Señor El Once : the boojie woojie high school chemistry
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I grasp probably better than you that "physical evidence for STILL unreacted thermates [existed] in the dust." That was never the issue. The issue was the starting quantities that can be calculated using "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to account for the observed side-effects (pulverization, hot-spots, and unreacted thermite) and that don't add up as being reasonable.
But first, I feel compelled to call you nasty names for this masterful yet totally erroneous yarn and insertion of words into my mouth:
I say that there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries – then you say, “you can’t have it both ways”…WTF? Yes I can, there is the probability of several types of explosives and incendiaries – it is NOT one or the other…mate.
You are the one who has been arguing as if nano-thermite was the end-all cure-all, "no need to go looking any further." Too bad "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves this wrong.
Now you're saying, "there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries." I agree with this probability being true, but not that these several types of explosives and incendiaries account for the observed side-effects as if they -- in combination -- were the primary mechanism and end-all cure-all. "The boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves you wrong... again.
When I said, "you can’t have it both ways", it referred to fast destructive energy of pulverization (fast burn rate) and excessively long burn periods (slow burn rate).
When you review "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" again, you'll see that I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate (3,300 fps) for common explosives and indendiaries used in such demolitions. It is presumed that nano-thermite itself has a burn-rate somewhere in this range:
3,000 fps < nano-thermite burn-rate < 29,000 fps
By chosing the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate, "the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries" is taken into consideration and we end up with a s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario.
"The boojie woojie high school science" had us pack the combination of explosives into a garden hose with a square cross-section to simplify the math. Ignition was started at one end. The question was: How long is the garden hose in order for the fire to burn 4 weeks? Some 882,000 miles.
This estimate is LOW. (a) It was only one hot-spot, not many. (b) Crank up the burn rate to match the average of nano-thermite and any variety of exposives and incendiaries used in the mix, you increase the length of the garden hose by many orders of magnitude.
Because the garden hose was imaginary, we can ignore its weight. We cannot ignore the weight of the massive quantities of nano-thermite (or combination of other materials) that were packed into this volume. This is left as an exercise for you to calculate.
I'll give you a hint: if 882,000 miles of garden hose seems obscenely large and unrealistic to account for just one hot-spot and not even multiple hot-spots, not even the actual many weeks of burning, not even what remained unreacted, and not even what was consumed already in the pulverization, then you will begin to understand how "boojie woojie high school science" disproves the hypothesis that fast-burning nano-thermite (super duper or otherwise or any combination thereof) can be the primary destructive mechanism for everything observed at the WTC.
Let that sink in.
Another energy source for the hot-spots must be sought.
Don't you get it?
Thus the nano-thermite sacred cow gets slaughtered.
So, we need to come up with a new hypothesis to explain side-effects of pulverization and duration of hot-spots.
Dr. Wood does a great job of nudging people to think outside the box. Alas, to prove that I'm not blindly following Dr. Wood and am thinking for myself, I point out a yet another weak area in her textbook. But let me start with Dr. Jones.
Dr. Jones rules out nukes of type X, Y, or Z, because the radiation signature at ground zero didn't match them. Dr. Jones erroneously extrapolated his findings of the destructive mechanism not being "nukes of type X, Y, or Z" to being "no nukes at all." He did not speculate into "nukes of type W" or "nuclear generators" that could account for the anomalous radiation measurements.
Dr. Wood ruled out "deep underground nukes", because of the bathtub not being damaged. Dr. Wood introduces the concept of "separation" of the observable destructive cutting edge from its energy source, which she does with the concepts of free energy and possibly tapping into the energy of Hurricane Erin. She does not go into evidence of radiation measurements that required Dr. Jones' dog-and-pony show on the subject to begin with. Dr. Wood did not entertain the concept of a milli-nuclear generator being the source of energy for whatever was the destructive cutting edge (e.g., DEW). She tries to caste doubt that there were even hot-spots, referring to the images of hydraulic machines picking up glowing pieces of metal, saying "all that glows is not necessarily hot, and the hydraulics would fail if such hot-spots were present."
Enter Mr. Shack, who doesn't want to go into Dr. Wood's work at all, saying that it is based on tainted images. Expanding upon his point, if the image of the hydraulic machine picking up a glowing piece of metal were a faked digital representation (used by both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood), ironically Dr. Wood's statement of "all that glows [in digital imagery] is not necessarily hot" remains truthful, although the efforts to side-line hot-spots is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment