Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.
Post a reply

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 19:52:26

Cambridge VS Carlhole
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ambridge Takes on the Truthers

The school of Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking and some of the worlds top scientist and engineers has weighed in why the WTC fell and continued to collapse. As no surprise they saw nothing to the controlled demolition conspiracy theorist claims.
http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=125

---------------------------------------------------------------

Image
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002
I just don't see scientific evidence weighing in on the side of this conspiracy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '.')..So relative to the energy in the mass of the building, the energy in hypothetical charges would be trivial. So any molten metal seen in rubble would probably not be the result of jet fuel or cutting charges. They would be the result one would expect from that much mass coming down and of that much energy being turned into heat. Hypothetically, if charges were used heat and molten metal wouldn't be proof of it.


...I've seen one of two people pull this particular piece of crap out of their ass on internet forums once or twice and that's about the only place I've ever seen it mentioned.
Language Carl...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')his 100 tons of TNT had to do all the work of:
This list is like describing all the work a grenade would have to do to explode...

* First the explosive grenade has to somehow burst and fragment a shell made of "bullet proof" steel.

* Then even though the force of the explosive is distributed evenly in every direction, somehow these fragments that weigh only fractions of ounces still have the energy to fly 50 feet displacing pounds of dense atmosphere and still penetrate thick body armor!

Unbelievable right? :roll:
Last edited by steam_cannon on Sat 08 Dec 2007, 19:57:12, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 19:53:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')HAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!
This just doesn't seem worth mentioning. Many great physicists are against the war for reasons of ethics, going after the wrong country and such... But no respected physicists I know of see any problems with the molten rubble. A building that size had the energy of a meteor and thinking about it myself, I don't see any problem with large amounts of heat from that.


You'll have to supply sources or links or something. Because I have not seen any decent explanation for the exteme temperatures of the rubble. I have lots of links testifying to these temperatures and for the existence of molten metal running like lava in the piles.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'A')nyway you look at it, points about temperature and how funny looking it all is divert from the biggest issue. Tricking a public into going to war is simply wrong. This was a day democracy failed and we need to investigate that.


I'm sure a lot of people agree with you that the US public was tricked into war.

My working hypothesis is that 911 was part of the trick. I also think that the Towers were white elephants, needed to be taken down anyway and were convenient, obvious targets.

Somebody, in the planning stages of all of this, thought they were too smart for the rest of the world.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 20:26:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'M')any great physicists are against the war for reasons of ethics, going after the wrong country and such... But no respected physicists I know of see any problems with the molten rubble.
You'll have to supply sources or links or something...
Yeah, I was still editing my above post when you asked this question.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cambridge', '[')img]http://i18.tinypic.com/6jv6d1d.gif[/img]
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002
When this full report comes out, if they have a problem with molten aluminum or molten steel in the footprint of the towers, well they aren't saying it yet. Unlike peak oil and global warming, I haven't heard respectable scientists agreeing with the demolition theories. And I'll tell ya, as controlled as our media is if any of our lead scientists agreed with the demolition theory, it would be news.

Another good point though is Aluminum VS Steel... Lets consider for a moment the possibility that I'm totally wrong and the heat of the collapse didn't melt anything. It wouldn't matter. The building had lots of steel and lots of aluminum in it. The rubble was loaded with fires and heat. You ever see a glowing can in a fire slowly melt? Aluminum melts in a charcoal grill and from the NASA images, the site has some fires that you could definitely cook a hotdog over. I think the fires and collapse heat was probably high enough to get to the steel melting range. But even if they were just regular fires, with all the aluminum in that building, that would be more then enough to cause aluminum to melt into molten pools under the rubble. Whatever the case, considering the construction of the building and the fires, it would be surprising if there wasn't any melted metal.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nis ... reply.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'A')nyway you look at it, points about temperature and how funny looking it all is divert from the biggest issue. Tricking a public into going to war is simply wrong. This was a day democracy failed and we need to investigate that.


I'm sure a lot of people agree with you that the US public was tricked into war.

My working hypothesis is that 911 was part of the trick. I also think that the Towers were white elephants, needed to be taken down anyway and were convenient, obvious targets.

Somebody, in the planning stages of all of this, thought they were too smart for the rest of the world.Another though, I'm also thinking after the planes hit, really no matter what else happened that day, the administration would have used the planes as an excuse for war. So no matter how it happened, hoodwinking the public is the main issue.
Last edited by steam_cannon on Sat 08 Dec 2007, 21:06:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 20:58:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'M')any great physicists are against the war for reasons of ethics, going after the wrong country and such... But no respected physicists I know of see any problems with the molten rubble.
You'll have to supply sources or links or something...
Yeah, I was still editing my above post when you asked this question.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cambridge', '[')img]http://i18.tinypic.com/6jv6d1d.gif[/img]
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002
When this full report comes out, if they have a problem with molten aluminum or molten steel in the footprint of the towers, well they aren't saying it yet. Unlike peak oil and global warming, I haven't heard respectable scientists agreeing with the demolition theories. And I'll tell ya, as controlled as our media is if any of our lead scientists agreed with the demolition theory, it would be news.


The Cambridge Paper (Seffen's) paper (PDF):

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis

It does NOT mention the high temperatures in the rubble piles. It doesn't seem to be anything much beyond the Pancake Theory or Bazant's papers.

It doesn't explain the sudden onset of collapse without any period of deformation at all. This is important given that NIST has determined that temperatures at the impact zone did not exceed 480 F (250 C).

Steel weakens to 50% of it's cold strength at 1100 F. And the towers were overbuilt to hold 5 times the weight above. They were "the most redundant design ever built" - according to one Structural Engineer commenting to Peter Jennings on that day.

What caused the 1200 - 1500 F temperatures in the rubble piles that lasted for up to 5 weeks?

Seffen doesn't say. Bazant doesn't say. NIST doesn't say. FEMA doesn't say. The 911 Commission denies the extreme temperatures and the molten metal ever existed.

However, Physicist Steven Jones HAS advanced a theory that would explain the sudden, complete, symmetrical collapse as well as the lack of evidence of high temperatures at the impact zones and also the very high temperatures observed in the rubble piles.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 21:43:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')he Cambridge Paper (Seffen's) paper (PDF):

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis
Nice find :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I')t does NOT mention the high temperatures in the rubble piles.
I was getting to that...

Another good point though is Aluminum VS Steel... Lets consider for a moment the possibility that I'm totally wrong and the heat of the collapse didn't melt anything. It wouldn't matter. The building had lots of steel and lots of aluminum in it. The rubble was loaded with fires and heat. You ever see a glowing can in a fire slowly melt? Aluminum melts in a charcoal grill and from the NASA images, the site has some fires that you could definitely cook a hotdog over. I think the fires and collapse heat was probably high enough to get to the steel melting range. But even if they were just regular fires, with all the aluminum in that building, that would be more then enough to cause aluminum to melt into molten pools under the rubble. Whatever the case, considering the construction of the building and the fires, it would be surprising if there wasn't any melted metal.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nis ... reply.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'W')hat caused the 1200 - 1500 F temperatures in the rubble piles that lasted for up to 5 weeks?
Burning aluminum?

Really, it's a good question. :-D
Thermite wouldn't do that because by definition thermite contains it's own oxidizer, so it would burn up too fast to last 5 weeks. However, regular white hot burning aluminum would get to those temperatures and if there were large pools of aluminum there could be plenty of fuel to last that long.

I read somewhere that burning aluminum can get into the range of 3,000° C, where as steel often melts at around 1370° degrees C.

Ignition of aluminum w/ MAPP GAS/OXYGEN torch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4LT3Z_4oas

Burning Aluminum (check out the end)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L-R2PxzWGM

Is it worth saving aluminum cans? ...Burn aluminum!!
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic34458.html

Watching these videos and such, one has to consider how much heat aluminum in structure could have added if it ignited. Cans can burn up in a bonfire. Imagine the heat that could be contributed by ground up carbon aluminum office furniture or if someone had the idiotic idea to insulate a floor with aluminum foam sound insulation. And who knows, maybe they used Magnesium for the window frames, you ever see that stuff burn? You need goggles just so it doesn't blind you!

magnesium fire (I've never made one this big...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rogZBXNq ... re=related

