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

Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby killJOY » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 13:41:05

I've been able to find only one thread devoted to this succinct genius.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic16264.html+morrison

I have to thank Ed for introducing me to Morrison's book.

Suddenly, it's like the scales have fallen from my eyes.

Written in 1997, Morrison's view of the coming ecological catastrophe fits lock-in-key with what we now know about peak oil.


It's not surprising that Morrison has lately integrated peak oil into a view of the Iraq war that is overwhelmingly compelling for its simplicity and how it comports with the known universe.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o while the world faces an energy crisis in the very near future, America faces imminent extinction as an industrial and military power. Meanwhile, its crucial oil arteries in the Middle East are plainly exposed and well within the reach of its bitterest enemy, al Qu'eda.

Who's Winning In Iraq?


Many of us have cavorted with the likes of Mike Ruppert and his masterful conspiracy theory because of the way he positions peak oil at the center of an epic struggle. We may have even read his HUGE TOME Crossing the Rubicon which was so brilliant it left me in the dust.

However, the Ptolemaic view of the universe was also brilliant. And wrong.

Reg Morrison's essay Who's Winning In Iraq? does in a mere 7 pages what hundreds of pages of Ruppert really couldn't do: convince me of a view of 9-11 and peak oil and the Iraq war that COMPORTS WITH WHAT I KNOW OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.

After accepting Ruppert's thesis a few years ago, I found myself too often in the "defensive" mode: how to explain this and that and the other thing? How could the doofus from Texas and his cowardly/heart-less side-kick pull off an act of such complicated evil genius?

Too, too many complications. We all know about Occam's Razor: THOU SHALT NOT MULTIPLY PROPOSITIONS.

Morrison has quietly taken that razor and gutted the last vestiges of our pride.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen out of the blue, on January 20, 2001, a naive Texas oilman managed to wangle his way into the White House. Here indeed was a gift from Allah, for here was a poorly-educated gung-ho Baptist assuming command of the world's greatest military machine. And the thing that most confronted him on the world stage was a small, oil-soaked, Muslim nation run by an 'evil' dictator--who also happened to be a proven loser. Here, surely, was bait that George W. Bush could not possibly ignore....

With a born-again Crusader at America's helm, al Qu'eda's next three targets chose themselves....

Who's Winning In Iraq?


In Morrison's view, the war on Iraq and 9-11 don't need vast convoluted explanations. It requires you to accept only one thesis:

That the leaders of the greatest military power ever known -- and that includes Clinton, in relation to the Sudan bombing fiasco -- have also been THE GREATEST FOOLS ever known.

If you've read any classic literature, you know what I mean.

Iago pulled the wool over the great Othello's eyes.

The mighty Oedipus was stupid enough to think he could outrun the will of the gods.

So why not accept that the "faulty intelligence" that led to this sickening war was the work of al Qu'eda?

No wonder the Bushies HATE Valerie Plame. She was on the trail. She was about to grasp the embarrassing truth: Bush and Cheney swallowed whole a bait laid by The Enemy.

Now we're in for it.

As Othello howls, looking down at his wife's murdered body:



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O') fool, fool, fool!



Who's Winning In Iraq?
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 MattSavinar » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 14:36:26

Fools?

They've got 14 permanent bases sitting on top of the world's last swing producer of all time. Plus they've got investments in the companies that will eventually get the PSAs for said swing producer.

You're the fool for thinking the above arrangement is somehow anything other than the product of cold logic.

Does this look like the stock portfolio of a fool to you:

Image
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Olorin » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 14:51:17

just got a crazy thought:

What if Matt is sponsored by the CIA? An insider luring the foolish sheep to his site and then selling them to the neocons?

And then again:

What if that´s Al Qaeda´s plan, and they are really only trying to get rid of these Peak Oilers, because they are actually supporting the house of Saud?

:lol:
User avatar
Olorin
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu 16 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby killJOY » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 15:48:41

Matt, I think you've missed the point.

The Administration and al Qu'eda are evil twins.

Neither gives a shit about Iraq.
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 Golgo13 » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 16:06:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'I')n Morrison's view, the war on Iraq and 9-11 don't need vast convoluted explanations. It requires you to accept only one thesis:

That the leaders of the greatest military power ever known -- and that includes Clinton, in relation to the Sudan bombing fiasco -- have also been THE GREATEST FOOLS ever known.


There's an old saying when applying a good ol' Occam's Razor that goes something like "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity".

That works all good and well in theory, but then we have to realize that everything that happens isn't due to idiocy. People do make plans to these effects, and the only thing this kind of thinking will do is play right into the hands of those making this happen.

But first, he have to establish whether such plans were being made to begin with. It's no good to just speculate all day, so we need something of substance in which to base any conclusions we may arrive at on.

On that note, we have PNAC and the NeoCons who have came out and publically stated through their publications that this entire war escapade in the middle east is their doing. They admited to it years before it ever got to where we're at now in their manifesto Rebuilding America's Defenses, and all you have to do is check the PNAC member roster, take a look at the current cabinet, and put 2 and 2 together.

So the idiot defense doesn't work here when you have a group that has openly stated it's goal of regional dominance for the obvious reasons taking steps to accomplish exactly that.

Image

Everything isn't going just as planned for them, however, so they're going to have to revise their strategy. But rest assured, the strategy is still there.
User avatar
Golgo13
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon 13 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby killJOY » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 16:26:37

On that note, we have PNAC and the NeoCons who have came out and publically stated through their publications that this entire war escapade in the middle east is their doing. They admited to it years before it ever got to where we're at now in their manifesto Rebuilding America's Defenses, and all you have to do is check the PNAC member roster, take a look at the current cabinet, and put 2 and 2 together.

Once 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.


Everything isn't going just as planned for them

thanks for that link! It only reinforces the point:

S T OOOO P I D IDEA
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 KillTheHumans » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 17:04:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Olorin', 'j')ust got a crazy thought:

What if Matt is sponsored by the CIA? An insider luring the foolish sheep to his site and then selling them to the neocons?



Even CIA agents have brains, so its an automatic disqualification.
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 MacG » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 17:16:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '
')Once 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.


I share this view. I have seen a number of small conspiracies in my life, and I have detected some of them in advance. I have always failed to reverse-engineer them though, and ALWAYS over-interpreted the degree of design in them. In a couple of cases where I have got explanations from insiders, the conspiracies have always been much simpler and more short-term than I suspected. Most of them have been topped up with unintended consequences, blowbacks and failed coverups.

I don't say that conspiracies don't exist, I merely suggest that they often are much simpler than what can be suspected and that they get filled with cock-ups.

Considering the collapsed buildings on 9/11, I strongly suspect that buildings like these are prepared for controlled demolition already when they are designed and built. There might be 50-100 buildings globally where it makes some kind of sense for the owner to be able to minimize collateral damage from a building falling in a random way. Of course such preparations would be kept VERY secret. Insurance fraud takes care of the motive.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 17:43:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '[')url=http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3343#comment-274722]At last. I'm over it.[/url]


Absolutely zero explanation of how the towers could have collapsed the way they did. Zero explanation of the strange collapse of WTC7. Zero explanation of the apparent air force standdown.

I don't know how many times I've had to explain that the primary criticisms of the 911 Truth Movement have nothing to do with politics or alleged plots; they have to do with the things like the never-before-seen-except-in=instnaces-of-controlled-demolition building collapses and things which deal with empiraical evidence.

If Clinton had been president in an prosperous age of oil plenty and the WTC buildings collapsed like that on HIS watch, the people like those in the 911 Truth Movement would be questioning the motherfu*k out of the collapses.

To say something like, "The Bush Administration is too incompetent to have pulled off the attacks", or "It would take too many people to keep 911 secret", is to gloss over the very strange, still unexplained building collapses and the extreme heat of the rubble piles and empirical evidence like that. It's an a priori dismissal of the independent facts.

So this letter by Reg Morrison claims that Al Quaeda suckered the US into invading the Middle East thereby damaging its oil supply through a series of events that were unlikely to have been calculated in advance.

THAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE STRANGE BUILDING COLLAPSES!!!!

THAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!

You see, those things are empirical evidence. To suggest that the Bush Administration was too incompetent to pull off 911 is an a priori argument - not a theory compiled against evidence.

To suggest that Al Quaeda suckered the US into an Iraqi Trap, is to speculate about political motives. It is not helpful to the task of building the best theory that fits the facts.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:04:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '.')..Considering the collapsed buildings on 9/11, I strongly suspect that buildings like these are prepared for controlled demolition already when they are designed and built. There might be 50-100 buildings globally where it makes some kind of sense for the owner to be able to minimize collateral damage from a building falling in a random way. Of course such preparations would be kept VERY secret. Insurance fraud takes care of the motive.


WTF would it matter if the building HAD been designed for eventual controlled demolition? There were 3,000 people in them when they went down!

Oh, I see...the building fires set off the charges. They weren't set off deliberately.

Well, according to official sources, the jet fuel burned off in minutes but served to ignite office furnishings and such. It was those heat sources that weakened the steel, they say. Well, even if the fuel had lasted longer, temperatures would not have risen above an ordinary building fire temperatures - because we are talking about hydrocarbon fires in all cases.

NIST has reported that it has found no evidence of fire temperatures at the impact zones reaching above about 480 F (250 C).

So did the designers of the WTC Towers deliberately place demolition explosives in the buildings during their construction knowing that an ordinary office fire could set them off and destroy the entire structure?

Where are your brains!?

Additionally, the designers were able to place these explosives and keep the fact a secret for 30 years?

Welcome to conpiracy-land!!

Now let's investigate so that we can get to the bottom of these questions!!

Investigate 911
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby killJOY » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:14:52

Carlhole, just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it was a conspiracy.


I would add this link, too:

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html


Of course, you're free to believe what you want. I don't think it matters one bit. We'll soon have worse things to worry about.

But I like your spirit, Carlhole.
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 MacG » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:17:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', ' ')

<snip>

Where are your brains!?

<snip>

Now let's investigate so that we can get to the bottom of these questions!!

Investigate 911


I'm afraid that you make assumptions and put words on my keyboard which I have not written. And you ignored a significant part of my post.

I agree with the request for a serious investigation, but what if the investigation shows that there are 50-100 buildings globally which are prepared and ready for demolition? Buildings with people in them? The most prestigious buildings in the most dense urban environments imaginable?

Why the charges were set off? I don't know. The most probable cause for WTC 1 & 2 would be that someone simply panicked. A very human treat. Happen all the time. And in the case of WTC 7 Silberman might just be almost honest when interviewed. Of course he don't mention the commercial aspects - they never do on TV.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby killJOY » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:19:39

BTW:

I don't deny Bush administration COMPLICITY. Here's a great piece:

They Let It Happen.

Fits OK with Morrison's thesis.

Little did This Administration know what they were in for.
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 americandream » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:25:47

[quote="MattSavinar"]
You're the fool for thinking the above arrangement is somehow anything other than the product of cold logic.
Image[/quote

You miss the point.

This is the cold logic of the terminal...in much the same way that the cold logic of the dissembling drug addict is...........................


terminal.


and consequently, idiotic.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:43:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '.')..I agree with the request for a serious investigation, but what if the investigation shows that there are 50-100 buildings globally which are prepared and ready for demolition? Buildings with people in them? The most prestigious buildings in the most dense urban environments imaginable?


All you are doing in your speculation is substituting one hypothetical conspiracy theory for another - without knowing all the supporting facts.

Police investigators use deductive logic in their investigations because facts are independent while theories are dependent. In other words, theories change to fit the available facts.

It's the same thing in the Scientific Method: you compile the facts and then develop theories to explain them. The best theory is the one that most simply explains ALL the facts, particularly when the theory passes various experimental tests.

Regarding 911, all the facts of the case have not been released. All the facts have not been investigated properly. The theories which have ben put forward have not explained all the available facts.

In short, many, many questions remain that pertain to the empirical evidence. For this reason, 911 needs to be investigated. In the course of that investigation, perhaps it will turn out that thousands of high-rises worldwide have been pre-rigged for demolition. Perhaps it will turn out that these prior placed explosives could be set-off in an ordinary building fire.

I hope such a fabulous rumor gets started around the world because it would inspire people to investigate whether or not it is true. And that would inspire a further investigation of the sudden, symmetrical, near freefall collapses of the Towers and the strange collapse of WTC7.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby MacG » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:53:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '.')..I agree with the request for a serious investigation, but what if the investigation shows that there are 50-100 buildings globally which are prepared and ready for demolition? Buildings with people in them? The most prestigious buildings in the most dense urban environments imaginable?


