d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Sept 11
Prev1141516171831Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 3844Replies: 301Track Topic
Member
Posts: 25,367
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Gold: 566.22
#151
Sep 11 2012 04:31am
Quote (ZingerSupreme @ Sep 11 2012 08:17pm)
funny the report you posted itself says that the explosion shock wave is negligible



yaya... first thing is first are you willing to admit that the paper you presented doesnt detail the heat transfer or not ?


It clearly does, welcome to my block list, jesus christ.
Member
Posts: 1,230
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Gold: 0.00
#152
Sep 11 2012 04:53am
Quote (Lifebane99 @ Sep 11 2012 12:31pm)
It clearly does, welcome to my block list, jesus christ.


you have a block list you are so cool :P

Quote
Pa of blast pressure is insufficient to have seriously affected the structural steel support columns. This conclusion justifies the exclusion of the jet fuel explosions from our energy transfer calculations.


^ here ya go you stubborn baby.
Member
Posts: 25,367
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Gold: 566.22
#153
Sep 11 2012 04:54am
Quote (ZingerSupreme @ Sep 11 2012 08:53pm)
you have a block list you are so cool :P



^ here ya go you stubborn baby.


You have to read the entire article to understand the heat transfer, not cherry pick it.
Member
Posts: 1,230
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Gold: 0.00
#154
Sep 11 2012 05:00am
Quote (Lifebane99 @ Sep 11 2012 12:54pm)
You have to read the entire article to understand the heat transfer, not cherry pick it.


nice try. my friend iv read about this before this isnt the first time.
its pretty evident u have no idea what you are talking about, dont hide behind an arrogant cloak of knowledge that you cant be bothered typing... you have nothing to say or add.
you are the one that brought up that paper to dispute my claim, so it is up to you to show me where heat transfer is detailed.
i assure you its not in that paper, from that paragraph alone u can tell that it is a shallow paper that doesn't go near the level of detail i meant.
also if im on your block list why do you keep responding?
Member
Posts: 14,099
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Gold: 83.30
#155
Sep 11 2012 05:24am
As far as I know, the people on this subforum with engineering degrees pretty much all agree that the towers fell due to the plane impacts.

Oh and hearty lols at Russia Today being unbiased. It's owned by the Kremlin, you nitwits.

And @ZingerSupreme:

'heat transfers' is a vague term. What do you want to know specifically? Explain your thoughts.

If you just want to know about the damage caused by the ignited jet fuel, the NIST report should be sufficiently detailed.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#156
Sep 11 2012 05:27am
I can't believe these old arguments are being rehashed again.

Member
Posts: 9,077
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Gold: 1,300.00
#157
Sep 11 2012 05:27am
Quote (balrog66 @ Sep 11 2012 04:24am)
As far as I know, the people on this subforum with engineering degrees pretty much all agree that the towers fell due to the plane impacts.

Oh and hearty lols at Russia Today being unbiased. It's owned by the Kremlin, you nitwits.

And @ZingerSupreme:

'heat transfers' is a vague term. What do you want to know specifically? Explain your thoughts.

If you just want to know about the damage caused by the ignited jet fuel, the NIST report should be sufficiently detailed.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get%5Fpdf.cfm?pub%5Fid=909017

9/11 was an inside job.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#158
Sep 11 2012 05:28am
Quote (DieTryin' @ Sep 11 2012 06:27am)
9/11 was an inside job.


Is as bad to say as anything Westboro Church does.
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#159
Sep 11 2012 05:30am
Quote (Skinned @ Sep 11 2012 06:27am)
I can't believe these old arguments are being rehashed again.


That's why I posted the threads from the last 2 years. We had an even more in-depth discussion, close to 30 pages the year before, iirc.

Where's Sinbad when you need him? :rofl:

Quote (Surfpunk @ Sep 11 2012 12:51am)
Jesus tapdancing fucking Christ. How many times do we have to go through this? Who was that idiot that Santara and I took behind the wood shed last year for the same shit? Made a lot of the same tired "arguments" then.

Do me a favor: Look up the Maximum Take-Off Weight of a Boeing 707, and compare it with that of a Boeing 767 (the aircraft that hit the towers). Then take into consideration the speeds at which the WTC designers expected a 707 might potentially hit the building(s) (either takeoff climb out, or approach, into or out of JFK), and compare that to the speeds at which the 767s actually struck the towers, and you end up with a fuckton more kinetic energy being imparted into the towers than the designers thought a 707 would bring.

It's called math.

Fuck off.


^^^

This post was edited by Santara on Sep 11 2012 05:31am
Member
Posts: 1,230
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Gold: 0.00
#160
Sep 11 2012 05:30am
Quote (balrog66 @ Sep 11 2012 01:24pm)
And @ZingerSupreme:

'heat transfers' is a vague term. What do you want to know specifically? Explain your thoughts.

If you just want to know about the damage caused by the ignited jet fuel, the NIST report should be sufficiently detailed.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub%5Fid=909017


many papers stipulated that the fire caused by the fuel as well as the contents of the building burning afterwards made the steal columns weaken a certain degree.
the part that as far as i know is unexplained is the heat transfer between the jet fuel fires and the contents of the building burning to the steal itself
it is basically thermodynamics and lots of math... a more complex version of a model that says an ice cube would melt at this or that rate if you hold a lighter to it for this long.. etc

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1141516171831Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact