Thanks for the long thoughtful reply, but we disagree on an important point. While I acknowledge the efficiency of the US/European Union relative to emerging countries like China and India, I strongly disagree with your assessment of that efficiency as being efficient as possible or as practical. If (for instance) the US provided incentive to renewable energy sources rather than to oil/coal I have little doubt that we would become far more efficient than we are today in a decade. Just because we are more efficient than some does not mean that we are efficient enough, and there are many areas that are ripe for improvement. My personal goal is to use less energy than hits my roof in the form of sunlight *.15 (which is very easy for me). My professional goal is to design so that anything I build also meets that goal with a 15% conversion efficiency (used as an energy budget, even without the actual use of PV). It is an insult to the US population to imply that they are incapable of being more efficient and to suggest that it is impractical is a strawman, built mostly of FUD. It is a complex matter to change inertia, but the US has done it quickly in the past, and can do so now.
Making as much money as possible as quickly as possible is pretty much the point of capitalism
No. A free market is the point of capitalism, where the means to produce and distribute are held privately. The freedom to make profit is one of the niceties of capitalism. Under capitalism, an industrialist can start a business, bring a product to market, and make profit based on the sales. There are good business models and bad business models. I would assess your statement as the beginning of a bad business model, though I'm sure there are cases where it worked. But in those cases where it worked, I wonder if there wasn't some sort of manipulation that goes against the basic principles of a free market to allow it to happen. Greed in the Ayn Rand sense is a good thing, it serves as an incentive. But greed that says you look for a win-lose situation to maximize your money is short sighted and generally unsustainable, and in no way implied under capitalism.
I think it's a critical look at cash outlay versus the risk. So looking at 9/11, in response to N deaths (where N is somewhere between 2800 and 5000) we spent some amount of money, started two wars, both of which continue, have made ourselves less secure, and lost some of our liberties. I think it's a fair assessment to call that a gross overreaction.
but is that HIS opinion, or someone more respected?
Are you just looking for an opinion that you can adopt? Why not perhaps think about the situation and form your own opinion?
Tobacco can be used for health related treatments, treatments that do not involve smoking or chewing it. It certainly does cause harm to the user in those two cases.
The new phenomemon was a result of a fire burning that long. Yes it has not happened before, but it is not a new phenomenon that is a highly implausible event. We know how steel acts when heated, and the structure of this building behaved in a way that is predictable according to our knowledge of the material. You are trying to spin New Phenomenon as something that is highly unlikely. Which it is not. The behavior of the building was in line with what it might have been with such a fire, some parts smoldering in oxygen starved environments (due to the long burn time), suddenly getting oxygen because of collapse, which would be an explosive event. Collapsing buildings would also have a large compressed air mass ahead, which would look and sound like an explosion. You can believe what you want, I am pointing out that the NIST explanations are not unlikely or implausible. If you think they ignore other aspects and that is what you are trying to come to terms with, then fine, I am sticking to the plausibility of the NIST explanation. Which is "very".
Scientifically... Pretend this was not 911 and this was just some random building somewhere, ignore the circumstances... and someone asked, how did it fall? What is more likely? A controlled demolition or "New Phenomenon" which occurred for first time ever.
I was listing two "New Phenomenon" one that has not happened and one that has only happened twice, in quick succession, and had not been previously seriously considered as a failure mode. Neither of which were the actual case being discussed, as per the request of the poster I quoted. If you had read that post perhaps you would have understood, but as far as I can tell you did not, saw something and misunderstood it, and then posted your "clarification". That baffles me.
Man the mods have it in for you today . . . I'd have given you an insightful on your OP. But the game already exists, and is what made Slashdot so popular . . . geeks looking for any pedantic correction they might find to make. Before I came to slashdot I did not know what pedantic meant, but it was kindly pointed out to me, as in the beginning I exhibited this same behavior. It would be an hilarious show, especially when evolution was the topic.