All you are doing in your speculation is substituting one hypothetical conspiracy theory for another - without knowing all the supporting facts.

Police investigators use deductive logic in their investigations because facts are independent while theories are dependent. In other words, theories change to fit the available facts.

It's the same thing in the Scientific Method: you compile the facts and then develop theories to explain them. The best theory is the one that most simply explains ALL the facts, particularly when the theory passes various experimental tests.

Regarding 911, all the facts of the case have not been released. All the facts have not been investigated properly. The theories which have ben put forward have not explained all the available facts.

In short, many, many questions remain that pertain to the empirical evidence. For this reason, 911 needs to be investigated. In the course of that investigation, perhaps it will turn out that thousands of high-rises worldwide have been pre-rigged for demolition. Perhaps it will turn out that these prior placed explosives could be set-off in an ordinary building fire.

I hope such a fabulous rumor gets started around the world because it would inspire people to investigate whether or not it is true. And that would inspire a further investigation of the sudden, symmetrical, near freefall collapses of the Towers and the strange collapse of WTC7.


Ah, I understand that you are angry. I'm a bit angry to, but not as angry as US citizen is allowed to be for being led by lies into a meaningless war. Please don't be angry at me though. I did not lead you into a meaningless war.

We HAVE to learn to think about our own deaths without turning into xenophobic warlike crazies.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 18:57:48

Well, since Morrison talks about 9/11, I suppose this isn't getting too off topic...

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

Regarding cover ups?

If I wanted to cover up this...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '
')What is really fishy though is how fast this was used as an excuse for war, with plans already drawn out... Talk jumping for a fight. No year to morn, investigate, sort things out... Just jump right into war. The Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so we invaded Afghanistan (as we were planning to do)... Brilliant! :roll:

I'd try to focus the "debate" on this...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')HAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!

AND I'D USE LOTS-OF-CAPS TOO! :lol:

Not to say you're intentionally being a tool for the system, but...

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

But regarding your questions in LARGE CAPS...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')HAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE STRANGE BUILDING COLLAPSES!!!!
True enough, they are a bit fishy. But it's hard to know never having seen buildings that hight brought down before. What is really fishy though is how fast this was used as an excuse for war, with plans already drawn out... Talk jumping for a fight. No year to morn, investigate, sort things out... Just jump right into war. The Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so we invaded Afghanistan (as we were planning to do)... Brilliant! :roll:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')HAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!
Ok, as you've probably guessed this part doesn't look all that fishy to me. Here are a couple reasons why.

EDIT: I felt this was a better reason...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '
')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

[s]* If you had a piston with a cup of water inside on the ground outside the world trade center. And then you carried a brick up to the top of a WTC and dropped it onto the piston. The impact would probably impart enough energy to boil the water. And it would make a nice crater in someones head if they were standing there. Anything from that high up has a lot of potential energy. Just try to throw a brick that high, you'd need a cannon!

* Another way to look at it is to think about how fire piston firestarters work. They use rapid compression to accumulate intense heat in a small compressed area. http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic24024-0-asc-0.html
The compression of that much matter onto the base material is guaranteed to heat it up like a volcano. It's like socking a punching bag for a while, with a little work the bag starts heating up. In this case it was like a punching bag getting hit with tons of bricks fired from a cannon.

But unlike a uniform punching bag, with a building the heat would likely end up in the most resistant structures that tend to stay in place (steel in the base). So as it rains down, much of the concrete would explode into a hot plume that would expand and quickly cool like volcanic ash. Where as more resistant materials like steel would absorb energy from the fall and bombardment and melt instead of exploding into powder.

* Heat wouldn't indicate charges were used. Sure it looked like a demolition and maybe it was. But charges are unlikely to result in melted steel and "cutting the base" with thermite or something would probably be unnecessary, since thermite's not needed in normal demolition. Simple everyday charges around key service locations or in piping around the core would have been more then enough. Maybe crashing a jet liner would have been more then enough... But hey, cutting the base of the building or other parts with thermite would only make a demolition more dangerous.

And even if thermite was used, the amount of charges needed would probably not contribute massive heat to the structure. The potential energy in the mass of a building is much greater then the energy needed for explosives or thermite to break key support structures. So even if charges were used, most of the energy in the picture is in the mass of the building itself.

Think if you had a foot square pile of Popsicle sticks and put a small firecracker underneath. The firecracker wouldn't be able to lift that whole pile up seven feet in the air. But you could make a structure with that many Popsicle sticks that rose seven feet. And you could bring down a seven foot Popsicle stick structure with that one firecracker. So even though the structure could be brought down with a small charge, that charge by no means has as much energy as that structure, as could be demonstrated by the charges inability to lift a square foot of Popsicle sticks up even one inch.

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. [/s]

I'm just saying...
Last edited by steam_cannon on Sat 08 Dec 2007, 21:03:26, 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, 19:14:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '.')..Ah I understand that you are angry. I'm a bit angry to, but not as angry as US citizen is allowed to be for being led by lies into a meaningless war. Please don't be angry at me though. I did not lead you into a meaningless war.


I'm not angry. I'm a guy has a strong position in an ongoing argument - which is that 911 needs to be investigated.

I get a little annoyed that people here do not seem to know what a priori reasoning is or the difference between deductive and inductive logic.

Does it take that much IQ?
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 19:28:24

$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.


This has not ever been seen in the natural world. It has not been seen in regular building demolitions and it was not considered as any part of any investigation for good reason.

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.

However, it DOES lend itself to experiment. It would be a simple matter to invent an experiment that would cheaply test whether or not such a doubtful phenomenon could occur. But thank you for the opportunity for me to elaborate on the potential energy of the WTC Towers:

How much kinetic energy was released during the collapse of one of the towers?

FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives the only official estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

So that's 400 Gigajoules total gravitational potential energy of one of the towers per FEMA (4 x 10^11 joules).

400 gigajoules is about 100 tons of TNT.

How much is a gigajoule?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Answer.com', '[')list]

  • One gigajoule is the amount of energy a computer/screen combination using 500 Watts consumes in approx. 23 days.
  • One gigajoule equals the amount of energy consumed by a 100 W light bulb in approx. 4 months...


    • Wiki: Units of energy and power

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') ton of TNT or tonne of TNT is a unit of energy equal to 109 (thermochemical) calories, also known as a gigacalorie (Gcal), equal to 4.184 gigajoules (GJ).


    So, 100 tons of TNT is roughly equivalent to the gravitational potential energy of one WTC Tower according to the FEMA estimate, the ONLY estimate ever given by ANY of the investigating agencies.

    This 100 tons of TNT had to do all the work of:



    None of the investigating agencies analyzed the collapses from this energy availability vs energy sink standpoint.

    The 911 Commission Reports and NIST failed to describe or explain the Total Progressive Collapse of the towers AT ALL. They only described events up until the "initiation of collapse". Just recently, NIST has admitted that it CANNOT explain the Total Progressive Collapse of the towers!

    It is not possible that falling floors passed through that massive steel supporting structure as if it only put up about the same resistance as air.

    The onus is on The 911 commsission, NIST and other defenders of the official story to prove how that is possible. They cannot prove it because it is physically impossible. Thus, the official reports completely ignored the collapse sequence, preferring to leave it completely unmentioned.
    Carlhole
     
    Top

    Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary

    Unread postby steam_cannon » Sat 08 Dec 2007, 19:34:29

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I')'m not angry. I'm a guy has a strong position in an ongoing argument - which is that 911 needs to be investigated.
    Oh I understand, the administration fought hard to block any investigation. For any reasonable person that should be enough reason to say there should be a more thorough investigation.

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '
    ')What is really fishy though is how fast this was used as an excuse for war, with plans already drawn out... Talk jumping for a fight. No year to morn, investigate, sort things out... Just jump right into war. The Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so we invaded Afghanistan (as we were planning to do)... Brilliant! :roll:
    Also to quote my marvelous self again, it's my opinion it would be more constructive to focus the argument around things like this, things that are obviously wrong in any democratic society.

    $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.

    Anyway 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.
    User avatar
    steam_cannon
    Expert
    Expert
     
    Posts: 2859
    Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
    Location: MA
    Top
    Next
    Post a reply

    Return to Book/Media Reviews

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



    cron