You cannot argue against this
-
HobbyProggy wrote:
Nathan did that already
I meant in a more generic way, not in the one specific point. I've never seen anyone prove that the earth is not flat. Just curious if anyone can do that.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
yes.
-
Obviously the world is flat because jet fuel can't melt steel beams. Duh.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but there is more than one way of looking at that. First assumption: we're talking about 9/11 and the World Trade Center attack Second assumption: structural steel melting point - 1130 degrees centigrade If you use the adiabatic flame temperature[^] of kerosene (jet fuel), it is very much hot enough to melt structural steel at 2093 degrees centigrade. The problem with using adiabatic temperatures is that it measures a closed system where no energy is lost to the environment. According to this article[^], which appears to be a reputable source, a pool-fire using gas burners reached a maximum temperature around 900 degrees centigrade at the base of the flame. Assuming that the experiment was performed using any flammable hydrocarbon, the fuel would have burn characteristics very close to jet fuel. With this evidence, it is possible to make the assumption that, in any open-air environment, jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt structural steel. I will not refute that high temperatures associated with an open jet fuel fire could cause the steel to weaken and eventually buckle. In my humble opinion, the whole conspiracy is about why the towers collapsed the way they did. I always found it strange that the whole towers just fell apart. It would be far more plausible that when the structural supports gave out, the top of the building would have fallen about 10 feet and would be either stopped by the rest of the building or would have slid off the remaining structure to the ground below. To me, the top 20 or so floors did not have the mass potential to do the damage they did when they fell. To wrap up, it is more likely that either the architecture was shoddy, the building materials were substandard, or it had help. I guess the ramifications from any one of those three was worse then just blaming it on fire.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but there is more than one way of looking at that. First assumption: we're talking about 9/11 and the World Trade Center attack Second assumption: structural steel melting point - 1130 degrees centigrade If you use the adiabatic flame temperature[^] of kerosene (jet fuel), it is very much hot enough to melt structural steel at 2093 degrees centigrade. The problem with using adiabatic temperatures is that it measures a closed system where no energy is lost to the environment. According to this article[^], which appears to be a reputable source, a pool-fire using gas burners reached a maximum temperature around 900 degrees centigrade at the base of the flame. Assuming that the experiment was performed using any flammable hydrocarbon, the fuel would have burn characteristics very close to jet fuel. With this evidence, it is possible to make the assumption that, in any open-air environment, jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt structural steel. I will not refute that high temperatures associated with an open jet fuel fire could cause the steel to weaken and eventually buckle. In my humble opinion, the whole conspiracy is about why the towers collapsed the way they did. I always found it strange that the whole towers just fell apart. It would be far more plausible that when the structural supports gave out, the top of the building would have fallen about 10 feet and would be either stopped by the rest of the building or would have slid off the remaining structure to the ground below. To me, the top 20 or so floors did not have the mass potential to do the damage they did when they fell. To wrap up, it is more likely that either the architecture was shoddy, the building materials were substandard, or it had help. I guess the ramifications from any one of those three was worse then just blaming it on fire.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
I know: it's a meme used by conspiracy theorists to insist that the Twin Towers was an inside job, rather than an attack. It's stupid: the "burning point" of anything is the minimum temperature at which it burns; any fire can be taken above that by providing enough oxygen. Otherwise we couldn't melt iron with any fire we could actually light... But nobody said conspiracy theorists were clever! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I know: it's a meme used by conspiracy theorists to insist that the Twin Towers was an inside job, rather than an attack. It's stupid: the "burning point" of anything is the minimum temperature at which it burns; any fire can be taken above that by providing enough oxygen. Otherwise we couldn't melt iron with any fire we could actually light... But nobody said conspiracy theorists were clever! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
I don't think that it was an inside job. That would mean that the U.S. government was clever enough to pull it off and our government gives no such indication of being clever or organized enough to do it. Yes, with enough oxygen fire will get hot enough to melt iron but smelting requires that air be injected into the combustion area to reach those temperatures. Even blacksmiths use bellows. Steel forging requires a blast furnace. The fires in the towers were naturally aspirated. Even if you take into account the building's own ventilation systems feeding the fire, it is too much of stretch for me to say they got hot enough to melt structural steel. Weaken it, yes, melt it, no.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but there is more than one way of looking at that. First assumption: we're talking about 9/11 and the World Trade Center attack Second assumption: structural steel melting point - 1130 degrees centigrade If you use the adiabatic flame temperature[^] of kerosene (jet fuel), it is very much hot enough to melt structural steel at 2093 degrees centigrade. The problem with using adiabatic temperatures is that it measures a closed system where no energy is lost to the environment. According to this article[^], which appears to be a reputable source, a pool-fire using gas burners reached a maximum temperature around 900 degrees centigrade at the base of the flame. Assuming that the experiment was performed using any flammable hydrocarbon, the fuel would have burn characteristics very close to jet fuel. With this evidence, it is possible to make the assumption that, in any open-air environment, jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt structural steel. I will not refute that high temperatures associated with an open jet fuel fire could cause the steel to weaken and eventually buckle. In my humble opinion, the whole conspiracy is about why the towers collapsed the way they did. I always found it strange that the whole towers just fell apart. It would be far more plausible that when the structural supports gave out, the top of the building would have fallen about 10 feet and would be either stopped by the rest of the building or would have slid off the remaining structure to the ground below. To me, the top 20 or so floors did not have the mass potential to do the damage they did when they fell. To wrap up, it is more likely that either the architecture was shoddy, the building materials were substandard, or it had help. I guess the ramifications from any one of those three was worse then just blaming it on fire.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Besides what Griff already wrote. Concrete decomposes at around 300 degrees Celcius. Steel beams don't need to melt, they only need to go soft, which happens above 550 degrees Celcius. Any fire will achieve those temperatures, what else is needed is enough fuel and time. And there was plenty of both.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Absolutely, but one of the core tenants of TFES is that gravity does not exist, as it would be highly inconvenient to them. Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
\they drag you down to their level.
you mean, like gravity? ;P
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something." -Ornette Coleman "Philosophy is a study that lets us be unhappy more intelligently." -Anon.
-
I know: it's a meme used by conspiracy theorists to insist that the Twin Towers was an inside job, rather than an attack. It's stupid: the "burning point" of anything is the minimum temperature at which it burns; any fire can be taken above that by providing enough oxygen. Otherwise we couldn't melt iron with any fire we could actually light... But nobody said conspiracy theorists were clever! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
any fire can be taken above that by providing enough oxygen
Let's take wood as a fuel. If you provide more oxygen, it will become hotter and the fuel will burn away quicker. You need a lot of furniture if you're going to melt steel. In most houses where there has been a fire, hoarder or not, the thinner iron pipes did not melt.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I know: it's a meme used by conspiracy theorists to insist that the Twin Towers was an inside job, rather than an attack.
Given the American history that is the most likely option, yes. Lots of inconsistencies in the news, no decent investigation, lots of rumors. But ofcourse, the government would never lie to you, now would they? :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Besides what Griff already wrote. Concrete decomposes at around 300 degrees Celcius. Steel beams don't need to melt, they only need to go soft, which happens above 550 degrees Celcius. Any fire will achieve those temperatures, what else is needed is enough fuel and time. And there was plenty of both.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Concrete decomposes at around 300 degrees Celcius.
Concrete degradation - Wikipedia[^]
Quote:
Concrete exposed to up to 100 °C is normally considered as healthy. The parts of a concrete structure that is exposed to temperatures above approximately 300 °C (dependent of water/cement ratio) will most likely get a pink color. Over approximately 600 °C the concrete will turn light grey, and over approximately 1000 °C it turns yellow-brown.[16] One rule of thumb is to consider all pink colored concrete as damaged that should be removed.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Do TFES believe in momentum?
Clearly not or else we'd fall off the side of the earth.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Can you prove that it exists?
Just as easily I can prove you exist. :laugh:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
No, they do. Their answer to why we don't fall off is that the earth is constantly accelerating at a rate of 33 feet per second per second in the direction of the sky, so that inertial force keeps us "stuck" to the Earth. Yes, that's perpetual acceleration, all the time, and they even try to use Relativity to explain how it's possible. See, according to flat earthers, the speed of light is relative...to you as an individual. Not making this up. I spent a day reading their stuff once for a laugh. I ended up crying.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
No, they do. Their answer to why we don't fall off is that the earth is constantly accelerating at a rate of 33 feet per second per second in the direction of the sky, so that inertial force keeps us "stuck" to the Earth. Yes, that's perpetual acceleration, all the time, and they even try to use Relativity to explain how it's possible. See, according to flat earthers, the speed of light is relative...to you as an individual. Not making this up. I spent a day reading their stuff once for a laugh. I ended up crying.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
I spent a day reading their stuff
I see. My condolences. :sigh:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Absolutely, but one of the core tenants of TFES is that gravity does not exist, as it would be highly inconvenient to them. Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you due to bigger experience.
FTFY
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
In other news, the UN General Assembly just voted 190 to 3 to declare that the Earth is a cube with a tassel on each corner. Debate about the shape of the tassels is ongoing.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Flat out denying these things
Where did I do that? I simply asked if anyone here can prove the earth is not flat. So far several have responded but not one has done it. Personally, I believe the earth is round but for each "proof" you have given the flat earth people have an explanation. Not saying they are true or even defending them but you have to admit that the perceived height of a distant object or the length of shadows is not proof but a good theory. Anyway, y'all seem to be taking this too serious.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
is going to get you labelled a troll.
Oh boo hoo. Someone on the internet misunderstood the reason for my question and now doesn't like me. What shall I ever do? :rolleyes:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
GobblesGobbles wrote:
Not saying they are true or even defending them but you have to admit that the perceived height of a distant object or the length of shadows is not proof but a good theory
That however is how all non-theoretical science works. But matter of fact theoretical science has problems as well. For instance modern geometry (pure math) proves that the the sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees in Euclidean space. But that ONLY works if one assumes that parallel lines never intersect (in Euclidean space.) If one insists that one must prove that assumption and refuse to accept the prior proof without parallel lines then it falls apart. In modern practical science one starts with the theory and then looks for discrepancies that would disprove the theory itself. In one example that I know of the flat earthers did an incorrect measurement (object over the horizon gets lower) and thus concluded that it was not round. And refused to accept that the measurement was wrong. Now they claim that the photos from space are fake, which is not a descrepency but rather a rejection of evidence and that is not how science works.
-
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but there is more than one way of looking at that. First assumption: we're talking about 9/11 and the World Trade Center attack Second assumption: structural steel melting point - 1130 degrees centigrade If you use the adiabatic flame temperature[^] of kerosene (jet fuel), it is very much hot enough to melt structural steel at 2093 degrees centigrade. The problem with using adiabatic temperatures is that it measures a closed system where no energy is lost to the environment. According to this article[^], which appears to be a reputable source, a pool-fire using gas burners reached a maximum temperature around 900 degrees centigrade at the base of the flame. Assuming that the experiment was performed using any flammable hydrocarbon, the fuel would have burn characteristics very close to jet fuel. With this evidence, it is possible to make the assumption that, in any open-air environment, jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt structural steel. I will not refute that high temperatures associated with an open jet fuel fire could cause the steel to weaken and eventually buckle. In my humble opinion, the whole conspiracy is about why the towers collapsed the way they did. I always found it strange that the whole towers just fell apart. It would be far more plausible that when the structural supports gave out, the top of the building would have fallen about 10 feet and would be either stopped by the rest of the building or would have slid off the remaining structure to the ground below. To me, the top 20 or so floors did not have the mass potential to do the damage they did when they fell. To wrap up, it is more likely that either the architecture was shoddy, the building materials were substandard, or it had help. I guess the ramifications from any one of those three was worse then just blaming it on fire.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
it is more likely that either the architecture was shoddy, the building materials were substandard, or it had help. I guess the ramifications from any one of those three was worse then just blaming it on fire.
Your presumption however is full of assumptions itself which lead to a conclusion. For starters what exactly is "shoddy"? Should every building ever built be built to withstand two 747s hitting it dead on? What about 4 of them? Or 8? Should every building also be built to withstand a magnitude 10 earthquake? 11? And then there is the assumption that it wasn't sound in the first place. What if every building was built to withstand a magnitude 8 40 years ago but now the standard is 11, so then should every old building be evacuated until new buildings up to the new code be built? And how does one determine if the building is up to code in the first place? If 40 years ago the test for a magnitude 8 building worked for those buildings but now there is a new way to test it should all of the old buildings be torn down and rebuilt? Not to mention how can we be sure that the building can withstand those 8 planes in the first place. What if we fly 8 planes at the north wall and it holds up, should we then presume the south wall will hold as well? What about a corner? What about flying them at a 30 degree angle to one wall? Complexity alone guarantees that the vast number of possible eventualities cannot be accounted for and most definitely cannot be afforded. And the post analyses are nothing but conjectures but the conspiracy alternatives require a vast network of assumptions which are not supported by evidence or even the nature of humans.
-
I don't think that it was an inside job. That would mean that the U.S. government was clever enough to pull it off and our government gives no such indication of being clever or organized enough to do it. Yes, with enough oxygen fire will get hot enough to melt iron but smelting requires that air be injected into the combustion area to reach those temperatures. Even blacksmiths use bellows. Steel forging requires a blast furnace. The fires in the towers were naturally aspirated. Even if you take into account the building's own ventilation systems feeding the fire, it is too much of stretch for me to say they got hot enough to melt structural steel. Weaken it, yes, melt it, no.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
Yes, with enough oxygen fire will get hot enough to melt iron but smelting requires that air be injected
Your conjecture about what happened and how it happened (both) are incorrect. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center[^]
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
any fire can be taken above that by providing enough oxygen
Let's take wood as a fuel. If you provide more oxygen, it will become hotter and the fuel will burn away quicker. You need a lot of furniture if you're going to melt steel. In most houses where there has been a fire, hoarder or not, the thinner iron pipes did not melt.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I know: it's a meme used by conspiracy theorists to insist that the Twin Towers was an inside job, rather than an attack.
Given the American history that is the most likely option, yes. Lots of inconsistencies in the news, no decent investigation, lots of rumors. But ofcourse, the government would never lie to you, now would they? :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
In most houses where there has been a fire, hoarder or not, the thinner iron pipes did not melt.
Not sure what you are getting at but the theory of the collapse is not about "melting" but rather about "failing" which is different. The fire in the WTC was hot enough to damage the structure integrity of the building in a number of ways. Once a threshold was reached the structure failed. And the building came down.
-
Simplest Irrefutable Flat Earth Proof - YouTube[^] THE BEST FLAT EARTH PROOF OF ALL 2017 - YouTube[^] - Take the bet! :laugh:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
it is true, as a person living in Australia I can confirm that we do live upside down here! Ameizing! :omg:
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Debate about the shape of the tassels is ongoing.
Do the tassels hang 'down'?
Of course. :) (For a suitable definition of 'down')
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
In most houses where there has been a fire, hoarder or not, the thinner iron pipes did not melt.
Not sure what you are getting at but the theory of the collapse is not about "melting" but rather about "failing" which is different. The fire in the WTC was hot enough to damage the structure integrity of the building in a number of ways. Once a threshold was reached the structure failed. And the building came down.
jschell wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at but the theory of the collapse is not about "melting" but rather about "failing" which is different.
OG was talking about melting.
jschell wrote:
And the building came down.
More buildings came down then there were planes, was it not?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
