Your numbers don't match what you are saying. If "most console gamers are planning on buying the Wii", then the Wii will win (sell more consoles than the others). Judging by how "everyone" is bashing Sony, being indifferent to Microsoft, and praising Nintendo, I think the Wii will dominate all markets this time around.
"To claim that the collapse of one of the WTC towers is 'irrelevant' to the discussion of the events of 9/11 unbelievably idiotic"
What is unbelievably idiotic is that you are ignoring the fact that I did comment on the north tower. At least try to pay attention, conspiracy nut:
"That is not a problem at all, since no one claimed that it collapsed when the plane impacted. It collapsed when the top part of the building crashed down on the floors below, which then crashed down, and so on."
"As I've told you before, the fact that this identical situation hadn't previously happened does not mean we cannot extrapolate meaningful conclusions from our knowledge of the structures involved and similar events that have happened."
You are trying to prove that "this couldn't happen" by pointing out that buildings didn't collapse under different circumstances. You are ignoring the fact that the top of the building crashed down on the floors below, as proven by the fact that you ignored my comment about the north tower.
"I've referenced a lot of information in this thread to show the fallaciousness of your "conspiracy theory""
No you have not. You have ignored facts and twisted other facts, and generally tried to manipulate the reader into thinking that you have a point when you don't. Instead of making a fool of yourself, go read the Wikipedia article on your conspiracy theories. They are all adequately explained.
Trouble, or Nokia including a browser forces everyone else to include a browser as well, which means that someone is bound to pick Opera. And then you have the choice: Pay Opera once to get the browser ported, or hire your own developers to do the job. What's easier for most companies? Probably not developing one's own browser.
Gestures are built in. Works right out of the box. You just press the right mouse button, move the mouse to perform a gesture, and release the mouse button again.
Iwata seems to be exactly what was needed after Yamauchi stepped down. After first being incredibly successful because of this business methods, Yamauchi started being trouble for the company. He was stuck in his old ways.
However, he did think Iwata was a good successor, and he actually refused his retirement pension.
That guy seems to be obsessed with Wii fans. It's almost like he hasn't been around for the last few years to witness the hordes of fanboys from both the Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft camp.
I'll admit that this time around, Wii fans are more noticeable because the Wii seems to be winning the "buzz war". I am but one example of a guy who hasn't been really that interested in gaming for years, but the Wii has gotten me really excited. But I don't see a lot of fanboys. They seem to be more genuinely interested in the Wii, but without being a fanboy like Golias.
You know, considering Golias's posting history, I'd say that he is a shill for either Sony or Microsoft. Most likely Sony, since he seems to hate the fact that the Wii gets more positive press and has more fans rooting for it.
When he says "I'm sick and tired of fanboys" what he's really saying is that "I'm sick and tired of my favorite console/my employer not getting the attention I think it deserves". The PS2 won the last "console war". Sony had a massive following of fanboys that crushed all other groups of fanboys. Now Golias and his fellow Sony fanboys/shills are outnumbered by Nintendo fans and people who are curious about the Wii. I think that makes him furious.
"The point that I was making was that if the building wasn't immediately destroyed by the impact of the airliner (which it wasn't), then you have to postulate an additional damage vector to explain the subsequent collapse."
And that is the fire, and the fact that you can weaken a structure without it giving in immediately.
"As I have shown, the fire is insufficient for this purpose."
No, you have not.
"No mention of the North Tower in your post...I guess you're still chewing on that one."
The north tower is irrelevant. It is nothing but a red herring. A desperate attempt by you to come up with something else when your "arguments" have been pulverized.
"Since the theory of 'progressive collapse' has never before or since been observed outside of the events of 9/11, to attempt to dismiss the WTC 7 collapse by use of this dubious theory is putting the cart before the horse."
You are wrong again. This exact situation has never happened before to a building exactly like this one.
"Your steadfast clinging to an 'official version of events' that is demonstrably false,"
Sorry to disappoint you, but it is your insane conspiracy theory which is demonstrably false.
"as well as your utter refusal to acept even the most elementary of facts"
You are a joke. Your "facts" are nothing but baseless claims. You are the one ignoring facts that contradict your insane theories.
Also, why are you assuming that I'm an American?
In any case, I doubt that anyone else is reading this, so I've done what I wanted to do: Make sure that gullible fools aren't sucked in by your lies.
Red herrings,bogus arguments, etc. You are desperate. I'll just point out some of the flaws in your arguments, such as:
"There's the tiny problem that the North Tower didn't collapse when the jet impacted...it collapsed 56 minutes later."
That is not a problem at all, since no one claimed that it collapsed when the plane impacted. It collapsed when the top part of the building crashed down on the floors below, which then crashed down, and so on.
