Friday, July 20, 2012

adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".


Mr. Rogue wrote:

Niels did a calculation based on a false assumption, that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized — they were not, and this can be proven by they debris samples themselves as Prof Jones points out. Only a portion of the materials were pulverized to nano particulates – that is a FACT.

To pulverize anything into nano-particulates is still a large energy sink.

The assumption that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized is worst case. [However, I have doubts that assumption applies in a straw man fashion, but let's go with it anyway.]

So, Mr. Rogue, please do some math and scale back Dr. Harrit's supposition of the "source" materials until you think the nano-particulates and the not-so-nano-particulates output are representative of the actual evidence. The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be "massive" and "ginormous".

One other thing, possibly a misframing (or "science-challenge skewing.") My understanding of Dr. Harrit's email was to account for the extrapolated-from-dust-samples amount of spheroid iron estimated in the debris pile. Again taking a worst case approach (albeit very conservatively) and assuming the iron spheroids were one of the resultants of a nano-thermite chemical reaction with steel, the quantities of nano-thermite had a significant number of "000,000" between a non-zero digit and the "kg" units [for just one tower], making logistics an Occam Razor negating factor.

Now I know that in recent discussions [July 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm, July 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm], Mr. Rogue has been talking mixing (either chemically or in a tandem parallel fashion) nano-thermite with another explosive [e.g., PETN, Semtex, super-RDX, and thermobaric] with more "brisance."

Brisance is the shattering capability of an explosive. It is a measure of the rapidity with which an explosive develops its maximum pressure. A brisant explosive is one that attains its maximum pressure so rapidly that a shock wave is formed. The net effect is to shatter (by shock resonance) the material surrounding or in contact with the supersonic detonation wave created by the explosion. Even within high explosives which build up a supersonic shock front, some build up faster than others, yield higher detonation velocities, and tend more towards controlled shock fronts in bulk, all of which lead to higher brisance.

I've highlighted the nugget of truth: a shock wave is formed. Shock waves produce sounds... loud sounds... sounds measurable as high decibel levels.

I've written before that Dr. Sunder -- neither an actor nor a politician -- said on camera with a straight face and no lying ticks paraphrased words to the effect: "We ruled out known conventional controlled demolition explosives and known military explosives, because the signature decibel levels were not present." [I think Dr. Sunder was told what it was, that it wasn't chemical explosives, which then enabled him to talk with a straight face and say the words that it wasn't chemcial explosives. So could I.]

However, this posting here is mixing together different things. One thing is accounting for the iron spheroids (Dr. Harrit's email.) Mr. Rogue is now trying to explain nano-particulates -- and seems to be pointing to the same Dr. Harrit email.

Doesn't matter. Those "brisant-y" materials can have math estimates made regarding their likely initial quantities. As I've done mathematically before (July 10, 2012 at 4:44 am), you can start at one extreme -- 100% nano-thermite -- and scale back its usage in favor of those "brisant-y" materials. Quoting myself and so soon:

The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be "massive" and "ginormous".

Ain't so Occam Razor, and those pesky hot-spots and "tritium" reports suggest something else was involved.


Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : brisance explosives reach a decibel limit (of the evidence) very fast


Señor El Once : eleven (11) flat-screen TV's


Señor El Once : wouldn't want to walk from Columbine High School in Littleton to the movie theater in Aurora


Señor El Once : welcome to drink my bong water


hybridrogue1 : reply from Prof Jones


Señor El Once : separate my beliefs from Mr. Rogue's actions


hybridrogue1 : I am going to read Wood’s book


Señor El Once : third law from Newton


Señor El Once : can’t get much more “special” than that


Señor El Once : less of a (passenger) plane and more of a missile


Señor El Once : ridicule of the ridiculous


Señor El Once : confirms the use of a hologram?


Señor El Once : haven't proven anything


Frankly I don’t think that Señor El Once has proven anything as per an alternative theory to explosive demolition of the towers by chemical energetics.

Correct, Mr. Rogue. But just because I haven't proven it was nuclear DEW or other exotic weapons (to your satisfaction), doesn't mean that your theory of explosive demolition by chemical energetics is proven or valid either.

Played a role? No problem.

Primary mechanism? No way. Ain't logistically Occam Razor and don't account for all the evidence. (And doesn't fit in with the mentality of those who would attempt this when they have such deep arsenals that the public can only imagine and wouldn't be the wiser.)

Pick any number between 1 and 500. Put "000,000 kg" to the right of it.

For just one tower, this is the estimated quantities of chemical energetic materials (e.g., nano-thermite) that the perps slipped into the towers in the several days that bomb-sniffing dogs took a pre-9/11 holiday.

And it still can't account for under-rubble hot-spot duration, tritium, and vehicle damage in the car park and West Broadway.

So, whereas I'm still searching for a reasonable explanation (and being duped left-and-right), Mr. Rogue wants to park our research at known inadequate and deficient theories that even NIST poo-poo's with decibels.

No comments: