Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:

Titanic was "state of the art" for its time.

So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive
if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the
towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just
structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops.



So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup?


Comes up as a major screwup to me. We'll see how the pros call it.
Some of them claim that the architects screwed up when they failed to
factor in the prospect of fuel explosions in addition to the aircraft
impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another
of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might
have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical
report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be
released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings.

I was at a presentation made by the head of the engineering team that
investigated the Twin towers disaster.

"The" engineering firm?? Do you have any idea just how *many*
engineering firms have been involved in the WTC disaster??

He said that too many people
aproached it from the wrong angle They ask why did the towers fall so
quickly. A better question would have been how did they stay up so long.

Engineers so often get tarred and feathered when this sort of thing
happens.

Been that way since the first well-known engineers built the pyramids,
comes with the turf.

What we really need is for engineers to accomodate ALL possible
scenarios, both KNOWN and UNKNOWN. 8^)

Not our yob, that's the kind of crap the physicists get paid to mess
with.


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

"Brian Kelly" wrote


A big airliner is a big airliner, they all tote/toted tons of JP4/5
then and now, doesn't matter if it's being flown by an AAL 767 piloted
by a 15,000 hr. column jock or a hijacked 767 piloted by a sand roach.
They all burn equally well inside hi-rise buildings. If the building
comes down because it's core structure wasn't sufficiently
heat-resistant then in fairness who really did screw the moose?

"Over to you Hans".


You're right, Brian. It wasn't the fault of the religious freedom
fighters that the WTC towers are rubble. It's the fault of the
designers.

What the hell was I thinking!

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio
policy either.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]

That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len.
After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up"..

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.

"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband

You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps you
don't have the guts to do it.

and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

What possible significance does that have?

Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low
altitude.

Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.

Yes, they are.

They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.

Why does that bother you so much?

It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.

Perhaps some do.

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic level is
a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art" car?
Wear "State Of The Art" clothes?

Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection?

Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it.

Why? What's *your* problem?

Brian Kelly wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Brian Kelly wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message om...


Mike Coslo wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:

Titanic was "state of the art" for its time.

So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive
if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the
towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just
structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops.



So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup?


Comes up as a major screwup to me. We'll see how the pros call it.
Some of them claim that the architects screwed up when they failed to
factor in the prospect of fuel explosions in addition to the aircraft
impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another
of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might
have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical
report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be
released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings.

I was at a presentation made by the head of the engineering team that
investigated the Twin towers disaster.
^^^^

"The" engineering firm?? Do you have any idea just how *many*
engineering firms have been involved in the WTC disaster??

Um, I said TEAM Brian. I didn't say FIRM!

I ain't lying.

I still have his presentation, I will get his name for you.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote


A big airliner is a big airliner, they all tote/toted tons of JP4/5
then and now, doesn't matter if it's being flown by an AAL 767 piloted
by a 15,000 hr. column jock or a hijacked 767 piloted by a sand roach.
They all burn equally well inside hi-rise buildings. If the building
comes down because it's core structure wasn't sufficiently
heat-resistant then in fairness who really did screw the moose?

"Over to you Hans".


You're right, Brian. It wasn't the fault of the religious freedom
fighters that the WTC towers are rubble. It's the fault of the
designers.

What the hell was I thinking!

Oh stop it Hans. The comments I made are completely apolitical and
involved only a small band of purely technical issues. Specifically
there appears to be a strong possibility that many lives might have
been saved if the designers of the towers hadn't failed to take into
account the damage burning A/C fuel would do to the survivability of
the towers. Has absolutely nothing to do with who flew what into the
towers for whatever reasons or reasons. It's about a design model of a
collison between a A/C and the towers and nothing more.

But then again this is, after all, RRAP.


73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:


Odd that in all the arguments, that one is overlooked. I would
postulate that the number one reason that the Titanic sunk at all is
that the compartments had the open top design. Were they sealed, the
Ship would probably just taken on a major list, and ridden low in the
water. But almost all the people would have survived.

Boink! Good show Mike! Another engineering screwup.

Not at all. Ocean liners aren't submarines. All that was needed were watertight
bulkheads that went one deck higher. But they didn't.

Sealing the compartments at the top would have involved all sorts of problems.
For example - what would you do for air intakes?

Look up a ship called the "Great Eastern" for an interesting view of what could
be done.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:


One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)


So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio
policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]


That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len.
After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up"..

I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He
claims otherwise.


For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.


"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

Yeah, what's with that?


I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband


You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps you
don't have the guts to do it.


and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.


What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in
a quirky sort of way?


Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)


Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.


Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low
altitude.

Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of
the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day
with him at the yoke.


Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.


Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!


They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.


Why does that bother you so much?


It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.


Perhaps some do.

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic level is
a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?


