WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

What has anything you are saying got to do with my discussions.

Good Question.....What has anything you are saying got to do with my discussions.

Does any of your faulty facts you posted,prove that it could not be oil vapour trailing in AA77 wake ?

Why haven't you used your Gay-Lussac's law wizardry to prove it wasn't oil ?

Stop waving that pitchfork around and show us some evidence proving it couldn't be oil.

You couldn't even destroy your own straw man...... You would be no match for a witch.

Originally posted by waypastvne
Does any of your faulty facts you posted,prove that it could not be oil vapour trailing in AA77 wake ?

Why haven't you used your Gay-Lussac's law wizardry to prove it wasn't oil ?

Stop waving that pitchfork around and show us some evidence proving it couldn't be oil.

You couldn't even destroy your own straw man...... You would be no match for a witch.

It doesn't matter what caused the white smoke.

The only fact that matters is that it wasn't a 757.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

> that oil is used as a coolant

Didn't want to get into an argument about this, but that statement is correct as I have shown. Oil IS used to cool components. It is not used to cool the 'engine' itself, only auxiliary components.

> that oil is pressurised to prevent from boiling

This AFAIK is not true because oil boils at something like 300C, and would never get that hot to start with. But it could be true, the theory is correct.

The oil IS pressurized, but only to make it move through the system.

Both assertions are wrong because you cannot use added pressure to keep something from boiling.

Actually you can. All fluids boil at a higher temp at higher pressures. Water will boil at less than 100C on a mountain top for example. It's got to do with the release of vapor.

Also oil has a poor heat transfer rate because it retains heat hence the use of the term "calories" which is a value to a fixed volume. This volume is the oil in the circuit.

No it has good heat transfer, it retains the heat thus carrying it away from the competent being cooled. Calories is a unit of HEAT. The oil is constantly getting hot and being cooled, circulating heat away from the components.

Auxiliary parts of a jet engine that require coolants use kerosene or air. Oil is an incidental contributor.

Not all component can use air, and nothing is cooled by the kerosene.

A jet of coolant that is a significantly different temperature than the temperature of the gas flowing through the engine itself will have a different density. The density of the gas that flows through the engine divided by the density of the coolant gas is known as the density ratio. This is a very important controlling parameter in the operation of the engine cooling.

www.mne.psu.edu...

So you see, the primary cooling element is air and internally to a jet engine coolant gas may also be used. So please refer to the above quote about ratios.

Yes for the engine, the compressor and combustion sections. There are all the auxiliary components that are not discussed in that quote.

The difference between coolant gas temperature and the temperature of gas in a jet engine is significant. The ratio of hot oil to a cooled oil is not significant because ratio is very low. It has a marginal effect. Oil is not used as a jet engine coolant.

No it is not used as a jet engine coolant, I already said that. It is used to cool bearings, reduction gearbox, seals. etc.

The calories in the Exxon document is about the relative values of the oil itself and not the jet engine!

That is not quite true. Relative values of the oil itself? No, it is the percentage of the oils use, 90% is removing calories, heat, away from components. That is what oil is used for in ALL engines.

calorie or calory (ˈkælərɪ)

— n , pl -ries
Compare Calorie cal , gram calorie , Also called: small calorie a unit of heat, equal to 4.1868 joules ( International Table calorie ): formerly defined as the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C under standard conditions. It has now largely been replaced by the joule for scientific purposes.

dictionary.reference.com...

SELECTING A HIGH TEMPERATURE HEAT TRANSFER FLUID SYNTHETIC OR HOT OIL?

reply to post by ANOK


I have already had this discussion with others so I am not going to repeat myself. Sorry

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by ANOK

 

I have already had this discussion with others so I am not going to repeat myself. Sorry

I don't want you to repeat yourself, just acknowledge what I have said.

I was just trying to clear up the point, which I am now completely lost to.

Do you still deny oil is used for cooling? Or do you have a point I am missing?

reply to post by ANOK

Do you still deny oil is used for cooling?

Yup. You cool the oil but you don't use the oil for cooling. The differential between hot oil and cooled oil is insignificant compared to the temperature of the jet engine.

No more on this matter. Thanks.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Yup. You cool the oil but you don't use the oil for cooling. The differential between hot oil and cooled oil is insignificant compared to the temperature of the jet engine.

No more on this matter. Thanks.

Dude did you actually read what I said?

What do you mean by the "engine"? Do you mean the hot section, compressor, combustion chamber etc?

The oil once again is used to cool components, not the hot section, the "engine".

The difference between hot oil and cool oil, and engine temps is not the point. Components cooled by the oil are not in the hot section, they do not get as hot as the combustion section. The engine itself is not cooled, other than ram air, it is designed to get hot.

Once again 90% of the oils use is cooling components. That is fact mate.

reply to post by ANOK


Why don't you read what I have written instead of badgering me. You make too many nonsensical assumptions of what you think I said.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


I'm not badgering you. All I did was offer some facts and you wanted to argue.

I read what you said, you said the oil is not used for cooling, I said it is, I showed you it is, and you wanted to continue arguing.

If someone challenges what I say I'm going to defend it, no matter what side you're on in this debate.

If there is another point to your argument that I am missing I apologize. I was just trying to clear things up for both sides.

Edit; you said...

If you apply pressure to any liquid, the temperature increases and cannot possibly be used in that state as a coolant. If you remember your 8th grade education, this is known as Gay-Lussac's law. I repeat, Gay-Lussac's law and not gay loser's law.

Furthermore, jet engines are not cooled because the objective is to draw in air, to compress it to raise the temperature and to ignite the fuel for thrust.

Pressurizing the oil does not increase it's temps enough to not be useful as a coolant, and the heat exchanger would be designed to overcome that extra heat anyway. Components get much hotter than the oil could ever get.
As long as the oil is cooler than the component heat will be transferred to the oil.

So once again, the 'engine', by which I assume you means the hot section, compressor, combustion section etc., is not cooled by oil. Only the auxiliary components are.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You cool the oil but you don't use the oil for cooling.

If I might make a suggestion....

Mayhap in thy next endeavour in pursuit of the truth thou wilt take thee a measure of Exxon/Mobil aviation oil and pour it upon the waters of the pond to witness if it doth float. If Exxon/Mobil Oil be not plentiful, a duck may be substituted for ducks are known to have oil upon their feathers. If either oil or duck are seen to float, then it must surely be evident that I am practicing a sorcery known only to witches and warlocks and verily must be burned at the stake for my pernicious wickedness.


That would be much easier than using Gay's law to prove your point.

You mite also try accusing me of alchemy, thats another good one.

Why wouldst thou find need to oil cool refractory metals such as titanium. Unless thou hadst turned them into mere chromium steel ?


So lets talk about the fake engine.

Are you trying to convince us that the engine seen entering and exiting the WTC, spewing oil and clipping another building before landing on the street. Was removed and replaced with a fake engine and oil vapour was later photoshoped in to the photo ?





Please tell us more.

reply to post by ANOK

If someone challenges what I say I'm going to defend it, no matter what side you're on in this debate.

Exactly my position too.

No doubt you were told certain things in your training and I do not dispute your belief. However, in the last couple of days I have read a lot of material on jet engine design, the viscosity and density of oil and temperature, oil heat transference/retention, temperature tolerance of jet engine components, auxiliary components. the Exxon schematics, etc. gaseous coolant to combustion gases temperature ratios.

I have even tried an equation for calculating the relationship between oil viscosity, temperature, and pressure. I can't rightly say I was successful but I got the gist. Counter intuitively an oil circuit operates at a higher pressure at 20C because of viscosity. At 80C, the pressure is lower and when the oil approaches boiling, it is vented to reduce the pressure even further.

waypastvne said pressure is increased to prevent oil from boiling - wrong, wrong, wrong! You can increase the cycle of circulation of oil to the heat exchanger but you also work at dropping the pressure by venting.

I ODed on this stuff and in my opinion the coolant effect of oil on auxiliary parts is marginal at best.

Complex jet engine auxiliary parts are cooled with freon type gases, kerosene and ramjet air.

I am now officially fed up with this line of inquiry so no more please.

reply to post by waypastvne

Please tell us more.

No. You tell us more. Tell us how that thing, whatever it is, ended up there between the traffic light post, scaffold poles, the rubbish bin and under the canopy.

And those two dudes in the chinos, they look either like feds or Mormons. They are a tad too square compared to the locals...what!!

BTW Do Mormons stand guard next to fake lumps of metal?

reply to post by waypastvne



Funny how all the fake 'plane' parts were all close to scaffolding. Atlantic Heydt Scaffolding sure will have the answers!

Originally posted by kidtwist
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Funny how all the fake 'plane' parts were all close to scaffolding. sure will have the answers!

Do you notice the scaffolds at the upper levels? Strange, huh?

Who are Atlantic Heydt Scaffolding and how do you know they are the ones who erected the ones in the photo?

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

And those two dudes in the chinos, they look either like feds or Mormons.

Are those the two guys you are claiming removed the real engine and replaced it with a fake one ?

Did they also do the photoshoping ?

How much scotchguard did they have to spray on their chinos to keep the oil from staining ?

Did they use fake nonstaining oil on the engine ?

Exactly why couldn't the engine end up there ?

You tell us. It's your Witch Hunt. Give us your evidence.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

And those two dudes in the chinos, they look either like feds or Mormons.

Are those the two guys you are claiming removed the real engine and replaced it with a fake one ?

Did they also do the photoshoping ?

How much scotchguard did they have to spray on their chinos to keep the oil from staining ?

Did they use fake nonstaining oil on the engine ?

Exactly why couldn't the engine end up there ?

You tell us. It's your Witch Hunt. Give us your evidence.

edit on 11-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

No dude, it doesn't work like that. It is your photo so you need to substantiate it, get it?

"scotchguard" lay off the [snipped]

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by kidtwist
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Funny how all the fake 'plane' parts were all close to scaffolding. sure will have the answers!

Do you notice the scaffolds at the upper levels? Strange, huh?

Who are Atlantic Heydt Scaffolding and how do you know they are the ones who erected the ones in the photo?

I first got a hunch about the scaffolding when I studied certain parts of the debris, like this engine, and some of the wheels/landing gear and a few other bits of debris, and all of them had scaffolding nearby. Now I noticed a picture of an Atlantic Heydt van near to the towers, and it seems they were working in the area leading up to 9/11, and so I did some digging and initially could not find too much, and found this video on youtube where someone had commented on them below the video:



It seems there was a law suit against them, and other companies, which is documented online in a few places. So I tried to did a bit further and found this thread:

letsrollforums.com...

To see the photos in this thread you will need to register, but it's definitely worth a look because there are more pictures of suspicious 'plane parts' and debris near scaffolding, and more info on the company and quite an interesting thread to read...

I decided to remove this comment seeing as it belonged in a thread of its own.

The path waypastvne's magical lump of metal took.