Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a 6% commission on everything you buy.

Endofzeeworld    

Rank #6694 on Comments
Endofzeeworld Avatar Level 260 Comments: Pure Win
Offline
Send mail to Endofzeeworld Block Endofzeeworld Invite Endofzeeworld to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/15/2010
Last Login:8/20/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#11576
Comment Ranking:#6694
Highest Content Rank:#9085
Highest Comment Rank:#1151
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  69 ,  27
Comment Thumbs: 6167 total,  8332 ,  2165
Content Level Progress: 81.35% (48/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 260 Comments: Pure Win → Level 261 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:3651
Times Content Favorited:7 times
Total Comments Made:3172
FJ Points:6060

latest user's comments

#24 - You used a Wikipedia source and two sources. I used two publis…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 +3
User avatar #31 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just looking through your links... I'm still iffy on the subject.
First one says: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Doesn't specify if this is in an engine, or in the open air.
Second one says: Jet fuels burn at about 1800 degrees. Surely that would be inside an engine?
Third one says: Maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel is 980°C (1796°F).
Now, yes, I openly admit jet fuel can get hot enough to surpass the critical temperature of structural steel. 1800° > 1000-1300°
But, that is with oxygen introduced to it, in a compressed environment, a perfect scenario; like inside a jet turbine.
Take a dump a bunch of it in a semi-closed building environment, it would use up the oxygen pretty quick, which is why flames shoot out windows, eats external oxygen.
It's all a bit off to me, but, whatever. You'll win this.
Need to stop speaking my view points. Opinions on the Internet, heh, that always goes over well.
User avatar #34 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and good debate that I think we both learned a fair deal from it. We didn't flame each other, and I think that's pretty nice.
User avatar #39 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being shitty like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
User avatar #42 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
Fucking.
Fantastic.
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
#20 - Source? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 +2
#22 - youhei (04/08/2014) [-]
#19 - I dont know where you're getting that jet fuel burns only at 5…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 0
User avatar #244 - learnthisline (04/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #23 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel --- Open air burning temperatures 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)
www.ask.com/question/temperature-of-burning-jet-fuel --- Jet fuel burns at a temperature of 410 degrees on start up. It can burn up to 1517 degrees with enough oxygen.
www.ask.com/question/what-temperature-does-jet-fuel-burn-at --- it will burn at about 500-700 degrees, while in a controlled burn it may get as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.
...
Like I said, a quick look. Googled "temperature of burning jet fuel" and clicked around.
User avatar #24 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
You used a Wikipedia source and two ask.com sources. I used two published articles and a forum post (Albeit not the best source).
Frankly, I trust my sources more than yours.
User avatar #31 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just looking through your links... I'm still iffy on the subject.
First one says: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Doesn't specify if this is in an engine, or in the open air.
Second one says: Jet fuels burn at about 1800 degrees. Surely that would be inside an engine?
Third one says: Maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel is 980°C (1796°F).
Now, yes, I openly admit jet fuel can get hot enough to surpass the critical temperature of structural steel. 1800° > 1000-1300°
But, that is with oxygen introduced to it, in a compressed environment, a perfect scenario; like inside a jet turbine.
Take a dump a bunch of it in a semi-closed building environment, it would use up the oxygen pretty quick, which is why flames shoot out windows, eats external oxygen.
It's all a bit off to me, but, whatever. You'll win this.
Need to stop speaking my view points. Opinions on the Internet, heh, that always goes over well.
User avatar #34 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and good debate that I think we both learned a fair deal from it. We didn't flame each other, and I think that's pretty nice.
User avatar #39 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being shitty like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
User avatar #42 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
Fucking.
Fantastic.
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
#5 - The Twin Towers burned with jet fuel, that is significantly ho…  [+] (29 new replies) 04/07/2014 on 9/11 -3
#9 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just a bit of quick looking around... Call it what you will.
Unless the twin towers weren't up to code, they should of held.
The Critical Temperature (when it cannot safely support it's load anymore) for structural steel in the US is 1000–1300F.
Jet Fuel in an open air environment, will burn at about 500-700 degrees.
While jet fuel can reach higher temperatures, in an oxygen rich environment, as a controlled burn, (as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit), an office building is hardly open air, or oxygen rich...
Diving into the realm of speculation, I'm calling Termite charges; a few stories on how they found pockets of molten steel weeks after the building collapsed.
No way in hell jet fuel could burn hot enough to MELT the structural steel in there... Weaken it? Possibly... Melt? Hell no.
#261 - amperor (04/08/2014) [-]
I would also like to say that the fire from jet fuel would probably have been hotter than my oven when I toast my bread.
User avatar #96 - fishandkids (04/08/2014) [-]
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the fucking planes ramming into the buildings would crack open a few windows through contact or shock waves.
#74 - anonymous (04/08/2014) [-]
Well, think about it like this: how many buildings these days are designed to withstand impacts from 50 ton jets hitting them at 600 mph? Not many.

And besides, the WTC was very cheaply-constructed, so it wasn't a very good design anyway.
User avatar #25 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
this is so stupid. for a structure to collapse it doesn't need to have it's frame melt into liquid, it just needs to be damaged or softened.

stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about.
#353 - learned (04/08/2014) [-]
Ok, let's suggest that the fire realy did damage the structure and made it alot weaker, which made it collapsed.
But no way in hell, does a building start collapsing due to a damage done in the upper part and then FALL together at the speed of any free falling object, that's insane. The upper levels should have of started crashing into the lower ones, making the fall time slower, and i doubt that it would of have flown debris at every trajectory with in 1000-1500 feet radius going at the speed of 300 miles per hour. That can only happen with an EXPLOSION, not when a building is supposedly collapsing. It's common for debris to fall, but that far and at such great speed and at every direction. I would understand if the explosion caused it, but the explosion didn't flew big chunks of debris at every direction.
Please enlighten me, why did the foundational metal beams have an 45 degree angle on them? Controlled construction of buildings also consists of blowing up the beams at a 45 degree angel.
Why was there also no theral investigation of the WTC site? Instead it was shipped into recycling as fast as possible.
Is 9/11 government made or not??? You decide
User avatar #405 - durkadurka (04/08/2014) [-]
lrn2physics
1. Conservation of linear momentum
2. F = ma

What ended up happening is that the top portion of each tower could no longer be supported by the damaged sections. The weakened supports failed and the top of the towers began to fall.

Their first stop was to impact the next level of each tower, something they were never designed to handle. With each floor of that fails, momentum transfers and the falling debris gains energy (F=ma). This is why the floors give way with increasing speed.

I don't recall the building falling at free fall, (though it should have gotten pretty close to it at the end). Did you time the fall and then do the calculations? It shouldn't be hard. I'm inclined to believe that you assertions of "free fall speed" and "300 mph"
are arbitrary.
When the towers fell, they displaced a lot of air VERY quickly. This is what you see: dust and light objects being propelled by fast moving air. The larger debris fell around the base of the towers themselves (and impacted nearby buildings).

PLEASE don't go thinking these things before you have a basic grasp of physics. I think understanding some basic concepts would be of great help.
User avatar #243 - learnthisline (04/08/2014) [-]
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

If you want to listen to expert engineers and architects, then watch this video - it's by a collection of over 1,500 architects and engineers who all argue against the official story.
They provide condemning evidence showing that the plane impacts could not have collapsed the tower.

You seem to need expert opinion, which is fari enough, as i did before I started questioning. Then I came across this group, of highly acclaimed engineers and architects, who set me straight.

I hope you listen to some experts, and then make up your mind, or do some further looking into it.
#27 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Who crapped in your corn flakes? It was a quick look around, and talking about the melting was all speculation.
As I said, from what I saw, the average burning temperature is well below the softening Critical Temperature for american structural steel.
Are you a structural engineer? Were you at ground zero to disprove my idea?
If so, please share. Rage brings nothing to a conversation.
User avatar #29 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
I'm upset because there is an obvious and irrefutable explanation and there is a certain percentage of the population that, no matter what, won't believe it. it's like the people who don't vaccinate their kids.

