Why was ground zero so hot for so long?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Something real hot, lots of available fuels- most anything plastic, paper or wood, and not a lot of free oxygen to oxidize materials.
I barbecued one afternoon and had enough coals for that but then a few guys arrived so I chucked some more charcoal on the pit so it would stay hot enough to cook their steaks and stuff. Went to bed around 10 pm; left the coals going to burn out overnight and at noon the next day the pit and lid were still too hot too touch.

edit on 11/18/2010 by abecedarian because: spelling




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Hundreds of thousands of tons of flammable material buried in the remains of the building. Why is that such a mystery? Are you not familiar with fire?


Steele and concrete are not flammable material. Does asbest burn? I think the building was full of it if they did not get rid of it. The wooden desks and few wooden chairs could have burned and the papers maybe too, but thats about it and you would think out of the open being hosed they would get too wet eventually especially the paper.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
911physics.atspace.com...


That may answer your question.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Only took me a few seconds, when looking at that link?

"Phil Jayhan's" name showed up. NOT a good sign.

Then the text about the "suspicious somethings" and the "flashes"...and I already knew it was bunk...

Of course, the photos, and the "pod"?? And, the "flash"?


Well and truly shown to be garbage opinions, based on NOTHING that is factual, and is solely (incorrect and uneducated) speculation.

It is so poor, it would be humorous, if the topic, and the events, weren't such a tragedy.


The details of exactly why Phil Jayhan, for one, and ALL of the other "pod people", and various "theorists" of that sort, are wrong have been detailed over and over again, already in numerous ATS threads.

Here is the short answer (as I said, the details are elsewhere):

NO "pods". It is the paint scheme design, on the bottom of the fuselage, that is being pointed to in some pictures. OTHER "pod" pictures are pointing to the fairings that blend the wing to the fuselage, and account for the landing gear not going all the way into the fuselage, when retracted. (IF it did, it would have to go up through the passenger cabin floor!!)

The "flash" is the cockpit crew oxygen bottle exploding on impact. It is in the EXACT location of the real airplanes. This is also discussed elsewhere. Hey, I happen to have an image in my "ATS Pictures" files, so I can do it here, for easy reference:



That was the "too large for ATS" version, so I re-sized it to the max pixel width, and here's the whole thing, smaller:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, ooops...thought max was 700 pixels, seems it's 600 pixels...so, it's missing 95 from the right side, but little is there anyway, but some hard-to-read text. You can find the same image with a Google search, if you wish......"767 flammable locations", something like that....
edit on 18 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crimelab
My theory is Gravity caused the smoldering. An incredible amount of mass was forced in to an impossibly small area (the rubble pile should have been much higher).

So, this caused a singularity in the middle of the rubble pile which released an incredible amount of heat as it disposed of the evidence.


So what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius for the rubble pile and how does it fit the equation M=Gm/c^2. Does it satisfy the inherent solution term of 1/(2M-r)? Doubtful.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Crimelab
My theory is Gravity caused the smoldering. An incredible amount of mass was forced in to an impossibly small area (the rubble pile should have been much higher).

So, this caused a singularity in the middle of the rubble pile which released an incredible amount of heat as it disposed of the evidence.


So what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius for the rubble pile and how does it fit the equation M=Gm/c^2. Does it satisfy the inherent solution term of 1/(2M-r)? Doubtful.


Pretend for a second that your fellow posters are not as smart as you :p



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


He was pointing out the utter ridiculousness of claiming a "singularity" formed at 'Ground Zero', in NYC, in the rubble pile.

Doesn't take a nuclear physicist, nor even the math, to realize this.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Utter ridiculousness is thinking some smallish fires on the very top of a building, that are clearly extinguished when the building explodes and the dust and annihilation blows any fires apart, no sign of fires anywhere, but of course REAPPEAR underneath all the rubble,

I suppose somehow all of the hottest "weakened" steel found its way to only the BOTTOM of the pile , and therefore ignited other things to burn ferociously at temperatures that could not have been achieved earlier, in the presence of wind, but only in those oxygen starved areas.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Utter ridiculousness is thinking some smallish fires on the very top of a building, that are clearly extinguished when the building explodes and the dust and annihilation blows any fires apart, no sign of fires anywhere, but of course REAPPEAR underneath all the rubble,

I suppose somehow all of the hottest "weakened" steel found its way to only the BOTTOM of the pile , and therefore ignited other things to burn ferociously at temperatures that could not have been achieved earlier, in the presence of wind, but only in those oxygen starved areas.


You mean when the building collapses :p



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Hundreds of thousands of tons of flammable material buried in the remains of the building. Why is that such a mystery? Are you not familiar with fire?


Steele and concrete are not flammable material. Does asbest burn? I think the building was full of it if they did not get rid of it. The wooden desks and few wooden chairs could have burned and the papers maybe too, but thats about it and you would think out of the open being hosed they would get too wet eventually especially the paper.


Wood desk and chairs? Really? Thats all that you can think of in a modern office building? How about 200 acres of carpeting? Plastic? You do realize that plastic burns, right? Not to mention the paper. I don't think you are considering the true scope of those buildings. They EACH had about 200 acres of office space.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Hundreds of thousands of tons of flammable material buried in the remains of the building. Why is that such a mystery? Are you not familiar with fire?


