Sunday, November 05, 2006

I stand by it: Camp Falcon Explosion was Nuclear Fusion

Thousands upon thousands of people have visited this blog's items on the Camp Falcon Mushroom (links below). So far, every moderately scientific argument that I have heard asserting that the explosion was non-nuclear in nature has been answered by video evidence at this blog as well. I have emailed an expert with my position, asking him to take apart my deductions in the interest of the truth and in the interest that I not misinform people. This was a person that had reportedly been debunking this information. I even explained to him that there were an awful lot of people visiting this blog and he would do the public a great service by simply sending me something scientific to post. It has been about three weeks and still no answer.

Always beware that a scientist that truly understands his or her work will likely be able to explain it in layman's terms. Albert Einstein, after all, explained relativity in terms that a teenager could understand. I should know.

I posted an item from Allen L. Roland, whose work Jeff Rense has jumped all over, though it is decidly less scientific in its deductions, Roland's Ph. D. notwithstanding (recently, it seems, Jeff Rense has stopped carrying Roland's work). His assertion that we were dealing with depleted uranium rounds was based on the existence of a video showing what such should look like and this video, as may or may not know, is simply not referencable except that it was once viewed by Allen and we all need to just take his word for it. Any internet journalist and any scientist should know that this is not how we arrive at solid conclusions.

It has been weeks and not one scientist has stepped up to truly debunk this. Were it possible, I am not sure it would happen anyway. Easily the most scientifically educated sounding opinions on this have argued in favor a micronuke and those comments are interspersed throughout this blog. I think that most scientists are simply afraid of what they see. I think that most people are also afraid, being willing to embrace an explanation that is simply more comfortable.

I feel as if I have been tricked into temporarily supporting Roland's work, though perhaps by my own latent biases. I posted it at my blog and sent it to Jeff Rense. I too, it seems, wanted to believe in something a little less dangerous. Rense, like everyone, jumped all over it because the alternative is truly scary. I managed to help a false theory, I fear, explode onto the scene and I take my share of the responsibility. To readers and people everywhere, I apologize, from the depths of my heart. There is evidence that amongst American internet users, journalists, and bloggers that the coverup is complete. It seems like a non-issue now in many corners of cyberspace (crossing fingers).

In Europe this issue has exploded all over independent media and there seems to be little doubt that the United States could allow for something like this to occur. As much as I have tried to rid myself of the poison of patriotism, it seems that the Europeans have managed to highlight that it still exists in my psyche. It's something for me to work on.

I am still waiting for a scientist that knows his stuff, one with integrity and who doesn't drop from the debate upon a demand for layman's terms (I know enough about physics to know that this stuff is not un-translatable from jargon and usually, I know just enough not to be duped), and debunk this: that nuclear devices, probably fusion oriented ones, were stored at Camp Falcon. Such a person must explain the generation of white light as well as the mushroom effect. I have already found out that a small nuke doesn't generate an effective EMP at much of a distance, less than a mile at any rate.

Well? I'm STILL waiting!

Mushroom Cloud Erupts at U.S. Base in Iraq

U.S. Marines Vid of Ammo Dump - Tactical Nukes?

More Research on What Went Off at Camp Falcon

Postscript: It has been suggested that the largest, non-nuclear bomb ever created, the MOAB, mushrooms. Well it does not. It does, over a period of time, manage to spew debris thousands of feet into the air but we do not get a sudden, vertical rush of an energy vortex strong enough to suck all debris straight upward hundreds of feet. We also do not get a brilliant white flash of generated electromagnetic energy nor the spherical display of light prior to the mushroom effect, as we do here and here.

We cannot substitute the fact that no one wants to talk about it or the fact that no agency or government or media outlet has commented on it as evidence when the real evidence that we have, the only evidence we have, is the visual evidence and the visual evidence does not contradict itself in any way. It tells one story, that of a fusion device.

5 Comments:

At November 07, 2006 3:40 AM, Blogger Eric Stewart said...

Here is an email that goes into the issues in depth. I urge readers to contribute because what is certain is that a sufficiently educated person and a sufficiently intelligent one can make almost anything make sense. I am afraid that to get the bottom of this, as with anything, is going to take getting intimate with your critical faculties. In my opinion, this adequately addresses the issue of the marines' video, which is almost assuredly a separate incident, and the issue of white light, though there is still some contention left on that which I intend to cover at this blog as soon as it develops. However, it is asserted below by the author that other devices besides those nuclear in essence are capable of mushrooming. My stance is that if the largest non-nuclear device ever created does not mushroom remotely as fast as what blew up in Iraq, then it seems like a fallacy to argue that it was something smaller than the MOAB. If it was not smaller, and our video proves that it was not the MOAB itself, doesn't that leave one option, that it was more exposive than the LARGEST NON-NUCLEAR BOMB EVER MADE? Check it out:

PERSON A WROTE:

>> Non-nuclear explosions and fires generate mushroom clouds.
>> All it takes is the sudden production of a mass of hot air.
>> I've seen mushroom clouds from gasoline explosions in movies.
>
>Non nuclear devices can generate a gradual mushroom effect, as is shown
>by the video and photographic links at my blog but they do not reach
>hundreds of feet into the sky within seconds. Not even the largest
>created non-nuclear device ever created does that and there is video at
>my blog showing just what happens when the MOAB goes off.

What creates a mushroom cloud is a big fireball, not a big blast.
Nuclear bombs generate temperatures of millions of degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud

>> The explosion did not generate much heat or blast, as shown by
>> the fact that the ammo dump fire has the same shape and size
>> after the explosion as before. A nuclear blast would have blown
>> away all the prior burning material. It would also have started
>> fires nearby. It could not have left the previous fire the same
>> size and shape as it had been.
>
>The blast was felt miles away. The video the marines took had them
>reacting with amazement at the shock wave produced. I am starting to
>wonder if you have even seen the videos.

The video I was talking about is this (misnamed) one from Arab TV,
which shows one explosion, at about 240 seconds, that's a lot larger
than the others, and does produce a luminous mushroom cloud:

http://www.HalTurnerShow.com/TacticalNukeDetonatedInIraq.wmv

The soldiers' video linked on your website shows about eight large
explosions, at about 50, 103, 192, 320, 365, 398, 430, and 500
seconds, with the first perhaps being the largest. Most of them
produced mushroom clouds. The video can be pulled down with the
Firefox browser and its VideoDownloader extension; as always with
youtube it's a .flv file.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBMqTpDnitA

But it may not show the same ammo dump fire incident as the Arab TV
video. One of the comments on your blog page says it's a previous
fire in Kirkuk, and indeed one of the soldiers mentions that name
in the video.

The light-to-sound delay indicates that the soldiers were less than
a mile from the fire. They would have been blinded if a nuclear
bomb had detonated at that distance, and their camera's video sensor
would have had a hole burned in it, which it did not.

>> There is no way to detonate a fusion explosion except by using
>> a fission explosion, at least not any way that has ever shown up
>> in public literature.
>
>Well, this is one point I would like clarification on. It has been
>asserted to me that thermal heat can set off a fusion reaction, if not a
>fission process. Can you go into some physics on this, minus the
>equations?

That's correct, but it requires temperatures of many millions of
degrees, and very high pressures as well, which can only be created
by a fission (A-bomb) explosion inside a capsule containing the
fusion fuel. This article explains how fission and fusion bombs work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb

>I understand that it is the heat of the sun, and not a fission
>process, that keeps the sun's own fusion reaction going.

True, but the fusion takes place deep inside the star where the
gravitational pressure is very great. To reach sustained fusion
there must be a combination of high temperature and high pressure.
That's why stars have to be larger than a certain minimum size;
below that they're just big gas balls like Jupiter.

Small-scale fusion reactions can be created by focussing the
light of a whole warehouse full of very high power lasers onto
a microscopic sphere of fusion fuel (heavy hydrogen isotopes --
deuterium and tritium), yielding an amount of energy equivalent
to about a cup of gasoline (IIRC). Fusion can also be created in
large plasma devices such as tokamaks. Small plasma tubes that fire
deuterium ions into tritiated targets create fusion which produces
the neutrons used to initiate the fission reaction in the compressed
core of an A-bomb. Recently extremely tiny amounts of fusion have
been produced by bombarding the fuel with intense sound waves,
wherein the collapse of the cavitation bubbles produces sufficient
compression and heat. And if mu mesons are fired into fusion fuel,
they act as heavy electrons and form muonic hydrogen molecules,
which have the two nuclei close enough together that fusion occurs.
Unfortunately, all of these systems produce less energy by fusion
than they consume. Finally, the Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion
process has been duplicated in a number of laboratories.

None of these methods produces enough fusion energy to ignite more
fuel, and thus to create a bomb.

>> I think the most likely cause of the explosion in question was
>> the near-simultaneous ignition of a quantity of flares, or maybe
>> a large conventional flash bomb, perhaps intended to simulate
>> a nuclear explosion in order to terrorize the population.
>
>Yet there is the enormous shock wave felt by the marines a few miles
>away.

The light-to-sound delay is about 4 seconds, so they were less than
a mile away.

>> The video camera was set up for night vision, so its depiction
>> of the flash was exaggerated.
>
>The only problem with the arguments on flash is that the decidedly
>spherical optical effect is seen only in videos of an H-bomb going off
>and the one that went off in Iraq.

Not true. Pyrotechnics (fireworks) can be designed to create
spherical flash explosions. In the Arab TV video, the spherical
effect is produced by progressive overloading of the camera's
light-sensing element, perhaps by stray light. Since the fireball
obviously did not envelop the city (which was not set ablaze),
it could have occupied only a small fraction of the area viewed
by the camera. Yet almost all of the area of the camera's sensing
element showed maximum light, indicating that it was responding
to stray, reflected, or scattered light. And it also did not have
a hole (i.e., an area of permanent damage) burned into it, which
would have occurred if the extremely intense light of a nuclear
fireball had been focussed on it by its lens (like a magnifying
glass used to start a fire by focussing sunlight on a piece of
paper), particularly since its aperture was wide open for night
vision.

>If there are other such depictions
>of this phenomenon I would love to have a look at them. As well, most
>of us have been indoctrinated with millions of hours of television in
>our lives so you would think that by now, among the thousands of night
>time explosions we have all witnessed in our decades in front of the
>boob tube, that we would have seen such an effect by now outside the
>parameters of nuclear fusion, if in fact you were right.

Flash powder is a mixture of aluminum and oxidizer powders.
Aluminum is a very high energy fuel that emits white light when
it burns. This article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firework

mentions the following as a type of firework:

"Lampare

A shell containing a burst charge of flash powder that sits
above a container of liquid fuel, usually diesel fuel or
kerosene, to produce a fireball in the sky."

If you scroll the text on this page:

http://www.montreal-fireworks.com/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=5&topic=407

you can see this photo of a fireworks fireball in the air:

http://www.vuurwerklook.com/effecten/images/2/image111.jpg

I think that a bomb containing 1000 pounds of a mixture of flash
powder, smokeless powder, and maybe petroleum would make a sudden
huge and very bright fireball, and a subsequent luminous mushroom
cloud, just as shown in the Arab TV video. But it would create
far less heat radiation than a nuclear bomb, and, if the casing
were designed to burst at a fairly low pressure, wouldn't create
much blast either. I've never worked with explosives or fireworks
myself, but after reading various articles about them tonight,
starting with the ones I've mentioned, I think such a bomb might
have just the effect seen in the Arab video -- a big bright
fireball that would not start fires nor blow things away. The U.S.
government could use it as a pseudo atomic bomb to terrorize people.

>I hope my points don't upset you. I hope you merely respond to them.
>You'll have to excuse my pessimism on this issue but it is based on
>experience.

In the years since 2001, I have participated in many two- and
three-way phone calls, sometimes lasting for hours, with various
9-11 physical evidence researchers, examining photographs, videos,
and other data, and making measurements and calculations. Often
we've been able to reach rational, useful conclusions. Your
questions are quite reasonable.

 
At November 07, 2006 1:55 PM, Blogger Eric Stewart said...

It is interesting to note that I have received emails claiming that the only micronukes in existence are fusion bombs and I have received emails, such as the following one, that assert that the only micronukes that exist are fission bombs. I do hate rabbit holes but sometimes ya gotta go in.

A reader wrote:

Eric,

I think you are leading youself astray here.

The micro nuke was a fission bomb. It does not have to be a fusion bomb to be a nuclear bomb.

All of this, delving into how a fusion reaction can take place is irrelevant to fission bombs. Fission bombs are tactical weapons that the authorities have said they have and we have easily findable evidence about.

The fusion reaction does not happen easily and there is no proven method of creating a (indefniitely) sustained fusion reaction in existance yet. As you note, fusion is sustained within stars, and there are a number of methods to initiate fusion but by far the most common method and really the only one the average person needs to be aware of at this point is the use of a nuclear fission bomb to create a fusion bomb.

The mushroom cloud in itself is not firm proof of a nuclear bomb, since mushroom clouds are generated by other explosives.

But the visual evidence in this explosion we have shows clearly that the mushroom cloud after this micro nuke was much larger in scale than any of the other ammo dump explosions in the video, an entirely different scale and magnitude.

The flash of radiation and the scale of it, is much stronger evidence of the nuclear nature of the explosion.

Also, yes there is another video showing solders recording an ammo dump fire and explosions in which the solders were only a mile or two away from the ammo dump. I believe that entirely different incident occurred in 1/2006 or 1/2005 (sorry about the imprecision here, but it was some time ago), not less than a month ago, it was an entirely different incident.

Also, remember that in a fission device, any (small) amount of fissionable material could be made to explode by fission, so the size of the explosion is scalable, it does not have to be anything in scale such as we are used to seeing from the gigantic explosions we have all seen that were recorded on film from tests done 40+ years ago. So all of the conjecture about what burned in the immediate environment or not, is just conjecture about what should have happened if the size of the fusion device were what the individual presumes about the minimum size of a nuclear device from those ancient records of nuclear explosions, which is an apples to oragnes comparison.

One side note, a very sad one. I found out a few years ago that such weapons had been used in Iraq during the first gulf war, alledgedly by both the US and by Israel. This was hard for me to believe at first, I believe or remember that I just could not believe it at first. By I recall more than one senior analyst or military insider who said that was the case. So I think this is the source of difficulty for many people, they would rather believe any half baked explaination about what has occured at Camp Falcon than to face the fact that the nuclear genie is way out of the bottle now, and that such tragic serious polution exists in our world because of the venality and greed and stupidity of the people who make these events happen.

 
At November 07, 2006 1:58 PM, Blogger Eric Stewart said...

A great 'fleshing out' of this issue is occuring here.

 
At November 07, 2006 4:15 PM, Blogger Masher1 said...

The video clip that i saw on CNN Clearly showed an Extreme High temp fire. Two likely causes for the color temps i saw on the live un-edited footage. One: Magnesium flares and TWO: Depeleted uranium. the live shots shown on CNN imediatly caused me to start invesigating a DU fire. (All later footage shown is color & content edited). Fron the fire temps and the ballistics of the material thrown clear du is the single plasuable cause for the damage in the photos of the base. The white containments are AC storage for DU rounds. (all have to be cooled in the hot desert climate) This gathering of photos at Rence show the containments severly melted and a white/blueish residue seems to indacate very high temps. These pics show a large amount of ASP falcons DU storage Totaly burned up!.

Both the M1 tank round magazine and the Aircraft cannon shell magazine mag. suffered catatropic hits. This is ONE HUGE mess if this group of photos of the aftermath are legit.

The fire temps confirm DU fire. the photos seem to confirm DU containment fire.

The other bits bogging down this is the mis-interpreting of the video of the blasts.

the final one i say was a Tank deployed over the wall MOAB used Safty Boss like to snuff the spreading fires. The photos show that the conventional storage areas (evidanced by Black sooty ground) was going to suffer a major catastrophic hit from further spread of the damage (2000 Lbers do some nasty things) the trench on the out side of the concrete wall could be where the charge setting tank was driven after the blast seen on the vids. The POL point (Petrol Oil Lube) was prob. cause of the mushroom.

I am not even sort of fuzzy on any of this. This fire was Garganuan messy and i hate to have to say it is going to kill thosands upon thosands world wide.

Can anyone post other photos of the site close up?

 
At November 09, 2006 12:29 AM, Blogger Eric Stewart said...

Here's the Arab TV video that some people think depicts a nuclear
bomb exploding in an ammo dump fire in Iraq, since it appears
to show an enormous fireball and a mushroom cloud. (Note: Hal
Turner is a racist and consorts with Nazis and KKK.)

http://www.HalTurnerShow.com/TacticalNukeDetonatedInIraq.wmv

It's not the size of an explosion that determines whether
a mushroom cloud forms, but whether the explosion creates
a mass of hot air, which then rises with the toroidal motion
shown in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Mushroom_cloud.svg/300px-Mushroom_cloud.svg.png

The center of the hot air mass is lightest and so rises fastest,
and the periphery is held back by friction with the surrounding
air, giving the toroidal rolling motion shown, which is what
produces the mushroom shape.

The relatively small explosions in the soldier's video of a
different incident make mushroom clouds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBMqTpDnitA

Those may have been bombs whose explosive burned (deflagrated)
from the fire, rather than detonated (with the characteristic
internal hypersonic shockwave) from triggering by their detonator.
That would create more of a fireball and less of a blast, so the
hot air mass would stay together and make a mushroom cloud.
A MOAB, or any other detonated high-explosive bomb, makes more
blast and less heat. High-explosive has less energy per pound
than gasoline, since it contains oxidizer and fuel (in the same
molecule), but when properly detonated it combusts very rapidly
and makes a large volume of gas that creates the blast.

Nuclear bombs generate extremely large amounts of heat, so they
make a fireball and a mushroom cloud.

An aluminum powder (plus oxidizer) flash bomb would create a lot
of heat (but far less than a nuke), because aluminum is a very
high-energy fuel and thus burns at a very high temperature.
But it does not produce gas as the combustion product like
high-explosives do (aluminum oxide is a fluffy white powder).
So it would tend to create a glowing fireball as seen in the
Arab TV video. In fact, it was precisely aluminum/oxidizer flash
powder that made this fireball:

http://www.montreal-fireworks.com/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=5&topic=407
http://www.vuurwerklook.com/effecten/images/2/image111.jpg

It's important to keep in mind that the original fire and the
surrounding area look the same after the big flash as before,
which would be extremely unlikely if a nuclear bomb had exploded
there.

The fireball seems to cover almost all the land between the ammo
dump and the camera. If that land had been enveloped in a nuclear
fireball it would have been set ablaze, and the electric lights
would have been destroyed. But, like the ammo dump fire, it looks
the same after the flash as before, with all the lights still
operating. And a fireball that was actually as large as it
appears to be in the video -- filling almost the entire viewing
area of the camera -- would have totally obliterated the ammo
dump and its burning materials.

These contradictory aspects of the Arab TV video evidence --
a fireball several miles in diameter that caused no damage --
would be resolved if the very large size of the fireball is
actually an illusion. Further consideration of the fire scene
and the characteristics of the video camera show that this is
indeed the case.

The sensing elements of the video camera upon which fell the image
of the land between the ammo dump and the camera, did not receive
a direct image of a huge fireball -- since it couldn't have been
that big and not destroyed the electric lights. Instead, they must
have been responding to light from a much smaller fireball that
was _reflected_ from the land.

I used the mplayer program (http://www.mplayerhq.hu) to generate
jpg image files from the Arab TV wmv video, and I've attached
two of these -- frames 7123 and 7124 -- from near the beginning
of the flash (which started in frame 7121). I think the actual
diameter of the fireball was smaller than the subsequent head
of the mushroom cloud -- maybe 1/40th of the width of the picture.
But it lit up the smoke in the air from the previous fire and thus
created the illusion of a huge fireball when processed by the
camera which had been set for night vision -- high sensitivity to
light -- by widening its iris aperture.

If you look at the video frame by frame (mplayer can do this),
it appears at first that you're seeing a huge fireball expand,
like in an H-bomb explosion. But what's actually happening is
the small fireball getting much brighter, not much larger. What
appears to be a huge fireball in the video is the light-sensing
elements of the camera being saturated by: 1. the light from the
fireball being scattered by the smoky air around the fire, and,
2. the same light being reflected from the ground between the
ammo dump and the camera. Wherever enough light fell on the
camera sensing elements (of which there is one per image pixel)
to saturate them (i.e., to drive them to maximum electrical
output) they registered a maximally bright image.

Above the horizon, the very bright area shows light which came
from the small fireball and was scattered by the previous smoke.
Below the horizon, the very bright area shows light which came
from the small fireball, and indirectly from the smoke cloud,
and was then reflected by the ground between the fire and the
camera. You can see in the attached pictures that this bright
area on the ground has a triangular, not spherical, shape, like
the (much narrower) reflection pattern of the setting sun on
the ocean.

Thus, combustion of a large quantity of a high-energy substance
like aluminum flash powder, inside a cloud of smoke from the
previous fire, viewed by a video camera set for night vision,
accounts for the illusion of an enormous fireball that didn't
set things on fire nor blow away the previous burning material,
nor damage the light poles, but did make enough hot glowing air
(containing combustion product) to make a distant mushroom cloud.

The aluminum (or magnesium) substance that burned with so much
heat and light could have been in a flash bomb, an incendiary bomb,
or a crate of flares.

Thanks to Leslie Schwartz for asking for a clarification of my
previous statement about the reaction of the video camera to
the light, which led to further research and analysis, and the
explanation above. It is much more precise, and (according to
my understanding of the relevant principles and phenomena)
completely accounts for all of the evidence in the video --
both what was seen and what was not seen (but would have been
if there had been a nuclear explosion).

>> What creates a mushroom cloud is a big fireball, not a big blast.
>> Nuclear bombs generate temperatures of millions of degrees.
>
>What does not create a mushroom cloud, in seconds, is the largest
>non-nuclear device ever created, the MOAB. If we have eliminated the
>largest non-nuclear device ever created from being potentially
>responsible, then we are left with either a nuclear device or
>rationalizing that something smaller than the MOAB is capable of
>yielding a mushroom when something larger, the MOAB for instance, is
>not. I hope you can see why this is difficult to believe.
>
>> But it may not show the same ammo dump fire incident as the Arab TV
>> video. One of the comments on your blog page says it's a previous
>> fire in Kirkuk, and indeed one of the soldiers mentions that name
>> in the video.
>
>Yes, that is a dot that I have connected only upon your pointing this
>out. This means that the marines' video is probably not the same event.
> Still, we are left with the generation of electromagnetic energy,
>visible in the white light spectrum (as pertains to the one in question)
>and something that mushrooms far more quickly and dynamically than even
>the MOAB. I am reiterating this point for a reason.
>
>> The light-to-sound delay indicates that the soldiers were less than
>> a mile from the fire. They would have been blinded if a nuclear
>> bomb had detonated at that distance, and their camera's video sensor
>> would have had a hole burned in it, which it did not.
>
>I tentatively support that this is a separate incident.
>
>> >> There is no way to detonate a fusion explosion except by using
>> >> a fission explosion, at least not any way that has ever shown up
>> >> in public literature.
>> >
>> >Well, this is one point I would like clarification on. It has been
>> >asserted to me that thermal heat can set off a fusion reaction, if not a
>> >fission process. Can you go into some physics on this, minus the
>> >equations?
>>
>> That's correct, but it requires temperatures of many millions of
>> degrees, and very high pressures as well, which can only be created
>> by a fission (A-bomb) explosion inside a capsule containing the
>> fusion fuel. This article explains how fission and fusion bombs work:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb
>
>I'll certainly look further into this.
>
>> >I understand that it is the heat of the sun, and not a fission
>> >process, that keeps the sun's own fusion reaction going.
>>
>> True, but the fusion takes place deep inside the star where the
>> gravitational pressure is very great. To reach sustained fusion
>> there must be a combination of high temperature and high pressure.
>> That's why stars have to be larger than a certain minimum size;
>> below that they're just big gas balls like Jupiter.
>
>I remember this now. It has been a long while since Astronomy 101.
>
>> In the years since 2001, I have participated in many two- and
>> three-way phone calls, sometimes lasting for hours, with various
>> 9-11 physical evidence researchers, examining photographs, videos,
>> and other data, and making measurements and calculations. Often
>> we've been able to reach rational, useful conclusions. Your
>> questions are quite reasonable.
>
>You have thoroughly made your point. As far as I can see, in my mind at
>any rate, there is only one issue that needs to be resolved, if indeed
>it can be, and that is this: how is it that the largest non-nuclear
>device ever created, the MOAB, does not mushroom nearly so dynamically
>and quickly as what went off at Camp Falcon? You stated that it is a
>fireball that creates such yet a fireball (strictly speaking) is a
>chemical reaction, whereas a nuclear reaction does not creat fire per se
>(correct?), though it does generate an incredible amount of thermal
>energy. If I am so far correct, then I am curious as to why a nuclear
>device would mushroom at all, if indeed it takes a fireball to generate
>the effect.
>
>I thank you, whatever your answers or whether or not we end up fully
>agreeing. It is a crying shame that I had to shout this issue out
>through the vastness of cyberspace in order to get anyone to care that
>some ten thousand people have visited my blog from all over the planet
>and that these people deserve the truth. More than one physicist has
>deemed my appeal for science on this matter unworthy of a response. As
>well, you have nicely demonstrated the fact that physics of almost any
>type can be communicated in layman's terms. I am always suspicious of
>characters that say that we just wouldn't understand and that we need
>just accept it.
>
>Again, thank you. We have settled two out of three of the matters (the
>issue of white light and determining with fair certainty that the
>marines' video is another incident) though, in my opinion, the mushroom
>effect needs to be addressed more fully to set this matter to rest,
>going by the approach that an alternative explanation needs to account
>for this as well.
>
>In short, why would the MOAB not mushroom like what we see and why would
>something smaller, in fact, create such an effect?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home





eXTReMe Tracker