insane_alien

if the liquid thats 'burning'(its actualy the vapour just above the liquid) has a boiling point around room temperature or even around 60*C like methanol then it won't burn you. it wil be warm or hot but not intolerably so.

i'm sorry, i meant scientific sources. not a conspiracy site.

by whom was popular mechanics debunked? and where?

no, i'm not suggesting that the corriders weren't scorched i'm saying that they would only have been able to get water to the edge of the fire not at the hottest bit where it was doing the most damage.

well, i meant the spent fuel is radioactive. and the radioactive parts of the reactor decay a lot faster than the spent fuel coming out a fission reactor. also, there are some reactions that don't produce neutrons(though we'll need a lot more advanced technology to handle the temperatures. so a few years with the neutron producing reactions will be inevitable.)

but they did offer resistance. if the offered zero resistance then the towers would have collapsed at free fall acceleration. the towers accelerate slower than this. hence, there was resistance. even ignoring that, having 500,000 tonnes of rubble land on something isn't going to leave it in pristine condition. this is invalid for 2 reasons. 1/ steel used for cooking utensils is not the same kind of steel used for construction 2/ the flame was not as hot as it got in the towers. if it was then the wok would be glowing red. 3/ the food in the wok would act as a heatsink 4/ if the hob provided the same flux of heat as the tower fire then your dinner would be charcoal not very weak it wouldn't have dropped off significantly. the temperature of the fire was a lot hotter than that though. also, the firefighters would not have actually been standing in the fire. they would have been a distance away where the temperatures are cooler.

i've addressed this. go read the thread again.

yes it mainly stood and no it didn't collapse at freefall speeds. but it was a completely different scenario. the buildings were constructed differently and different types of steel were used during construction. and the fire was of a whole different type (this didn't have a jet plane smack into it and rip the fireproofing off.) all steel buildings have fire proofing. this is not designed to keep the building standing but to give it a set amount of time (usually in hours) for it to be extinguished and to evacuate. most fires will burn out or be extinguished within this time. in the WTC this was compromised by the ferocity of the kerosene fire and the massive impacts. thats why they fell so soon. since the main supporting structure was in the core of the building, not a usual configuration) the external structure plummeted as it was relatively weak. just like the body of a car cannot take the load. as for WTC7 it sustained massive damage on a lower corner(it was completely gone for eight stories) and it was on fire. now, all it took was for some supports near that corner to weaken slightly the other supports away from the damage would have to take the load putting a lot of stress and strain on the structure. when the collapse started in the corner the rest of the structure just let go.

ahh you climbed in the engines did you? past the turbine or compressor(depending on point of entry) right into the combustion chamber eh? i always do that on my flights... as for the steel in the engines not melting, well, the steel parts are located in places where the temperature never gets high enough for it to melt. the outlet is a high temperature steel-titanium alloy. basically, the steel in jet engines is NOT the type of steel used to make buildings. if you used structural steel in a jet engine, the engine wouldn't run for very long. without protection, 120*C would be unbearable with protection then you could probably tolerate up to around 250-300*C for a short period of time. no we don't it only needed to weaken a few struts and it would pancake. buildings are mostly empty space and the shock of a hundered thousand tonnes of steel falling on top of it would void any structural integrity. this would result in a near(but still slower) freefall speed which is what was observed. the steel wouldn't even have to melt. just lose enough strength for 1 floor to collapse. well, no other steel structures have went through such extreme circumstances as the 3 WTC buildings either. and steel structures have collapsed or partially collapsed due to fires. there was a bridge that collapsed when a fuel truck crashed and burned on it. and there was a hotel in spain that lost some of its floors when it went on fire. also, the twin towers had a pretty unique design. it cannot be compared with buildings of a more conventional construction and scale. answered we have been asked all these questions before and then some more that you probably haven't heard your self. also conspiracy sites are not an unbiased and technically accurate resource. i'll trust my knowledge of chemistry and basic structural mechanics that i gained from studying the subjects through my course at university.

ahh that one is a classic. i looked a bit of an idiot for believing that one when i was in 2nd year of secondary school.

nuclear fusion is superior because it pumps out more energy per kilogram of fuel used. it is also NOT as hazardous as a fission reactor as there are little to no radioactive materials involved and there is only a few minutes worth of fuel in the reactor at any one time. if it loses power it shuts down very quickly by itself. its the control part that is why we don't have fusion yet. we do not have an adequate containment system. we can keep a fusion reactor going for a few seconds but after that the plasma loses stability and can damage the reactor. once we have proper confienment technology then it will be perfectly safe.

Rofl

well safari for windows is still a beta. this is what betas are for. to find bugs and vulnerabilities. you can't really blame it unless its the finished product.

mixing terms here. observer does not mean 'a person' or 'a conciousness' what it means here is an interaction.

encrypted ssh tunnel would work. unless they block all encrypted traffic that is.

google knoppix. that crams as much as possible(and then some) onto a CD or DVD. quite amazing what you can find on one of those.

if there is a centre to the universe, where is it. i'd like you to point in the direction of the centre of the universe and show me the black hole there. i'll even help you out. from our perspective based on where we are in the universe, it appears that we are at the centre. it would appear this way from anywhere in the universe. and what does a pretty pattern have to do with anything? i can arrange most things to make an appealing pattern but it won't necessarily mean anything

okay, now that i have calmed down slightly(not sure how i restrained my self so well on the last post.) tree99 i don't claim to be a structural engineer but even ignoring thecomments on the engineering (both his and mine) the fact remains that he ignored possibilites and didn't cover the full range of variables. for a paper claiming to apply the scientific principle it breaks this regularly. now, if you'll kindly read my analysis and form a reply. preferably a bit more in depth than a snide 'very amusing'

okay, i'll rephrase. draw a 4D diagram on a 2-D surface in a away that doesn't make the mind explode and implode simultaneously while whistling the tune to spiderman

i went to all that work and all you can say is 'very amusing' this is why i usually can't be bothered. you give them something and they completely ignore it.

ever think you attitude is why you get banned? and if you didn't return until it was too late doesn't that make it your fault and not ours.

lol. as if grapes were the ultimate source of plasma

well this is forums does have young people visiting it and it is not up to us to decide whether their parents want them viewing swear words. there is that much call for it in science either so its not really a problem. the example i was giving was from a video game that shows a whole lot worse than swearing.

he mentions artificial light. only problem is, there is no difference. if you analyse a photon from the sun and a photon of the same wavelength from a light bulb you will find that they are exactly the same(might be polarised differently but that doesn't affect the properties much)

well, most times when i make a mega post debunking something someone has been throwing about as evidence they usually disappear. i don't have high hopes.