"Dustification" of Steel Versus Vaporization of Steel
It's noteworthy that if you google "steel vaporization", the top two hits are to this blog. The top hit is actually interesting in light of an exchange I had at DU, where this guy "AZCat" noted that the energy of steel "vaporization" is actually too high for a small nuke.
Which seems to be roughly the case, from checking the numbers myself.
Which means, in her own weird way, Judy Wood was right to use "dustification" to refer what happened to the steel, as noted in this comment:
Which seems to be roughly the case, from checking the numbers myself.
Which means, in her own weird way, Judy Wood was right to use "dustification" to refer what happened to the steel, as noted in this comment:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=720That mechanism of course would be nukes. Which is not what Wood was promoting directly, though ironically she did a great job of indirectly promoting nukes at the WTC.
NEU-FONZE
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:29 PM
The energy to "dustify" iron depends on the particle size you want to reduce the iron to. Very roughly I estimate ~ 0.7 kJ per kg for 1 micron iron dust or 0.7 MJ per kg for 1 nanometer iron dust. (This is consistent with the vaporization energy of 7 MJ per kg because vaporization is equivalent to atomization and the atomic radius of iron is about 0.1 nm)
So, if you want to vaporize 1 tonne of WTC steel during a tower collapse it would require about 7000 MJ of input energy in 10 seconds or an input power of 700 Megawatts per tonne!. That's the electrical energy output of a typical nuclear power station for 10 seconds, JUST TO VAPORIZE ONE TONNE of structural steel!
As for "dustification" the numbers are, of course, a little better, but you still need a mechanism to fracture steel rather than bend it.
posted by spooked at 9:39 PM
9 Comments:
Well we had the related and notorious Wood vs Jenkins interview that began with Wood smirking strangely and ended with her supporters trying to claim she was hijacked or such to do it. And then we had my piece showing how both of them were frequently lying and/or separated from reality:
“A Penny For Your Thoughts? The Often Absurd Wood-Jenkins Interview
Interview of Proponents of Opposing 9/11 “Mechanisms” Duking It Out, The Often Absurd Wood/Jenkins Interview”
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html
The youtube interview remains the highlight of absurdity and should be seen and heard by all, as a lesson in two intel assets putting out allegedly opposing theories—a classic of intel agencies dueling limited hangouts to steer away from the ultimate truth of what happened.
Wood, of course, never defined dustification, as far as I can tell. Even though that should not be a difficult thing for an engineering PhD to do. Jenkins at times attempted to do it for her, and merely lied about the energy involved from reading the comments and quotes at the pieces just cited. Jenkins was quoted as saying dustification and vaporization were about equal in energy requirement which is absurd on it face.
Of course, the energy needed for fracturing depends on the particle size we are talking about. Wood also would not, and could not, ever explain how a Directed Energy Weapon from above supposedly would go about doing anything to the insides of the WTC, and was always an absurdity.
And Jenkins greatest absurdity may have been his being called in to desperately try to obfuscate the obvious meaning of Fire Engineering Professor, Dr. Jonathan Barnett whose examining of remaining parts of steel beams noted that “extraordinarily high temperatures” had occurred.
Jenkins’ handlers know that the equally ludicrous thermite hypothesis does not have sufficient temperature and energy to appreciably vaporize--as opposed to melt--steel. Jenkins statement containing many different options for what Dr. Barnett “really” meant is a highlight of intel agency desperation and stupidity.
Now either fracturing or vaporization would allow for floors to “collapse”. I put collapse in quotes because we obviously had massive outward explosion as all the videos show, and not a mere downward—in its own footprint—“collapse” as the OCT absurdly claims.
We also had much vaporization based on many factors including the missing mass (and missing people, furniture steel beams, etc) in the rubble pile, and the amount of tiny particles that went far and wide including up into space as seen from orbiting vehicles. Other videos of
conventional destructions do not show or yield ash miles away on the ground, or dust or smoke going to great heights precisely because those conventional explosions—while fracturing steel—did not have the great heat of nukes.
In the actual use of a small nuclear bomb we need to first realize again that the different aspects of its output are controllable. A fission bomb yields neutrons, gamma rays, heat, blast, EMP, ternary tritium, daughter elements, and other particles depending on the particular fission reactions.
Objects closest to the nuke would all be vaporized, and the extent of vaporization obviously depends on the type, size (yield) and placement (distance) of the micro-nukes. Vaporization is perhaps most likely to occur from the massive neutron bombardment which has an effective temperature in the millions of degrees.
Continued below:
Anonymous Physicist
Continued:
Thus the effect is instantaneous. A temperature close to the actual temperature needed to vaporize steel would need to be in action for a significant amount of time to do any appreciable vaporization—something not afforded by ANY conventional explosive. This is one major difference between ALL conventional explosives and the multi-million degree temperature afforded by nukes.
Now either the fracturing of steel support or its vaporization can allow for “collapse.” And further away from the micro-nukes, its blast would cause fracturing (“dustification” presumably.) It is important to also realize that we do not have any video of what was happening to the inside as destruction was occurring, as we have video mostly of the first half of the outward destruction of the towers. Most of the final destruction is either blocked by other buildings or has not been allowed to be seen as public videos with a clear view stop before the end of the “collapse.”
We determine what happened based on the final dust particle sizes collected—which was heavily doctored and lied about by the regime’s scientists and engineers as I have lengthily detailed, dust and ash placement on the ground as well as video of it going far and wide, eyewitness evidence and photos including those of flowing molten metal weeks and months later, seismic evidence (also heavily doctored and “re-analyzed”—sound familiar?), thermal signatures, and other evidence including radionuclide study as was done by Tahil.
All such evidence and analysis virtually prove that small nuclear bombs were exploded and that the China Syndrome occurred under and around the former WTC. Resurrecting or focusing on “dustification:” alone may not be productive when the entire set of evidence of the nuking and China Syndrome should be repeatedly emphasized. Perhaps my brief summary on this is the best piece to promulgate again and again.
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/10/brief-new-summary-wtc-destruction-high.html
Focusing solely on individual aspects is less productive and more open to the usual, bogus, shill attacks (lying.) The totality is what happened should be repeatedly presented as well as my articles demonstrating that even thermobarics could not have done what occurred.
Articles on the use of the micro-nukes and the China Syndrome Aftermath are at the following two blogs:
http://www.wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
http://www.wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/
Scientifically and mathematically disproving the both the OCT and the limited hangouts of thermite and DEW is here.
http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/
Anonymous Physicist
Check out my article on shielding against energy weapons.
Also please leave a comment in the comments section if you could.
Thanks! Jeremy
Well Jeremy, what do you purport to have to shield against a nuclear bomb?
A.P.
I'm sorry, I thought this blog was about covert operations. I don't think of nuclear bombs as particularly covert.
I do not think nuclear weapons need to be covert. They get the point across rather well.
Jeremy Cushing
Oh my god, there's so much effective information above!
re Anonymous: "...the entire set of evidence of the nuking and China Syndrome should be repeatedly emphasized. ...my brief summary on this is the best piece to promulgate again and again."
Dr. Freud famously implored:
"My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, wee must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark."
"A bulwark--against what?"
"Against the black tide of mud" -- and here Jung noted Freud hesitated for a moment, then added "of occultism."
When all that surrounds you is lies,
The wise practice perfect skepticism
Post a Comment
<< Home