Gordon Ross Paper

ERichardson said:
Hmm... I wasn't aware of rule 4, I should have read them.

I don't think Ross would have objected to me posting the entire article seeing as it was aimed at JREFers.

Which sad person reported it?
Click to expand...

To end this derail, so that you can get back on topic, I reported this, and would have actioned it but was confirming my understanding of rule 4 first (being a n00b mod).

When you signed up for your forum account, part of that process is agreeing that you had read these rules, and agree to comply with them.

I would suggest a refresh every once in a while - for everyone on the forum - as well as actually reading them in the first place. I would also suggest it's a really bad idea to sign off on anything without reading all the required 'small print'.
 
chillzero said:
To end this derail, so that you can get back on topic, I reported this, and would have actioned it but was confirming my understanding of rule 4 first (being a n00b mod).

When you signed up for your forum account, part of that process is agreeing that you had read these rules, and agree to comply with them.

I would suggest a refresh every once in a while - for everyone on the forum - as well as actually reading them in the first place. I would also suggest it's a really bad idea to sign off on anything without reading all the required 'small print'.
Click to expand...

Few people realise that they have agreed to sacrifice their first born to the Big Bearded Owl.

But at least no credit card number was asked for.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I just want to address a single paragraph of Ross's comments (I don't think "paper" is an appropriate description, as this is not a presentation of scientific results in the way I understand the word to be used) because it strikes me that the arguments presented are sufficiently absurd as to cast doubt on the originator's objectivity.



To place this in context, we are discussing the possibility of the rupturing of oxygen tanks in the middle of a large and fast-burning office contents fire, which has been accelerated by the combustion of aviation fuel. The fuel present would include, but not necessarily be limited to, furniture, office paper, computer equipment, carpeting and other furnishing fabrics. Many conspiracy theorists have suggested (although this point is still disputed) that this fire was oxygen deficient, and therefore limited in its rate of combustion not by the availability of fuel but by the availability of oxygen. Is Ross seriously suggesting that the sudden release of a significant quantity of oxygen into the region of such a fire would not lead to a sudden, rapid combustion and a localised increase in temperature? If so, I would suggest that he has successfully explored exactly how much more wrong it is possible to be.

Dave
Click to expand...

Popular Science September, 1991 page 62, you can really see the effect of oxygen starved fires in the Kuwaiti desert as well as one of he well heads on fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom