| |
|
Article: <5ejdr0$782@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Nancy/Zetas
Date: 21 Feb 1997 06:03:12 GMT
In article <330BE34E.55AA@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
writes:
> The issue is the hypothesis, as a
> hypothesis it is, that the Tunguska explosion was caused by
a meteor
> vaporizing due to the stress of dropping to earth. Planes
drop,
> space junk drops, shuttles drop, satellites drop - and NONE
vaporize.
>
> Airplanes simply do not travel fast enough to generate
enough
> heat to vaporize, ... Spacecraft do travel fast enough (the
heat
> shield used by Apollo did vaporize, at least partially) ..
In fact,
> most meteors do burn up (vaporize, that is).
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Are you seriously presenting a burning process with what Jim
Scotti referred to as VAPORIZING in an explosion? Hahahahaha!
Please, an infant can see the difference! A large meteor falling
rapidly to Earth would most certainly find its outer skin headed,
and even become molten, a factor which would reduce the tendency
of anything on the interior to explode as a molten skin is
flexible. However, it would NOT vaporize in the same manner that
occurs in an internally generated explosion such as an atomic
bomb.
Give us a single example of a large object vaporizing - POOF -
due to the stress of a gravity drop. We're not talking here about
a parachute ripping. We're not talking here about the wings of a
plane ripping into shreds. We're not talking about the skin of
the shuttle getting white hot. We're talking about a large object
which retained its shape while dropping to earth and then
suddenly exploded so that nothing was left but dust. And please
don't return with a story about a barrel of gasoline that hit a
high wire on the way down while the barrel had a lead in it. In
this case it STILL would not cause a vaporization, just shrapnel
hither and non.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])