Steele and concrete are not flammable material. Does asbest burn? I think the building was full of it if they did not get rid of it. The wooden desks and few wooden chairs could have burned and the papers maybe too, but thats about it and you would think out of the open being hosed they would get too wet eventually especially the paper.


Wood desk and chairs? Really? Thats all that you can think of in a modern office building? How about 200 acres of carpeting? Plastic? You do realize that plastic burns, right? Not to mention the paper. I don't think you are considering the true scope of those buildings. They EACH had about 200 acres of office space.


Yes I am sure carpet and plastik burned on for over a month to the point red hot steele was still dragged out of the rubble in what resulted the longest structural fire in history.

Seriously though you will understand it is hard for me to believe some dude on a conspiracy board who holds up the NIST report and screams BELIEVE !!!
edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


You may wish to crack open some physics textbooks, or web pages.

Especially ones about latent heat, as in when "work" (physics term for action, something happening, energy being expended) is performed.

Building falling down, very massive building, massive lots of "work" involved there. Gravity is supplying the energy, the mass contributes.

I'll bet even your high school science teacher could explain it. So many people fail to understand many of these concepts, and focus only on the fires that were underway, prior to the collapse itself. THAT heat was also contributing to the overall state of energy expended, and then concentrated, in the rubble pile.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Simple, Magical jet fuel fused through so many floors so fast that the end fused result was jet fuel that was hotter and slower burning in the basement....... or it was thermite in the basement but that is to simple and direct of a responce so I bank on magical fuel.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Crimelab
My theory is Gravity caused the smoldering. An incredible amount of mass was forced in to an impossibly small area (the rubble pile should have been much higher).

So, this caused a singularity in the middle of the rubble pile which released an incredible amount of heat as it disposed of the evidence.


So what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius for the rubble pile and how does it fit the equation M=Gm/c^2. Does it satisfy the inherent solution term of 1/(2M-r)? Doubtful.


Pretend for a second that your fellow posters are not as smart as you :p


When you start talking about a singularity you should try to know what you're talking about. And "smart" is the wrong adjective. I've just been fortunate enough to have the necessary education.
Crimelab had an interesting theory. But it only merits consideration if it is scientifically feasible. And if the rubble doesn't fit in the Schartzschild radius, then the theory fails. No singularity.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nasdack24k
Well let me ask you.. If jet fuel burns hot enough to structurally weaken steel.. Then how are they able to burn it in a jet engine, which burns the fuel at it's most efficient possible air-fuel ratio, IE it's hottest potential.. Why isn't a jet engine structurally compromised every time it is run?



Wow. Are you being serious?

Just in case you are, think *really* hard about what your asking, and then if you still are convinced this is a line of questioning you really want to follow, consider this :

A jet engine is made of a titanium alloy, which is mechanically cooled via air.

You are not even in the ballpark, much less the parking lot, I don't think you've even left the garage.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Crimelab
My theory is Gravity caused the smoldering. An incredible amount of mass was forced in to an impossibly small area (the rubble pile should have been much higher).

So, this caused a singularity in the middle of the rubble pile which released an incredible amount of heat as it disposed of the evidence.


So what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius for the rubble pile and how does it fit the equation M=Gm/c^2. Does it satisfy the inherent solution term of 1/(2M-r)? Doubtful.


Pretend for a second that your fellow posters are not as smart as you :p


When you start talking about a singularity you should try to know what you're talking about. And "smart" is the wrong adjective. I've just been fortunate enough to have the necessary education.
Crimelab had an interesting theory. But it only merits consideration if it is scientifically feasible. And if the rubble doesn't fit in the Schartzschild radius, then the theory fails. No singularity.


Whoa whoa I was just asking for an explanation for all that math.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yea right, lets find some evidence of fires being started because of gravitational energy, or lol "kinetic".

YOU crack open any textbook and find us an example...but i digress, i forgot about the planes.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


You've never heard of kinetic energy turning into heat energy?


Basic physics 101 right there. Something they always leave out from those silly TM websites.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


LOL these are the silliest 9/11 responses i have EVER heard, and that is saying alot...

Care to show just how this heat is "transferred" "created" by the awesome power of gravity ??

Maybe the Flintstones used this to create fire !!

I guess this also caused the beams to be tossed hundreds of feet to the side,, amazing stuff this kinetic energy...

Splintering steel ...heck thats like a welder's gun !!! Imagine the sparks !

Alright enough...the dreamworld of theory that you live in is quite fantastic...too bad it would never work in an experiment.

Thanks for the good laughs guys...still coming up with just enough to make me chuckle.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


You can continue to laugh, and remain ignorant of science, and physics....(and risk having others laugh at YOUR ignorance)>..

,,,or, you can read, study and learn the science and physics. NOT just from event on 9/11, either. Do some research. Don't you remember that energy cannot be "destroyed"? It is always conserved, in one way or another. I forgot, also, to point out the heat of FRICTION< as part of the total overall, in the collapse sequences.

Back to the WTC....here, read:

www.911myths.com...





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join