Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
Dilbert
I'm calling your teacher, you aren't studying... and you really need to!
|
After pointing out my professor’s error, I aced the test.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
I'm not saying my theory is right, i'm saying the others are wrong. But thanks for taking the time to figure out what i'd said.
To recap, what is theoretically possible and what is likely are two different things. When "the real story" requires a whole bunch of improbable but theoretically possible circumstances it's just unlikely.
|
It’s not just theoretically possible, it’s highly likely. Explosives are unlikely, there is to much extra work to get them placed, detonated, and cleaned up. It was shown in the report that under similar conditions, a fire in an office setting, will reach temperatures of 1000 C
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
I don't think it was 1500 F at all. I'm not sure how NIST figures 1832 degrees how did they sample that?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5FDraft.pdf page 39
…Six experiments were performed within the compartment, of which five were simulated because Tests 1 and 2 were replicate tests. Figures 4–6 and 4–7 show pictures of an actual test and a corresponding simulation. Both the heat release rate and the compartment temperatures were compared. Figure 4–8 displays comparison plots of measured and predicted heat release rates. Figure 4–9 displays the upper layer temperature for Test 1 at four locations (clockwise from upper left: near window, between workstations, behind workstations, rear wall). The measured and predicted temperatures for all the tests were similar to those shown in Fig. 4–9. Peak temperatures near the compartment opening were about 1,000 °C, decreasing to 800 °C at the very back of the compartment. The trend was captured in the simulations. The decrease in temperature was important because in the simulations of the WTC fires, the only basis of comparison was the visual observations of fires around the exterior of the buildings. It was important to demonstrate that the model not only predicted accurately the temperature near the windows, but also the decrease in temperature as a function of distance from the windows. The temperature predictions for the other tests were similar and are included in NIST NCSTAR 1-5E….
|
They know the temperatures reached 1000C because they ran test to simulate the conditions, both physically and through computer simulations, both came up with a high bound of 1000C. Instead of saying ‘I don’t know so they musty be lying about it’ try doing some real research finding how they knew it
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
If you think a jet fuel fire does those sorts of things you are welcome to your opinion, i am very well versed in heating , bending and cutting steel, i did that for several hours today alone. I'd still be there trying at Christmas if i was using jet fuel... or drapes, or desks or carpet. Face it, you are afraid of fire, it's magic to you and does magical things. Fire is a useful tool to me.
|
Ignoring the personal attacks…
I am hardly afraid of fire, I make more crème Brule in a year then you make in 10 lifetimes, and you know how I top them, with a propane blow torch. Propane burns at nearly 3000 F, how can I take a 3000F flame to a delicate sugary treat with out burning it? by turning the flame down and slowly moving the flame around the dish so no spot gets direct heat for to long, you see, the flame is 3000F but the flame does not instantly heat the sugar to 3000F, there’s a huge mathematical equation to calculate how much heat is actually transferred to it. The flame is on low, so it is not producing much heat, but its still 3000F. It slowly raises the temp of the sugar until it melts. If I was to have the flame on to high, the heat transfer would be too great and the sugar would burn before I could remove the flame. Why does this matter? I am trying to illustrate in terms you can understand what the difference between heat and temperature is. Although with quotes like this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
I don't think anybody had to endure 1500 degree temperatures. Fire is just not that hot. Ever been near a wood stove, a campfire or a candle? You can stand just inches away from either and not burn up... why is that?
|
I’m not sure why I even bother, you just don’t get it.
To you, fire is a tool, I’m sure you use it, but you don’t understand it, your views on fire come from personal observations, not from scientific research, I’m sure if we were both given a blow torch and told to cut some steel, you’d be done before I even got mine lit, however, if we were asked us to both to explain it in scientific detail, how fire cuts steel, you’d be left floundering after saying ‘very well’.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
By the way, where's this "Fatsom" coming from...i don't weigh THAT much!  |
It’s a conspiracy to discredit you; we all know fat people lie to get more free samples at the piggly wiggly.