Burning Magnesium - white hot 3500 degrees melting steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nPAbwPIVg

Burning Magnesium in Water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrjYb1Oy-Pc

Ya know, just thinking about is... Hot spots from aluminum or magnesium fires could easily explain the heat and explain people seeing pools of melted steel and or melted aluminum. And the melted aluminum that supposedly was found would further suggest there could have been plenty of aluminum to fuel really hot fires.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 22:19:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '.').Anyway, aluminum or magnesium fires could easily explain the heat and explain people seeing pools of melted steel or melted aluminum. And the melted aluminum that was found would suggest there could have been plenty of aluminum to fuel really hot fires.


Sure.

Ordinary fires are not hot enough to ignite a powdered aluminum/iron mixture. You can hold a propane torch on thermite and it will not ignite. You need something like a magnesium fuse to ignite it.

The melting point of aluminum is 1220.58 °F (660.32 ° C). NIST has shown that tmperatures of fires in the towers in the impact zone did not surpass 480 ° F (250 ° C).

And aluminum burning by itself? Find me just one other example anywhere in the world of this happening in some sort of accident.
Lots of aircraft have crashed into flames over the years. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to find ONE example of aluminum being set on fire by one of these.

And then explain the sudden collapse of WTC7 and it's own extremely hot rubble pile afterwards. Building 7, if you recall, was not hit by an aluminum aircraft.

FEMA engineers said of the WTC7 rubble that they found there perhaps the most mysterious phenomenon of all the events of 911: The remains of "vaporized" steel beams and beams which were stretched into thin sheets full of holes - like Swiss cheese.
They also found evidence of sulfidization on them - a signature of thermate (thermite with sulfur added).

You sound like just another fruitcake who will settle for any queer idea that helps you win an argument.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 00:50:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'Y')ou sound like just another fruitcake who will settle for any queer idea that helps you win an argument.
Carl, just try reading carefully and calmly. I'm not insulting you. But I am getting the impression that you are insulting me because you don't want to hear answers. Or because these answers are getting too close to conflicting with your beliefs.

Well anyway, you still seem to have some basic questions about metal fires, so here are some answers.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '.').Anyway, aluminum or magnesium fires could easily explain the heat and explain people seeing pools of melted steel or melted aluminum. And the melted aluminum that was found would suggest there could have been plenty of aluminum to fuel really hot fires.


Sure

...You can hold a propane torch on thermite and it will not ignite. You need something like a magnesium fuse to ignite it.
I don't know about thermite, but I do know I just posted two videos of someone ignighting solid pieces of aluminum with a torch. Second charcoal gets hot enough to burn aluminum and charcoal formed during the combustion of plastics and paper could get hot enough too. Third, aluminum can slowly oxidize in a fire and contribute significantly to the heat. So even full ignition of aluminum is not necessary. It's easy to try, just toss a soda can in a fire sometime.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'A')nd aluminum burning by itself? Find me just one other example anywhere in the world of this happening in some sort of accident. Lots of aircraft have crashed into flames over the years. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to find ONE example of aluminum being set on fire by one of these.
Sure google: "chemical oxygen generators aircraft fire"
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese temperature estimates exceed the melting point of aluminum. See also the burning-aircraft photos in this thoughtful rebuttal of Professor Jones' lunatic "thermite" theory. http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm ("Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings yet it's aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was the contents like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt.") (unfortunately, the author of that article also mistakenly assumed that iron is "non-combustible")

It should also be kept in mind that "aluminum ... ignites at relatively low temperature," Aluminum, "melts at about 1,220[F] degrees. At about 1,400[F] degrees, it can automatically ignite and burst into flames without any spark" "The formation of aluminum oxide is accompanied by the release of a tremendous amount of heat ... temperatures can reach around 5,000 degrees."
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/0 ... 281125.php

Image
Simply put, all that is needed to happen is for the one of hundreds of oxygen generators on a plane to reach about 400+ degrees to burst it's seals and start an oxygen fire. Once that happens you've easily got an aluminum fire. But even without oxygen generators, fires could have easily reached ignition temperature for aluminum or magnesium present in the airframe to ignite.

By the way, sodium chlorate is an excellent oxidizer and perfect for starting metal fires, I've done it. Also aircrafts contain large amounts of magnesium parts. If you watch the videos, magnesium burns very well too. So inside the relatively "cold looking" black smoke of the towers, there were probably metal fires burning with their own oxygen. So there would be no shortage of heat. And after the towers collapsed, magnesium fires or aluminum fires could have explained the heat in the collapsed building.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'A')nd then explain the sudden collapse of WTC7 and it's own extremely hot rubble pile afterwards. Building 7, if you recall, was not hit by an aluminum aircraft.Really, this is a separate argument. So I'm going to keep this short. WTC7 visibly had a chunk of building land on it and was on fire. If you like to think they torched it, maybe but there were a lot of building fires in that area that day.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'F')EMA engineers said of the WTC7 rubble that they found there perhaps the most mysterious phenomenon of all the events of 911: The remains of "vaporized" steel beams and beams which were stretched into thin sheets full of holes - like Swiss cheese.
They also found evidence of sulfidization on them - a signature of thermate (thermite with sulfur added).Well, if FEMA says they found thermite I might belief it. But you know, that building had a big diesel tank fire that day and which would release lots of sulfur, as would burning plastics. And steel beams turning to "swiss cheese" has happened before, that's what basically happened with this burning tanker truck video...

Fuel burning out steel bridge beams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3bvfdCogDs
Based on this bridge fire, one can see that thick steel beams can melt and disintegrate in a fuel fire. Based on visual proof, burning metals would not have even been necessary for either buildings to collapse. But hey, that's just my first impression. It's just that knowing a bit about combustion and metals, none of this sounds really surprising or impossible.

But getting back to the topic of metal fires, try burning some metals if you don't believe the videos. Ya know, they sell great magnesium fire starters at Walmart, they're lots of fun! Whatever you do I think you should take it easy with the insults, it makes you sound unreasonable.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 02:23:44

I think the whole scenario that you are laying out is so far-fetched that I would be very happy to see some official investigating agency, like NIST, adopt it.

So far, none have. I wonder why not?

I loved your YouTube "burning aluminum" example. I think I'll use it for MY side of the argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L-R2PxzWGM
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 05:40:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') think the whole scenario that you are laying out is so far-fetched that I would be very happy to see some official investigating agency, like NIST, adopt it.

So far, none have. I wonder why not?
It's a little odd you say "my" far fetched scenario. I don't have a scenario or follow conspiracy theories very much, but off the top of my head I can think of some fairly reasonable answers to your questions. A bridge that melted like the girders in the towers. Perhaps compaction didn't cause so much heat, but there was no shortage of metals known to burn. However, I'm just thinking about your questions. If you want scenarios, I'd suggest maybe http://www.debunking911.com and perhaps the Cambridge links we discussed.

People sometimes get into conspiracy theories like they do religion, they get into the habit of not questioning their assumptions. Myself, I know that how everything went down looks kinda shady and I can't answer every question, I'm not omnipotent. But what's interesting to me, is that you can't give any ground. A bridge melts to the ground from burning fuel, metals and oxygen generators can contribute significant heat to a fire. And while you're willing to consider the wild possibility that a building can be secretly rigged to implode, you're not able to consider simple stuff like oxygen generators like to burn. It leaves me wondering why you're having trouble considering the simple mechanics behind at least some of this.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'W')hat caused the 1200 - 1500 F temperatures in the rubble piles that lasted for up to 5 weeks?
Like here, I gave some fairly thorough answers to questions like this and I get the impression you didn't want reasonable sounding answers. To each their own I guess...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')I loved your YouTube "burning aluminum" example. I think I'll use it for MY side of the argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L-R2PxzWGM
Well, the end of the video is quite impressive, as are the multiple light ups of the aluminum can. Also to be fair, you should include one of the links I posted about burning magnesium, since aircraft often incorporate significant magnesium which burns impressively too.

It's strange how you are framing this as having sides. Perhaps you are on the "can't question a conspiracy theory" side? Well, no matter what you desire at some point the laws of physics must have been involved, hence the physics examples I posted. It's kind of strange that you can't give ground, but not really surprising either.

Best of luck figuring things out...
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 06:29:17

My side of the argument is that there are a whole shitload of very good unanswered questions surrounding the events of 911. Also, that explanations for some of the oddities of 911 can be explained very well by controlled demolition or deliberate stand-down. This implies some sort of official complicity - you can't get away from it.

Naturally, I want to see another investigation take place which answers or at least addresses these questions and suspicions in a forthright, complete and rigorous way.

People argue with me and say I haven't brought up up good questions. So I argue back and say I have!

One side wants to get to the bottom of everything that people have been seriously debating for the past 6 years. The other side argues that it is unnecessary to get to the bottom of these questions because they already have answers - and they provide explanations that do not have the ring of truth to them and which have no formal sanction.

At any rate, formal investigating agencies have not answered questions such as the cause of the extremely high rubble temperatures. They have not provided explanation for the total Progressive Collapse of the Towers. They have not even finalized an explanation for WTC7 - and it's been 6 years!

Documents, samples, videos, tapes etc are STILL classified and unavailable to independent researchers depsite an intense curiousity about the events of 911 by the public. 'Loose Change' in it's 3 versions, has been the most downloaded video in internet history! Whenever the mainstream media does something on 911, the ratings for that show go through the roof! Polls show that about a third of the public think the government was complicit to some degree. Well over half the public do not believe that they have been told the full truth about 911.

Despite the public's keen interest, Professor Jones cannot get an official sample of dust from the EPA for independent testing no matter how hard he tries. Documents pertaining to positively identified aircraft wreckage requested in FOIA requests are refused by the FBI. You cannot get a straight answer from the NTSB about Flight 77's flight path re-creation which they released and which differs markedly from that of the official story. It's one stonewall after another.

And it goes on and on and on.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:55:21

By the way, as I was mentioning metal fires before, I almost forgot about iron reactions...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')img]http://i6.tinypic.com/6x0lv1x.jpg[/img]

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html
So as I was more or less saying, this sounded like combusting metals. And it didn't take a great deal of indepth study to figure that out. Now, looking over these more detailed explanations it certainly seems to make sense. And I think with just a little thinking, most of these questions seem to have similar rational explanations.

Now back on topic...
"Peak oil" is consistent with geology and indepth peer reviewed research. 9/11 conspiracies, don't have the same standing. People confusing burning debris and metals with thermite is just bad logic. Thermite isn't even useful for demolition, it's to uncontrolled. And if people keep focusing on things like this, then people genuinely interested in getting a more thorough investigation of 9/11, just aren't going to get the respect they deserve.

Right or wrong, as long as people keep piling improbable unprovable theories together with 9/11, and if Morrisons accomplishment is linking peak oil and 9/11 in peoples minds, peak oil is going to become less legitimate because of it.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 11:35:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '
')
Right or wrong, as long as people keep piling improbable unprovable theories together with 9/11, and if Morrisons accomplishment is linking peak oil and 9/11 in peoples minds, peak oil is going to become less legitimate because of it.


Excellent, and quite right. Every time some nut tries to hijack the peak oil debate and co-op it into some skewed political view for whatever reason, us peakers get lumped in with every other nutjob, and then we wonder why people aren't taking us seriously.

I'm quite tired of defending the peak oil concept myself, and then someone brings up a shining star like Ruppert or some other crackpot and I've got to go through my entire spiel on why nutjobs hijacking peak oil for their own ends remain nutjobs, and only want to lend themselves some credibility by latching onto a real topic to support their silly one.
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby killJOY » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 13:06:26

Right or wrong, as long as people keep piling improbable unprovable theories together with 9/11, and if Morrisons accomplishment is linking peak oil and 9/11 in peoples minds, peak oil is going to become less legitimate because of it.

Read Morrison's essay and tell me if you think that's what he's doing. Peak oil is part of the picture, whether one likes it or not.

Many "conspiracists," with the best of intentions, simply got it wrong. Morrison is no "conspiracist." He offers up a simple explanation that accords with what we know of the known universe. It is also simple and testable and doesn't require nit-picking over melting points of steel, etc.
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
User avatar
killJOY
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: ^NNE^
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 16:53:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'R')ead Morrison's essay and tell me if you think that's what he's doing. Peak oil is part of the picture, whether one likes it or not.

