|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
10th October 2013, 03:15 PM | #321 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
You should study the concept of atomized fuel and vapors. The study you're quoting is about fuel still in tanks and why vapor buildup in those tanks is dangerous.
The atomized fuel ignited, it didn't "explode". The fuel was also traveling at 500 mph when it ignited. Your research material isn't applicable the the WTC crashes. Great job on representing how truthers retarded ideas are based on misapplied and quote mined sources. |
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
10th October 2013, 03:16 PM | #322 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
10th October 2013, 04:24 PM | #323 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Well now, that fully explains why aircraft that crash, whether into buildings, or open fields, or creek valleys , never catch fire. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlx_PwLMWA
Even a quick Google search for air crash will get you multiple videos and images of burning aircraft and exploding aircraft. In fact the most common reason for no fire is aircraft that have run out of fuel. No turning engines, not hot exhaust, no massive spills of fuel. |
10th October 2013, 04:30 PM | #324 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
What does any of this have to do with Jet A being sprayed over a wide area at over 500mph while simultaneously being exposed to an ignition source (above sea level I might add, not that it matters)?
And what are you trying to claim happened anyway? Are you a no-planer? Are you saying we all imagined the flames witnessed as a result of the jet impacts? http://www.fireengineering.com/artic.../jet-fuel.html |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
10th October 2013, 04:33 PM | #325 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
How did you calculate the velocity of the spray of fuel droplets in order to work out the rate at which the flame propagated? Did you just assume it was a static suspension of fuel droplets? What if instead it was a high speed spray of already burning fuel?
Quote:
|
10th October 2013, 04:33 PM | #326 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
10th October 2013, 06:59 PM | #327 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
10th October 2013, 07:08 PM | #328 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
10th October 2013, 07:23 PM | #329 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Flour mill at Keewatin, Ontario, Canada was destroyed by fire. A brick building, the flour dust was sparked by construction in the mill. The initial conflagration blew out the windows, basically the dust exploded.
|
10th October 2013, 07:57 PM | #330 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
|
10th October 2013, 08:02 PM | #331 | |||
Muse
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 539
|
This is a 5 psi shockwave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv_G6...FF554B6FC2FD01
Quote:
|
|||
10th October 2013, 08:03 PM | #332 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
It means you can't do science, math, and physics.
The aircraft impacts were not explosions, they were kinetic energy impacts. Not explosives. The jet fuel did the fireballs, there were no explosives - you can tell by the rate the energy was released. There were no sounds of explosives - I have experienced explosives being used to try and kill me, they make big noises and have shock-waves - these big noises, and shock-waves were not heard on 911. What is your fantasy on 911? You have failed to make it clear. You don't need to link to web sites to explain your failed fantasy. http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/p...nceptions.html Anyway, the source you posted are based on science, and they refute your fuzzy claim, the poorly defined 25th "hard fact". The paper you posted debunk your fantasy. Irony, or what? You are talking about jet fuel not exploding, or something; yet you reference papers like this...
Quote:
Quote:
You don't have a fact to refute the evil NWO "official story". Now what? Now we know why an empty tank is a hazard, it only take 10 millijoules to set it off - and an immersed spark, in a tank fuel of jet fuel will not light. Yes, we can put out matches in jet fuel, but not jet fuel vapor at the right concentration, pressure, and temperature. Examples of fuel not lighting, when we flood our gas engine, etc, etc. Some of the big weapons are fuel air mixtures, there is a lot of energy in jet fuel. Jet fuel has 10 times the energy of TNT, you don't like science, or comparing things to pounds of TNT - a means to understand stuff, since Joules don't mean much to simple people like me. When will you tell CBS, etc, you have broken 911 wide open? Anytime soon? When the USAF had fuel pumps causing explosions in empty tanks, we had to keep 3,000 pounds of jet fuel in the tanks to prevent the pump from being exposed, and to act as a heat-sink. |
10th October 2013, 08:07 PM | #333 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
10th October 2013, 08:11 PM | #334 | |||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
This B-52 crashed at stall speed. Looks and sounds like an explosion to me.
As a retired chemist, I'm interested in why jet fuel can't explode at sea level. It seems to me that low altitude=denser air=more oxygen. Obviously, you are expert in this field and expound on it a little more. Wait. You may be right. Look at all that black smoke! Oxygen-starved fire!
|
|||
10th October 2013, 08:41 PM | #335 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
10th October 2013, 09:28 PM | #337 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
God that's a horrible death.