When the new phenomena is a fire that burns for 7 hours, then it is the likeliest candidate. By inserting this "new phenomena" strawman you are trying to make it sound as if the less likely event (A) is more likely than this "strange new phenomena we have never observed" (B). This is wrong because we are not talking about an alien ship with lasers (which would fit into your description of B). We are talking about a fire, that burned far longer than the best case fire protection on the structural members. This may not happen very often, or ever in this kind of building, but classifying it as a "new phenomena" is a falacy. This phenomena very well when the structure was designed, which is why there is fire protection and a fire code, and a life and safety code, and rules about accessibility and safe landings etc. I will forget about the planes, and 9/11, and simply look at the fact that a fire burned for 7 hours. If you want me to also ignore that, then you are asking about some alternate universe. But with the fire then it is most likely that the fire was the cause of collapse. Why is that so hard to grasp? The fire burned on 3 floors, and was hot enough to move the structure such that a main column failed. It is very likely that this would lead to further failures because of the extent and temperature of the fire, and the fact that the fire protection had ceased to be effective for over 3 hours. So this naturally leads to a cascade of other failures.
I was going to ignore you, but you might want to re-read the post I was replying to. But thanks for the pedantic and incorrect assessment. Yes, we are talking (prior to the above) about WTC-7. A building that at best had a 4 hour fire rating on its structure, and had a fire burning in it for at least 7 hours. Regardless of the cause, this kind of situation can (and in this case did) cause a complete collapse of the building. There are some who claim that "just a little fire" could not cause this. I am attempting to refute that claim. If you want to contribute to the debate please read and understand the thread, and then post.
That's a loaded question. If it was a fully loaded (fuel) airplane crashing into it, I would say yes, that is more likely. If it was, oh, let's say, an alien space ship with sharks and frickin lasers, then I would say it was someone on the inside. In no event would I call it a "controlled demolition" as there was far too much damage to the surrounding area.
No it was not perfectly symmetrical, how can a video possibly show that? The heat of the fire caused the asymmetrical structure to begin to fail. Once it starts to fall gravity takes over, and the massive floors fall essentially straight down, and that led to a pancake collapse of the building. Any sideways or twisting forces from the initial failing conditions would quickly be overwhelmed by the much larger forces due to the mass of the structures falling. They most likely would completely disappear after the first pancake event. The complete fall is difficult to time, and you would need to resort to seismic records to begin to estimate it. Trying to time it from a video is, well, the stuff that conspiracy theorists thrive on, but it is not conclusive in the least. I'll leave it to you to figure out how much resistance would have to be in place to stop 15 floors of the tower falling 20-30 feet. The energy in that is an enormous value, and it is likely that there were several floors where the steel was sufficiently weakened such that the first few pancakes had much less resistance than they otherwise would have. Go take a structural engineering class and quit repeating the mindless rants of people who don't know any better.
No, because what you're not getting is that the collapse on to the lower mass will lose energy, force and acceleration somewhat as it goes, which is what happens in a building collapse. As the debris and floors compact their tendency might then to be to go out over and elsewhere assuming that they can, losing even more energy and force at a pretty reasonable rate. It may or may not just keep on going depending on the conditions.
You are speaking in absolutes, so I had to fix a couple of things for you. Are you really saying that this building could not have collapsed this way? (yes you are) The weakened structure of a few floors may allow enough momentum to build such that it could not cause a floor by floor pancake collapse? (yes it could, it is a question of how many floors and how weakened the structure) Are you suggesting that if it was possible then demolition companies would in fact do this? That claim alone suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.
As an aspiring architect (Master's degree) as well as an engineer BS Aero, I can tell you that architects are some of the last people who you can trust to tell you how a building's structure might fail. It's like asking a sculptor to build an automobile engine, or perhaps to tell you how the engine might react when the exhaust gasket fails. Big heavy things like to fall straight down, and the asymmetrical initial condition will cause more general failures which then leads to the big heavy thing falling straight down.
I think that nuke is a good idea for base load, much better than coal. But renewables are also very good, and an important part of the energy portfolio. There are places where the wind is nearly always blowing. Trying to suggest that wind farms are a bad idea in those places is asinine. San Francisco did a study with PV on rooftops commercial buildings and found that even on the cloudiest days the PV was producing at 70-80% of capacity. So maybe you could try looking a little deeper than the surface level FUD spewed by big oil about renewables, and by being less of an ass you might actually contribute to the dialog.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I grew up there! Unfortunately I lived on the other side of town, and ended up having to go uphill to school. Both ways.
