The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0

Jay Leno mentions the Hindenberg in this video and explains the
hydrogen did not have anything to do with the explosion - calling it a
rumor - and explaining that hydrogen is not dangerous whatever.

On Nov 8, 9:14*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ

Jay Leno is out of date and is a paid advertising spokesman. *It does,
however, demonstrate the level at which Mr Mook adopts things as
'fact'.

shrug The facts are unassailable.

"Nevertheless, more recent research conducted at the University of
Colorado has contradicted this theory and found the airship's skin
could not have been responsible for the fire's rapid spread.

cite?

This
theoretical and experimental research suggests that even if Hindenburg
had been coated in actual solid rocket fuel, it would have taken at
least 12 hours to burn in the absence of hydrogen.

A Hindenberg model was coated with the same material as that found on
the Hindenberg and it went up in less than 30 seconds when ignited.

Experiments with
recreations of the ship's skin have also found it would have taken
some 40 hours for the Hindenburg to be consumed if the fabric had
caused the fire.

Cite? Actual experiments with coated fabrics indicate that 34 seconds
it actually took was validated. Also, the film shows clear evidence
of thermite reaction.

These finding led the researchers to conclude that
although the Hindenburg's skin was combustible, it was not flammable."

If you would cite a peer reviewed article that actually did these
experiments I would be greatly appreciative.

"Given the inability of investigators to conclusively determine why
the Hindenburg crashed, it is not surprising so many theories to
explain its destruction have emerged. Even so, the static spark theory
is still considered the most likely since it is the best corroborated
by the wreckage, video and photo evidence, and eyewitness reports.
This evidence and academic research also supports the belief that the
ship's hydrogen gas was ignited by static discharge and not the skin.
The hydrogen burned explosively and rapidly spread the flames forward
throughout the ship, and the skin only burned as a result of this
intense fire."

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ns/q0277.shtml

Thanks. This is contradicted by actual experimental results burning
accurate Hindenberg scale models. 1/50 scale.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

On Nov 8, 9:17*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:05*am, William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaO...utube.com/watc....

Exactly,

Exactly wrong, as I pointed out elsewhere.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Not wrong at all. Look at part three - they burned a 1/50th scale
replica and it validated the fact that it was the skin not the
hydrogen that was the culprit.

On Nov 8, 9:18*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:28*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?

It didn't explode. Really.

It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises.
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.

It may be "very reasonable", but it doesn't explain what happened. See
what I posted elsewhere on the study done at CU.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

CU is wrong the experimental results don't validate the theory.

On Nov 8, 9:19*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:32*pm, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:28*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?

It didn't explode. Really.

It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises.
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.

That's 100% correct,

Except that it's absolutely wrong.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

No its not. The skin caused a thermite reaction - you can see
thermite forming and dropping off the Hindenberg in the film, and see
it in the model as well.

On Nov 8, 9:20*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7754a276-58f5-4d5f-85d0-b87317e02f08
, says...

As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ

It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which ignighted
the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg.

No, it isn't.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

Yes it is.

On Nov 9, 9:39*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



Jeff Findley wrote:

It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which
ignighted
the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg.

No, it isn't.

Fine, there are several competing theories as to what caused the fire
and you don't believe that a static discharge igniting the fabric is the
likely culprit. *

Perhaps you could agree that once the Hindenburg started burning, there
were several flammable materials which would, and did, burn. *These
include, but are not limited to, doped fabric skin, hydrogen, and diesel
fuel?

Jeff
--
42

Absolutely. Hydrogen was a contributing factor.

The point is hydrogen fueled and hydrogen filled balloons using modern
materials and methods are as safe as kerosene fueled jet liners or
gasoline fueled automobiles.

Explosions are possible, explosions will likely occur over time. The
benefits outweigh the risks.

Just as they do with gasoline and jet fuel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w581BiSBzQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cHoontLwIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onjW36sxAqU

On 11/8/2010 6:41 AM, Jim Davis wrote:
William Mook wrote:

We are contemplating 16 million airships carrying 40 tons each -
0.64 billion dead weight tons - having a cycle time of 2.25 days
delivering delivering 140 billion tons of cargo per year - with
far greater flexibility than is possible with sea going ships.

How long do you imagine it would take to build 16 million airships?

Look on the bright side; that many airships flying around would create a
noticeable drop in sunlight hitting the Earth's surface by their shadows
and combat global warming. ;-)
An idea like that was actually proposed fairly recently - launching
millions of chromed long-life balloons to very high altitude so that
they would reflect sunlight back into space.

Pat

On Nov 9, 3:42*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:11*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Nov 8, 10:38*am, William Mook wrote:

On Nov 7, 10:24*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 7, 5:26*pm, William Mook wrote:

Earth as a planet means Earth treated as a single entity of production
and consumption. *Which stands in marked contrast to treating Earth as
a divided and fractious collection of 266 nations each on their own
geopolitical position defined by their access or not to resources and
defined by their ability to trick, cajole or force others to hand over
what they need at the expense of the rest.

It is clear that despite well defined limits and options we have not
made good decisions related to the development of energy resources on
this planet.

It is likely we have not made good decisions related to the
development of other primary resources as well.

So, its worth thinking of a goal and determining if this goal is at
all feasible!

It turns out that it may be!

8 billion millionaires is one place to start. *Its a well defined
target. *We find that to achieve this goal we need vastly more than is
currently being produced in terms of food, energy, wood, metals, and
so on.

When, we look at what the entire planet has to offer we find that we
have enough - surprisingly.

In the end, we look at the Earth as we might look at a space colony -
and we find that we have plenty of everything to go around - if we
trouble ourselves to invest in the most productive infrastructure
possible and apply it as broadly as possible leaving no one out.

When we do this we find that approximately 800,000 sq km of solar
collectors, 800,000 sq km of green houses in the desert, a few large
water works programs, and careful management of 800,000 sq km of Taiga
forest, combined with the development of a yet to be determined number
of deep sea trenches - connected together with space based
communications, space based navigation, space based sensing, and a
network of hydrogen filled hydrogen fueled UAV - creates a system that
achieves the initial target of 8 billion millionaires.

From the productivity of this asset we can see how our economy might
adopt it as a private public partnership - allocating what Ford calls
efficiency bonuses to workers, management, investors, government, and
buyers alike.

This is all well and good, except for the usual part where William
Mook does nothing.

Motivating poor folks to do whatever they can't possibly afford to
accomplish isn't exactly a working plan, and especially dysfunctional
if there's no actual leadership by anyone other than yourself. *Do you
even have a short list of who would be put in charge of what, and have
any of them been contacted by you?

*~ BG

The 10 million millionaires have $40 trillion. *With the collapse of
the US banking system and the imminent unraveling of the US monetary
system they're looking for a place to put their money. *A few billion
to build a 'production cell' that puts all the pieces together is the
first step. *Then, building a factory that makes factories to make the
things we need to live. *Like I said;

* Five Years to Engineer and Develop
* Five Years to build the supply chain
* Five Years to build the products

We start with 1 cell and grow it 100x over three years by building a
production cell per year - of each type needed to support the supply
chain.

They are looking for a relatively failsafe and untaxable place to put
their 40 trillion so that it turns into 80 trillion at the least
possible overhead, and Mook hydrogen balloon cells for accomplishing
global deforestation or those terrific satellite based energy notions
to go along with your terrestrial conversion of solar energy into dirt
cheap LH2 and LOx are probably not on any of their short lists,
perhaps because they is heavily invested in the existing hydrocarbon
and nuclear energy cartels as is.

However, if you can manage to brake any of those trillions lose for
whatever Mook contrived investments, I'm certainly not going to stand
in your way. *I totally agree that we need to get our upper most
wealthy loot reinvested into advanced technology, various productions
of products, goods and especially energy that insures better long-term
growth that's affordably clean and isn't restricted by government or
faith-based policies that only get in the way and run up the cost of
just about everything. *Any further delay is yet another cost that we
can not afford.

*~ BG

Here is one scenario the board members at Exxon Mobil have on their
books;

The USA following a limited nuclear war in Asia before 2040 between
the Hindus and the Muslims will be in an ideal position to take over
ALL the world's nukes to secure world peace. *The USA will also
benefit from the flight of capital from a post-nuclear Asia. *The
world's population will be reduced to 4 billions by the war, and the
demand for resources will be radically reduced. *Following a limited
nuclear strike in Asia and a doubling of our background radiation, the
USA will then be in a position to introduce high-temperature nuclear
reactors using recycled nuclear materials gathered in the security
operation immediately following the war. *These will be used to
implement the BNL plan for high-temp breeder type nuclear reactors and
move from energy at $500 per barrel to too cheap to meter within a
half-century. *This will allow the major oil companies to retrieve all
the value from their remaining oil and then give them special entree'
to spend that money on the next big energy resource - the world's
stockpile of nuclear weapons materials.

Without pressing geopolitical needs present at the beginning of the
nuclear era, a portion of this resource will be cycled into nuclear
pulse spaceships which will be used to develop solar system resources
and other things I speak of, with a 4 billion, largely white, largely
Western, population.

Then it's all good. We get our wish and the NWO tells each of us
exactly what we can or can not do.

It sounds like a perfect Mook and Semite world.

~ BG