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
10th October 2013, 11:59 PM | #338 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
YL, George was the President, he sent the troops to war over 911 and you reckon he had a brain freeze. Ask anyone of age where they were when they heard that Elvis had sadly died....and they can tell you, but George can't get his 911 story straight. Give me a break.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Daffyd you would swear to anything as long as it denigrated your interlocutor...what a surprise comment. Dafydd, I am talking explosions, I am talking demolished within its own footprint, I am talking about the unprecedented collapse of high rises by fire or plane strike....and you can't establish my scenario? Yes you certainly have a point Jay, especially the video evidence. Why did a load of people and fire-fighters say on video at the scene in real time say that there are explosions happening? About your secret service evaluation sport. The facts were that there were an unknown number of hijacked aircraft wandering across the sky and the President was at a public location. But the secret service did not even remove George to the safety of the armoured Presidential Limousine. That’s exactly what they do in the case of a real surprise attack. They don't do anything else if the limousine is the only explosive secure area.....immediately, without hesitation. Yes and WTC 7 collapsed in sympathy, without the use of an air liner. Mark the closest I have come to dazed and confused is via Led Zeppelin. My fellow posters continually threaten not to give me an answer because whatever it is they are saying it is sacrosanct. You have failed to expand on my deferrals to Frank Lowy when I mention Larry's business. Larry is not a just a realtor from Brooklyn....unconnected to the apparatus of power, as I said look up Frank Lowy....both of them fit perfectly with their list of tenants at the time. Well sport given the plane weighed about 180,000 pound I expected more than a small truck load, the odd tyre, the odd scrap of metal Silly comment BA.....but three first at one time.....maybe.. Animal the whole area was reclaimed coal mines, the fill was loose waste and soil, small particles very soft. One of my queries with the impact is that in soft fill with equilateral resistance why did one flight recorder end up a load deeper than the other given they sit side by side in the plane? God Jack, light up the torches and rouse the villagers, Jack is rallying the other non "takers" to action....I'm around here too Jack me lad, or am I not invited to the mob uprising. Stick your head out the window and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I am not going to take anyone disagreeing with me any more...then have an aspirin. No Jack he does go on to explain: "No bodies, no wreckage, no noise." No way TS, Daffyd has only contributed sneers thus far, a running Goebbels style commentary, and good luck to him, it is after all part of the whole. They used to before 911 tiger. Nothing at the Pentagon crash, and that one was horizontal...an odd wheel here an odd small metal piece there...but enough documentation survived to name names...sure thing DGM. I’ll be back. |
11th October 2013, 01:01 AM | #339 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hutt Vegas, NZ
Posts: 112
|
To pick on just one point in your wall of gish. It's a pity that your expectations are unrealistic and your observations inaccurate then isn't it?
BTW I have someone experienced at cleaning up after air-crashes big and small in my family. He's been there and done it, and isn't in any way surprised at the aftermath of the 93 impact. It's truther "expectations" that are the problem here. |
11th October 2013, 02:14 AM | #340 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,041
|
Sonofgloin stop pussyfooting
Do you think an aircraft crashed at Shanksville? Do you think an aircraft hit the Pentagon? Are you going to turn out to be another 'No Planer'? |
11th October 2013, 02:15 AM | #341 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
Paranoid much?
In your fantasy world the villagers may be storming your gates with pitchforks and torches. In reality a few people on the internet are ruefully shaking their heads at the dismal weakness of your case. I'm not angry at you. I just can't believe you expect anyone to fall for this tripe.
Quote:
And what do you infer from that? I infer that he is describing a crash site which appears consistent with the events which all the evidence (including radar and flight data recorder) tells us ocurred. |
11th October 2013, 02:55 AM | #342 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th October 2013, 02:58 AM | #343 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th October 2013, 02:59 AM | #344 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th October 2013, 03:01 AM | #345 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th October 2013, 03:28 AM | #346 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th October 2013, 03:35 AM | #347 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th October 2013, 03:37 AM | #348 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
The 24 hard facts have long been debunked. Still, these deja vu threads are entertaining.
|
11th October 2013, 03:51 AM | #349 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
No planer is a no brainer for some, but I will wait until the Pentagon releases any of the multiple angle surveillance video that they have not released to dispel any myths.
