RSS Feed
 |
 | Mesa 26-Gun Safe Fire-Safe All-Steel 14.4 Cubic Ft Electronic or Combo MBF6032E |  |  | US $1,018.00 | 22d 4h 2m |
 | MESA Wall Safe Electronic Keypad All Steel MAWS2113E | | | US $135.00 | 25d 21h 36m |
 | Mesa 32-Gun Safe Fire-Safe All-Steel 22 Cubic Feet Electronic or Combo MBF7236E | | | US $1,299.00 | 22d 4h 12m |
 | Mesa 14-Gun Safe Fire-Safe All-Steel 7.9 Cubic Feet Electronic or Combo MBF5922E | | | US $797.00 | 22d 3h 45m |
 | NEW -Secure Vault Select Personal Safe Programable/All Steel/Wall or Floor Mount | | | US $54.99 | 5d 1h 14m |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
|
 | Tidel Tacc II R Safe All Steel Door Arm w/ Gear | | | US $74.99 | 29d 1h 40m |
 | MESA 2 Hour Fire Safe 12.2 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS160E | | | US $1,499.00 | 11d 2h 35m |
 | Locking Wall Mount 48 Key Safe Hook Box Auto Lock All Solid Steel Construction | | | US $29.99 | 19d 11h 30m |
 | vintage safe , cast iron or all steel very heavy | | US $249.99 | 18d 16h 2m |
 | MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe Double Door 20.7 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS170DDE | | | US $2,499.00 | 11d 2h 56m |
 | MESA 2 Hour Fire Safe 13.3 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS170E | | | US $1,599.00 | 11d 2h 42m |
 | MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe 9.2 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS140E | | | US $1,099.00 | 11d 2h 13m |
 | MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe 6.8 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS120E | | | US $1,019.00 | 11d 2h 9m |
 | MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe 3.6 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS100E | | | US $829.00 | 11d 2h 5m |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
All Steel
What are those big (50ft high) all metal/steel things with the city names on them in the southern states?
I recently moved from San Francisco, CA to Florida. I drove across country through all of the southern states. What are those big all metal/steel things with the city names on them and do they serve a purpose other than a city marker? They are shaped like a huge mushroom. I thought they were those doppler radar things, but I googled images and they look different.
they are called water towers... each town has at least one some of the bigger ones have 2 or more!!!
some even come in shapes i ahve seen one i Kansas in the shape of a teapot!!!
|
| Mesa 26-Gun Safe Fire-Safe All-Steel 14.4 Cubic Ft Electronic or Combo MBF6032E | | | US $1,018.00 | 22d 4h 2m |
| MESA Wall Safe Electronic Keypad All Steel MAWS2113E | | | US $135.00 | 25d 21h 36m |
| Mesa 32-Gun Safe Fire-Safe All-Steel 22 Cubic Feet Electronic or Combo MBF7236E | | | US $1,299.00 | 22d 4h 12m |
| Mesa 14-Gun Safe Fire-Safe All-Steel 7.9 Cubic Feet Electronic or Combo MBF5922E | | | US $797.00 | 22d 3h 45m |
| NEW -Secure Vault Select Personal Safe Programable/All Steel/Wall or Floor Mount | | | US $54.99 | 5d 1h 14m |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
|
| Tidel Tacc II R Safe All Steel Door Arm w/ Gear | | | US $74.99 | 29d 1h 40m |
| MESA 2 Hour Fire Safe 12.2 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS160E | | | US $1,499.00 | 11d 2h 35m |
| Locking Wall Mount 48 Key Safe Hook Box Auto Lock All Solid Steel Construction | | | US $29.99 | 19d 11h 30m |
| vintage safe , cast iron or all steel very heavy | | US $249.99 | 18d 16h 2m |
| MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe Double Door 20.7 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS170DDE | | | US $2,499.00 | 11d 2h 56m |
| MESA 2 Hour Fire Safe 13.3 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS170E | | | US $1,599.00 | 11d 2h 42m |
| MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe 9.2 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS140E | | | US $1,099.00 | 11d 2h 13m |
| MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe 6.8 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS120E | | | US $1,019.00 | 11d 2h 9m |
| MESA 2-Hour Fire Safe 3.6 Cubic Feet Electronic All Steel MFS100E | | | US $829.00 | 11d 2h 5m |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
|
No items matching your keywords were found.
