Terrorist attack on Saudi oil

[redneck]

.

Explain the collapse of building seven.



>

[redpoint5]

That did seem strange to me, but I haven't looked much into it.

You think another plane was scheduled to hit it to cover up the demolition? The plane that failed to reach the target was enroute to DC, as I recall, not to NY.

[freebeard]

My point didn't need Building Seven, but yeah. 'Splain me the news reporter reporting that it was 'pulled' with the building still standing in the background.

If it's a concrete structure, the stresses can be applied at the speed of sound in concrete (whatever that is)

Interesting. As (the core) is a steel-reinforced structure, it could be at the speed of sound in steel.

If I searched I might find the theory that the original design by IIRC I. M. Pei had a curious design that split the load 50/50 between the elevator core and the glass and aluminum skin, like it was designed to be demolishable. Sort of a built-in bug.

...but I have other threads to keep up in.

[redpoint5]

When buildings are demolished on purpose, they don't blow up the support structure for every floor, they demolish the main structures on the bottom levels and everything collapses at nearly 1G.

The physics of the 2 towers falling looks correct to my eye. Apparently tower 7 was in flames, perhaps from damage sustained from the collapse of others? I'll have to look into this later.

I don't know about news reporter discrepancies. What I do know is that secrets are almost impossible to keep. We can't even keep fondling in the Oval Office between 2 people private.

[Xist]

If I installed a Price Rupert's Drop in my car and broke it, I am sure that something else would break faster.

[freebeard]

I'll have to look into this later.

Why bother, it's ancient history at this point. Look into the nuclear missile that was lobbed by someone at Hawaii from the general direction of N. Korea.

I don't know about news reporter discrepancies. What I do know is that secrets are almost impossible to keep.

That the wonderful thing about the modern day. Since the spooks now pass their messages in the clear, you can follow along as the future confirms the past. It is your choice to know.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The average American had little leverage, but the (much despised ) capitalists looked ahead and looked around and exploited shale oil with new technology. Now the USofA doesn't need overpriced oil from the Middle East and we slowly disentangle from there.

I still take shale with a grain of salt. I'm still more favorable to increase the usage of biofuels in order to add value to agricultural residues and ease the closure of the carbon and nitrogen cycles.

[Xist]

Ethanol from air?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I still take shale with a grain of salt. I'm still more favorable to increase the usage of biofuels in order to add value to agricultural residues and ease the closure of the carbon and nitrogen cycles.

Sure, I don't know the differences in cost to produce a given quantity of energy, but I'd be more favorable to ethanol if the US could grow cane sugar as easily as Brazil too. Corn is way less efficient, and we get less sunlight.

Has anyone done an analysis on what the cost per unit of energy and potential energy per unit of land is between say, a field full of corn for ethanol, and that same field full of solar panels, or concentrated solar energy?

I know solar is somewhere around 20% efficient, but how efficient is corn at converting sunlight into useful energy, and then how much energy is lost in cultivating and extracting that energy?

[Xist]

Standard corn or genetically modified grain? “Take a crop like sugarcane—its photosynthesis efficiency is only about 6%. And imagine a corn field in the summer during a clear day being blasted with sunlight. The corn gets far more light than it can capture through photosynthesis and most of the energy is lost.” https://www.agprofessional.com/artic...n-boosts-yield