Look, I have no time for protracted dueling manifestos. If you can't fix on a key point or two, give up. You don't even think your objections through. The reason my stove does not get hot enough to melt is not only that the fire is wood not kerosene (lower flame temperature), but, like my kerosene-fueled furnace, does not melt also because the fire is not being burned at adiabatic conditions. Lots of air being used as diluent. So, you are not interested in learning, just in throwing up ignorant objections.
I've made molten aluminum in junior high metal shop, and the amount of evaporation at that temperature is trivial. Raise it up higher and it becomes rocket fuel. Or are you going to argue that solid rocket motors do not use aluminum as fuel? (Propellant chemistry and combustion are my Thing.)
The trouble is, pal, I do know what I am talking about. You think you know what you are talking about. There is a difference. I haven't looked at the "official narrative" at all, simply in order to confute that stupid accusation. In fact, I have some doubts about it in the details.
As for conversation, I am too inclined, and am more charitable toward the other party than I should be. Good that we agree. I don't expect to hear from you.
Look, I have no time for protracted dueling manifestos. If you can't fix on a key point or two, give up. You don't even think your objections through. The reason my stove does not get hot enough to melt is not only that the fire is wood not kerosene (lower flame temperature), but, like my kerosene-fueled furnace, does not melt also because the fire is not being burned at adiabatic conditions. Lots of air being used as diluent. So, you are not interested in learning, just in throwing up ignorant objections.
I've made molten aluminum in junior high metal shop, and the amount of evaporation at that temperature is trivial. Raise it up higher and it becomes rocket fuel. Or are you going to argue that solid rocket motors do not use aluminum as fuel? (Propellant chemistry and combustion are my Thing.)
You said in your previous comment that you don't want to continue this conversation. So, why are you continuing it?
My perspective: You might THINK you know what you are talking about, but you DON'T really know what the fuck you are talking about.
You clearly have not looked at a large spectrum of evidence and considered anything but "muh official narrative."
So, we are done with this.
The trouble is, pal, I do know what I am talking about. You think you know what you are talking about. There is a difference. I haven't looked at the "official narrative" at all, simply in order to confute that stupid accusation. In fact, I have some doubts about it in the details.
As for conversation, I am too inclined, and am more charitable toward the other party than I should be. Good that we agree. I don't expect to hear from you.