Many "conspiracists," with the best of intentions, simply got it wrong. Morrison is no "conspiracist." He offers up a simple explanation that accords with what we know of the known universe. It is also simple and testable and doesn't require nit-picking over melting points of steel, etc.
That's true KillJOY, but look how quickly the conversation turned to "nit-picking over melting points of steel". I probably sound like it, but not trying to say that Morrison is wrong about everything. It's just that 9/11 has a big tar pit between here and there that gums up anyone who walks though it.

Image

Maybe to examine the connections between peak oil and 9/11 one must walk carefully around the tar and be careful not to be dragged in.

Image
Maybe signs would help... :lol:
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby killJOY » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:12:51

That's true KillJOY, but look how quickly the conversation turned to "nit-picking over melting points of steel".

I guess that's what they mean by "threadjacking"?

I'd like to jack somebody... :twisted:
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
User avatar
killJOY
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: ^NNE^
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:26:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'B')y the way, as I was mentioning metal fires before, I almost forgot about iron reactions...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')img]http://i6.tinypic.com/6x0lv1x.jpg[/img]

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html
So as I was more or less saying, this sounded like combusting metals. And it didn't take a great deal of indepth study to figure that out. Now, looking over these more detailed explanations it certainly seems to make sense. And I think with just a little thinking, most of these questions seem to have similar rational explanations.


![/quote]

I would LOVE it if NIST or some official body would adopt this explanation because it is so-o-o utterly far-fetched and unlikely. It also lends itself to experimental proof. If NIST endoresed it, you can bet investigators would try to duplicate the conditions and repeat the phenomenon. Go for it NIST! That would be really great for the cause of the Tuth Movement.

But even when aluminum and iron are powdered and brought together in ideal conditions, it STILL takes nearly 1500 degrees F to get them reacting.

If beams of iron and aluminum could react this easily, then we would have seen this sort of reaction in other building demolitions and accidents.

Why do you think NIST left the red hot temperatures of all three rubble piles unexplained? In fact, they did not even recognize the high temps properly despite the videos, testimonies and photographs? Because it is very troublesome for them, that's why!!
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:37:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '[')i]That's true KillJOY, but look how quickly the conversation turned to "nit-picking over melting points of steel".

I guess that's what they mean by "threadjacking"?

I'd like to jack somebody... :twisted:


I have already explained that in law enforcement investigations, police use inductive logic which means that they first compile as many facts as possible and uncover as much evidence as possible - the total accumulation of which guides their creation of an overall theory of a crime. This is also the primary discovery mode in science.

When you use inductive logic, you are saying, "Well, A , B and C are true so, therefore, theory D explains those facts.

Conversely, when you use deductive logic, you are saying, "Well A happened, so B and C must have happened". Police investigators do not use this method if they can avoid it. Because confirmed facts are the best to use to build a case (or a theory); whereas theories can only unreliably imply the existence of facts.

Reg Morrison is just another theory-maker who doesn't rely on fundamentals to build his case. His theory is created in his imagination only. Are we to go back and fill in all the unconfirmed facts that his theory implies? I don't think that's a good way to get to the truth of the matter. In official investigations, one should begin with confirmed facts which lead to the theory.

So all the stuff about "melting steel" are efforts to get at the fundamental facts of the matter - which then can be used to build the theory. Not the other way around.

I've had to repeat this so many times, I just don't think some people are bright enough to grasp it.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Golgo13 » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 23:20:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'O')nce again, I think this misses the point: We don't need to consider a vast 9-11 conspiracy to explain this mess.

Credulity and greed will do.


Yeah, I wasn't invoking any 9/11 conspiracies, but simply relaying the fact that these military strategies for regional dominance were long in the making. 9/11 was just the catalyst that generated the necessary imperial mobilization. The fact that we ended up in Iraq shortly after 9/11 should come as no suprise to anyone familiar with PNAC objectives.

In other words, the official excuse for our involvement in the region is a smokescreen, by and large.
User avatar
Golgo13
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon 13 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest