4e93d620   
   XPost: alt.politics, alt.slack, rec.arts.tv   
   From: demi@moore.net   
      
   On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:28:50 -0800 (PST), "Rev. Richard Skull"   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Dec 10, 5:26 pm, "Ian B"  wrote:   
   >> Sir Studly Spanksalot OBE wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On Dec 10, 2:07 pm, "Dano"  wrote:   
   >> >> Jack Peral wrote:   
   >> >>> People that dont believe 9/11 was an inside job believe   
   >>   
   >> >>> 1) Fire could make steel frame building collapse at free fall speed   
   >> >>> 2) Black boxes were melted even though they were designed to handle   
   >> >>> jet fuel fires   
   >> >>> 3) the explosions people heard were office furniture combusting   
   >> >>> 4) An arab could pilot a 757 going subsonic speed but could barely   
   >> >>> fly a cessena   
   >>   
   >> >>> stop being so close minded   
   >>   
   >> >> Most Americans are terrified by the notion that people in our own   
   >> >> government could possibly be that evil. They really couldn't handle   
   >> >> such a "truth".   
   >> >> So it's easier to label those that question as loons and dingbats.   
   >>   
   >> > Because they ARE loons and dingbats.   
   >>   
   >> > And since a good 75% of the truthers' "theories" resolve into "THE   
   >> > JEWS DID IT", there is a 3-to-1 chance that they are anti-semites,as   
   >> > well.   
   >>   
   >> They also tend to be scientifically illiterate.   
   >>   
   >> A long time ago, when troofing was at its height and I was arguing with   
   >> somebody about it in another place, I encountered this argument that the   
   >> energy required to crush the concrete was not available, and this was a very   
   >> common, widespread troofer "proof". What puzzled me was that this   
   >> calculation was all in kilowatt hours, a very strange unit to use for   
   >> energy. What's wrong with joules?   
   >>   
   >> A little googling sorted it out. Troofers do all their "investigation" via   
   >> web browser. Anything not on the internets doesn't exist for these dogged   
   >> investigators. The troofer in question had looked around for the energy   
   >> required to crush concrete... and found the website of a manufacturer of   
   >> industrial concrete crushing machines- whose energy usage is specified as   
   >> its customers would be interested, in consumption of electricity by the   
   >> machinery... in kilowatt hours. The fact that controlled crushing of loads   
   >> of concrete to a specified particle size, in a machine, bears no direct   
   >> relation to the crushing of concrete in a collapsing building was apparently   
   >> beyond him.   
   >>   
   >> Ian- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   >The energy required to crush concrete is known, its done all teh time!   
   >   
   >How to you think they test concrete? They take samples during the   
   >pour, and put them in a hydrolic press at 7, 14 and if required by   
   >specs, 30 days.   
   >   
   >7 Days=50% design strength   
   >   
   >14 Days=95% design strength.   
   >   
   >a 30 day break is usualy only done if the 14 day breaks is not up to   
   >the required strength.   
   >   
   >By the way, the time it takes concret to get to 100% design strength?   
   >About 40 to 60 years!   
   >   
      
   Wrong.  Typically, design strength is the strength specified for it to   
   reach at 28 days.  It will, however, continue to gain strength for   
   years afterwards.   
      
   >Also they run old concete through crushers to crush it. Its used as a   
   >subbase, cheaper then crushed stone.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)