Kossacks Nibbling the Forbidden Fruit?
As we have discussed in the past, there is a standing rule against posting 9-11 Denial crap at the Daily Kos, with banning as the required penalty. Yet this diary is still active over there, with 150+ replies (many of which note the ban). But then the kooks start to come out:
Not Convinced by Chertoff's Nephew's Articles? (0 / 0)
In Popular Science (Mechanics ?) when he debunked those myths for the folks at Hearst?
by bernardpliers on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:24:09 PM PST
Heh, it was supposed to be Chertoff's cousin, the last I heard.
You will not be banned peakdavid.
Over a third of the American people believe the government has not been truthful about 9/11.
It took dkos a long time to believe that the evoting machines were cheating too.
by joel3000 on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:40:31 PM PST
Lots of disinformation:
The plane wasn't enough to bring down the tower. The towers were designed to withstand a hit from a similarly sized jet, the 707.
No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire.
They found Mohammad Atta's passport in the wreckage of the WTC. How did that piece of paper survive the conflagaration given that the black boxes from the plane did not? Who found the passport? Where and when exactly did they find it? This is an unanswered question of the 911 families.
It will be interesting to keep an eye on this thread and see if peakdavid gets banned.
posted by Pat @ 7:59 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Not Convinced by Chertoff's Nephew's Articles?
He is now his nephew? The least they could do is decide on a fictitious relationship and stay with it.
I'm happy to cheer for SLC blog's more enlightened banning policy as compared to Daily Kos.
The Daily KooKoos post the most insane, delusional crappola to exist in the English language.
Do not be surprised that the do allow the posting of 9/11 Troother baloney. After all, The Daily KooKoos have brains of manure.
From his site:
But, what about Freedom of Speech?
Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?
No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.
I thought it was a funny way to put it, anyway.
767's and 707's are not comparable in size. The 767 is 25% larger. :)
Indeed Doc
The World Trade Center is able to withstand a 707 impact Very true, but at approach speeds. The WTC withstood a 500 MPH impact from a slightly bigger plane, and every pilot will agree with me that 500 MPH is not the speed you want when trying to land on a runway. The kinetic energy difference between an approach speed and 500 MPH from the hijackers is huge.
They found Mohammad Atta's passport in the wreckage of the WTC. How did that piece of paper survive the conflagaration given that the black boxes from the plane did not?
This issue, which all too often comes up, really irritates me. Why? Because the question displays an obvious lack of common sense that even a ten year old should possess.
It is kind of like asking...
"Well how did the tornadoe destroy my house, but leave my barn completely untouched."
Anyone with any intelligence has to realize that the impacts did not destroy everything, nor did they destroy "all things paper" or "all things less strong than titanium". Things flew hundreds of yards from the impact zones. paper is light, and susceptable to wind, shock waves, momentum, etc...all of which could have sent it in a direction seperate from the rest of the wreckage.
Is it just me that finds this answer so obvious?
TAM
Nope. That question is illustrative of the mindset and/or intelligence of your average twoofer. It's one of the reasons I know that I have pretty much no chance of ever "converting" one of them. With such a lack of basic common sense, I'd have to sit down with each one of them for several months, and go through the process of teaching them all the things they didn't learn from their parents or the school system.
The kinetic energy difference.
Quick math to back up Shawn's picture:
EK = 1/2(M*V^2)
B-25: 1/2*(11000*(320/60/60*1000)^2) = 43,456,790.12
707: 1/2*(119000*(290/60/60*1000)^2)
= 386,107,253.08
767: 1/2*(125000*(944/60/60*1000)^2)
= 4,297,530,864.19
In other words, UA 175 at the point of impact had more than 11 times the amount of energy estimated by the planners of the WTC, and almost 100 times more energy than the B-25 which crashed into the empire state building.
Shawn, I didn't think the picture was accurate when I first saw it, which is why I did the math to check it. It IS off, although not nearly as much as I thought. I took the liberty of correcting it. The only problem with the new version is that the B-52 arrow is about 3 times bigger than it should be, however, at least the arrows for the other two aircraft are in the correct proportions.
I figured like this Alex
200mph=1x 330000# x 1 = 330,000# Towers designed for
490mph=5x 390000# x 5 =1,950,000# 1st crash
590mph=8+x 390000# x 8 =3,120,000# 2nd crash
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that forumla.
You Americans always throw me off with your imperial calculations :) At least NASA has finally seen the light, and is going entirely metric.
More to the point: When the WTC towers were built, they had no way of modeling the fires generated by the fuel.* So they had to ignore that part of any disaster. As it was, the building did survive the impact, but the damage done combined with the fire did the deed.
*Note that even if such modeling had been possible, any figures obtained in the late 1960's would have been obselete by 2001. The modern office contains a lot more 'fuel' for fires than an office of 1969. There is a lot higher office density and other factors that the designers could not have known about when building the towers.
Thanks for the corrected version, I'll throw it up on my webspace.
Always glad to be of assistance :)
Alex this is what I meant
The kinetic energy of an object is directly proportional to the square of its speed. That means that for a twofold increase in speed, the kinetic energy will increase by a factor of four; for a threefold increase in speed, the kinetic energy will increase by a factor of nine; and for a fourfold increase in speed, the kinetic energy will increase by a factor of sixteen. The kinetic energy is dependent upon the square of the speed.
where m = mass of object
v = speed of object
200mph=1x 330000# x 1 = 330,000# Towers designed for
490mph=5x 390000# x 5 =1,950,000# 1st crash
590mph=8+x 390000# x 8 =3,120,000# 2nd crash
Well it is good to see some on the left try to slap this crap down.
Has anyone read the Hustler article? Does it actually endorse the kooks or does it just same "some people believe".
Post a Comment
<< Home