Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

I posted a link that laid out the basics of the test including how it is conducted.

<Yawn>

Pedantic nonsense to avoid discussing the issue.... Just like Clinton.

And you're the one that brought up the "pancake theory." If you'd like to discuss it, why don't you describe it.

Parados: You argue that protected steel wouldn't be affected by the fires because of the E119 test.

jtt: No, I didn't.

Parados: Since you didn't say the steel was protected, then what does this mean?[/quote]

It means that I'm telling you that you were wrong, yet again. It means that you are just throwing out any old **** with no regard to what was actually stated.

====================

Was the steel protected or not for the test?

Are you arguing that the trusses were not weakened because they still had protection?

I asked for your calculations on what would happen to columns with weakened floor trusses and you presented the E119 test as your response.

That implies you think the trusses IN the building were under the same conditions as those tested in an e119 test.

Yet you now admit you have no clue what an e119 test is?

===============

Another Parados inane flurry of assumptions. Okie ought to see this except the issue is something that he won't let inside his bubble.

I will address these later.

Address it now..
Why do you think the e119 test has any bearing on the condition of the floor joists in the towers?

Not at all, DD. I merely schooled you on what you already intuitively know. A guy as clueless about the workings of language needs that.

Look back at DD's posts to see someone avoiding discussing the issue.

You brought up the pancake theory as an item of interest.... I could care less about it. Feel free to discuss it, or not, as you please.

You do know that a lot of your comrades in not knowing about how language works frown on this, don't you, DD?

I finally found the actual test conducted to test the WTC construction..

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.cfm

The tests were conducted with fireproofing on the floor joists.
They also showed failure WITH fireproofing after 1-1/2 hours. That means they passed the test but it doesn't mean they would stand forever.

The deck also showed clear buckling in the test - see page 35.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/upload/PublicBriefingULTestsGross082504.pdf

This buckling would have put stress on the outer columns that would not normally be there.


In fact this is what was said about the test which was of FIRE PROOFED steel

Sudden failure? What do you think about that JTT? In a test where supposedly the structures passed?

In fact the test where they reduced the fireproofing from 3/4" to 1/2"thick saw failure in only 45 minutes which used trusses at a length less than used in WTC. Longer trusses fail quicker because they have the longer span.

Not only do the ASTM e119 tests not show that failure wouldn't occur, the clearly show that reducing the fire protection by only 1/3 would cause failure in less than an hour.

Here is an interesting OP.

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

Now just how stupid is partisanship that revels in pointing out that everybody who sits in high office in the US is a war criminal?

There's a barely discernible light emanating from the attic, but really, is anyone home?

Here's the article that best describes the whole situation, Ren.

===========

Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death

By Noam Chomsky
May 7, 2011

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine" that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Oh my God. Do you read that crap? Now that's funny in a sad pathetic kind of way. The asshole President of Venezuela, Chavez, reads that crap. Did your college professor turn you on to that crap?

As Izzy has pointed out, in his subtle manner, the only thing that wasn't accurate in that was Professor Chomsky making a joke of his winning the Boston Marathon.

Please go ahead and point out any other inaccuracies that you, the illustrious historian, see.

Again, I have to bow to your superior knowledge, you being such an expert on crap.

He hates the USA. That's enough right there. Might as well post Mein Kemph.

The biggest lie in the entire thing is that George Bush is a bigger war criminal than Osama. That's insane.

Bush the Lesser was a tool of Cheney--he was just following orders.

Do you think Bush is a bigger war criminal than OBL?

Chomsky loves the US, but exceedingly honest man that he is, he can't and won't allow war criminals to make a mockery of his country. Compare that to you and a good portion of other A2Kers who revel in the fact that the US is completely responsible for the deaths of, not a few thousand, but over a hundred thousand Iraqis and untold tens of thousands of Afghans.

It's obscene and you know how obscene it is and you still make excuses for these obscenities.






Yeah right, Ren. As I said, you know that you've just spoken an enormous lie. Why are you such an evil person? Does the US Constitution confer upon Americans the right to be evil?

Equivalent to who was worse--Goebbels or Himmler?

As Stalin said



You're arguing statistics

Bush the lesser used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq under the guise of being an 'axis of evil'--Iraq was a secular country that had nothing to do with the WTC/Pentagon attacks, a fact that was well known on 9/12. Was this effectively an overt criminal act?

Depends on whether you died for the lie.

BTW in the same speech justifying the invasion of Iraq, Bush the lesser called the terrorists on the four planes 'cowards'. I have always had a problem with calling them 'cowards' as they were willing to die for their (demented/misguided/evil) convictions.

Flying an airplane into a building and certain death is not an act of a coward.

Rap

I don't think that you answered Renaldo's question, Rap.