"WTC 6 sustained far more damage than WTC 7, and yet, it was WTC 7 that collapsed neatly into its own footprint."
Because of its construction, yes. Read the Popular Mechanics article.
"My assertion is that 'compressed air' could not have possibly have created a jet of smoke and debris several floors below the level of the actual collapse, where no damage or fires were present."
Yes it could.
"Your 'blocked outlet' argument doesn not address multiple windows breaking simultaneously, either on the same floor (as was observed), or on different floors."
Yes it does.
As for explosions only being caused by bombs, ever, that is of course an insane claim from an insane person. You need to get out more. Seriously.
"Odd, then, that you failed to sufficiently answer them in your response."
I did not. You are simply ignoring facts that do not fit your fantasy world.
"Still want to argue that the 757 is sufficiently different from the 707 to invalidate my point?"
The 757 is a bigger plane, so yes, your point is invalid.
"if the collapse had occured as you suggest, then there would have been a necessary slowdown as the 'top part' impacted the rest of the building, overcame the resistance of the steel structure, and caused the collapse"
No there would not.
"Again, the temperatures of the kerosene fires were far too low to cause the weakening you speak of."
No they were not. The text you were quoting talked about "melting steel".
"Your attempt to obfuscate the issue by insisting upon an unreasonable amount of correlation between the WTC fire and similar fires in similar steel structures is amusing, but does not invalidate my point."
Yes it does, because I was specifically referring to the fact that a huge plane crashed into the building. It was not just a fire.
"The links in the post you directed me to show two pictures of only incidental damage to WTC 7"
Read it again.
"One more thing...you've still failed to explain the miraculous survival of WTC 6."
I don't have to. Your other "arguments" have been devastated, and it won't help that you try to derail the discussion like conspiracy nutters always do when confronted with facts that prove them wrong.
"What I did claim (and what you have yet to refute) is that the 'compressed air' could not have possibly have created a jet of smoke and debris several floors below the level of the actual collapse."
Sure it could.
"If the pressure had an outlet (blown window), it would have necessarily decreased, preventing it from building up again to the point at which it could break another window."
No it would not, because that outlet would be blocked by the top coming down, making it necessary to find other ways out. You really are delusional, aren't you? Let me try to explain it yet again: The top falls down, giving the air inside the remaining part of the building less space, which means that it has to find its way out. But as the top continues to fall, those ways out are blocked, and the air has to find new ways out.
"Hoffman also asserts that from his calculations the energy to pulverize the concrete is fully 20% more than the kinetic energy from the building collapse could hve provided."
Hoffman is irrelevant.
It is good to see that you gave up on the insane claim that "explosions" == "bombs", though.
Look, the crap you are spewing out has been answered a million times. Repeating lies won't make them true. This is really a waste of time, except that you may convince some gullible idiot that you are telling the truth.
"the WTC towers were specifically designed to be able to withstand a strike from an airliner. The airliner cited is a 707, the largest airliner of the day, and only slightly smaller than the 757s that did strike."
As you point out, they were built to withstand smaller planes.
"At any rate, the towers did in fact weather the strike just fine, only swaying back and forth a few feet."
And then the top part fell down on the floors below because of the plane, and the building went to the ground.
"Wrong. The steel in question was rated ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F (1100C) for several hours."
Again, it doesn't have to melt. It weakens at significantly lower temperatures. Not only that, but it expands when heated, and contracts when cooled down again. If this is done wrong, the steel itself weakens. Again, ask a blacksmith how important it is to cool it down correctly.
"Wrong again. During the Madrid skyscraper fire (which burned far hotter and far longer than the either WTC tower), the steel warped enough to send the top ten floors crashing down upon the rest of the structure. However, the building did not collapse, and even managed to continue supporting a massive construction crane on the roof."
In your eagerness to spread misinformation, you forgot that I wrote: No steel/concrete building has had the top part partly separated from the rest of the building, only to give in and fall down on the floors below.
"Wrong a third time."
No, you are wrong. Read this post for images of the damaged WTC7. And eyewitness accounts.
"Check this map to see the relative placement of the buildings. Building 7 was never hit with more than incidental debris, yet, it collapsed sudddenly and completely into its own footprint, precisely like the twin towers."
No. You are wrong. RTFT.
"I call bullshit. List your candidates."
If you are seriously claiming that bombs are the only thing in the entire world which can cause explosions, then you need to go have your brain checked.
"Perhaps you'd like to give your explanation of what the firefighters witnessed, then."
I already explained it to you: "When a building collapses, there is lots of air which suddenly finds itself in a lot less space, so it finds its ways out, resulting in what people observed - puffs of smoke, or puffs of dust, debris, etc."
