Warrior General Games

Paul Harvey's 1965 Radio Warning to America - "If I were the Devil.."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSC21kRGseM

Originally posted by seths99
you're not getting it...he IS an electrical engineer. AND he took a few physics classes. So he IS the definitive expert here

AND he posted a page of high school chemistry that you teach your students

which, i'll go ahead and add, was just a whole bunch of copypasta

Originally posted by mat5592
which, i'll go ahead and add, was just a whole bunch of copypasta

You are an idiot.

Originally posted by wormser1971
You believe that the planes that hit the towers cut core columns in half with their wings, yet the reinforced concrete came away without a mark. It went through steel core columns like a hot knife through butter, but the reinforcement for concrete made the pentagon immune to damage.

Seek help

I like how the plane circles around the Pentagon, lines up on a perfect decent straight into the Pentagon's financial records center which was investigating the 2.3 trillion dollar's that went missing at the Pentagon. Who was the guy in charge of the finances when the money was stolen? Zionist Jew, Dov Zakheim. Who also had close connections to the "military industrial complex" with his CEO status over at System Planning Corp, which just so happens to deal with remote controlled aircraft. The same Zakheim who co-penned "Rebuilding America's Defenses", a white paper produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC} where it states that America needed a "a catalyzing event, a new Pearl Harbor" to begin expanding into the middle east (and crushing Israel's enemies).



What a coincidence.

Lets ignore all the pilots who have come forth to say that what that plane did was impossible for an inexperienced pilot, as we all know were incapable of flying single engine training planes... yet could pull off an extremely sophisticated approach to strike exactly where it needed to...

Magically one of the most heavily defended air spaces in the United States was penetrated by a lumbering aircraft that actually circles the target and takes its sweet time on to the target.

How come no one mentions the 2.3 trillion stolen from the Pentagon as was reported by Donald Rumsfeld the day before the attacks?

Why was nothing mentioned about the money afterwards? Oh ya... because Israel's former PM came on TV declaring it was Osama bin Laden that did 9/11, well before any sort of investigation had begun.

All magic. Those who believe the official story live in absolute fucking fantasy land.


lol

Originally posted by Gart888
Originally posted by Gnosis

The Jews did it!



Zionist Israeli's, some of which may or may not be "Jewish" and most definitely elements of the CIA and the Bush/Cheney political / military industrial connections were the architects and engineers of 9/11.

As far as "The Jews did it", I suppose that depends on your definition of a Jew.

Because there are some whom claim to be Jews by birth, even though they are not a semites and do not practice the Judaic faith one iota.

Zionist Israeli dual nationals... more commonly referred to in the U.S. as "neo-cons". Most of them happen to be Jewish and most of them happened to hold both U.S. and Israeli citizenship. They were prominent figures throughout the Bush administration, in key positions everywhere from the Defense Sec, Pentagon, Justice Department, etc etc.

Do some research on the Project for the New American Century. Study the list of people whom signed that document, then research and follow each of their careers.

Originally posted by Gnosis
You are an idiot.





I'm an idiot for pointing out he copy and pasted his whole post?

Okay.

Seems he, much like you, can't formulate his own thoughts.

Originally posted by mat5592
I'm an idiot for pointing out he copy and pasted his whole post?

Okay.

Seems he, much like you, can't formulate his own thoughts.


which one? I did copy several of my posts. I cited sources. Your biggest problem... You lack knowledge of this topic. You can only make ridiculous statements. Sadly, ours are, in fact, independent thought. You, however are saying things that are not correct.

Originally posted by baumusc
You are comparing two completely different types of collisions into two completely different types of buildings. Listen to the material and structural engineering experts.

Right... as you pointed out, the plane liquified! That's why it left no marks on concrete. Planes liquify all of the time, right before they hit the pentagon, especially!

Originally posted by baumusc
This isn't true. You are taking dimensions of a 757 that is on the ground with its landing gear down. The 757 that hit the Pentagon clipped the ground and crashed into the Pentagon afterwards. Once again do you think if this were a vast US government and military conspiracy would they have ever released the video of the crashing jet that hit the building?

"Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage."

Great explanation of why there were no marks on concrete from wings traveling at extremely high speed. They turned to liquid. And his explanation for that... none

Originally posted by wormser1971
which one? I did copy several of my posts. I cited sources.

Originally posted by wormser1971
Are you ready? Here it is for you ignorant uneducated people unwilling to believe science... Debate this

*
pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.



We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.



lol

seriously dude, stop trolling

let's see how many times wormser can say he did or didn't do something only to be proven wrong by his very own posts in the same exact thread. you're either incredibly stupid or just trolling, i'll let you decide.

Originally posted by wormser1971
NIST’s collapse initiation argument. The report states that “The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” Considering that NIST depends so heavily on the concept of extensive fireproofing loss, you would think it would have spent a great deal of its time investigating this effect and communicating the details. That was not the case, however.

NIST’s only test for fireproofing loss, never included in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box. Flat steel plates were used instead of column samples and no floor deck samples were tested at all. After criticism of the lack of testing provided in its draft report, NIST inserted the results into a 12-page appendix to the final report.

These shotgun tests actually disproved NIST’s findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. It is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically along the path of the impacting airliner. Moreover, there is no indication that fireproofing could have been stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of its explanation, NIST depends on this.

hahahaha, wow, i pick a random post of his and, surprise, it's not only copypasta, but he didn't source it, either!

Originally posted by Gnosis
I like how the plane circles around the Pentagon, lines up on a perfect decent straight into the Pentagon's financial records center which was investigating the 2.3 trillion dollar's that went missing at the Pentagon. Who was the guy in charge of the finances when the money was stolen? Zionist Jew, Dov Zakheim. Who also had close connections to the "military industrial complex" with his CEO status over at System Planning Corp, which just so happens to deal with remote controlled aircraft. The same Zakheim who co-penned "Rebuilding America's Defenses", a white paper produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC} where it states that America needed a "a catalyzing event, a new Pearl Harbor" to begin expanding into the middle east (and crushing Israel's enemies).



What a coincidence.

Lets ignore all the pilots who have come forth to say that what that plane did was impossible for an inexperienced pilot, as we all know were incapable of flying single engine training planes... yet could pull off an extremely sophisticated approach to strike exactly where it needed to...

Magically one of the most heavily defended air spaces in the United States was penetrated by a lumbering aircraft that actually circles the target and takes its sweet time on to the target.

How come no one mentions the 2.3 trillion stolen from the Pentagon as was reported by Donald Rumsfeld the day before the attacks?

Why was nothing mentioned about the money afterwards? Oh ya... because Israel's former PM came on TV declaring it was Osama bin Laden that did 9/11, well before any sort of investigation had begun.

All magic. Those who believe the official story live in absolute fucking fantasy land.


lol


So Donald Rumsfeld must not have been on it otherwise he wouldn't have announced the $2.3 trillion missing.

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

The $2.3 trillion in waste didn't occur under the Bush administration yet you are trying to claim the GWB and Rumsfeld would try to cover up something that had happened while Clinton was in office and that they would do it by bringing attention to the fact that the $2.3 trillion was missing? C'mon man. Why would they bring attention to it and then cover it up rather than just cover it up? Think for a bit here.