Guest The Werewolf's Lair Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude of 130 miles producing a fireball". However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion. Then, although there is a small amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine, where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not an explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball? Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to the hit, and just released a vapor cloud? Your thoughts please! I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor. -- "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". -- George Santayana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Don't Taze Me, Bro! Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 LOL.... does the Navy even really exist? or is it a marage? HAHA.. I love you stupid conspiracy theorist... "The Werewolf's Lair" <werewolfking@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:13rufm7oee97j38@corp.supernews.com... > The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite > mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude > of > 130 miles producing a fireball". > > However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no > signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a > "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion. Then, although there is a small > amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine, > where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not > an > explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball? > > Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or > the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower > altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to > the hit, and just released a vapor cloud? > > Your thoughts please! > > I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor. > > -- > "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". -- George > Santayana > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rdubose@pdq.net Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 On Feb 22, 3:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krp Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 "The Werewolf's Lair" <werewolfking@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:13rufm7oee97j38@corp.supernews.com... > The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite > mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude > of > 130 miles producing a fireball". > > However, I have trouble with this scenario. Yeah it's all phony. It was DICKEY CHENEY and a Halliburton no bid contract. It's the same SCAN of 9-11. An INSIDE JOB. THE ALIENS ARE COMING THE ALIENS ARE COMING. Insert your buttplugs people!!! Oooooooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooooooo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krp Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth1.net> wrote in message news:SdHvj.126$Dz4.113@trnddc01... > LOL.... does the Navy even really exist? or is it a marage? HAHA.. I love > you stupid conspiracy theorist... It was all done by Hollywood SFX. Just like the moon landing. Black helicopters, Alien anal probes Ritual sexual abuse by SATAN 9-11 never happened. All the people are being held at Area 51. Elvis is working for the FBI undercover. Pat Boone is really the President. Dolly Parton is really FLAT chested! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Don't Taze Me, Bro! Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 " krp" <krp2457k@verizon.net> wrote in message news:f1Ivj.90$v57.14@trnddc05... > > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth1.net> wrote in message > news:SdHvj.126$Dz4.113@trnddc01... >> LOL.... does the Navy even really exist? or is it a marage? HAHA.. I love >> you stupid conspiracy theorist... > > It was all done by Hollywood SFX. Just like the moon landing. > > Black helicopters, > > Alien anal probes > > Ritual sexual abuse by SATAN > > 9-11 never happened. All the people are being held at Area 51. > > Elvis is working for the FBI undercover. > > Pat Boone is really the President. > > Dolly Parton is really FLAT chested! dont forget that the earth is flat... http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Eld Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 "The Werewolf's Lair" <werewolfking@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:13rufm7oee97j38@corp.supernews.com... > The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite > mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude of > 130 miles producing a fireball". > > However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no > signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a > "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion. Then, although there is a small > amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine, > where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not an > explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball? > > Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or > the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower > altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to > the hit, and just released a vapor cloud? > > Your thoughts please! > > I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor. > > -- > "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". -- George > Santayana Of course, nobody really knows if they destroyed the satellite or not. However, if they didn't it would become readily known when the thing is discovered to still be in orbit or when it finally came down as was predicted. So, the Navy would be taking a big risk of perpetrating a fraud if they really didn't hit and destroy it. It would be a hard thing to cover up for very long. As far as a fire ball is concerned, the kinetic weapon is traveling at nearly 10,000 meters per second and has a kinetic energy of over 48 million joules per Kg of mass. The release of that amount of energy will transform it and anything it hits into a very hot plasma, no oxygen required. As a retired chemist, you can calculate what temperature rise would be expected in that kind of kinetic impact. I think you'll find it to be high enough to be an intensely luminous fire ball. Remember meteors don't need any oxygen or fuel to be meteors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HarryNadds Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 On Feb 22, 3:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HarryNadds Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 On Feb 22, 5:02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lorad474@cs.com Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 On Feb 22, 6:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spammer Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 On Feb 22, 4:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lorad474@cs.com Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 On Feb 22, 2:41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dustbin Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 krp wrote: > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth1.net> wrote in message > news:SdHvj.126$Dz4.113@trnddc01... >> LOL.... does the Navy even really exist? or is it a marage? HAHA.. I love >> you stupid conspiracy theorist... > > It was all done by Hollywood SFX. Just like the moon landing. > > Black helicopters, > > Alien anal probes > > Ritual sexual abuse by SATAN > > 9-11 never happened. All the people are being held at Area 51. > > Elvis is working for the FBI undercover. > > Pat Boone is really the President. > > Dolly Parton is really FLAT chested! > > Prince Philip is a vampire and the Queen of England is a lizard ;-) D. -- ======================= Women have spent the last 30 years proving that men have been right for the last 30 centuries. ======================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dustbin Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 rdubose@pdq.net wrote: > On Feb 22, 3:29 pm, "The Werewolf's Lair" <werewolfk...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite >> mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude of >> 130 miles producing a fireball". >> >> However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no >> signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a >> "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion. Then, although there is a small >> amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine, >> where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not an >> explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball? >> >> Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or >> the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower >> altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to >> the hit, and just released a vapor cloud? >> >> Your thoughts please! >> >> I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor. >> >> -- >> "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". -- George >> Santayana > > It is my understanding that the manuvering thrusters on satelites are > powered by hydrazine as a sole propellant. It breaks down with a > catalyst into gas plus lots of heat. Very controllable and > predictable. > Conspiracy theories always seem to postulate that the Government is > simultaneous very clever and very organized yet leave easy clues of > their scheming scattered around like painted eggs at a children's > Easter Egg hunt. Like it was all a game set up to entertain them. Like > showing an explosion in space when air would be needed just to see if > they could find the "hidden" inconsistency. And then get a cookie. I don't think they are very clever: I think they are a bunch of mindless jerks. D. -- ======================= Women have spent the last 30 years proving that men have been right for the last 30 centuries. ======================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dustbin Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Bob Eld wrote: > "The Werewolf's Lair" <werewolfking@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:13rufm7oee97j38@corp.supernews.com... >> The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite >> mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude > of >> 130 miles producing a fireball". >> >> However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no >> signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a >> "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion. Then, although there is a small >> amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine, >> where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not > an >> explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball? >> >> Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or >> the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower >> altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to >> the hit, and just released a vapor cloud? >> >> Your thoughts please! >> >> I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor. >> >> -- >> "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". -- George >> Santayana > > Of course, nobody really knows if they destroyed the satellite or not. > However, if they didn't it would become readily known when the thing is > discovered to still be in orbit or when it finally came down as was > predicted. So, the Navy would be taking a big risk of perpetrating a fraud > if they really didn't hit and destroy it. It would be a hard thing to cover > up for very long. > > As far as a fire ball is concerned, the kinetic weapon is traveling at > nearly 10,000 meters per second and has a kinetic energy of over 48 million > joules per Kg of mass. The release of that amount of energy will transform > it and anything it hits into a very hot plasma, no oxygen required. As a > retired chemist, you can calculate what temperature rise would be expected > in that kind of kinetic impact. I think you'll find it to be high enough to > be an intensely luminous fire ball. Remember meteors don't need any oxygen > or fuel to be meteors. > > An increase in heat is not a fire. The sun is very hot but it is not a fire. It contains little oxygen; though it is very hot and contains vast amounts of hydrogen (fuel). Bert. -- ======================= Women have spent the last 30 years proving that men have been right for the last 30 centuries. ======================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dustbin Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 lorad474@cs.com wrote: > On Feb 22, 6:14 pm, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Feb 22, 5:02 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> "The Werewolf's Lair" <werewolfk...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:13rufm7oee97j38@corp.supernews.com... >>>> The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite >>>> mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude >>> of >>>> 130 miles producing a fireball". >>>> However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no >>>> signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a >>>> "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion. Then, although there is a small >>>> amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine, >>>> where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not >>> an >>>> explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball? >>>> Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or >>>> the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower >>>> altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to >>>> the hit, and just released a vapor cloud? >>>> Your thoughts please! >>>> I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor. >>>> -- >>>> "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". -- George >>>> Santayana >>> Of course, nobody really knows if they destroyed the satellite or not. >>> However, if they didn't it would become readily known when the thing is >>> discovered to still be in orbit or when it finally came down as was >>> predicted. So, the Navy would be taking a big risk of perpetrating a fraud >>> if they really didn't hit and destroy it. It would be a hard thing to cover >>> up for very long. >>> As far as a fire ball is concerned, the kinetic weapon is traveling at >>> nearly 10,000 meters per second and has a kinetic energy of over 48 million >>> joules per Kg of mass. The release of that amount of energy will transform >>> it and anything it hits into a very hot plasma, no oxygen required. As a >>> retired chemist, you can calculate what temperature rise would be expected >>> in that kind of kinetic impact. I think you'll find it to be high enough to >>> be an intensely luminous fire ball. Remember meteors don't need any oxygen >>> or fuel to be meteors.- Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - >> George Bush, Halliburton,Dick Cheney .Nuff' said. > > That cover story was so bogus.. 'shmaidrazine endangers the earth!' > > Plasma looks to be the explantion for the fireworks. But plasma is not fire. D. -- ======================= Women have spent the last 30 years proving that men have been right for the last 30 centuries. ======================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HarryNadds Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 On Feb 22, 3:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rdubose@pdq.net Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 On Feb 23, 12:11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R. Steve Walz Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 The Werewolf's Lair wrote: > > The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite > mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude of > 130 miles producing a fireball". > > However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no > signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a > "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion. ---------------------- Only an amateur commentator from network TV said "fireball". It was a cloud, nothing more, but it was superheated by the 20 THOUSAND mph collsion! Then, although there is a small > amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine, > where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not an > explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball? ------------------------------ Expansion of gas heated by the collision. > Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or > the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower > altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to > the hit, and just released a vapor cloud? > > Your thoughts please! > > I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor. ------------------------------- They didn't HAVE to tell you what they were doing AT ALL, so quit being a paranoid prick! People who invent "cover-ups" out of their own paranoia of government are obnoxious!! Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.