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "

#407 - sabertoothmoose (04/08/2014) [-]
Can't say i know a whole lot about demolition work, but wasn't there some conpiracy on the way the towers fell as well. The straight down "free fall" effect was something that people claim; could only be done by controlled demolition or some shit.
I know nothing about this shit, but you seem smart - any opinion
there is no sarcam at all in this, i really just want to knowpleasedon'tkillme
User avatar #433 - guymandude (04/08/2014) [-]
the thing with that is, if you watch the video, at least one of them falls sideways-and-downward. So that isn't really all that valid.
#437 - sabertoothmoose (04/08/2014) [-]
yep, i see- that theory sucked
#154 - anonymous (04/08/2014) [-]
there is a myriad of testimonies of people having seen melted steel at ground zero - you can only see melted steel spouting from one of the collapsing towers, if you watch the footage.

Yet the 9/11 commission claims there were NO melted steel at ground zero. One of many irregularities in the 9/11 commission report.
Independant scientists have found traces of nano-thermite in the 9/11 aftermath; a highly advanced explosive which when reacted burns at very high temperatures. High enough to melt steel.

But really, you just have to ask yourself, who really benefited from 9/11? cause it sure as hell weren't the mudslimes.
We dont adress the many irregularities of the attacks. Public opinion has been swayed so hard that questioning 9/11 is now "retarded"

Believe me when I say this America, for it is a very dangerous sign of things to come.
User avatar #412 - benjamino (04/08/2014) [-]
>Things to come
>No things in 13 years?
#300 - durkadurka (04/08/2014) [-]
>Implying that people giving the testimonies knew what they were talking about.
>Implying that killing infidels isn't exactly what the terrorists wanted
>Implying that the government is competent to pull off what would be the greatest conspiracy in history.
User avatar #19 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
I dont know where you're getting that jet fuel burns only at 500-700 Degrees.... I've been searching around and found no such claim.
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
airportjetfuel.com/p134704-how-hot-does-jet-fuel-burn.cfm
worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493
User avatar #244 - learnthisline (04/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #23 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel --- Open air burning temperatures 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)
www.ask.com/question/temperature-of-burning-jet-fuel --- Jet fuel burns at a temperature of 410 degrees on start up. It can burn up to 1517 degrees with enough oxygen.
www.ask.com/question/what-temperature-does-jet-fuel-burn-at --- it will burn at about 500-700 degrees, while in a controlled burn it may get as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.
...
Like I said, a quick look. Googled "temperature of burning jet fuel" and clicked around.
User avatar #24 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
You used a Wikipedia source and two ask.com sources. I used two published articles and a forum post (Albeit not the best source).
Frankly, I trust my sources more than yours.
User avatar #31 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just looking through your links... I'm still iffy on the subject.
First one says: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Doesn't specify if this is in an engine, or in the open air.
Second one says: Jet fuels burn at about 1800 degrees. Surely that would be inside an engine?
Third one says: Maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel is 980°C (1796°F).
Now, yes, I openly admit jet fuel can get hot enough to surpass the critical temperature of structural steel. 1800° > 1000-1300°
But, that is with oxygen introduced to it, in a compressed environment, a perfect scenario; like inside a jet turbine.
Take a dump a bunch of it in a semi-closed building environment, it would use up the oxygen pretty quick, which is why flames shoot out windows, eats external oxygen.
It's all a bit off to me, but, whatever. You'll win this.
Need to stop speaking my view points. Opinions on the Internet, heh, that always goes over well.
User avatar #34 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and good debate that I think we both learned a fair deal from it. We didn't flame each other, and I think that's pretty nice.
User avatar #39 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being shitty like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
User avatar #42 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
Fucking.
Fantastic.
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
User avatar #7 - youhei (04/08/2014) [-]
they could find charred bone fragments the size of fingernail clippings, but htey couldn't find an indestructable flourescent orange box

