Sunday, January 24, 2010

Scale Model Jets Has Any One Made Scale Model Of Towers Burn Them With Jet Fuel?

Has any one made scale model of towers burn them with jet fuel? - scale model jets

to see if it works in 911

Posted by Santana Claborn at 8:45 AM

7 comments:

LeAnne said...

A model does not represent strengths with respect to the skyscrapers of scale.

In short, the kinetic energy of both 1 / 2 mass velocity squared. Now imagine trying to compare the ounces or pounds a model for the hundreds of tons of real buildings. There is simply no comparison.

For what it's worth, unprotected structural steel beams approimately lose 50% of their resistance to 1100 ° F. This is what is it with insulating material - in the event of a fire that moved into the building might fall.

No building is designed or constructed with the premise that a full tank, Jumbo was in slam at 500 MPH.

If you look closely at the videos you see that commercial plane struck the first tower with enough force to clean than the width of the building to examine directly - now, not only damage the insulation, but steel. Personally, I would have more surprised if the goal was not out of the ground load about 50 floors collapsed under the earthin him. The first effects of the word, the sinking of the earth, hammer to the letter below.

When you perform an experiment to help the difference between the weight of the simple verses Sudden Impact - sufficient to provide a nail into a piece of wood to the camp site, now all the weight back on top of mud hammer it - a step and see like nothing happens - even if you two or three or more hammers mud at the beginning of the first. Now, just a drop of sludge hammer in the nail - big difference between the weight of the hammers, and many times not all at once, right?

January 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM
LeAnne said...

A model does not represent strengths with respect to the skyscrapers of scale.

In short, the kinetic energy of both 1 / 2 mass velocity squared. Now imagine trying to compare the ounces or pounds a model for the hundreds of tons of real buildings. There is simply no comparison.

For what it's worth, unprotected structural steel beams approimately lose 50% of their resistance to 1100 ° F. This is what is it with insulating material - in the event of a fire that moved into the building might fall.

No building is designed or constructed with the premise that a full tank, Jumbo was in slam at 500 MPH.

If you look closely at the videos you see that commercial plane struck the first tower with enough force to clean than the width of the building to examine directly - now, not only damage the insulation, but steel. Personally, I would have more surprised if the goal was not out of the ground load about 50 floors collapsed under the earthin him. The first effects of the word, the sinking of the earth, hammer to the letter below.

When you perform an experiment to help the difference between the weight of the simple verses Sudden Impact - sufficient to provide a nail into a piece of wood to the camp site, now all the weight back on top of mud hammer it - a step and see like nothing happens - even if you two or three or more hammers mud at the beginning of the first. Now, just a drop of sludge hammer in the nail - big difference between the weight of the hammers, and many times not all at once, right?

January 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM
luosechi 駱士基 said...

Why would someone something stupid like that? What are you talking about anyway towers - the Petronas Twin Towers?

January 26, 2010 at 4:43 PM
july said...

I saw a television program about the towers were destroyed, and why the techniques common construction could take the fuel cons.

I do not remember the name of the TV show, but I'm sure you could find with an online search.

Please do not try it yourself, or burn does not make sense to your house.

January 26, 2010 at 9:07 PM
july said...

I saw a television program about the towers were destroyed, and why the techniques common construction could take the fuel cons.

I do not remember the name of the TV show, but I'm sure you could find with an online search.

Please do not try it yourself, or burn does not make sense to your house.

January 26, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Thegusta... said...

Still like to believe that Bush has done that, instead of believing that these buildings were not designed to take account of views on a flight?

Grow up

January 27, 2010 at 2:11 AM
bh8153 said...

Model does not give the answer. Even if you are a successful model of five meters high, have been smaller, with important mechanical properties of a few hundred times is very large quantities of Architecture ten thousand times smaller, and that certain amounts would be necessary in connection with resistance to one million times smaller fire. Burning would be nothing.

The difficulties of growing things, or more, are covered very well in the famous essay of 1928 below. He talks all about animals, because the author was a scientist, but the results also structures for the application.

January 27, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Post a Comment