taks

it's is only "conservative" in the sense that it is more like the way things were way back when in the US. i.e. the term conservative only applies to capitalism in the US as we have shifted away from the lasseiz faire ideas of adam smith. even the one chart refers to capitalism as "economic liberal"... taks

uh, i don't think its fair to lump the US into the FIFA problem based on their world cup performance. they are missing some of their key players due to injury. also, who beat whom is AFTER goal differential? that's weird. taks

ok, so what happens if the US beats ghana? that would leave the US with 4, ghana with 3, and italy and czech with 4 and 3 respectively. after the italy-czech match, then it could be (italy/czech): 7/3, 4/6, 5/4 sooo, assuming the US wins (stretch), the 1st scenario puts the US and italy in the next round. the 2nd puts czech in the 2nd round with italy and the US tied. the third puts italy in the 2nd round with czech and the US tied, which czech will win the tiebreaker since they beat the US in the first match. that leaves deciding the 2nd scenario tiebreaker, right? since the US and italy tied their match, would it go to total goals scored, or total delta between goals scored and given up? either way, i'm rooting for a US and italy win! taks

straight to college out of high school for me. been in and out of college for 20 years this fall. 2 years to go, but only one more class. i'd have had a real issue with the level of authority present in the armed forces. i could never just blindly follow orders that way. heck, even as a civilian i'm often getting hot water with supervisor types for saying "why?" taks

true. remember, this is coming from someone that NOW lives in an area that rarely gets above 60 F (15 C or so) overnight with humidity in the 10-15% range (which probably equates to 5% at sea level... i live at 7000 ft. altitude). oof. that's cold even for me. northerners... this time of year in florida (melbourne) is probably 95% humidity and 85 F (30 C) overnight. an AC is a must from may till october in that region. taks

uh, anarchist is EXTREME capitalist and EXTREME social liberal. i think i was 88% in both. so baley is right... i'm not sure why they call that anarchist, however. it seems to me that anarchist would be completely anti-government, so not really on this chart. i did choose all the "keep the govmint outta my life" options, but i'm pretty strong on defense and general law-making. i also took the other test, btw, and got like a 6.5 on economic and -3.5 on social. and everyone here always thinks i'm some ultra right-wing conservative. sheesh. taks

sounds more like bug bites to me. and, curiously, how in the heck is 25 C "steamy?" sheesh, that's only 77 F in americaland... back when i lived in florida, i'd probably don a jacket if it were that cold! taks

yet nobody noticed, in a city that never sleeps? btw, it seems the lead structural engineer for the WTC didn't even take into account the possibility of a) the fire, and b) the jet. linky. seems they designed for a 707 to hit the building and not that much fire. from the article: of course, credentials are meaningless... but hey, only designed the thing. taks

you assume jet fuel is the only thing burning, why? also, you assume that the only metal in the building was that of the support columns, again, why? taks

well, remember, we're talking about a design that was simulated in a controlled environment. lots of problems. first, define 6 times. what does that mean? probably means that the structure was designed to hold a weight of 6 times what was expected. well, what was expected? nobody expected a 767 or 757 class jetliner with 10,000 gallons of fuel to hit the darned thing and then burn for an hour. also, the explosion itself weakened everything, and knocked a lot of the supports down. remember, the whole structre was designed for this fabled 6x load. start removing pieces and you don't get a linear change, i.e. removing 1 out of 50 members doesn't necesarily translate to 2%, it could easily be much more. buildings are designed so that forces are evenly distributed. increase that force relatively evenly, and no problems. take out a corner of the building, and likewise the columns on the corner of the building, and suddenly the remaining load is unevenly distributed. with the metal in the building now unprotected (the impact knocked a lot of it off experts surmise), and burning at nearly 1000 C in places, with torque due to bowing (vertical pressure would be tension), suddenly we have a few columns that just can't hold their load. it took a while, but slowly they failed to the point of catastrophic failure. taks

ok. of course, after the plane hit the building the front and back of it were... shall we say, nearly the same? taks

yup. actually, in theory, they could withstand the impact, not all the other things combined. the leading theories on the breakup are actually more of a "domino effect" scenario. the columns themselves were strong enough, but there was enough damage to supporting trusses that slowly parts of the overall structure began to collapse, putting more and more weight on each remaining column. one by one, as the support structure failed, so did the main columns. eventually, each was stressed beyond even the overkill load at room temperature and the towers fell. taks

he states quite clearly that 1000 C is enough to weaken steel to cause the collapse, even though it is known to weaken the supports to 1/2 their original strength (it is actually worse, 1/2 occurs at 800-1000 F). his assumption is that the design was for 600% overkill. he does not consider how much the structure was weakened simply by the impact of the plane itself. there's one flaw. gee, the official report, maybe? how about this analysis by a structural engineer:link. do a search on the name Mroszczyk. there's a difference between being right about individual points and being right in his analysis. his numbers for the various melting points and what happens in controlled conditions are accurate (mostly). however, his analysis of the situation is entirely incorrect, no matter how many references he cited. put fuel, other combustibles, and air into a relatively closed container (the WTC) and you get a different "maximum" then just jet fuel. are you intentionaly misinterpreting the information? besides, nowhere have i said it was above 1000 C, have i? taks

so what. he's not in a position to fly a jetliner into his buildings, either. i'm sure some of the analysis is wrong, actually. that doesn't mean i don't have all (or at least enough) of the evidence to make an informed decision on the matter. i do have a pretty solid scientific background, btw. oh no. personally, i think ALL of journalism is flawed. somehow journalists have taken on the task of being our "protectors" and end up injecting too much opinion in the news. IMO, they should report. nothing more, nothing less. but i don't think something smells fishy. that's my point. science and logic dictate that analysis. you're putting the cart before the horse again... "or else this thread(and others) wouldn't be up." you're using the conspiracy (the cart) as evidence of a conspiracy (the horse). no, debate is fine. it's when malcontents misuse, and misrepresent, data to their own ends that we have a problem. i was just getting at the fallacy itself. speculation is OK, as it is opinion, sometimes informed, sometimes ill-informed. however, the cart before the horse scenario means someone is using the question as the evidence! unfortunately, when this is used by the conspiracists, it sounds convincing and tends to get people believing in their nonsense. taks

Can you point out the word Celsius or the capital letter C in your reply that I quoted? touche. but the context of what i was saying makes it obvious i was talking about C. i didn't say that. it was quoted from Oerwinde here: you said 500-599 F earlier... which is it? also, this is open air burn. you're assuming that inside the WTC is a comparable environment for comparison. ok, so what's your point? fwiw, i had misread the melting point of steel in my original posts earlier. not that it matters, it was in response to Oerwinde's comment anyway. the physics prof gets it wrong by saying that a fire burning and weakening the steel by 50% isn't enough. exactly how does he know that? taks

i think the point is that even an idiot politician is smart enough to know that taking down the towers is NOT in anyone's best interest. yes, at least all of the relevant details. uh, and do you think i only focus on what i've seen on US tv? you're joking, right? i don't even watch the news. it's not just as valid. you're allowing emotion and "gut feel" to dictate your response. "there just must be something wrong because such-and-such website pointed out an inconsistency." use a little science and logic, and put away pre-conceived notions and you'll discover the truth. no, it is not. putting the cart before the horse is another name for a question that presumes an answer. circular logic. speculation is taking a guess at an answer. taks

the crash didn't cause the structrue to fall last i checked. it was over an hour of burning that weakened the unprotected steel that caused the collapse. no engineer has ever said it was designed to withstand that heat for that long. the impact wasn't enough. that's why the buildings stood for over an hour afterwards. well, gee... where to begin. btw, this is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy. he's a physics professor therefore he must be right. i suppose all of the structural engineers that have analyzed the data and concluded differently don't suffice to counter one lone physics professor, arguing points that are outside of his expertise? uh, a) no, there's lots of evidence that has not been confiscated and b) plenty of people are stepping up. there's a point, however, where you just have to give up because no amount of real science will convince non-believers that there isn't some sort of conspiracy. it has been proved all faulty analysis (the conspiracy), so why continue beating the horse. he is dead. why don't you give me an example of what he got right. there is nothing incorrect in what i state. in fact, your own "proof" clearly states that jet fuel burns at most at 1000 C in open air. duh.

no, but even a self-serving politician is smart enough to understand what could have happened. the details are everywhere. so no, not true, i do know the details. that's a bunch of conspiracist nonsense. we do know. stating otherwise is, again, putting the cart before the horse. you assume "we'll never know" then justify the same conspiracy with even more conspiracy. taks

i'm not sure what your point is given that taking down two towers, the actual physical symbol of US wealth, is hardly in any interest to "protect material things and interests of great monetary value." something this idiotic could have easily resulted in an economic crash, destroying all that said selfish politician is supposedly attempting to protect. way off the mark on that one astro. taks

i think you have extended it a bit too far. sending troops to some other place to start a war which will result in civilian deaths is far different than killing thousands in your own country, particularly thousands that closely associated with your own economy. taks

uh, that's not true at all. they were scheduled to fly that day. the statistics for their flights are not in the database, however, because it is a database of on-time statistics. none of the 4 never arrived. taks

because in the end, the military is designed to go to war and result in death, whereas the civilians in the towers are those the military is designed to go to war to defend. taks

sort of, yes. well, if you think about it, in the fascist/socialist system that you refer to, it is not a party, it is a totalitarian rule. the "party" should refer to everyone. yup. also, where is it written lawmaking needs to be speedy? sure problems fall through the cracks and people end up getting wronged during the debate process. however, reactionary lawmaking is rarely good in the end. that's why i point out the disadvantages, as you note, outweighing the speed. laws are for long-term solutions. their goals are not meant to be quick-fixes (though they are often inappropriately used in such a manner). a big problem, btw, is unintended consequences that result from quick-fix laws that create more problems than the few originally expected to be solved. taks

they didn't. you're putting the cart before the horse. you start out by assuming that it couldn't have blown away in the wind then rationalize it by saying they needed the evidence to "prove" the conspiracy. nobody needed any more evidence than was already there. scads of evidence disproves every conspiracy claim already. yes, it was a 757, flight AA77. it is now gone along with all the passengers that were on it. the evidence is not even close to suspicious. taks