• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

Docker said:
I wouldn't. Where is your evidence that the two air planes turned into shotgun pellets and removed the fireproofing?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't set up a test to see what affect the planes' impacts had on the fireproofing? That's scientific negligence!

You can use whatever you like--doesn't have to be a shotgun. How would you set it up?
 
realitybites said:
How dense are you? They were experimenting to estimate the amount of force that would be required to remove the fireproofing from the steel.

Shotgun pellets against a square of steel is a scaled down version of 767 debris traveling at 500+ miles per hour through a skyscraper.
Click to expand...

Beat you to it. :D
 
Docker said:
are you claiming we should accept the results of a test involving a plywood box, a flat square of stee and 18 shot gun blasts? None of which have anything to do with the world trade center.
Click to expand...
In this case thew the only tests acceptable would be to rebuild an exact duplicate of the WTC and crash planes into them. Thats ridiculous.
 
Docker said:
The steel wasn't square
Click to expand...
does shape have that big of an effect on how well fireproofing sticks to a flat surface? it was designed to be similar to the flat side of a column

it wasn't in a plywood box
Click to expand...
the box had nothign to do with the recreation, it was to keep shrapnel from flying aroudn and injuring anyone

and mohammed atta didn't have a shotgun.
Click to expand...
IIRC they used special shells filled with aluminum to see what happens when high speed chunks of metal hit the fireproofing, sounds good to me

It's junk science
Click to expand...
well obviously if you think this is not a good test you must have at least some of what would be a better test, im sure you wouldnt make a judgement with absolutely no frame of reference

so what do you think they should have done?
 
Docker said:
Your signature is nice. Why don't you show it to the brave ground zero workers who are now dying. Thanks for pissing on graves before they have even been dug.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. How does my signature piss on the graves of the workers?
 
Docker said:
are you claiming we should accept the results of a test involving a plywood box, a flat square of stee and 18 shot gun blasts? None of which have anything to do with the world trade center.
Click to expand...

As a test of the effect of high speed impact on a model of the fireproofing, conducted by professional engineers skilled in the art of modeling such effects? Yes, we should accept the results, barring any evidence more compelling than "Yeah right! As if!"

As an aside, we've had various people from various disciplines mention that "common sense" expectations of how their discipline "should" work are completely off the mark. Are there any disciplines out there where such common sense expectations are actually accurate? My experience is most people are quick to say, "That's so easy and obvious! How hard can that be?" about everything except what they know in detail, at which time they tell you, "My job is actually very subtle and difficult!"
 
Last edited:
Docker said:
So your admitting they couldn't recreate the situation in the world trade center. Thanks.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the idea of the test.

You want to add evidence and add some argument instead of putting words in my mouth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom