Rosie thinks 9/11 was staged...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
.... without explosives being involved. She only wants to bring in someone because the blonde with half a brain thought she was stupid.

She doesn't have any brains. She was merely stating that she believes the authorities because she doesn't have any choice. That's pretty damn brainless and a big problem with most people in this country expecially regarding the present topic.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


I'd say a couple of large planes with full tanks of aviation fuel involved in massive explosions might, just, be the explanation you could be looking for...

Not to play devil's advocate but they are discussing building number 7, which no plane hit...

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I said I want proof, not an explaination. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. The explaination is that it weakened the steel, but I have a hard time believing that even weakened steel would collapse like that. The strike was at the top of the building.

You are a layman with weak general physics knowledge pretending to be an expert.

For that, you are ****ing stupid. Not just ignorant, but also stupid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ

You are a layman with weak general physics knowledge pretending to be an expert.

For that, you are ****ing stupid. Not just ignorant, but also stupid.

I'm not pretending to be an expert you horses ass.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
Not to play devil's advocate but they are discussing building number 7, which no plane hit...

Obviously the government had bombs placed in Building 7 beforehand, managed to keep the bombs from being discovered, waited for an attack on New York City, and then saw its chance to implode the building with no one the wiser.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not pretending to be an expert you horses ass.

Fair enough, then you surely have no problem on learning mechanics on your own in order to Understand. I for one am not going to bother explaining it to you, I already spent my quota on trying to reason with Kidicious without any results when speaking about the inheritance of intelligence in humans.

[Dis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Obviously the government had bombs placed in Building 7 beforehand, managed to keep the bombs from being discovered, waited for an attack on New York City, and then saw its chance to implode the building with no one the wiser.

my thoughts exactly.

In the end, who really gave a **** about building 7? Like it was okay if WTC 1 and 2 fell, but now that 7 fell, all hell must break loose?

I think we'd be just as pissed off at Al Quida if building 7 was still standing today.

So it was in no way advantageous to implode that building. It's either all or nothing. The goverment either imploded all the buildings, or none of them.

Which sounds more plausible?

[pchang]

Knowledge

Flames temperatures of open flames


For convenience, we can subdivide the turbulent diffusion flames from unwanted fires into two types: flames in the open, and room fires. First we will consider open flames.
The starting point for discussing this topic can be the work of the late Dr. McCaffrey, who made extensive measurements [4] of temperatures in turbulent diffusion flames. He used gas burners in a "pool fire" mode (i.e., non-premixed) and studied various characteristics of such fire plumes. He described three different regimes in such a fire plume:

1. Slightly above the base of the fire begins the continuous flame region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.
2. Above the solid flame region is the intermittent flame region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.
3. Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height.

So - a small bunsen burner achieves about 900C at its highest point. Can you not see that aviation fuel in a what is essentially a building sized chimney would reach temperatures far in excess of that? Also remember, that we do not have to melt the steel. In order for the building to collapse, one only has to soften the steel.

[pchang]

BTW

Jet fuel is a liquid. If you strike the top of a building, the fuel drips down as it burns. The building forms a chimney, with air being sucked in from below, burning up, and rising out the top.

Have you ever used a chimney to light charcoal for a grill?

[MOBIUS]

It's no use pchang - welcome to the next 500+ Kid thread...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ

Fair enough, then you surely have no problem on learning mechanics on your own in order to Understand. I for one am not going to bother explaining it to you, I already spent my quota on trying to reason with Kidicious without any results when speaking about the inheritance of intelligence in humans.

Then STFU

[Kidlicious]

Re: Knowledge

Originally posted by pchang
Can you not see that aviation fuel in a what is essentially a building sized chimney would reach temperatures far in excess of that?

I really have no idea, but I'm not going to assume that it will. I'd like to see some proof of what jet fuel can do to a building like that. Buildings are designed to be resistance to collapsing in a fire.

Also remember, that we do not have to melt the steel. In order for the building to collapse, one only has to soften the steel.

The question is how much strength the steel would lose, not whether it would lose strength or not. What percentage? 20% 50% 90%?

[Kidlicious]

Re: BTW

Originally posted by pchang
Have you ever used a chimney to light charcoal for a grill?

Actually there is a tool now for lighting your charcoal that seems to be like a chimney. I've used one before. I don't what the temperature got in there compared to open charcoal fires.

[pchang]

Re: Re: BTW

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually there is a tool now for lighting your charcoal that seems to be like a chimney. I've used one before. I don't what the temperature got in there compared to open charcoal fires.

Its hotter than an open fire. That is why its the tool to light them.

Anyway, jet fuel is very similar to gasoline (it is actually kerosene). For a comparison, did you know that cars running on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) get less miles per gallon than cars running on regular gasoline? This is because, there is less energy in 1 gallon of CNG than there is in 1 gallon of gasoline.

Jet fuel has more energy per gallon than natural gas. Therefore, it can burn hotter than natural gas. Therefore a chimney fire of jet fuel will achieve higher temperatures than a bunsen burner.

BTW, my undergraduate major was chemical engineering. When I woke up on 9/11 and saw the footage, my first thought was that they had to evacuate the buildings right away because the jet fuel fire would melt the steel and the buildings would collapse. 20 minutes later, they did.

[Kidlicious]

Thanx pchang. I didn't think about all that, but it makes sense.