Mason Barge
9/7/2012 5:07:00 PM
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:22:07 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <fq9i48lllttejo72ocilvjssl8a0j04m05@4ax.com>,
> Mason Barge <masonbarge@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:14:21 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><1942707565368657444.918625atropos-mac.com@news.giganews.com>,
>> > BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> cloud dreamer <reduce@reuse.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 06/09/2012 3:45 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:18:11 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> In article
>> >> >>> <26a41fb2-fe83-49c5-a846-a3c537814b0d@o19g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >>> Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> Obveeus
>> >> >>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> A spark from the metal plane impacting a concrete
>> >> >>>>>> road would do it.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Aren't sparks electrical in nature?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> No, they're tiny bits of glowing hot metal that was chipped
>> >> >>>> off by the impact.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Take a wood file and whip it down the (concrete) street
>> >> >>>> and it'll make a shower of sparks as it slides along.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But that's artificial sparkage.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Maybe nerve impulses from scattered brain tissue set it off.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Holy cow. Artificial sparkage???
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, okay. Obviously, Animalfucker was home schooled. That's the only
>> >> > explanation for such utter stupidity.
>> >>
>> >> He was making fun of you, dumbshit, and your previous idiotic assertion
>> >> that this EMP somehow singles out artificial electricity from 'real'
>> >> electricity like lightning-- as if there's any qualitative difference
>> >> between the two.
>> >
>> >Seriously, how did Clodreamer go from being amusingly ignorant to
>> >aggressively stupid?
>>
>> Yeah, well, I was the stupid one about the sparks. I thought they were
>> electric but they aren't (unless we get down to the level that atoms
>> depend on electricity to function).
>>
>> In fact, how sparks are made is actually pretty interesting. Iron
>> automatically ignites and burns when exposed to air!
>>
>> The only reason you can have exposed iron is that the surface immediately
>> gets a molecule-thick layer of something on it -- rust, if there's no
>> contaminant. But when you shred off itty-bitty pieces so that the surface
>> area to volume gets large enough, it self-ignites.
>
>Cool
>>
>> Too bad, it made for a funny snark.
>
>Somewhere along the line we've missed the part where Clodreamer is
>completely wrong, and neither natural nor artificial sparkage is going
>to set off a jetliner on impact.
I actually don't have a problem with the idea that a vertical airliner
crash might eventually cause a massive explosion, possibly even in the
absence of inorganic electricy. My problem is a) the crash itself, and 2)
my general theory that the quality of any production is directly inverse
to the number of fireballs. Same thing for car chases. I think there
have only been two good (or less than horrible) car chases in the history
of cinema. At least, modern cinema.
But on the other hand, fireballs are a good in and of themselves. I
always yell "fireball" when I see one on tv and, unlike most of my jokes,
my wife actually thinks it's funny.