R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged  (Read 8510 times)

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #105 on: September 20, 2007, 01:18:40 pm »

convection makes heat travel upwards in all fires.

conduction across metal..

radiation from the fire itself and heated elements.

cement inhibits radiation.

ask any firefighter if the top of a fire is hotter than the bottom.

heat travels upwards..

otherwise you'd put the pot UNDERNEATH the fire..
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #106 on: September 20, 2007, 01:33:50 pm »

Well done, Max!

you've grasped that When air has a free, unrestricted path convection heat rises.

Now we've just got to get your mind to comprehend a few other basic fundamentals.

...Oh, and that there was no free, unrestricted path of airflow within the building... there was a crippled building in the way.

-but you're getting there... perhaps.

Convection through a solid? -Um... No.

Convection as the dominant heat dissemination? -Ummmmmm.... No.

RADIATED heat doesn't just travel upwards: otherwise the bottom of a patio grill would be cold.

CONDUCTED heat doesn't just rise, otherwise the metal shaft of my Soldering iron would serve as a useful handle, providing I kept the element and tip upright.

No. CONVECTED heat is the heat which is carried by warmed gases. Warming gases expand, and thus rise, carrying their latent absorbed heat with them. If that were the only source of heat transfer, the floors below would be stone cold... but it ISN'T.

Try and grasp that instead of over-simplifying with statements like: "heat travels upwards.. otherwise you'd put the pot UNDERNEATH the fire.. "

Radiated heat travels downwards just as well as upwards. -and sideways too! Above a fire, a pot will boil quicker, becasue of the addition of convected gases contacting the pot... but conduction and radiation are ignorant of direction... and if you obstruct or redirect the rising gases, you diminish the convective effects.

Deny that if you like, and proclaim yourself a bigger fool!

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #107 on: September 20, 2007, 01:36:19 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 18:18

convection makes heat travel upwards in all fires.

conduction across metal..

radiation from the fire itself and heated elements.

cement inhibits radiation.

ask any firefighter if the top of a fire is hotter than the bottom.

heat travels upwards..

otherwise you'd put the pot UNDERNEATH the fire..



We're talking specifically about the temperature of a piece of metal which passes through the fire, and not the temperature of the air. You made a claim that below the fire it would be at room temperature, this is patently false

Your reference to where the pot is placed in this context just proves how little thought you actually put into things.
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #108 on: September 20, 2007, 01:40:00 pm »

A fire in a closed room will be much more intense near the ceiling than the floor.

the flame is more intense in the upper part of the room because of air convection

the heat generated by radiation as well as through conduction from the heated air to the solids is significantly higher in the highest parts of the room/space.

Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #109 on: September 20, 2007, 01:42:38 pm »

maxdimario wrote

the heat generated by radiation as well as through conduction from the heated air to the solids is significantly higher in the highest parts of the room/space.

Free path of air, Max... free path of air.

Go on... -almost there...

maxdimario wrote

the flame is more intense in the upper part of the room because of air convection

the flame only rises in the first place because of the convective nature of heated gas, but "flame is more intense in the upper part of the room" as a statement in and of itself is untrue.

...the HEAT is more intense... but that's because of the convective component adding to the others... Yes, we know that.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #110 on: September 20, 2007, 01:47:27 pm »

keith there is a free path of air inside the cavity.

the fire is in the cavity...

the hottest part of the fire is at the top of the cavity because of convection..

if you've ever seen a fire burning inside a room the bright flame is towards the top.

you are confusing the SPREAD of fire through convection through open spaces in the ceiling.. in this case the fire spreads as well as heated air through convection

they are two related fenomena but not the same thing
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #111 on: September 20, 2007, 01:51:35 pm »

anyway to stop the endless bickering on minutiae related to convection you need to consider the much more significant issue:

no matter how hot the affected area of the building, the high temperatures could not have been transmitted through the steel structure for more than a few floors..

the building had HUNDREDS of floors..

...continue.. Rolling Eyes
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #112 on: September 20, 2007, 01:52:42 pm »

No Max, I'm not.

There are Solid floors between the storeys of the building. The building was NOT a single container, it is internally  horizontally baffkled by floors every ten feet. The floor 'baffles' contain breeches where there are elevator shafts, staircases etc, but these have doors which remained mostly closed.

How can a fire on the 80-85th floors make it hotter on the 100th floor? -Convection? -So how exactly is the gas getting there? -There will be a TINY effect from the stuff outside the building, but it will be UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY DWARFED by the conducted heat through the steel structure.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #113 on: September 20, 2007, 01:56:11 pm »

minutiae???!!!!!

YOU raised it to support your poorly-formed 'comprehension'.

Fine. Drop it. Moving on.

Max, it must be fantastic in your world... I don't blame you for spending so much time there, ...but don't be a stranger; Please drop by and see how the rest of us are doing here in reality.

-But we appreciate the postcards!

Very Happy
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #114 on: September 20, 2007, 02:04:49 pm »

yes, of course keith.

BTW, I know you are but what am I? Laughing
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #115 on: September 20, 2007, 02:04:51 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 18:51

anyway to stop the endless bickering on minutiae related to convection you need to consider the much more significant issue:

no matter how hot the affected area of the building, the high temperatures could not have been transmitted through the steel structure for more than a few floors..

the building had HUNDREDS of floors..

...continue.. Rolling Eyes


And??

The effects of heat are only considered in working out the initiation of the collapse. After that the only thing that is required is gravity... you know the gravity that resulted in a quarter kiloton of TNT's worth of kinetic energy per tower?
Logged

Andy Peters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1124
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #116 on: September 20, 2007, 07:33:34 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 11:04

yes, of course keith.

BTW, I know you are but what am I? Laughing


You are someone who needs to learn how to use the QUOTE button to reply ...

-a
Logged
"On the Internet, nobody can hear you mix a band."

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #117 on: September 20, 2007, 10:00:40 pm »

maxdimario wrote

I know you are but what am I?

Either "splendid entertainment", or "a drain on the educational ability resources of this forum"...

I'm not quite sure which trumps the other.

...but I'll give it some thought.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #118 on: September 22, 2007, 09:05:40 am »

I think the "big picture" point of view would help here a lot. 9/11 is only ONE example of a number of "accidents" and cases in the american history since 1945.
The big questions is why it won´t change anything to discuss falling floors and why it doesn´t make any difference to the relatives of the victims...
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up