Very "progressive." State of the Art.


Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art" car?
Wear "State Of The Art" clothes?

Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection?

If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.



Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Random thought mode off.......

ttfn! - mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

YOU are the one making that charge.

I just call them as everyone else can see them.

Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!"

Heh heh heh.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]


That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len.
After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up"..

I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He
claims otherwise.

Tsk. Nice troll cast, but inaccurate.

Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency. That's
about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very
tenuous one...if at all. :-)

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.

"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

Yeah, what's with that?

Tsk. You two don't really READ what you've written? :-)

Jimmie wanted me to show ten kinds of respect and sorrow for all
the passengers and crew of the Titanic who perished in 1912!

I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband

You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps
you
don't have the guts to do it.

Tsk. "Serious problem?" More tsk. :-)

Not much show-biz action in PA...but there is in this neck o' the woods.

and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

Tsk. More PCTA extra Double Standard.

Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in

a quirky sort of way?

Why do you wish to continue talking about Linda Hamilton?

Does she have a ham license? [pun intended]

[just think what fun the ARRL news page would have with...drum
roll...HAM ACTOR! :-)


Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy?

You guys just can't focus! :-)

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low
altitude.

Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of

the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day
with him at the yoke.

So...this is now a FLYING newsgroup?

Or are you PCTAs just "high?"


Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

For maybe, 1913... :-)

They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.

Why does that bother you so much?

Tsk. Doesn't bother me much. I haven't gotten an amateur radio
license yet. :-)

Why should I sell my soul for some high-rate morsemanship? :-)


It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.

Perhaps some do.

Jimmie Who do.

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic
level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Only because THEY had to do it...therefore everyone else has to
do the same! :-)

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Why is Jimmie so bothered that he has to keep asking that?

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art"
car?
Wear "State Of The Art" clothes?

Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection?

Far more modern in all respects on all items compared to 1912. :-)

If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.

Tsk. Bad grammar to boot...up.

Try "If we own PCs, we are not state of the art." :-)

Your English syntax and grammar is NOT state of the art...

Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it.

Tsk. Jimmie have loss of memory. Poor fella. Has to "recycle" all his
radio construction in order to do "state of the art" TUBE designs in the
1990s. Tsk. With a double degree... :-)

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Random thought mode off.......

Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like
Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-)

Wow! "State of the Art!"

Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires
for at least 10 miles! :-)

Have a Happy, your Grinchness...

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: "KØHB"
Date: 10/24/2004 9:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"Brian Kelly" wrote


A big airliner is a big airliner, they all tote/toted tons of JP4/5
then and now, doesn't matter if it's being flown by an AAL 767 piloted
by a 15,000 hr. column jock or a hijacked 767 piloted by a sand roach.
They all burn equally well inside hi-rise buildings. If the building
comes down because it's core structure wasn't sufficiently
heat-resistant then in fairness who really did screw the moose?

"Over to you Hans".


You're right, Brian. It wasn't the fault of the religious freedom
fighters that the WTC towers are rubble. It's the fault of the
designers.

What the hell was I thinking!

Brian, we gotta go with Hans on this!

One has to assume that a professional pilot would have, realising his
error, made every effort to avoid the Towers. The camel fornicators jammed on
the power and aimed straight for the buildings...That's a heck of a lot more
kinetic energy than a glancing blow or just clipping it with a wing (a loss of
the aircraft, to be sure, but a lot less likely to have caused the Towers to
fall...)

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing.

Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, yet complains the loudest when
others do it. Just another example of his double standard, do as Len says not
as Len does mentality.

When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Agreed!

The denials are almost funny.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]

That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len.
After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up"..

I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He
claims otherwise.

It's how he acts that makes the claims ring hollow. Perhaps it's time to repost
the "feldwebel" classic...

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.

"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

Yeah, what's with that?

Len's trying to cover up his gaffe of laughing at them.

I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband

You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps
you don't have the guts to do it.

Have you ever noticed, Mike, that Len practically *never* addresses someone who
disagrees with him by the name they use on their posts? He almost always has to
make up an insulting nickname for them.

and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

;-) ;-)

Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in
a quirky sort of way?

Very attractive, really. Not at the Jan Smithers level, of course.

Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

OT?

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

Very OT

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Yawningly OT

Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low
altitude.

Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of
the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day
with him at the yoke.

Did you see the film clip? It's on the 'net at a few sites. Not the best
quality, but scary enough.

Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.

Why does that bother you so much?

Notice how Len avoids the relevant questions...

It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.

Perhaps some do.

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic
level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art"
car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes?

Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection?

If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.

Roger that!

Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20
years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Mostly analog, really!

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

Yep.

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

Indeed.


I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Oatmeal boxes made of cardboard are still used. They have a plastic rim at the
top but they still make good coil forms

Random thought mode off.......

73 de Jim, N2EY