"If the jets were nothing more than escaping air, how is it that they were filled with dust and smoke, despite the inconvenient fact that there was no damage whatsoever on those lower floors? Where could that smoke and dust have come from?"
If you are seriously claiming that a crumbling building does not cause dust or debris, then you need to go have your brain checked.
"How is it that the jets were so regular in appearance, some even visible from two sides of the tower simultaneously?"
Because the air was escaping wherever it could, and the fall appeared to be at a constant speed.
"If this was just pressurized gas finding a way out, as you assert, once it had blown one window, the pressure would decrease, preventing the other windows from blowing out."
The pressure didn't decrease, because the space which was to contain the air continued to get smaller.
Your post is so full of lies, deception, manipulation and general nonsense and unfounded claims that you would be best off ignored. But it is dangerous to ignore kooks, so just to show anyone who might read your drivel and believe it how wrong you are. Examples:
"No steel/concrete skyscraper has EVER completely or even nearly completely collapse from fire before or after 9/11"
No steel/concrete skyscraper has ever had huge planes smash into them.
"video/pictures of PEOPLE HANGING OUT OF THE GASH IN THE BUILDING where temperatures hot enough to melt steel are supposed to be present"
Straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
"hydrocarbon (jet fuel/carpet/paper/wood etc) flames CANNOT reach the > 1500 C temperature needed to melt steel"
Which is irrelevant, since steel doesn't have to melt to be significantly weakened.
"Another first: No steel/concrete building has ever collapsed Symetrically into its own footprint without carefully placed explosives."
No steel/concrete building has had the top part partly separated from the rest of the building, only to give in and fall down on the floors below.
"Do you even remember tower 7?"
Yes. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the other buildings.
"MANY MANY WITNESSES AND NEWS REPORTS on the day talked about many multiple exlosions inside the buildings."
If you are implying that "explosions" == "bombs", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron. Many things can cause explosions.
"Fire fighters talk about what looked like controlled detonations coming down the side of the building"
If you think that "looks like" == "actually is", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.
"The huge flowing dust clouds that formed in the collapses are called apyroclastic flow they require HUGE amounts of energy to form"
You are delusional. When a building collapses, there is lots of air which suddenly finds itself in a lot less space, so it finds its ways out, resulting in what people observed - puffs of smoke, or puffs of dust, debris, etc.
Why would Nintendo need shills? People are genuinely excited about Wii. You can see this all over the place. Finally something that is new, fresh, exciting, and finally a company that actually delivers what they promised. Or rather, they didn't promise too much in the first place like Sony always does. Under-promise, over-deliver.
This is the first time in YEARS that I've been excited about gaming. Thank you, Nintendo, thank you for thinking outside the box!
"Blu-ray is the next generation format for watch-at-home movies."
Really? And why would Joe Average need a BluRay player? Most people don't even have HD-TV sets, and they sure aren't going to pay their pants off for them either. I am one of them. My current TV works fine. I'm not replacing it until it's dead on its own, and when it does, I will certainly not pay insane amounts of money for some hi-tech crap I won't even need.
"Stand alone players will cost $600 to $800 at the time the PS3 launches but you won't get a game machine with those."
You are assuming that people want higher definition media, and that DVDs aren't good enough. I can tell you right now that DVDs are good enough for everyone I know. It's good enough for me. It has excellent quality already as far as I am concerned.
Your assumptions are simply bogus. BluRay will not be a "must-have" when the PS3 is released, and it won't be for many, many years - IF EVER! Most people don't have HD-TVs, and they won't go out and buy them just like that either, because they are incredibly expensive.
So there is no demand for HD content, and therefore BluRay is irrelevant for the next few years. If it does become popular, prices of standalone players will drop, and yet again PS3's built-in BluRay will be completely irrelevant.
"And trying to claim that Opera beats FireFox feature-wise is just a pathethic piece of FUD."
It does beat it with features out of the box. Now, Opera is clean and all by default, but there's all this functionality hidden below the surface. No need to mess around with buggy extensions and all that to get basic functionality like sessions.
"Without AdBlock, Opera is useless on the IntarWeb of today"
"The 50 year old male who is supposedly friends with the girl, however, will have a job, his own place, money, possibly his own children, and therefore probably something mentally wrong with him if he wants to sleep with her"
You don't seriously think that 50 year old males don't look at hot, young chicks and wish they could have their way with them?
He is seriously confused. Does he really think that someone working on, say, user interface features, will suddenly jump over to working on the actual core and standards support? Of course not. Different developers generally have different tasks.
"Except that every-other major release is purely for marketing reasons, and isn't really a major release."
