Saturday, February 11, 2012

Ignorant about Propellants and Explosives

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives

2011-02-11

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

We probably both fall into the category of being ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives.

Although I disbelieve that super duper nano-thermite has the explosive potential to pulverize the contents of the tower as observed on 9/11, quite possibly you'll find examples and not just hearsay that it is so. Doesn't matter, because the more effort you put into proving the explosive energy of nano-thermite, the more you prove that super duper nano-thermite could not account for the hot-spots that burned for many weeks.

Physics in this matter says that you can't have it both ways. You can't have nano-thermite accounting for pulverization ~AND~ the many week duration of hot-spots.

You wrote:

[T]hese materials found in the surface dust were ‘unreacted’…if there are unreacted incendiaries in the surface materials, it is more than reasonable to presume they are in the pile and buried with the debris – this being the case there is a source for a continued burn, which most certainly would account for the furnace effects reported by witnesses.



To put it nicely, you are talking through your hat and exposing your weak pedigree in the area of science, math, and physics.

From Dr. Ed Ward:


The velocity of instantaneous combustion has been measured for most explosives and is referred to as the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities of high explosives range from approximately 3,300 feet per second (fps) to over 29,900 fps. To bring this speed down to our terms - If we took a five-mile length of garden hose and filled it in with a high explosive and then detonated one end of the hose, it would only take one second for the chemical reaction to reach the other end.
http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm



What is the burn-rate or detonation velocity of super duper nano-thermite? I don't know.

What I do know is that hot-spots burned for many weeks (more than 4.) 4 weeks = 28 days = 392 hours = 23,520 minutes = 1,411,200 seconds. For the sake of discussion, let's contemplate one hot-spot, use a slow burn rate of 3,300 feet per second, and just 4 weeks. Thus, for this imaginary explosive we would need a garden hose 4,656,960,000 feet long (or approximately 882,000 miles). You can tweak the numbers to make them specific to nano-thermite with the energy to pulverize content, but to account for the duration of the hot-spot you'll get a garden hose even longer that 882,000 miles.

Ignoring the weight of the hose itself and assuming 1/2 diameter hose, how much explosive material in kilograms would be in such? Massive amounts.

Not just massive amounts. Unreasonable amounts.

Have the nuclear hot-spots in Japan as a result of the 2011-03-11 action (earthquake, tidal wave, etc.) been put out? I don't know. What I do know is that nuclear hot-spots comes closer to answering the observed outcome of 9/11 than super duper nano-thermite.

Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1, other energy sources and destructive mechanisms for 9/11 much be sought.

You parking yourself and the discussion at nano-thermite? Expose either your ignorance or your agenda.

The same might be said about your attacks on video fakery. I don't know what you did at Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention, but given that they earn their profits by making us believe fake things are real on the telly -- just like we're saying much of 9/11 were fake things that looked almost real on the telly --, then...

Kudos, Mr. HybridRogue1. I consider you on the A-team of the NSA Q-Group, which is why, as you say, I'll never persuade you on this topic.

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : Enough

2012-02-12

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

I have read enough of Judy Wood at her blog site, and in other papers that I have come to the conclusion that she is a fruitloop.



The keyword in the above is "enough." "Enough" is not "all" and probably isn't "most" either in this case. For a thinking man who comes to his own conclusions, do you think your skimming of her web efforts might have left out a corner or two that might tie everything together and lead to a different conclusion?

I don't know. Call that a data point that aligns very nicely with your consistent and repugnant ability to give book reports and in-depth reviews on a textbook you have probably never held in your hands for enough minutes to read its introduction word-for-word. The trend line that passes through these two points also happens to intersect a third data point, which is the "fruitloop" ad hominem word used to summarize your conclusions. You are entitled to your opinion.

That you are now asserting that she is suddenly a real scientist and has mended all of her past errors doesn’t wash.



Dr. Wood has always been a real scientist, and she never really departed from being such. It was because she was asking real scientific questions and demanding real scientific answers about the events of 9/11 that this all came about. I'm sure she would have been happy for other real scientists to have been asking these relevant real scientific questions.

So much for your mangled framing and attempts to put words in my mouth.

I think for myself and come to my own conclusions. Two of these are; Wood is bunk, the second is the Shack is bunk.



You refused Mr. Shack's invitation to explore his rabbit holes. You have a high & mighty seat far above a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook from which you make proclamations as to the bunkiness of each chapter, one-by-one.

Real people, Mr. HybridRogue1, recognize when their initial conclusions are clearly based on incomplete information and might think to at least delay their final assessment until the missing information is reviewed. Your verbose actions from the weak position of ignorance is the true bunk.

Until such time as you can make a coherent argument for Wood, other than “You have to see it to believe it”, you will find me less than hospitable to your preacings.



I enjoy how you mangle the framing.

How about you make a coherent argument for super duper nano-thermite that explains with physics and math how it can achieve both pulverization of content as well as the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without necessitating unreasonable massive quantities. Feel free to copy from the works of Dr. Jones and company, if you can find what they published on the matter is greater than the zero.

Another energy source and destructive mechanism for the WTC ground zero must be sought. Thus, the coherent argument for Dr. Wood that I make is that she has published a large, "heavy, high-quality textbook with extravagant use of color" [according to Mr. David Chandler] that introduces evidence and concepts for thinking readers to come to their own conclusions regarding alternative energy sources and destructive mechanisms.

{Full Disclosure: Dr. Wood does not definitively tie together evidence and concepts as being applicable on 9/11. A strength of her textbook is that chapters stand more or less on their own; the concepts of a given chapter can be deemed inapplicable without discounting neighboring chapters. My own beliefs about the destructive mechanisms and energy sources deviate from concepts presented by Dr. Wood, but stand on her work's shoulders and thus remain applicable to get readers thinking outside-the-box.}


Señor El Once : burn rates of any type of explosive equates to massive quantities

2012-02-12


Señor El Once : Oh ye of science-challenged thinking and purposeful misframing!

2012-02-12


Señor El Once : slow burn rates or fast burn rates

2012-02-12

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I wrote:

The point is that slow burn rates or fast burn rates, explosives of even the nano-thermite varieties that you champion cannot account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.



You responded:

This is an unsupported position Mr. Once.



Nonsense, Mr. HybridRogue1. I do make lots of unsubstantiated speculation, but with regards to the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots, I'm just going by the evidence and math. It is entirely substantiated by anyone who remembers the algebra associated with high school chemistry.

If you don’t know the DURATION of a slower burning incendiary, you cannot posit what time frame these materials would burn for.



Nonsense again, Mr. HybridRogue1. The burn rates for fast and slow incendiaries was given plus or minus. I chose the slowest burn rate just to provide a worst case scenario. You suggest that nano-thermite is even more of a pulverizing fast burning force.

Tsk, tsk. You can't brush off so quickly how the math at a slow burn rate already suggests a totally unreasonably massively huge beyond measure quantity of said incindiary material. And when the actual burn rate of super duper nano-thermite (or any combination of thermitic materials) -- being much faster -- is plugged in, results in quantities much larger than that to account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.

An energy source for the hot-spots must be found that isn't thermite, mate.

Nuclear. Shock-&-awe, baby! Nuclear.


Señor El Once : wrongly oriented criticisms

2012-02-13

No comments: