Jump to content

Musk Blows Up Facebook's Satellite

Dante

By Dante
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

On another note I already see people claiming this is proof 9/11 was an inside job, because the tower survived lol.

 

Well, you see...when you burn something in the open, the heat dissipates, and the temperature of the conflagration can't get much beyond the ignition point of the fuel.

 

But when you burn something in an enclosed space, it contains the heat, and the temperature of the conflagration can get MUCH HIGHER than the fuel's ignition point.

 

If this were not true, then charcoal (~700 degrees F) could not melt iron (~2800 degrees F). If these !@#$ing retards were right, jet fuel would not melt steel beams because STEEL WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST. :wallbash:

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Hey guys, sometimes sh#t just blows up on the launch pad.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee.

 

Technically, that wasn't a rocket explosion. Just a fire. The N1, now that was a rocket explosion.

keepthefaith All Pro

keepthefaith

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Well, you see...when you burn something in the open, the heat dissipates, and the temperature of the conflagration can't get much beyond the ignition point of the fuel.

 

But when you burn something in an enclosed space, it contains the heat, and the temperature of the conflagration can get MUCH HIGHER than the fuel's ignition point.

 

If this were not true, then charcoal (~700 degrees F) could not melt iron (~2800 degrees F). If these !@#$ing retards were right, jet fuel would not melt steel beams because STEEL WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST. :wallbash:

Not to mention that the steel need not melt to collapse. It only had to weaken.

Edited by keepthefaith
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

 

But it does prove my point earlier that the rocket explodes before the projectile gets near it.

 

I still don't see it, but that doesn't mean you aren't right.

 

I will say this though, the fact the UFO angle has been embraced so quickly by more than just the usual tabloids is interesting when you consider how often the UFO agenda has been used in past disinformation campaigns. Makes me wonder if it's not being pushed deliberately to cover up a more terrestrial reason for the incident.

 

I do agree with Azalin that things often go boom when you're dealing with spaceflight, I also still agree it's highly possible if not probably that it's a bug/bird in the foreground and it's all just an optical illusion. But yet... something still stinks about this event.

Chef Jim Hall of Famer

Chef Jim

Posted
Posted

 

I still don't see it, but that doesn't mean you aren't right.

 

I will say this though, the fact the UFO angle has been embraced so quickly by more than just the usual tabloids is interesting when you consider how often the UFO agenda has been used in past disinformation campaigns. Makes me wonder if it's not being pushed deliberately to cover up a more terrestrial reason for the incident.

 

I do agree with Azalin that things often go boom when you're dealing with spaceflight, I also still agree it's highly possible if not probably that it's a bug/bird in the foreground and it's all just an optical illusion. But yet... something still stinks about this event.

You don't see it?? You don't notice from that video that the rocket explodes as the projectile (bird) is between the second tower and the rocket? :blink:

Azalin All Pro

Azalin

Posted
Posted

 

Technically, that wasn't a rocket explosion. Just a fire. The N1, now that was a rocket explosion.

 

Don't get technical with us, mortal.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee.

Greg F Rookie

Greg F

Posted
Posted

Attached is the feed of the explosion, watch it on live speed a few times. Then watch it again, starting and stopping at 1:10-1:11 marks, in the upper right corner by the logo you will see an object come into frame, pass behind the large towers between the camera and the rocket and seemingly collide with the payload stage of the rocket.

 

My first thought was it was just a bird or insect, and it still might very well be that, but if you watch closely you'll see the object goes behind the two large towers rather than in front of it.

 

The object may appear to go behind the tower but it is not possible to determine if it did or didn't. What is happening is your brain is filing in what happens between frames. If you examine the video frame by frame (there are 6 frames from the time the object appeared and the explosion) you will see that none of the pictures are taken when the object is passing in front/behind the towers.

 

I captured all six frames in sequence and uploaded to the following link.

 

http://s116.photobucket.com/user/techtipmail/library/PublicFiles

Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

 

The object may appear to go behind the tower but it is not possible to determine if it did or didn't. What is happening is your brain is filing in what happens between frames. If you examine the video frame by frame (there are 6 frames from the time the object appeared and the explosion) you will see that none of the pictures are taken when the object is passing in front/behind the towers.

 

I captured all six frames in sequence and uploaded to the following link.

 

http://s116.photobucket.com/user/techtipmail/library/PublicFiles

:beer: Appreciate the effort and concede it's the most likely explanation.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...