because that makes sense
User avatar #20 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Source?
I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know what you're talking about.
#22 - youhei (04/08/2014) [-]
#110 - Incorrect. The Reichmark was introduced to combat inflation, a… 04/04/2014 on dilemma 0
#240 - Meat's bad for other reasons, such as high fat. But reall… 03/31/2014 on How I met a vegan +1
#21 - Game of thrones is about the political structure of a mythical… 03/27/2014 on He can't know nothing +2
#216 - God, all you people are ******* calling Armageddo… 03/27/2014 on Oculus Rift b'gone 0
#49 - DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/26/2014 on Because Murica bitches 0
User avatar #51 - Crusader (03/26/2014) [-]
If you wish for peace, you must be prepared to go to war
#190 - Finally someone ******* says it. Thank you si… 03/25/2014 on GOD HATES US 0
#144 - >Legit Vote >Highest voter turnout in history with o…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/25/2014 on Putin being Putin 0
User avatar #189 - internetzsoviet (03/25/2014) [-]
Crimea is old Russian territory anyway, basically given to Ukraine in the Cold War by Kruschev. It's about time Russia reclaimed its old territory.
#133 - My English teacher: "So, in the active voice, the sen… 03/21/2014 on Great Teachers +2
#72 - Picture 03/18/2014 on MFW my username fits the... +7
#18 - The year is twenty-eight-oh-eight... 03/17/2014 on *Insert Canadian stereotype... 0
#36 - And they took exception to that. 03/17/2014 on mommy D: +5
#172 - We also have, in our one country, about 310 Million people. As… 03/17/2014 on Health +1
#444 - Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done, The ship ha… 03/17/2014 on for jett 0
#321 - 6'2, 230 Pounds Imma fatty. 03/17/2014 on Males under 6'1 (1.85m) 0
#14 - I said, **** you Bethesda, and sent the missiles … 03/16/2014 on Godspeed You Magnificent... +2
#980 - The Dark Lord. BUT I HAVE A NOSE! 03/16/2014 on I don't see a problem here... 0
#18 - WATCH YOURSELF PROFLIGATE  [+] (1 new reply) 03/15/2014 on Evolution of man +5
#19 - Logicaltightrope (03/15/2014) [-]
#16 - SPQR Four letters to live by.  [+] (3 new replies) 03/15/2014 on Evolution of man +7
#17 - Logicaltightrope (03/15/2014) [-]
User avatar #18 - Endofzeeworld (03/15/2014) [-]
WATCH YOURSELF PROFLIGATE
#19 - Logicaltightrope (03/15/2014) [-]
#473 - My Khajit Assassin from Skyrim. KITTY! 03/11/2014 on Roomates? 0
#90 - He's starring on the new "Cosmos" but I guess thats … 03/10/2014 on Luminous nose? 0
#17 - >Not checking the dates on the posts >Not checking y… 03/09/2014 on "male privalege" +1
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2110 / Total items point value: 2510

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#17 - datgrass (06/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #16 to #15 - Endofzeeworld (06/21/2014) [-]
YUSSSSSSSSSS
User avatar #13 - tronbot (11/14/2013) [-]
Thanks for the constructive criticism!
User avatar #14 to #13 - Endofzeeworld (11/15/2013) [-]
No problem, my friend! I believe what you are doing is a necessary and integral part of any website. It helps keep equilibrium.
#6 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #7 to #6 - Endofzeeworld (07/01/2012) [-]
oh em gee its zomba :3
#8 to #7 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #9 to #8 - Endofzeeworld (07/01/2012) [-]
Yeah kinda. Y U NO POST ANYMORE?!?!?
#10 to #9 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #11 to #10 - Endofzeeworld (07/01/2012) [-]
Thats a damn good point, son. A damn good point. I been here since yellow, and it seems to me that this site just gets younger and younger. Or maybe its us getting older?
#12 to #11 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3 - dragel (02/08/2012) [-]
I apologize if my replys to you seem like I'm being a bastard.

User avatar #4 to #3 - Endofzeeworld (02/08/2012) [-]
No no no no, you are actually one of the less dickish people who I have ever argued with on the website. You seem cool, even if our opinions differ on some subjects.
User avatar #5 to #4 - dragel (02/08/2012) [-]
I'm glad you think that.

I don't wish for my first impression to be a bad one.
#1 - freedomfromlife **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2 to #1 - Endofzeeworld (10/23/2010) [-]
Thanks, Ill make sure to use it!
 Friends (0)