|
 | DAC Technologies Medium All Steel LCD Digital Security Safe #S520-LCD 13x10x10 | | | US $89.00 | 18d 31m |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
| | The Steel Harvester of the All-Steel Feering $19.99 The Steel Harvester of the All-Steel Feering - Premium Poster |
| | All Steel Freight Car $39.99 All Steel Freight Car - Giclee Print |
| | Chair,Fldg,All Steel,Bk $82.99 CHAIR,FLDG,ALL STEEL,BK |
| | Chair,Fldg,All Steel,Tan $82.99 CHAIR,FLDG,ALL STEEL,TAN |
| | Chair,Fld,All Steel,Dgy $123.99 CHAIR,FLD,ALL STEEL,DGY |
| | Chair,Fld, All Steel,Tpe $123.99 CHAIR,FLD, ALL STEEL,TPE |
| | Chair,All Steel,Vinyl,Bk $167.99 CHAIR,ALL STEEL,VINYL,BK |
| | Chair,All Steel,Vinyl,Lgy $167.99 CHAIR,ALL STEEL,VINYL,LGY |
| | Chair,All Steel,Vinyl,Tpe $167.99 CHAIR,ALL STEEL,VINYL,TPE |
| | The Feering All-Steel Twine Binder $19.99 The Feering All-Steel Twine Binder - Premium Poster |
| | All Steel Cigarette Disposal Posts $80.85 Affordable and attractive, Barco Products all steel Cigarette Disposal posts are environmentally sound options for butt disposal! |
| | All Steel Smokers' Waste Receptacle $185.85 Contain cigarette waste with the new Smokers' Waste Receptacle. This all-steel design looks good anywhere and is safe to use! |
| | Collegiate All-Steel Starting Block $139 All-Steel constructionUsed for both cinder and all-weather tracksSpring loaded plunger allows for easy pedal adjustmentSecure locking pedals have rubber pads |
| | All Steel 38 Gallon Receptacle $628.85 Keep your entry attractiveand litter-free!A larger, handsome addition to pair up with our 30-Gallon All Steel Receptacleand our Smokers' Waste ReceptaclesDurable powder-coated steel construction will not rustGenerous 38-gallon capacity steel receptacle with metal linerHinged side door for convenient waste removalShipped knocked down for savings on shipping |
| Account limit of 2098 requests per hour exceeded. |
Steel Panther - Death To All But Metal
Are all tongue rings stainless steel?
I have a very allergic reaction to silver. I bought a cheap tongue ring at a local store. All of the tongue rings that I have seen have been stainless steel but I just want to make sure my tongue isn't going to swell like a balloon because it's silver.
not always they was material that won't rust,
Posted in 
Tags: 
I criticized Dr. Jones pretty heavily (and stand by it), but I don't recall criticizing Harrit, et al. specifically except when I was mistaken as to which paper you were referring to. In any case, the criticism that I've leveled against the paper since reading it is more than sufficient to show that the paper is lacking. I don't think that anyone has been confused by my criticism, but if they were then I could summarize my position by saying that I think that Dr. Jones is a poor scientist with a record of dubious ethical standards, poor methodology, and a penchant for greatly overstated conclusions and that the Harrit, et al. paper is shoddy science which, after undergoing a dubious peer review process, was published in a vanity journal resulting in the editor's resignation on the grounds that the paper was inappropriate for the journal.
I have no idea what you mean by [YOU CALL HIM 'DR. JONES'!], it’s simply a waste of bandwith.
Just quoting movies Bob… (and noticing that while you have frequently referred to Dr. Greening as 'Greening', this is the first time you've referred to Dr. Jones without the honorific). I thought you liked quoting movies. If you're still confused, Dr. Jones was the one who wanted to know who the 'top men' studying the ark of the covenant were.
In Re: “Exactly what assertions by Dr. Jones do you think are validated by the Harrit paper?” I don’t know; maybe it has something to do with
“The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust.”
And according to Dr. Greening it matches the chemical signature of ash from municipal incinerators.
I said: “So Professor Pileni resigned because of something to do with Professor Jones? That’s your story and you’re sticking with it? Show me.
Slarti: Here’s my source…
As usual, a dead end. No mention of the Harrit paper or Prof. Pileni. Actually no mention of ANYTHING. You’d be crucified for that if you were arguing before an appellate court.
In one of the other links I posted Dr. Harrit explains that Dr. Pileni didn't say anything about the quality of their paper and Dr. Peleni explains that she resigned because she felt that the paper was inappropriate for the journal and she speculates that it may have had a political motive. What exactly do you think I'm misrepresenting here?
Slarti: “I have referred to the kinetic energy of impact as raising the temperature by about 20°C and haven’t in any way implied that it could have been responsible for melting steel (other than to make it very slightly easier for something else to melt steel). I think it’s about time you found something new to whine about.”
I stand by my objection; your example is completely inappropriate as it lulls the casual reader into believing there’s some sort of equivalence between the impactor and the molten metal observed in the footprints of all three buildings. You’re just as intellectually dishonest for making the association as Bush was in associating Saddam Hussein with 9/11.
