We cannot drill our way out of this oil crisis. Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year.
Although increased drilling has added new oil to the nation's supply, it has not done so fast enough to offset the terminal decline of existing fields.
We are going to have to import more of our oil. Period.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
By the way, as I was mentioning metal fires before, I almost forgot about iron reactions...
Quote:
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
So as I was more or less saying, this sounded like combusting metals. And it didn't take a great deal of indepth study to figure that out. Now, looking over these more detailed explanations it certainly seems to make sense. And I think with just a little thinking, most of these questions seem to have similar rational explanations.
Now back on topic...
"Peak oil" is consistent with geology and indepth peer reviewed research. 9/11 conspiracies, don't have the same standing. People confusing burning debris and metals with thermite is just bad logic. Thermite isn't even useful for demolition, it's to uncontrolled. And if people keep focusing on things like this, then people genuinely interested in getting a more thorough investigation of 9/11, just aren't going to get the respect they deserve.
Right or wrong, as long as people keep piling improbable unprovable theories together with 9/11, and if Morrisons accomplishment is linking peak oil and 9/11 in peoples minds, peak oil is going to become less legitimate because of it.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
steam_cannon wrote:
Right or wrong, as long as people keep piling improbable unprovable theories together with 9/11, and if Morrisons accomplishment is linking peak oil and 9/11 in peoples minds, peak oil is going to become less legitimate because of it.
Excellent, and quite right. Every time some nut tries to hijack the peak oil debate and co-op it into some skewed political view for whatever reason, us peakers get lumped in with every other nutjob, and then we wonder why people aren't taking us seriously.
I'm quite tired of defending the peak oil concept myself, and then someone brings up a shining star like Ruppert or some other crackpot and I've got to go through my entire spiel on why nutjobs hijacking peak oil for their own ends remain nutjobs, and only want to lend themselves some credibility by latching onto a real topic to support their silly one.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
Right or wrong, as long as people keep piling improbable unprovable theories together with 9/11, and if Morrisons accomplishment is linking peak oil and 9/11 in peoples minds, peak oil is going to become less legitimate because of it.
Read Morrison's essay and tell me if you think that's what he's doing. Peak oil is part of the picture, whether one likes it or not.
Many "conspiracists," with the best of intentions, simply got it wrong. Morrison is no "conspiracist." He offers up a simple explanation that accords with what we know of the known universe. It is also simple and testable and doesn't require nit-picking over melting points of steel, etc. _________________ "By the time individuals discover that remaining resources will not be adequate for the next generation, the next generation has already been born. " David Price
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
killJOY wrote:
Read Morrison's essay and tell me if you think that's what he's doing. Peak oil is part of the picture, whether one likes it or not.
Many "conspiracists," with the best of intentions, simply got it wrong. Morrison is no "conspiracist." He offers up a simple explanation that accords with what we know of the known universe. It is also simple and testable and doesn't require nit-picking over melting points of steel, etc.
That's true KillJOY, but look how quickly the conversation turned to "nit-picking over melting points of steel". I probably sound like it, but not trying to say that Morrison is wrong about everything. It's just that 9/11 has a big tar pit between here and there that gums up anyone who walks though it.
Maybe to examine the connections between peak oil and 9/11 one must walk carefully around the tar and be careful not to be dragged in.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
That's true KillJOY, but look how quickly the conversation turned to "nit-picking over melting points of steel".
I guess that's what they mean by "threadjacking"?
I'd like to jack somebody... _________________ "By the time individuals discover that remaining resources will not be adequate for the next generation, the next generation has already been born. " David Price
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
steam_cannon wrote:
By the way, as I was mentioning metal fires before, I almost forgot about iron reactions...
Quote:
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
So as I was more or less saying, this sounded like combusting metals. And it didn't take a great deal of indepth study to figure that out. Now, looking over these more detailed explanations it certainly seems to make sense. And I think with just a little thinking, most of these questions seem to have similar rational explanations.
![/quote]
I would LOVE it if NIST or some official body would adopt this explanation because it is so-o-o utterly far-fetched and unlikely. It also lends itself to experimental proof. If NIST endoresed it, you can bet investigators would try to duplicate the conditions and repeat the phenomenon. Go for it NIST! That would be really great for the cause of the Tuth Movement.
But even when aluminum and iron are powdered and brought together in ideal conditions, it STILL takes nearly 1500 degrees F to get them reacting.
If beams of iron and aluminum could react this easily, then we would have seen this sort of reaction in other building demolitions and accidents.
Why do you think NIST left the red hot temperatures of all three rubble piles unexplained? In fact, they did not even recognize the high temps properly despite the videos, testimonies and photographs? Because it is very troublesome for them, that's why!! _________________ May you live in interesting times
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
killJOY wrote:
That's true KillJOY, but look how quickly the conversation turned to "nit-picking over melting points of steel".
I guess that's what they mean by "threadjacking"?
I'd like to jack somebody...
I have already explained that in law enforcement investigations, police use inductive logic which means that they first compile as many facts as possible and uncover as much evidence as possible - the total accumulation of which guides their creation of an overall theory of a crime. This is also the primary discovery mode in science.
When you use inductive logic, you are saying, "Well, A , B and C are true so, therefore, theory D explains those facts.
Conversely, when you use deductive logic, you are saying, "Well A happened, so B and C must have happened". Police investigators do not use this method if they can avoid it. Because confirmed facts are the best to use to build a case (or a theory); whereas theories can only unreliably imply the existence of facts.
Reg Morrison is just another theory-maker who doesn't rely on fundamentals to build his case. His theory is created in his imagination only. Are we to go back and fill in all the unconfirmed facts that his theory implies? I don't think that's a good way to get to the truth of the matter. In official investigations, one should begin with confirmed facts which lead to the theory.
So all the stuff about "melting steel" are efforts to get at the fundamental facts of the matter - which then can be used to build the theory. Not the other way around.
I've had to repeat this so many times, I just don't think some people are bright enough to grasp it. _________________ May you live in interesting times
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
killJOY wrote:
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.
Yeah, I wasn't invoking any 9/11 conspiracies, but simply relaying the fact that these military strategies for regional dominance were long in the making. 9/11 was just the catalyst that generated the necessary imperial mobilization. The fact that we ended up in Iraq shortly after 9/11 should come as no suprise to anyone familiar with PNAC objectives.
In other words, the official excuse for our involvement in the region is a smokescreen, by and large.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
