TLC and DSC Going for Hype Ratings?

Unit 5302 · 02-28-2002, 01:05 AM

I've noticed an increasing amount of wild speculation on The Learning Channel and The Discovery Channel in the last year. They seem to be entertaining pure speculation from one school of thought.

I first really took notice in one man trying to make a name for himself by declaring T-Rex a scavenger. Saying that since T-Rex had small arms and poor eyesight it would have been a poor hunter. Instead, it's olfactory system was extremely good, like a vulture, making it a great scavenger. A polar bear doesn't have super great eyesight either. It does have an extremely good sense of smell. It's a hunting machine. Hmmm... perhaps they could have interjected some thought on how large scavengers are? Scavengers are normally small because they arrive after a kill is mostly consumed in many cases. How is one of the largest carnivores to walk Earth supposed to survive on little leftover scraps?

Yesterday I saw something that really ticked me off. It was a show basically targeting the WTC towers because of their "flawed" design.

Since the designers didn't build the structure to withstand a full speed head on collision with a jumbo jet larger than any commercial aircraft when it was constructed, the building was flawed. LOL. They went so far as to suggest that a normal skyscraper would have stood the impact. It made me sick. They told one side of the story only. Since the WTC had all the elevators in the center of the building people on the upper floors died unnecessarily because they couldn't get down. They also suggested that the lack of a full frame allowed the building to collapse. They did NOT say what would have happened to a normal skyscraper though.

For good reason too. In my opinion, a normal skyscraper would have toppled over and destroyed blocks of city, killing thousands more. The mesh steel exoskeleton of the WTC towers allowed the aircraft to penetrate without folding the building and while maintaining a large percentage of the main skeleton intact. While they suggest the building was doomed from the initial impact, I highly doubt it. A chain reaction from the interior walls failing and floors crashing down upon one another was the result of a raging inferno of jet fuel compromising the structural rigidity of the steel. This would have occurred in ANY steel building. They pointed out the blast from the aircraft blew the heat treatment right off the steel allowing the flames to weaken the steel faster. How would that be different from a normal skyscraper? Then they determined people were trapped in upper levels due to all the elevators and stairs being located in the center. I would like to know how they figure the aircraft wouldn't have blasted through the vast majority of a normal skyscraper, thus destroying the escape routes?

It certainly seems logical to me that an aircraft flying into a normal building would have a tendency to fold the building over at the point of impact, thus altering the load to one side resulting in the near immediate toppling of the building. As it topples over, it would crush and destroy surrounding buildings without a chance of escape. The ensuing fire would rage over the entire area spread by the disbursement of jet fuel over a large area.

I'm not a structural engineer, so don't take what I'm saying as fact, just seems like they based their entire program on a one sided story. Just seems like a bunch of unsupported hype.

Crazy Horse GT · 02-28-2002, 01:11 AM

our government run media at work again

Old Guy with 87 GT · 02-28-2002, 10:56 AM

i agree with you on the towers .........i make a living doing construction and restoration.....well heat is a magor factor in steel holding it's integerty........i think any steel building ,if expossed to that much heat would calapse.........the strenth of that building wasn't touched from the impact it was weak'nd from heat ......
i've done a few fire restorations and when you expose steel to extrem temts, the steel will warp and it will actually change in composition,.....on a fire restoration it's common to replace any steel that has been exposed to extrem heat......it changes it's integrety even if it looks fine........now correct me if i'm wrong ,steel is made by a heating process ......the process used is what determines it strenth......the difference between iron and steel is how it's made.......if you heat up steel and don't use the same process it will not be the same when it cools down it will be closer to an iron compound......... we all know iron is weaker so it's safe to say when steel is heated to near melting temps it will lose it's strenth
well the temps reached in the towers was definatly hot enough to heat the steel to near meling temps......jet fuel burns hot ......once the steel reached a certian temp it couldn't hold the amount of weight it was designed for.......thus the reason that the tower came straight down .....gravity......if the building was comprimised from the impact it would have fallen to the side instead of collapsing on it self.........

well thats my two cents any way

Snakeman · 03-01-2002, 02:23 PM

couldn't even scratch his own nose...
a good sense of smell would help find those rotting 25 ton "table scraps" from a long distance.

someone has to clean up, why not Rex?

those peg-like teeth don't resemble the teeth of any self-respecting predator...

don't take it so hard...
do you realize that the bald eagle --our national symbol-- is a scavanger, too?

7000rpmisheaven · 03-01-2002, 02:54 PM

Unit- I agree with you on that one. Think of it this way also. When the planes crashed it took some time for the steel to give away. The time it did take to give out I'm sure a few thousand people were able to get out of the buildings. If the building folded upon impact it would have toppled instantlly. Then few people if any would have gotten out, not to mention any surrounding buildings could have fallen with it.

As for the T-rex. Maybe it was a scavenger. After all, why would it have to wait around for scraps. He could just wait until you kill something and then tell you to get lost.

Unit 5302 · 03-01-2002, 07:46 PM

Tyrannasaurus Rex may have scavenged in later years, but I find it somewhat unconvincing that in it's early years it would have been built for much speed, just to scavenge.

While you may think the rotting 25 ton table scraps exist, I personally doubt that was a common occurance. Vultures live in mostly desert climates. There are few preditors, and little prey. They can travel large distances gliding on the wind looking for animals likely to die and then follow them. If something should die, the lack of preditors allows it to be effective at cleaning up. T. Rex lived in what would appear to be a relatively densely populated area. I really doubt he would have had time to wait for the carcass to really start rotting good so that he could find it. Many other hunters would already be at the scene, and their kills would probably be mostly consumed by the time T Rex got there.

If you look at scavengers today, they are more often small than not. The animal making the kill doesn't pick on something significantly larger than what it can eat in most cases. It's wasteful, and generally dangerous.

Lying in wait for another preditor to make a kill so it could run the preditor off would be a more likely scenerio. It would have to be a powerful preditor to kill something big enough to fill T Rex's belly, though. That would mean a formidable opponent would be standing in T Rex's way. If the preditor could kill prey that T Rex could not, why couldn't it just kill T Rex?

Some stuff in the T Rex scavenger theory has merit, but the information is very inconclusive IMHO. What remains is one of the largest carnivores to ever walk the earth. With 6" long dagger like teeth curved backwards in a manner to suggest it would hold prey, along with a 18ft tall body at 35ft+ long giving it excellent balance, heavy built in adulthood for extreme power, and lighter in adolecent years for speed.

02-28-2002, 01:05 AM	#1
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	TLC and DSC Going for Hype Ratings? I've noticed an increasing amount of wild speculation on The Learning Channel and The Discovery Channel in the last year. They seem to be entertaining pure speculation from one school of thought. I first really took notice in one man trying to make a name for himself by declaring T-Rex a scavenger. Saying that since T-Rex had small arms and poor eyesight it would have been a poor hunter. Instead, it's olfactory system was extremely good, like a vulture, making it a great scavenger. A polar bear doesn't have super great eyesight either. It does have an extremely good sense of smell. It's a hunting machine. Hmmm... perhaps they could have interjected some thought on how large scavengers are? Scavengers are normally small because they arrive after a kill is mostly consumed in many cases. How is one of the largest carnivores to walk Earth supposed to survive on little leftover scraps? Yesterday I saw something that really ticked me off. It was a show basically targeting the WTC towers because of their "flawed" design. Since the designers didn't build the structure to withstand a full speed head on collision with a jumbo jet larger than any commercial aircraft when it was constructed, the building was flawed. LOL. They went so far as to suggest that a normal skyscraper would have stood the impact. It made me sick. They told one side of the story only. Since the WTC had all the elevators in the center of the building people on the upper floors died unnecessarily because they couldn't get down. They also suggested that the lack of a full frame allowed the building to collapse. They did NOT say what would have happened to a normal skyscraper though. For good reason too. In my opinion, a normal skyscraper would have toppled over and destroyed blocks of city, killing thousands more. The mesh steel exoskeleton of the WTC towers allowed the aircraft to penetrate without folding the building and while maintaining a large percentage of the main skeleton intact. While they suggest the building was doomed from the initial impact, I highly doubt it. A chain reaction from the interior walls failing and floors crashing down upon one another was the result of a raging inferno of jet fuel compromising the structural rigidity of the steel. This would have occurred in ANY steel building. They pointed out the blast from the aircraft blew the heat treatment right off the steel allowing the flames to weaken the steel faster. How would that be different from a normal skyscraper? Then they determined people were trapped in upper levels due to all the elevators and stairs being located in the center. I would like to know how they figure the aircraft wouldn't have blasted through the vast majority of a normal skyscraper, thus destroying the escape routes? It certainly seems logical to me that an aircraft flying into a normal building would have a tendency to fold the building over at the point of impact, thus altering the load to one side resulting in the near immediate toppling of the building. As it topples over, it would crush and destroy surrounding buildings without a chance of escape. The ensuing fire would rage over the entire area spread by the disbursement of jet fuel over a large area. I'm not a structural engineer, so don't take what I'm saying as fact, just seems like they based their entire program on a one sided story. Just seems like a bunch of unsupported hype.

02-28-2002, 01:11 AM	#2
Crazy Horse GT Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sale Creek, TN. C. S. A. Posts: 4,652	our government run media at work again __________________ 95 gt vert, lot's of stuff, it aint slow. 04 sonic blue v - six my beater 89 rs camaro iroc turbo hood, other stuff, my wifes ride 84 lx stang cammed up 289 hi po, etc 65 falcon, maybe by the year 2020. black 00gt, gone but never forgotten. R H C- member # 1 o.b.c. da prez- member # 1 if your under 40 dont ask. goodbye for now odie,r.i.p. 11-27-03

02-28-2002, 10:56 AM	#3
Old Guy with 87 GT Registered Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 379	i agree with you on the towers .........i make a living doing construction and restoration.....well heat is a magor factor in steel holding it's integerty........i think any steel building ,if expossed to that much heat would calapse.........the strenth of that building wasn't touched from the impact it was weak'nd from heat ...... i've done a few fire restorations and when you expose steel to extrem temts, the steel will warp and it will actually change in composition,.....on a fire restoration it's common to replace any steel that has been exposed to extrem heat......it changes it's integrety even if it looks fine........now correct me if i'm wrong ,steel is made by a heating process ......the process used is what determines it strenth......the difference between iron and steel is how it's made.......if you heat up steel and don't use the same process it will not be the same when it cools down it will be closer to an iron compound......... we all know iron is weaker so it's safe to say when steel is heated to near melting temps it will lose it's strenth well the temps reached in the towers was definatly hot enough to heat the steel to near meling temps......jet fuel burns hot ......once the steel reached a certian temp it couldn't hold the amount of weight it was designed for.......thus the reason that the tower came straight down .....gravity......if the building was comprimised from the impact it would have fallen to the side instead of collapsing on it self......... well thats my two cents any way __________________ the "not so old",old guy 87 Mustang GT T-top >hanlon t-5, pro 5.0, centerforce clutch ,adj. cable/quatrant ,3.27s ,full 2 1/2 ex(off road H) adj. reg. ,e-cam ,70mm TB, cobra intake ,1.7rr ,ported/milled e7ets w/crane springs ,306 balaced/decked short block w/speed pro forged flat top pistons ...257rwhp/302rwt best et 13.7@102 (4/11 ) '80 Capri (future project,currently collecting parts for 351 moter)

03-01-2002, 02:23 PM	#4
Snakeman Registered Member Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: Grass Valley, CA, USA Posts: 1,389	poor t-rex couldn't even scratch his own nose... a good sense of smell would help find those rotting 25 ton "table scraps" from a long distance. someone has to clean up, why not Rex? those peg-like teeth don't resemble the teeth of any self-respecting predator... don't take it so hard... do you realize that the bald eagle --our national symbol-- is a scavanger, too? __________________ LX ~vs~ Camaro

03-01-2002, 02:54 PM	#5
7000rpmisheaven Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: germantown MD Posts: 283	Unit- I agree with you on that one. Think of it this way also. When the planes crashed it took some time for the steel to give away. The time it did take to give out I'm sure a few thousand people were able to get out of the buildings. If the building folded upon impact it would have toppled instantlly. Then few people if any would have gotten out, not to mention any surrounding buildings could have fallen with it. As for the T-rex. Maybe it was a scavenger. After all, why would it have to wait around for scraps. He could just wait until you kill something and then tell you to get lost. __________________ 85 GT 4bbl roller cam 2 ch. Flowmasters, O/R H-pipe Performer intake and carb milodon water pump, FMS 9mm wires, aluminum driveshaft, king cobra clutch

03-01-2002, 07:46 PM	#6
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Tyrannasaurus Rex may have scavenged in later years, but I find it somewhat unconvincing that in it's early years it would have been built for much speed, just to scavenge. While you may think the rotting 25 ton table scraps exist, I personally doubt that was a common occurance. Vultures live in mostly desert climates. There are few preditors, and little prey. They can travel large distances gliding on the wind looking for animals likely to die and then follow them. If something should die, the lack of preditors allows it to be effective at cleaning up. T. Rex lived in what would appear to be a relatively densely populated area. I really doubt he would have had time to wait for the carcass to really start rotting good so that he could find it. Many other hunters would already be at the scene, and their kills would probably be mostly consumed by the time T Rex got there. If you look at scavengers today, they are more often small than not. The animal making the kill doesn't pick on something significantly larger than what it can eat in most cases. It's wasteful, and generally dangerous. Lying in wait for another preditor to make a kill so it could run the preditor off would be a more likely scenerio. It would have to be a powerful preditor to kill something big enough to fill T Rex's belly, though. That would mean a formidable opponent would be standing in T Rex's way. If the preditor could kill prey that T Rex could not, why couldn't it just kill T Rex? Some stuff in the T Rex scavenger theory has merit, but the information is very inconclusive IMHO. What remains is one of the largest carnivores to ever walk the earth. With 6" long dagger like teeth curved backwards in a manner to suggest it would hold prey, along with a 18ft tall body at 35ft+ long giving it excellent balance, heavy built in adulthood for extreme power, and lighter in adolecent years for speed.