[Rhodes22-list] Reply, controversy, Dave, Jim

[DCLewis1 at aol.com]

Ed,
 
Regarding the WTC attachment you distributed, since you asked, I’ll respond  
to your initial and subsequent posts.  First the subsequent post:
 
You’re right that people should support their critiques with facts, reason,  
etc, but that assumes that all parties are participating in good faith.   When 
you see attachments, such as the attachment in your initial message, you  
really have to question their good faith.  It is so laughably and  demonstrably 
wrong, so totally over the top, that it’s simply ludicrous - full  color 
pictures notwithstanding.  A real question then is, does it even  deserve a 
critique, or should it be a  see-and-trash the document.
 
With the above as background, let me just outline a few of the obvious (to  
me) discrepancies I identified in the attachment:
 
1.  As per my initial response, the document is unsigned.  Who is  the 
author? If the author won’t stand up and identify himself, why should you  take the 
time to read it?  Answer: you shouldn’t.  Life is short, your  wasting your 
(and my) time. 
 
2. Not only do you not know the guy or gals name, you know nothing at all  
about them.  The title of the article is “View of a Military Expert:.....”  and 
further there is the claim the author is a scientist.  How do you know  he’s 
an expert?  Exactly what are the author’s  bonafides?   What kind of 
scientist?  Is he or she actually  trained?  As you’ll see below the alleged “scientist
” and “military expert”  demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of 
chemistry, physics, and  engineering - I have no idea how military is even 
necessary for this  article.  But having SOME knowledge of chemistry, physics, and 
engineering  should be a prerequisite to writing the sort of document you 
distributed - it  simply isn’t there.  Again, if the author won’t stand up and 
put his name  and credentials on the document, why should you even read it?  
Answer: You  shouldn’t, your wasting your time.  The essential lack of 
attribution for  the article is a tip off that the whole thing is BS, or an over the top 
put-on,  or both.
 
3. Second paragraph, the guy states “ With the temperature of carbohydrate  
fires that reaches only 825oC.....”.  That’s a major clue that you are  
dealing with incompetence.  You talk about carbohydrates when you talk  about 
biological materials (e.g. fat).  What’s this guys scenario?   Does he think the WTC 
was hit by a giant glob of fat which subsequently  burned?  His terms of art 
betray his fundamental incompetence.   Further, every damn fool understands 
that different carbon compounds burn at  different temperatures, there is no 
canonical temperature of 825C.  You  want to cut metal, get an acetylene torch (I 
think acetylene is C4H4), but you  can barely boil water with some alcohol 
fuels.  The "expert" is simply  and profoundly wrong.
 
3. The guy’s numbers contradict him:   The same sentence cited  above has 
steel weakening at 800C, but the fire “only gets to 825C”.  Guess  what, 825 is 
greater than 800 - without doing any research at all the guy has  contradicted 
himself and shown that what happened is plausible.  This  should be a clue.
 
4. The statement that “ A collapse would produce large pieces and does not  
explain dust from the concrete...”.  Have you ever seen a structure  collapse?  
There’s dust.  Dust happens.  For lack of a better  term, his statement is 
bull shit.  Have you ever seen a building  fall?
 
5. Regarding his pictures with smoke come out the windows.  Guess  what, when 
a building burns, there is commonly a lot of smoke and dust, and when  it’s 
an internal fire the smoke and dust come out the windows and any other  opening 
in the structure.  When building materials, especially rock wall,  collapses, 
there is always dust.  Don’t believe me, check with your local  fire 
department.  Why do you think they have to wear the breathing  equipment they wear 
when they go into buildings?  Smoke and dust.   That smoke and dust accompany 
fires, and especially major structural fires  should not be a surprise to even 
the most innocent of us.  That smoke  and dust exit the structure via windows 
and any other opening should not be  a surprise.
 
6. Later the “scientist” and “military expert” states “Burning radiation is 
 absorbed in the steel so quickly......”.  What the “scientist” and  “
military expert” needs to understand is that there is no such thing as “burning  
radiation”, there is only radiation.  Sufficient amounts of some types of  
radiation can deposit enough energy in materials that the material burns, but  the 
radiation does not burn.  .
 
7.  The expert author shows a number off photos of the WTC  conflagration - 
there’s a lot of smoke and dust that goes out and up.  He  then shows pictures 
of nuclear bursts - there’s a lot of smoke and dust that  goes out and up.  
Obviously the WTC involved a nuclear burst right?  NOT.  Any conventional 
explosion, or fire, will send smoke and dust out and  up.  The pictures in no way 
prove a nuclear burst.  Note: this  conclusion applies even though the pictures 
are in color.
 
8.  There is a statement “In the picture at the right, the brown  shades 
caused by a hydrogen bomb ....” that is simply wrong. Fires cause  smoke and dust, 
explosions cause smoke and dust, it can come in all colors  (commonly 
grey/white and or black in my experience, but in some cases  not).  To say that there 
is a unique brown shade that is uniquely  attributable to a nuclear explosion 
is  ridiculous. I’ve seen brown shades  of smoke from leaf fires, haven’t 
you?.
 
9.  At the end the “scientist” and “military expert” states  “Radioactivity 
in the air creates shades of brown...”  More egregious BS  that the rankest 
novice should spot in a heart beat.  Your watch has a  luminous dial - alpha 
particles emitted from the material painted on the dial  face decay and you see 
the light from that decay.  The material on the dial  face is radioactive.  
Now, look closely at your watch face: do you see  shades of brown around your 
watch?  Of course not, it’s not there.   The author of the document is simply 
incompetent.  Radioactivity in the air  does not create shades of brown anything.
 
10 Lastly, I’d like to comment on an important aspect the “scientist”  and  “
military expert” did not address: fall out.  You don’t think the  fall out 
from a nuke wouldn’t have been detected in the surrounding  countryside?  You 
don’t think it would have been detected in the UK,  France, Germany, Russia 
(all down wind)?  Naaa, not a chance - all of the  15 billion or so people, all 
of the 135 or so governments in the world,  including nearly all the developed 
countries down wind of us, are engaged in a  big cover-up - probably sponsored 
by terrorists.  Right.  This article  is complete, thorough going, BS.
 
To summarize, the unknown “scientist” and “military expert”, who  started 
his/her analyses by talking about carbohydrate combustion (e.g. a fat  fire) 
has his head so far up his "whatever" (this is a family  board)  that it’s 
overwhelming (maybe that's why he or  she thinks radioactivity causes brown).  
He/she appears to know  nothing about radioactivity, heats of combustion, or 
collapsing  structures.  It’s total BS from start to finish.  In fact, it's so bad  
that it's occurred to me that it may be a put-on.  Maybe author is laughing  
at whoever would take it seriously.
 
Dave