast furnace, BECAUSE the OXYGEN in the AIR is NOT enough.
You can only get to 1,800oF Degrees in a carbon based fire inside of a building.
Reason: because you need to heat up the OTHER molecules, but DO not have the oxygen to do so, because AIR only consists of 1/3rd Oxygen.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QWk2fFUzw[/ame]
sorry dipshit, but 1/3rd would be 33%
you are an idiot
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-mass-air-d_679.html
Last edited:
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #193
thanks for proving my point lol
only 1/3rd of the Oxygen needed to burn the other Molecules is there,
therefore carbon based fires cannot melt steel because only 1/3rd of the oxygen needed is there.
to get carbon based fires to reach those temps to melt steel, and you need more than the 21% on oxygen that is provided in air. usually 3x the amount lol
Last edited:
PhysicsExist
Member
- Dec 8, 2010
- 661
- 18
- 16
- Thread starter
- #195
Congratulations, you have so completely discredited yourself as to have been rendered invisible. For your information a simple house fire (pre flashover) can attain 2300 degrees.
This is without the wonderful fuel of Jet-A.
"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature."
Temperatures in flames and fires
WRONG as usual. A simple house fire can attain 2300 degrees and that without Jet-A for an accelerant.
FAIL
"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature."
Temperatures in flames and fires
FAIL
"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature."
Temperatures in flames and fires
Liability
Locked Account.
You can't even handle the extremely simple QUOTE function. The idea that you can grasp anything of what NIST has to say is too ridiculous on its face to even discuss.
Let's simplify things for you, you fucking id-eot.
However "loud" the sound might be, how much of the theoretical "explosive" do you maintain would be minimally required to blow the support structures of the WTC7 building pretty much simultaneously to accomplish the alleged Controlled Demolition you lunatics fantasize about?
Nobody noticed?
The AMOUNT of wiring that had to be rigged to make that thing go "boom" and fall down pretty much simultaneously? How much of that? How many fucking MILES of det cord would be required?
Nobody noticed?
It all had to be coordinated with the obviously PLANNED 9/11/2001 jet liner hijackings and their crashes into the Twin Towers. So aside from planting the explosives (invisibly) and stringing the det cords (invisibly), they also had to coordinate with the mutants who stole the planes and "drove" them into adjacent office towers.
How many fucking people are IN on this massive conspiracy you lunatics project?
NOBODY in a conspiracy of that unfathomable size and complexity has broken the secrecy?
Our God-forsaken government can't even keep military and diplomatic cables from assholes like Julian Assange and WikieLeaks, But, the guys involved in this treasonous plot are powerful enough and secret enough to compel absolute secrecy of a conspiracy of this unbelievable size?
And you're fucking serious?
The utterly irresponsible "charges" you make are baseless enough. But for you guys to make these moronic claims without addressing ALL that would HAVE to be "true" in order for your particular lunatic brand of "conspiracy theory" to be even marginally POSSIBLE is a display of pure cowardice on your part.
What part of column 79 don't you get simple Simon ?.. one column
But that's silly. According to the NIST analysis, the building fell down sequentially. That is, a part of it went, then the next, then the next in SEQUENCE. But you Troofers INSIST that it all went down as one giant fucking unit as one would see in a Controlled Demolition.
So pick one. Either the building went down in a SEQUENCED series of collapses OR it went down effectively as one controlled demolition drop. Which one?
If you agree with NIST that it went down sequentially, then there's really no reason to disagree with them that it went down due (primarily) to the fire. If you insist, however, that it went down as one unit (in effect a controlled demolition), then you disagree with NIST.
But you cite to NIST only when it suits you.
Did the entire building collapse essentially as one unit as in a controlled demolition or didn't it, you flaming asstard?
eots
no fly list
You can't even handle the extremely simple quote function. The idea that you can grasp anything of what nist has to say is too ridiculous on its face to even discuss.
Let's simplify things for you, you fucking id-eot.
However "loud" the sound might be, how much of the theoretical "explosive" do you maintain would be minimally required to blow the support structures of the wtc7 building pretty much simultaneously to accomplish the alleged controlled demolition you lunatics fantasize about?
Nobody noticed?
The amount of wiring that had to be rigged to make that thing go "boom" and fall down pretty much simultaneously? How much of that? How many fucking miles of det cord would be required?
Nobody noticed?
It all had to be coordinated with the obviously planned 9/11/2001 jet liner hijackings and their crashes into the twin towers. So aside from planting the explosives (invisibly) and stringing the det cords (invisibly), they also had to coordinate with the mutants who stole the planes and "drove" them into adjacent office towers.
How many fucking people are in on this massive conspiracy you lunatics project?
Nobody in a conspiracy of that unfathomable size and complexity has broken the secrecy?
Our god-forsaken government can't even keep military and diplomatic cables from assholes like julian assange and wikieleaks, but, the guys involved in this treasonous plot are powerful enough and secret enough to compel absolute secrecy of a conspiracy of this unbelievable size?
And you're fucking serious?
The utterly irresponsible "charges" you make are baseless enough. But for you guys to make these moronic claims without addressing all that would have to be "true" in order for your particular lunatic brand of "conspiracy theory" to be even marginally possible is a display of pure cowardice on your part.
what part of column 79 don't you get simple simon ?.. One column
but that's silly. According to the nist analysis, the building fell down sequentially. That is, a part of it went, then the next, then the next in sequence. But you troofers insist that it all went down as one giant fucking unit as one would see in a controlled demolition.
So pick one. Either the building went down in a sequenced series of collapses or it went down effectively as one controlled demolition drop. Which one?
If you agree with nist that it went down sequentially, then there's really no reason to disagree with them that it went down due (primarily) to the fire. If you insist, however, that it went down as one unit (in effect a controlled demolition), then you disagree with nist.
But you cite to nist only when it suits you.
did the entire building collapse essentially as one unit as in a controlled demolition or didn't it, you flaming asstard?
Beyond question ..NIST concluded a single blast to column 79 would initiate the collapse sequence
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
Trump is forcing the federal government to spell out everything that is a crime under federal law.- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
it's hilarious listening to Latinos making fun of Google
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 5
