"My love for you is as big as a 747"

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
71,288
14,074
126
www.anyf.ca
ocOe0sh.jpg
 
E

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,615
3,840
126
We all know she doesn't care about Jet Fuel. She's clearly been cheating on him with Military Thermite
 
E

Engineer John

Junior Member
Mar 31, 2017
1
1
16
Watching the news yesterday of a fire collpasing a 4 lane elevated section of I-85 in downtown Atlanta shoud put to rest the structural argument about the Twin Towers collapse. No, jet fuel cannot burn hot enought to "melt" steel (as in turning it into complete liquid form). However, steel loses it's strength in proportion to temerature and duration of the fire. Structural engineering standards are to build things 2 to 4 times breaking strength (depending on the safety factor required). So if structural steel gets hot enough to weaken it beyond the safety factor, it can and will bend, warp, twist or shear depending on the type of load it is supporting. A section of elevated interstate highway completely collapsed yesterday in Atlanta due to a blaze caused by burning PVC conduit stored underneath it (the orange stuff on a roll they use to bury underground cable). An interstate overpass is made of steel-reinforced concrete supported by steel I-beams. Not a whole lot different structurally than a skyscraper (except that the I-beams are supporting a shear load vs. a compression load). On top of jet fuel, there was a whole lot of plastic (carpeting, cubicle desks, plumbing, electrical insulation) plus combustible fiber (paper, drywall, boxes) that burned for 30 minutes or more before the Twin Towers collapse. Plenty of heat and time to sufficiently weaken structural steel to it's failure point. Now for CIA/Bin Laden/Saudia Arabia conspiracy theories, those are potentially still on the table. But it doesn't take thermite to bring down a building or a highway. This is simple engineering statics and dynamics 101, acourse every engineer takes in undergrad. I'm amazed at how many civil and structural engineers out there are ignorant of this concept. Makes you feel safe that they are writing the specs to build the buildings we live and work in, huh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo
deustroop

deustroop

Golden Member
Dec 12, 2010
1,915
354
136
I don't think the squirrel is mocking the original event just making the engineering point overlooked by conspiracy fools and arising from the atlanta fire.
 
Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,659
13,363
136
Engineer John said:
Watching the news yesterday of a fire collpasing a 4 lane elevated section of I-85 in downtown Atlanta shoud put to rest the structural argument about the Twin Towers collapse. No, jet fuel cannot burn hot enought to "melt" steel (as in turning it into complete liquid form). However, steel loses it's strength in proportion to temerature and duration of the fire. Structural engineering standards are to build things 2 to 4 times breaking strength (depending on the safety factor required). So if structural steel gets hot enough to weaken it beyond the safety factor, it can and will bend, warp, twist or shear depending on the type of load it is supporting. A section of elevated interstate highway completely collapsed yesterday in Atlanta due to a blaze caused by burning PVC conduit stored underneath it (the orange stuff on a roll they use to bury underground cable). An interstate overpass is made of steel-reinforced concrete supported by steel I-beams. Not a whole lot different structurally than a skyscraper (except that the I-beams are supporting a shear load vs. a compression load). On top of jet fuel, there was a whole lot of plastic (carpeting, cubicle desks, plumbing, electrical insulation) plus combustible fiber (paper, drywall, boxes) that burned for 30 minutes or more before the Twin Towers collapse. Plenty of heat and time to sufficiently weaken structural steel to it's failure point. Now for CIA/Bin Laden/Saudia Arabia conspiracy theories, those are potentially still on the table. But it doesn't take thermite to bring down a building or a highway. This is simple engineering statics and dynamics 101, acourse every engineer takes in undergrad. I'm amazed at how many civil and structural engineers out there are ignorant of this concept. Makes you feel safe that they are writing the specs to build the buildings we live and work in, huh?
Click to expand...

rosie o'donnell isn't a civil engineer, so i'm not sure you actually have to worry about anything. building/bridge standards are going to have elevated temperature requirements for evacuation purposes, not for continuous service.
 
sm625

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
Engineer John said:
Watching the news yesterday of a fire collpasing a 4 lane elevated section of I-85 in downtown Atlanta shoud put to rest the structural argument about the Twin Towers collapse. No, jet fuel cannot burn hot enought to "melt" steel (as in turning it into complete liquid form).
Click to expand...

There was and still is evidence that steel in fact did melt into a liquid form. That is the only way you get metallic spheres 10-100 microns in diameter which have been found on rooftops all around the area. No amount of logical fallacies is going to change this very simple fact: Liquified steel flowed through the air that day. We saw liquid steel pouring out the side of the building. Multiple camera angles. STEEL. LIQUID. Not aluminum. STEEL. FACT. It's a FACT. Thousands if not millions of spherical pieces of metallic debris, called "microspheres" by some "conspiracy theorists". What part of this and its implications is so difficult to comprehend even after all these years? These are simple facts. Not reported, not seriously discussed, only derided. Even today, dumbed down hollowed out husks of what America used to be will only make stupid jokes about this.
 
IronWing

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,699
35,542
136
zinfamous said:
thanks for sharing. your offense is noted.
Click to expand...
He didn't say he was offended; it was a neutral statement of neutrality offered in the spirit of non-spiritedness. We should take it at face value, you know, a nef post.
 
Scarpozzi

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,392
1,780
126
Overheard by a black couple fighting on the next aisle at Walmart circa 2003 or so... I'm only stating race because their banter was so funny. I could have listened to them fight all night...and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact words....just the punchline.

Black girl: "You and your little D***! ain't so special..."
Black guy: "LITTLE??!!! SH!T GIRL....EVEN A 747 seems little when it's flying through the GRAND CANYON!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
So what the hell was the cause of the damn fire? I can't find anything from the media sucks asses.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,994
31,558
146
John Connor said:
The conspiracy nonsense is just that -- nonsense.
Click to expand...

and humor is just that--something impervious to conservatives because everything funny to them must be direct and one-dimensional, else it offends their delicate sensitivities.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,994
31,558
146
John Connor said:
So what the hell was the cause of the damn fire? I can't find anything from the media sucks asses.
Click to expand...

as to the ATL fire--apparently some long-burning PVPs or PVsomethings under the expressway that trapped and funneled a shit-ton of heat upwards toward the steel bridge supports.
 
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
71,288
14,074
126
www.anyf.ca
Funny when I heard of that fire the first thing I thought of is the 9/11 conspiracies lol.

Is there an separate express toll route where you have to pay? Maybe this is an inside job to make people go through that route. Car fuel can't melt steel beams! :p
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,994
31,558
146
John Connor said:
I'm thinking someone wanted that bridge to come down.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. This was a long burning fire that took some time to create the necessary damage...not the type of working time that a terrorist would bother with.

That being said, what kind of support is in place to let that kind of fire go un-attended for that amount of time? I dunno. It's weird.

I really haven't followed up so I don't know the details, but it's a strange situation.

related: The one thing that even playdoh puppet Trump has supported that absolutely must be addressed, is this nation's infrastructure. I know that this event isn't really a reflection of general disrepair, but if something good can come of this, even if it is unwarranted, I'd like for this to toss a spur in state and fed legislature's asses about addressing our non-sexy bridge, highway, dam, and general infrastructure issues. you know...actual jobs.

It doesn't mean a golden statue for the assholes approving, but it means actual work, service, and actual jobs created in this country. Holy shit: bipartisan support. wholdathunkit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom