Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

@djjd62,

This should be titled..

The "gravity" of the situation.

@parados,

Here's something for you to read with your coffee this morning.

"For while you traverse the country spiking the football and fundraising for the 2012 election, there are way too many terrorists who want to see each and every U.S. citizen dead and who are not taking time out of their planning stages to play golf; party with hateful, racist rappers; and hobnob with the rich and famous at $35,000 a plate dinners.

In addition to the more than $500,000 that Obama spends on speechwriters, he also pays up to $100,000 to an outside public relations firm that he apparently uses for teleprompter lessons, "speech preparation training,"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/yes_mr_president_i_do_want_all.html

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

You mean that the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth doesn't eat TV dinners?

Who'd of thunk it.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I'm so glad he is getting some teleprompter lessons. When is he going to get some common sense lessons?

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I'm so glad he is getting some teleprompter lessons.

You don't know much about teleprompters, do you?

Quote:

When is he going to get some common sense lessons?

I guess he is waiting in line and will get them after you do. Almost all speeches given by teleprompter are rehearsed. It costs money to rehearse those speeches. It is as much for the person running prompter as it is the person reading it.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

Quote:

the towers fell because of gravity i believe

An overly simplistic comment from a simpleton.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, you said,

"The ASTM E119 test would assume all fireproofing is on the trusses. We know that isn't the case."

What do you mean by the underlined portion?

What does "the plane", what plane? have to do with an ASTM E119 test?

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Parados, you said,

"The ASTM E119 test would assume all fireproofing is on the trusses. We know that isn't the case."

What do you mean by the underlined portion?

What does "the plane", what plane? have to do with an ASTM E119 test?

The test is done with all fireproofing in place.
All the fireproofing wasn't in place in the towers because a plane crashed into them.

Any argument that ASTM E119 tests prove anything about the towers ignores the fact that the test is NOT the same condition as the towers were under.

1 Reply

@JTT,

He's saying that the impact of the airplanes removed some of the fireproofing, so that lab tests do not match real-world disaster conditions.

In the case of an normal fire, the fireproofing is on the trusses. In the case of deliberate sabotage, fireproofing may not remain on the trusses.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The test is done with all fireproofing in place.
All the fireproofing wasn't in place in the towers because a plane crashed into them.

Why didn't you say that in the first place?

I asked about such a test being done with no fireproofing. Isn't that ever done?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

He's saying that the impact of the airplanes removed some of the fireproofing, so that lab tests do not match real-world disaster conditions.

How do you know that lab tests don't match real world [no hyphen necessary] disaster conditions?

What deliberate sabotage? Were there crews in there peeling off insulation?

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

[no hyphen necessary]

Aren't you the big anti-prescriptivist?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Personally, I'd call smashing a plane into a building "deliberate sabotage." Wouldn't you?

And lab test with fireproofing intact Not Equal

impact + debris + fire

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
The test is done with all fireproofing in place.
All the fireproofing wasn't in place in the towers because a plane crashed into them.

Why didn't you say that in the first place?

I asked about such a test being done with no fireproofing. Isn't that ever done?

Why on earth would it be done with no fireproofing? It's a test for fire prevention. It would fail the test without fireproofing since the test is considered a failure as soon as the steel reaches a certain temperature which it would reach in minutes without protection.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Personally, I'd call smashing a plane into a building "deliberate sabotage." Wouldn't you?

Only if you think that the plan was to have the plane take off some insulation from some steel members.

But what does it matter anyway if some insulation was blown off?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

And lab test with fireproofing intact Not Equal impact + debris + fire

The test can be done with components or as an assembled structure. JTT hasn't told us which test he was talking about.

The assembled structure test doesn't even match real world conditions since it only uses a 17' structure to test. The floor trusses at the WTC were not 17' long. Longer trusses would fail quicker under real world conditions. Longer trusses without protection would fail even quicker yet.

Even the test of assembled structures recognizes that certain parts of the structure will fail quicker than the structure as a whole does.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

But what does it matter anyway if some insulation was blown off?

It matters because it is that insulation that gives fire protection for an hour or two depending on the ASTM e119 test rating.

Without the insulation there is no rating for an hour.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Why on earth would it be done with no fireproofing? It's a test for fire prevention. It would fail the test without fireproofing since the test is considered a failure as soon as the steel reaches a certain temperature which it would reach in minutes without protection.

How can it be a test for fire prevention? Have you ever seen steel burn, Parados?

Might it not be important to find out exactly how long it would take instead of just assuming it would be "in minutes"?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Let me ask you a question JTT.

Do you think heat travels in steel that is heated?
If you heat one end of a steel rod does the other end get hot?

Put part of a metal truss in a 1300 degree furnace. How long will it take for a part not in that furnace to get to 250 degrees? That is the test. You have already argued that the trusses couldn't have failed because the heat travels across them so fast that it can't get hot enough to cause failure. That is in direct contradiction to your claim that the truss would pass an e119 test without any fireproofing.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Let me ask you a question JTT.

Without you answering mine? Do you consider that fair, Parados?

I asked,

"How can it be a test for fire prevention? Have you ever seen steel burn, Parados?"

Quote:

You have already argued that the trusses couldn't have failed because the heat travels across them so fast that it can't get hot enough to cause failure.

Did I argue that?

1 Reply

Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know