That's nonsense. With the exception of Opera 5 which was released as such because of a new revenue model, all major versions have offered major advances. Opera 8 had significant changes under the hood such as XMLHttpRequest support, in addition to a totally redone user interface, support for voice browsing, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Your numbers don't match what you are saying. If "most console gamers are planning on buying the Wii", then the Wii will win (sell more consoles than the others). Judging by how "everyone" is bashing Sony, being indifferent to Microsoft, and praising Nintendo, I think the Wii will dominate all markets this time around.
"That is not a problem at all, since no one claimed that it collapsed when the plane impacted. It collapsed when the top part of the building crashed down on the floors below, which then crashed down, and so on."
You are trying to prove that "this couldn't happen" by pointing out that buildings didn't collapse under different circumstances. You are ignoring the fact that the top of the building crashed down on the floors below, as proven by the fact that you ignored my comment about the north tower. No you have not. You have ignored facts and twisted other facts, and generally tried to manipulate the reader into thinking that you have a point when you don't. Instead of making a fool of yourself, go read the Wikipedia article on your conspiracy theories. They are all adequately explained.And competition isn't necessarily a bad thing :-P
Gestures are built in. Works right out of the box. You just press the right mouse button, move the mouse to perform a gesture, and release the mouse button again.
However, he did think Iwata was a good successor, and he actually refused his retirement pension.
I'll admit that this time around, Wii fans are more noticeable because the Wii seems to be winning the "buzz war". I am but one example of a guy who hasn't been really that interested in gaming for years, but the Wii has gotten me really excited. But I don't see a lot of fanboys. They seem to be more genuinely interested in the Wii, but without being a fanboy like Golias.
You know, considering Golias's posting history, I'd say that he is a shill for either Sony or Microsoft. Most likely Sony, since he seems to hate the fact that the Wii gets more positive press and has more fans rooting for it.
When he says "I'm sick and tired of fanboys" what he's really saying is that "I'm sick and tired of my favorite console/my employer not getting the attention I think it deserves". The PS2 won the last "console war". Sony had a massive following of fanboys that crushed all other groups of fanboys. Now Golias and his fellow Sony fanboys/shills are outnumbered by Nintendo fans and people who are curious about the Wii. I think that makes him furious.
Also, why are you assuming that I'm an American?
In any case, I doubt that anyone else is reading this, so I've done what I wanted to do: Make sure that gullible fools aren't sucked in by your lies.
As for explosions only being caused by bombs, ever, that is of course an insane claim from an insane person. You need to get out more. Seriously.
Carry on.
It is good to see that you gave up on the insane claim that "explosions" == "bombs", though.
WTC7 was severely damaged. Read this post.
As you point out, they were built to withstand smaller planes.
And then the top part fell down on the floors below because of the plane, and the building went to the ground.
Again, it doesn't have to melt. It weakens at significantly lower temperatures. Not only that, but it expands when heated, and contracts when cooled down again. If this is done wrong, the steel itself weakens. Again, ask a blacksmith how important it is to cool it down correctly.
In your eagerness to spread misinformation, you forgot that I wrote: No steel/concrete building has had the top part partly separated from the rest of the building, only to give in and fall down on the floors below.
No, you are wrong. Read this post for images of the damaged WTC7. And eyewitness accounts.
No. You are wrong. RTFT.
If you are seriously claiming that bombs are the only thing in the entire world which can cause explosions, then you need to go have your brain checked.
I already explained it to you: "When a building collapses, there is lots of air which suddenly finds itself in a lot less space, so it finds its ways out, resulting in what people observed - puffs of smoke, or puffs of dust, debris, etc."
If you are seriously claiming that a crumbling building does not cause dust or debris, then you need to go have your brain checked.
Because the air was escaping wherever it could, and the fall appeared to be at a constant speed.
The pressure didn't decrease, because the space which was to contain the air continued to get smaller.
Look at all those shills! Nintendo sure knows how to do astroturfing!
This is the first time in YEARS that I've been excited about gaming. Thank you, Nintendo, thank you for thinking outside the box!
(Now send me that check, ya hear?)
Your assumptions are simply bogus. BluRay will not be a "must-have" when the PS3 is released, and it won't be for many, many years - IF EVER! Most people don't have HD-TVs, and they won't go out and buy them just like that either, because they are incredibly expensive.
So there is no demand for HD content, and therefore BluRay is irrelevant for the next few years. If it does become popular, prices of standalone players will drop, and yet again PS3's built-in BluRay will be completely irrelevant.
Don't worry. I'm sure Sony pays you well :-)
He is seriously confused. Does he really think that someone working on, say, user interface features, will suddenly jump over to working on the actual core and standards support? Of course not. Different developers generally have different tasks.
What fundamental things? Opera 9 Beta works better than Firefox 1.5 final!