Stoopid Bridge Troll

Haven't had a troll 'round here in ages.  And where do you suppose trolls are storied to live?

Under bridges, of course!  Guess the fire out in Oakland smoked this one outta his hole.

A few short days ago, the world was provided with an amazng public display of the effects of fire on steel, concrete and a structure comprised of these materials.  And though that proof came in the form of a major disruption of a public thoroughfare, I'd posit that the temporary but terribly expensive loss of a highway overpass may have been a fair exchange for the public proof that indeed, fire melts steel.

In response to my post mocking Rosie O'Pig, a troll calling itself Healthy Skeptic dropped by in the comments, leaving this dreck.

Now presented for your reading pleasure, the UnHealthy Skeptic, and some very damn healthy bits of information for his ridiculously misinformed self.

"Concrete overpasses are not reinforced with the same hardened steel girders that were in the Twin Towers. Apples and oranges."

Well, if the overpass is the type made of post-tensioned beams which are precast offsite, and then transported by heavy transport to the construction location, then the troll would have a point.

Unfortunately for him, the bridge in the Oakland incident simply wasn't made of such modular beams.

No, sadly for our troll, the Oakland overpasses were made of steel "I" beams which drwarfed the steel girders used in the Twin Towers.  The following photo is of a still-standing portion of the very Oakland overpass in question. 

Peter DaSilva for The New York Times

A fiery pre-dawn tanker truck accident caused the collapse of heavily used freeway overpass near downtown Oakland early this morning.

Look at the beams which underlie the bridge deck itself, and note that they appear to be about six feet tall at the web, and I'd guesstimate they'd be roughly two feet, maybe thirty inches at the flanges of the beam.

And, those beams appear to be somewhere over seventy feet in length.  Likely, closer to eighty feet.  Beams of that size will run well over a full inch in thickness.  Here's another view from the same Oakland incident, also from the same New York Times photo series.

(notice the scale of the workers compared to the scorched, steel beam wich underlies the concrete and asphalt bridge decking.)

And just to give perspective from another accident scene which involved steel girders, this collapse of an overhead bridge girder in Golden, Colorado.  Sadly, this incident did result in the deaths of the three occupants of the SUV shown destroyed in the following photo.  But again, the purpose is to show the relative scale of these beams, which are far larger than they appear from 50' below.

They are far larger, thicker and heavier than just about any I beam used in high rise construction, and for damn sure are a magnatude of order larger than those found in the fallen World Trade Towers.

How do I know this?  Because I've worked in the early 1980s, both in the transport of such beams, as a motorcycle traffic escort for such oversized loads, operating out of both Manco Precast and Heldenfels Precast of San Marcos, TX.  And later, I worked as both labor and management in high rise construction, routinely rappelling off of innumerable Texas skyscrapers while both preparing estimates and later doing the actual work of caulking and waterproofing the exterior joints of these buildings.  I've skywalked both steel and concrete, and my knowledge is hard earned and very first hand.

But, I'll take it a step further for our insipid troll, and provide a few more details.

This is an excerpt from a spec-data page for an example of a type of steel commonly used for both "I" beam and trough-type beams in bridge sections.

Warnings
This material should be used in conjunction with the appropriate structural design and welding standards.
Maximum recommended temperature for hot forming 620°C. If heated above 620°C, mechanical properties may deteriorate.  (italics mine)

An untrimmed (Mill) edge may contain minor surface discontinuities as a result of the rolling process (refer Clause 7 AS/NZS 3678). It is recommended that a minimum of 50 mm be removed from each untrimmed edge.

Product Details
Supply Conditions
Thickness Range: 8mm-80mm
Availability: Refer to XLERPLATE® Size Schedule 2
Edge Condition: Trimmed / Untrimmed (Mill Edge)
Tolerances: AS 1365
Ultrasonic Inspection: AS 1710 available
Surface Inspection: BlueScope Steel (third party available)
Certification: BlueScope Steel (third party endorsed available)

And, it is the same kind of steel commonly used in the "red-iron" of a skyscraper's superstructure.  Note carefully the cautions given for the steel weakening at temperatures well under those experienced both at the Oakland overpass and at the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001.

Our insipid troll continues:

"Get past Rosie O'Donnell and celebrity journalism. There are legitimate investigations and hearings taking place in the halls of our government that should have been taking place over the past four years (the legality of W's signing statements; the release, by the VP's office, of the identity of an undercover CIA agent--an act of treason, by definition; the disappearance of more than $8 billion American tax dollars in Iraq, e.g.)."

Man, I've just gotta break that into the components.

I'll get past celebrity journalism when idiots like O'Pig quit using their very loud public megaphone to spew forth idiotic misinformation, propaganda and other statements which to their core, are subversive to this Nation.  When the O'Pigs shut up, when the Streissands and Dixie Twits simply sing, and when a DiCaprio manages to wipe Al Gore's global warming off of his adoring chin while onstage at the Oscars, well, maybe then I'll get past celebrity journalism.  But as long as they work to use their public standing to promote the undermining of American polity, U.S. policy and the very victory and success which our troops fight and die for, than FUCK NO, I'm not getting past a damn thing.  No, I'll call these celebrities on every lying word of their erstwhile journalism, every chance I get.

And about those wished-for investigations.  I'm reminded of the effort launched by the democrats regarding the so-called October Surprise.  Here's a bit of one of my favorite statements to come from that congressional debate, as given by Rep. Livingston, of Lousisiana.

Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].

(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is incredible that we are to hear a 12-year-old charge based on the alleged statements of liars, frauds, felons, and opportunists, completely fabricated allegations, totally debunked by Newsweek and New Republic and a host of other investigative committees, including the GAO. Even the independent counsel which has wasted $25 million of our money over the last 5 years, could not find anything to investigate in this thing, and still the Democrats go forward.

Mr. Speaker, they say no to a public investigation of the House restaurant and unpaid bills. They say no to the public investigation of the House bank and bounced checks. They say no to a public investigation of cocaine sales and embezzlement in the House Post Office. And yet they say OK to staff letters to judges to spring criminals from jail.

Where are the demands for the review of Jimmy Carter's role in the October Surprise? Where are the demands for an investigation of the Sandinista surprise where Members of Congress irregularly dealt with the Communists of Nicaragua? Where were the investigations of the Kennedy winning margin in Cook County in 1960, or of Chappaquiddick, or when Lincoln was shot, or when Elvis was sighted? Where are all these investigations?

But yet we go forward with this fabrication. It is nothing more than a credit card for election posturing. It is a travesty, and it is a bad idea, and it is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

I hope that our friends will vote for the Michel substitute, and on final passage, that they will vote against this travesty. I know this investigation will go forward and my pleas will go unheeded, but I feel confident at the end the American people will be saying to themselves: `What in the heck was that all about?'

[Page: H338]

And the democrats have never broken from that pattern; the obstruction of sound governance via the impediment of the Never Ending Investigation.

"While the Republicans had control of Congress, they resisted investigations;"

Well, given the democrats propensity to press for ever more meaningless Never Ending Investigations, it would have been nothing less than a default of legistlative responsibility to let so many just damn silly investigations proceed.

"accused those who suggested investigations of being traitors;"

Methinks our troll doth protestest too much?  Let me tell you; when those who are suggesting Never Ending Investigations are numbered amongst the likes of Kos, Democratic Underground, and worse, the many (D) elected Representatives and Senators who, in the pattern of their colleauges who made common-cause with the Sandinistas also ventured then and now to grovel before despots such as Hussein, Assad, Arafat and Ahmadinejad.  And what is that they do while in the company of these tyrants?

They sell the U.S. down the river, each and every time, each and every one of them.  They sure as hell aren't there representing the U.S.'s interests....no, they're there doing their level best to undermine the sole Constitutinally mandated authority to excercise U.S. foreign policy, the President of the United States.

It is no suprise that UnHealthy Skeptic screams painfully at the accusation of traitorhood.  The shoe fits just a bit too good, I suppose.

"preached 'support the troops' while defunding combat pay,"

This bit will be rather lengthy.  First, just read this April 7, 2007 piece from Strategypage.  I've included their article in it's entirety; a bit long for a blog-post but rather short for an online magazine article.

What it illustrates though, is that the "defunding combat pay" that UnHealthySkeptic refers to was utterly demigoged by the left, spinning cuts which were planned before 9/11 for the Bosnia/Kosovo deployment.  They deliberatly took that one Pentagon line item which had been budgeted a full year before, and played it as being applicable to the whole of the Iraq theatre of operations. 

Now, I'll be right there with other critics of this administration when it comes to their piss-poor conduct of the information war, both here and overseas.  And for damn sure, these Pentagon plans which were penned well before 9/11 ought to have been dumped (and damn quickly) immediately after it became clear that war had been forced upon us.

But to claim that these now-cancelled plans were part of some nefarious anti-troop plot of the President?

Pull my other leg, m'kay?

The article explains:

Reconsidering Reducing Combat Pay

April 7, 2007: Although it made sense from a practical point-of-view, the U.S. Department of Defense noted the negative feedback and decided not to take away "imminent-danger" pay for the 1,700 U.S. troops currently stationed in Kosovo. American soldiers have been performing peacekeeping missions in the Balkans for over ten years now, and getting extra pay  for being in a dangerous part of the world. 

Before September 11, 2001, the most dangerous assignment for American troops was the Balkans. You knew it was dangerous, because the mass media said it was, and the army was giving you "danger pay" while you were there. Turned out that the place wasn't that dangerous. But none of the troops were complaining. There were very few combat injuries, and no combat deaths after over a decade of Balkans peacekeeping. Rather nice bases were built for the troops, and much attention was paid to base security. In addition to the hazardous duty pay, there were the tax breaks (you did not have to pay taxes on what you made in a combat zone.) OK, there was no booze, and not much opportunity to party with the locals, but life was good and the duty was tolerable.

After September 11, 2001, and the invasion of Iraq, the troops in Kosovo got razzed by their buddies going off to Iraq and Afghanistan. Collecting "imminent-danger" pay of $225 a month, when there was no combat, seemed too good to be true.

Last month, the Department of Defense announced plans to cut the combat pay for U.S. troops in the Balkans. However, Kosovo is just now becoming a more dangerous place. The local Albanians, the majority of the population, want Kosovo to be independent. Technically, Kosovo is still a province of Serbia, but under UN administration. The UN is leaning towards independence for Kosovo. Serbia says there will be violence if that happens. The Kosovo Albanians say there will be violence if it doesn't happen. Either way, U.S. troops, with or without extra pay, will be in the middle of it all. So the Department of Defense decided that cutting the half million dollars a month in benefits wasn't worth the bad publicity, especially if things got ugly later.

The Department of Defense has cut the imminent-danger pay for some troops in the Balkans, and elsewhere. About 300 military personnel serving in Angola, Georgia, Sierra Leone, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Macedonia will lose the $225 a month, but in some of those nations they will receive $100-$150 increase in the form of hardship pay.

research for traumatic brain injury (the most common injury from Iraq), and the V.A. Hospitals (until the recent exposee);

"blocked the Fairness Doctrine presented by Nancy Pilosi--which they have now introduced as their own;"

Ah, and we arrive at the UnHealthy Skeptic's wish for renewed censorship, to be placed upon free speech by apparatchicks of the government.  And you can damn well be assured that those bureaucrats will be carefully screened to ensure that there are virtually no conservatives amongst 'em. 

It's not good enough for our troll that the left has ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, AP, Reuter's, The New York Times and damn near every other major news outlet solidly in their corner.  No, UnHealthy Skeptic and the Idiotorians he runs with want also to take over, by government edict, the one arena which owes it's very growth to the success (via popularity, not by government mandate), of conservative talk programming.

And, when with Air America that the left tried to repeat the success of the right, they failed miserably....nay, criminally.  But rather than take their lumps with any sense of honor (a trait largely unknown to them), or dignity (which they apparently revile), the left seeks to wrest the radio airwaves from conservative talk radio; mandating that they be afforded equal time, on airwaves that they have not earned the right to be carried on, to endlessly repeat the same liberal tripe which they broadcast on every other form of media in which they enjoy near monopolies.

"spoke out against the use of the filibuster--which they then recently used to block the bill providing a timeline for extraction from Iraq, and on and on. "

Classic.  UnHealthy skeptic cannot differentiate between the filibuster and other parlimentary manuvers.  Moreover, where the democrats employed the pseudo-filibuster (they never had to continually speak 24/7, refusing to yield the floor.  rather, they just "pretend" filibustered, which much to our detriment, the Republicans allowed, though Robert's Rules of Order and even longstanding Senate rules specifically disallows such) to deny the full Senate an up-or-down vote to the President's various court nominees.

In that this had never, ever been done in the Nation's entire history of the Senate confirmations of Presidential nominees of judicial candidates, is it no wonder that the democrats were excoriated for their venal and crass manipulation of Senate rules to thwart the will of the majority?

Converesly, the Republicans have not once employed the filibuster since the turnover of '06.  Rather, they've invoked long-accepted and well-established Senate rules to force the democrats to have to do things like vote on the record, instead of hiding behind anonymous voice-votes, which are not recorded as to each member's vote. 

I know the record, and it is obvious that behind his hyperbole, that UnHealthy Skeptic simply doesn't.  He just repeats his Daily Kos daily briefing, over and over and over again.

"Why do people seek to defend this administration's actions and conclusions?"

Because assholes like UnHealthy Skeptic simply cannot refrain from Never Ending Investigations, ceaseless and groundless accusations, hysterical suppositions and the endless quest for unchallenged, unquestioned political power.

They prefer a government modeled on those of Europe, which itself is well on the way to dhimmitude and subjectation under sharia law, and it shows in the apologetics of their approach to Islam and terror (synonym alert!), the categorization of violent criminals as "misunderstood victims", and of those who merely disagree with the left as "dangerously hateful"; worthy of incarceration which would do Orwell's thought police downright proud.

"Based on the lies perpetuated by him, resulting in an illegal war and the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans and countless Iraqis, the California State Assembly has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. "

"Couldn't happen to a nicer guy."

The whole "Bush Lied" meme has been not only put to rest already, but so thoroughly slaughtered as to be laugable, every time some libtard like UnHealthy Skeptic brings it up.  The war was not illegal, unless you also condemn the pro-war votes of Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy and almost every single other democrat Senator and Representative who approved the authorization to go to war.

The war was also not illegal per the U.N., it being the culmination of the threats which the U.N. issued in the 17 resolutions between the First Gulf War and the present campaign.

And, California is rendered once again, an anolomy and irrelavancy.  That their erstwhile "resolution" is moot, powerless and utterly without efect is hilariously self-evident.

That the same applies to UnHealthy Skeptic ought to go without saying, but I'll reinforce the point.

Personal, to UnHealthy Skeptic.  I'm nominating you to Denny for his Asshole of the Week Award,    even though you dropped your trollshit over here on my blog.

Oh, and UnHealthy...don't bother working up a rebuttal to this post.  I've spent all the time and bandwidth on you I ever intend to.  Darken not this screen, ever again.

Comments

[keeskennis]

Well said and rebutted fully.
I must remember not to piss you off.

[Rivrdog]

Best example of Whack-a-Troll I've ever read.