It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.