Not quite. You're comparing watts (power) to Joules (energy), which doesn't make sense. In addition, I think the first number was originally provided by bs, so it's way off; HAARP's true power output is 3.6 megawatts. The second figure has one too many zeroes.
Comparing one full hour of HAARP's power output to the energy of the much briefer earthquake, we get roughly
13,000,000,000 Joules (HAARP, 3.6e6 watt-hours)
vs
24,000,000,000,000,000 Joules (earthquake)
True. Sometimes I think Bill could ask JREF'ers to rub their belly and pat their heads and many would.
Bill Smith, rings a bell and you can just watch the drooling begin, it's pretty sad. I'm beginning to think those feeding the troll are no better then the troll.
Not quite. You're comparing watts (power) to Joules (energy), which doesn't make sense. In addition, I think the first number was originally provided by bs, so it's way off; HAARP's true power output is 3.6 megawatts. The second figure has one too many zeroes.
Not quite. You're comparing watts (power) to Joules (energy), which doesn't make sense. In addition, I think the first number was originally provided by bs, so it's way off; HAARP's true power output is 3.6 megawatts. The second figure has one too many zeroes.
Comparing one full hour of HAARP's power output to the energy of the much briefer earthquake, we get roughly
13,000,000,000 Joules (HAARP, 3.6e6 watt-hours)
vs
24,000,000,000,000,000 Joules (earthquake)
A gigawatt is a fairly large plant. I think the largest plant on the planet is a hydroelectric on China that's 5.5 Gigawatt. If not sure if there are 100 plants in the world capable of generating a full gig.
We have a small gas turbine genset at out plant we use for black starts. It's a little bigger than a standard shipping container and puts out about 3 Meg.
There are currently around 40 power stations generating 1GW or more just in England (including a few under construction or being upgraded), as well as several more that have been shut down. 1GW really isn't that big these days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_England
There are currently around 40 power stations generating 1GW or more just in England (including a few under construction or being upgraded), as well as several more that have been shut down. 1GW really isn't that big these days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_England
You are correct. For some reason I was thinking about Nuclear when I wrote that last night (And the 10.0 GW mark, not 1 GW). The hydroelectric in China is 18.5 Gigawatt
That list shows the top 100, the 100th being about 3.3 Gigawatt.
I have not posted this on SLC yet, because I wanted some comments from the people here who have studied CIT's claims a little more carefully than I have. I thought rather than put it in its own thread, I'd post it here:
This part starting at 1:16 says that North of Citgo is the correct path but that does not mean flyover. I believe this is wrong, that CIT at least have the "official" flight path correct. Comments?
This part starting at 1:16 says that North of Citgo is the correct path but that does not mean flyover. I believe this is wrong, that CIT at least have the "official" flight path correct. Comments?
I have not posted this on SLC yet, because I wanted some comments from the people here who have studied CIT's claims a little more carefully than I have. I thought rather than put it in its own thread, I'd post it here:
This part starting at 1:16 says that North of Citgo is the correct path but that does not mean flyover. I believe this is wrong, that CIT at least have the "official" flight path correct. Comments?
Are you kidding? Have you heard these guys' impression of an "objective" interview? They are jokes.
You can consider that they got the flight path right ONLY IF:
You ignore ALL the physical evidence, including knocked down light poles, damaged cars & generators, and the path of destruction that the plane made into the building.
AND you ignore all of the eyewitness testimony that was gathered over the course of the next several days.
You get to believe them if you choose to believe a couple of hack kids with zero experience and a agenda a mile long. And not 30 working brain cells between the two of them. Interviewing people years later.
And very carefully massaging & mining the quotes that they got from people.
If you are suggesting that they got the flight path right (NoC), then you are left trying to explain all the destruction that happened.
After the plane entered the building, momentum takes over. The debris path is a straight line. 130 tons of 500 mph debris did not, CAN not, suddenly take a 30° left turn.
Explain the light poles. Explain the generator & fence damage. Explain the path of destruction that the plane made into the building. Explain the fact that, out of 140 or so eyewitesses, NOT ONE person, not one radar, saw the plane fly over the building & fly away. NOT EVEN ONE of the eyewitnesses that the CIT bozos quote..!!!
There were over 100 people who followed the path of the plane down to the Pentagon, had the plane drop behind some obstacle to their sight line, but saw & felt the explosion & immediately after saw the fireball & smoke. This is NOT some giant coincidence. And their testimony can NOT be dismissed as "they didn't really see the plane crash".
Because there were about a dozen people who followed the plane into the side of the building. Including Lt. Col Steve O'Brien. Who saw it all from the cockpit of his C130, after he'd been asked to watch AA77 by a Air Traffic Controller. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ag6brfWro
I'll leave you to decide who is believable. A USAF Lt. Colonel. Or Jabba the Hutt.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