I've repeatedly documented your intellectual dishonesty (for instance, here). This is yet another attempt to smear me for your sins – Karl Rove would be proud. For the record, I don't think that molten metal in the footprints of the buildings is all that surprising nor do I think that explosives or incendiaries are likely candidates for sustained heat in the rubble. Since neither you, Dr. Jones, nor Dr. Harrit have come up with a scenario in which massive amounts of undetectable explosives were used to do things like pulverize concrete and eject dust (in addition to demolishing the building with the help of magic incendiaries which could remain painted on vertical columns while lit) with enough left over undetonated or unignited to supply heat to the rubble for months when ignited by some unknown mechanism and my theory says that the observed heat in the rubble was expected and unremarkable, I'm not that concerned that people reading this are thinking 'hmm… I didn't think all that much of Slarti's dissection of Bob's unsupported claim that explosives caused the molten metal in the rubble pile but his comments about impactors were cool so he must be right.' I guess I just have more faith in the intelligence of the people reading this than you do.
Paraphrasing Lincoln: “What the 1500 or so posts on the 9/11 thread demonstrate is that a mathematician has attempted to account for the [molten metal at ground zero] using energy without associating [mechanics or how such energy was DIRECTED to create said molten metal].
Slarti: I have explained the processes by which work converted energy from one form to another in the collapse. Kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy by the mechanism of internal friction (either by bending or impact). If what I’ve said about energy is so ridiculous, then what does it say about you that you’ve never been able to find a single source to contradict what I’ve said? Put up or shut up.”
NOTHING OF WHAT YOU SAID ACCOUNTS FOR THE MOLTEN METAL AT GROUND ZERO! Neither metal falling to earth nor one or two bends of a beam is capable of generating sufficient heat to create those pools of molten metal at the footprints! To imply they did is sheer intellectual dishonesty.
First off, please enlighten us as to what the maximum amount of heat that can be generated by bending a beam is (here I thought that the energy involved was equal to the product of the size of the force doing the bending and the distance over which it acts – silly me…). Secondly, I believe that if there were pools of molten metal in the rubble pile, then it is nearly certain that they were aluminum or some other metal rather than steel. The only viable mechanism for producing molten steel in large quantities that I've seen is energy in the form of shockwaves from the floors being sheared off being transmitted down the core columns. If you can think of a way to keep a pool of steel molten (for weeks or months) with thermite, please enlighten the rest of us…
Slarti: “All skyscrapers contain enough GPE to undergo gravitational collapse given an initiating event – otherwise controlled demolition would be impossible. “
Yet you ignore this ‘initiating event’ in your natural collapse theory.
Gee, what do I think the 'initiating event' was? Could it be… Satan? No… Oh, I know! Jetliners slamming into the buildings and lighting them on fire! Just because the buildings didn't fall down immediately doesn't mean that they weren't mortally wounded by the crashes – if the fires could have been fought the buildings probably would have lasted longer, but given the extent of the damage and the fires it was inevitable that the structure would fail.
The reason CD works is that it removes all forces holding up the building simultaneously.
You don't remove 'all forces holding up the building simultaneously' in CD, you remove enough supports so that the building can no longer support its weight and it undergoes a progressive collapse (in the specific manner it was designed to). Once some portion of the building can't support the load bearing on it, the building will start to collapse and fall through the height of one story – if the falling portion of the building is sufficiently massive then the collapse will be self-sustaining.
Your theory holds that all steel buildings are simply collapses waiting to happen; as if they were structured in an inverted manner, more fragile structures holding up the stronger. This is why the transfer of momentum model you propose is f’n ridiculous.
Now you're going to question my use of conservation of momentum? Does the inane ignorance of physics ever stop? What exactly do you think happens in a gravitational collapse?
Here's what I think happens if all of the columns on one floor of the WTC are instantly removed (a scenario more conducive to building survival than what really happened):
The upper block of the building falls through the distance of one floor, converting GPE into KE until the bottom floor of the upper block impacts the top floor of the lower block. This impact converts some of the KE into TE (heat in the pulverized concrete). Assuming the two floors stay together, the remaining KE is shared between the two floors, now moving at a velocity determined by the conservation of their momentum. The columns above and below the impact immediately begin dissipating KE (converting it into TE via internal friction) by compression. The columns above the impact compress to slow the floors above them and simultaneously begin to transmit force (load) to the columns below. The columns below the impact must dissipate all of the kinetic energy of the two impact floors and then deal with the increasing dynamic load from the upper block until all of the kinetic energy has been converted to thermal energy in order for the building to survive. If any floor fails, the process is repeated on the next floor with additional kinetic energy.
Given that the damage to the WTC spanned several floors, this process would be able to collapse several weakened floors and gain unstoppable momentum before it was required to crush an intact floor. The idea that the WTC could arrest a global failure in the impact zone shows a profound ignorance of physics and a lack of comprehension of the forces involved. Here's something for you to ponder: Why can I describe how I believe the collapse happened in detail, while you flail around stating things awkwardly and misusing jargon?
Slarti: The enormous amount of energy dissipated in the WTC collapse …
I’ve told you why that reasoning is specious; energy dissipated does not necessitate sufficient force applied to destroy the pristine structure of the building that had been holding up the remainder of the tower for thirty years.
Once again you mangle the jargon. Work must be done to dissipate energy. Mechanical work is the result of a force acting over a distance. I've repeatedly explained the physics, provided references to support my arguments, and shown your reasoning to be specious. In order for the building to survive all of the kinetic energy of the upper block must be dissipated by the columns (i.e. the kinetic energy must be converted into thermal energy via the internal friction from the compression of the columns) – even for a short drop this is a lot of energy. There is a big difference between the lower portion of the building supporting the upper block's weight and it being hit with a moving upper block. Like the difference between setting a bowling ball on a plate and dropping a bowling ball on a plate.
Slarti: in addition to fires and other chemical reactions both before and after the collapse certainly made this particular rubble pile much hotter than the norm, but it doesn’t require any sort of incendiary to have happened (and I don’t believe that explosives could have don’t the job at all). Fire alone could have been responsible for enough heat to generate a liquid eutectic mixture including steel.”
You have nothing to substantiate that claim and you know it.
I'm claiming that fires in the rubble could have reached 700°C which is totally reasonable and you know it.
Slarti: “The fact that bending a piece of metal generates heat is clearly relevant to this discussion.”
No it’s not, because the heat from bending metal requires more bends than would occur in a collapse and never EVER generate ANY form of heat nearing that required to melt iron.
What do you think happens when a steel beam is snapped in two? When a large enough force bears on a small enough region that region is going to get hot. The only question is how hot can it get before it fails. This certainly isn't going to produce large amounts of molten steel, but it could certainly result in some very hot steel which could then start fires or catalyze other chemical reactions (how hot would it have to be for Lane's process to occur?)
Slarti: In any case, Harrit, et al. didn’t live up to their burden to give scientific evidence of the non-fungibility of their evidence of thermitic materials.
Ipse dixet. More horseshit.
You don't understand how science works at all, do you? Harrit, et al. was not an attempt to prove something in a court of law, it was an attempt to make a scientific case for a hypothesis. By the rules of science they did a piss poor job of it. I've detailed why the paper didn't make a strong scientific case and given examples of criticism that it left itself open to thereby. Implying that I'm asserting Harrit, et al's lack of scientific rigor without any supporting evidence is just flat-out lying.
Slarti: Once again, they only showed that their samples MAY have been thermitic in nature. Until they do more than that, non-fungibility is just another unsupported claim.
The material was nano-engineered you evidence maven!
Prove it. Harrit, et al. didn't.
Slarti: “if the supports at the base of the building were cut, it would have collapse bottom-up like a controlled demolition (or WTC7)”
So WTC 7 was a controlled demolition with pools of molten at its footprint but the Towers were not?
WTC7 was a bottom-up collapse just as most controlled demolitions are bottom-up collapses.
You’re a fucking riot; you know that? Just how the hell am I supposed to take you seriously?
Well, it would help if you stopped making straw men out of all of my arguments.
Slarti: “An ‘excited utterance’ might be admissible testimony when someone makes a confession, “
Wrong on so many levels. That would be a declaration against interest and it need not be a ‘confession’; just another one of the 36 exceptions to the hearsay rule. But thanks for playing anyway.
So you're saying that an excited utterance that is a confession isn't admissible testimony? In any case, it's just another transparent effort to try and shift the context of the discussion from science to law (I understand you must feel very uncomfortable trying to argue the science given how poorly you understand much of it). To use an analogy to the legal system, you're like a cop saying that because you found what you think is a bullet hole in the wall that the victim was shot to death after the medical examiner has determined that the cause of death is the stab would to the chest and that furthermore there are no bullet wounds. So please don't tell me the 36 exceptions to the hearsay rule and don't try to tell me what constitutes scientific evidence, because you clearly have no idea.
Slarti: “but [the testimony of people near ground zero as to what they heard] doesn’t make for expert scientific opinions.”
But it does form the factual basis from which scientific opinions can be made.
If you're saying that it's evidence of loud noises associated with the collapse, sure, but if your saying that it's any sort of evidence for explosive devices then you, like Dr. Jones, are making claims that you can't support.]]>
Your best bet would be to contact the dealer or service center for your brand of appliance. Every manufacturer of "stainless steel" appliances offers polishing materials for their products. That way you know you are getting the right one.