God Dafydd you do have a working funny bone, that is the most astute comment to date...thanks pal... I know...it's great.... Re the passengers, not much of them left, you have to wonder...plane hits rock or compacted earth....bodies found each and every time. Shanksville, plane hits soft fill and nothing big enough to put in a body bag and the plane as good as disintegrates.Where is the physics in that? |
11th October 2013, 04:14 AM | #350 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th October 2013, 04:59 AM | #351 | |||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
Mythbusters to the rescue once again.
|
|||
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius |
||||
11th October 2013, 05:13 AM | #352 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Hmmm. Do you mind if I get a second opinion from somebody who actually knows something about airplane crashes? Or, even better, somebody who knows what WAS actually found at the site. Or even BETTER--maybe you could talk to one of the volunteers who scoured the area picking up pieces of bodies and airplane parts?
The reason why I'd like a second opinion is...I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, and it's irritating that you apparently think you do. There. I feel better now. Carry on. |
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
11th October 2013, 06:16 AM | #353 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 549
|
I have to ask this...
So if Jet A doesn't explode at sea level, what altitude do they have to reach before they start the engines at airports like, say, Honolulu? And do they have some sort of giant sling-shot to get them there or something? |
__________________
"Oh that's right, you're an irrational, UNREASONABLE, piece of <radio edit> who hides behind his computer screen and expects action..." - Aldo |
|
11th October 2013, 06:21 AM | #354 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Excuse me, you agree that witness statements are not reliable and then ask me about video taped witness statements!
Incredible!
Quote:
Staying where he cannot be seen, 1300 miles away from where the planes are hitting buildings, in a structure that would be much less identifiable from the air than the large office structures being hit in the NE, IS the safest place to be. No doubt about it. However, let's say you are correct, as inescapably stupid as that is. You are then saying that every member of the Secret Service squad assigned to GWB was in-on-it. They all knew that when something happened on sept11/01 that the President was not to be moved because he would be in no danger. Instead of following your supposed SOP they were to stay in place. WHY? Why would the planners of this supposedly extremly complicated conspiracy not simply allow the Secret Service to follow those SOP? It would remove a dozen or more people from the list of those with knowledge that this was known about in advance, and there would be no questions from persons such as you, as to why the POTUS was not moved. This avenue of JAQing re:9/11/01 is ridiculous. That is why I laugh at you. |
11th October 2013, 06:29 AM | #355 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Well he said 'explode' not burn.
thing is he cites studies that show a pool of it will not 'ignite'. Why he expects it was simply a pool of fuel I do not know. Obviously if one takes a large container of fuel, then tears it apart at 500 MPH, a good quantity of that fuel will be atomized, a bit will actually vapourize. Finding a source of ignition is not hard since as the engines are being torn apart they are a container in which fuel is being burned quite efficiently. |
11th October 2013, 06:33 AM | #356 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
To be fair, he's technically correct. Jet A is not explosive and, in fact, the liquid has a reasonably high ignition temperature - to the point where it is used as a heat sink in some plane designs, as long as the tanks are full of fuel and not fuel vapors (which was the undoing of TWA 800). As previously stated, however, anything that is sufficiently atomized is highly flammable and potentially even explosive. I'd imagine thousands of gallons of Jet A shooting out of a disintegrating fuel tank at close to 500 mph would be sufficiently atomized to generate a very significant fireball.
|
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius |
|
11th October 2013, 06:42 AM | #357 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 549
|
Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. It wasn't an intact pool or tank(s) of fuel. Essentially the floors where the impact happened became a giant ignition chamber.
|
__________________
"Oh that's right, you're an irrational, UNREASONABLE, piece of <radio edit> who hides behind his computer screen and expects action..." - Aldo |
|
11th October 2013, 07:15 AM | #358 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
11th October 2013, 07:47 AM | #359 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
|
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius |
|
11th October 2013, 08:42 AM | #360 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
Those people you quoted about the crash, what else did they say? What do you think happened?
What did the coroner say about the lack of bodies? Don't give my your cherry picked sentence or two either. Tell me everything he said about the lack of bodies. ETA. I note the question mark at the end of the sentence. A question would not be evidence. Show your work young man. Explain why there should have been more human remains. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|