Please read what I say before replying. My only reference to PV is here:
used as an energy budget, even without the actual use of PV
Im sick of discussing this stuff with people like yourself who make assumptions for me and put words into my mouth.
And the only reason to have a truck is because you are doing serious construction or framing?
Thanks for the long thoughtful reply, but we disagree on an important point. While I acknowledge the efficiency of the US/European Union relative to emerging countries like China and India, I strongly disagree with your assessment of that efficiency as being efficient as possible or as practical. If (for instance) the US provided incentive to renewable energy sources rather than to oil/coal I have little doubt that we would become far more efficient than we are today in a decade. Just because we are more efficient than some does not mean that we are efficient enough, and there are many areas that are ripe for improvement. My personal goal is to use less energy than hits my roof in the form of sunlight * .15 (which is very easy for me). My professional goal is to design so that anything I build also meets that goal with a 15% conversion efficiency (used as an energy budget, even without the actual use of PV). It is an insult to the US population to imply that they are incapable of being more efficient and to suggest that it is impractical is a strawman, built mostly of FUD. It is a complex matter to change inertia, but the US has done it quickly in the past, and can do so now.
So you advocate grinding the US econemy to a halt and stoping US citizens from living the life they are accustom to?
Belief in the sentiment expressed is an insult to the people of the US. But it's a great strawman. Congrats.
Capital markets? Do you mean the stock market? Because you said capitalism, which already has a definition, that I paraphrased for you.
Making as much money as possible as quickly as possible is pretty much the point of capitalism
No. A free market is the point of capitalism, where the means to produce and distribute are held privately. The freedom to make profit is one of the niceties of capitalism. Under capitalism, an industrialist can start a business, bring a product to market, and make profit based on the sales. There are good business models and bad business models. I would assess your statement as the beginning of a bad business model, though I'm sure there are cases where it worked. But in those cases where it worked, I wonder if there wasn't some sort of manipulation that goes against the basic principles of a free market to allow it to happen. Greed in the Ayn Rand sense is a good thing, it serves as an incentive. But greed that says you look for a win-lose situation to maximize your money is short sighted and generally unsustainable, and in no way implied under capitalism.
So spending more to decrease national security is acceptable to this administration?
Essentially. Especially when I do it.
I think it's a critical look at cash outlay versus the risk. So looking at 9/11, in response to N deaths (where N is somewhere between 2800 and 5000) we spent some amount of money, started two wars, both of which continue, have made ourselves less secure, and lost some of our liberties. I think it's a fair assessment to call that a gross overreaction.
but is that HIS opinion, or someone more respected?
Are you just looking for an opinion that you can adopt? Why not perhaps think about the situation and form your own opinion?
Tobacco can be used for health related treatments, treatments that do not involve smoking or chewing it. It certainly does cause harm to the user in those two cases.
The new phenomemon was a result of a fire burning that long. Yes it has not happened before, but it is not a new phenomenon that is a highly implausible event. We know how steel acts when heated, and the structure of this building behaved in a way that is predictable according to our knowledge of the material. You are trying to spin New Phenomenon as something that is highly unlikely. Which it is not. The behavior of the building was in line with what it might have been with such a fire, some parts smoldering in oxygen starved environments (due to the long burn time), suddenly getting oxygen because of collapse, which would be an explosive event. Collapsing buildings would also have a large compressed air mass ahead, which would look and sound like an explosion. You can believe what you want, I am pointing out that the NIST explanations are not unlikely or implausible. If you think they ignore other aspects and that is what you are trying to come to terms with, then fine, I am sticking to the plausibility of the NIST explanation. Which is "very".
Scientifically... Pretend this was not 911 and this was just some random building somewhere, ignore the circumstances... and someone asked, how did it fall? What is more likely? A controlled demolition or "New Phenomenon" which occurred for first time ever.
I was listing two "New Phenomenon" one that has not happened and one that has only happened twice, in quick succession, and had not been previously seriously considered as a failure mode. Neither of which were the actual case being discussed, as per the request of the poster I quoted. If you had read that post perhaps you would have understood, but as far as I can tell you did not, saw something and misunderstood it, and then posted your "clarification". That baffles me.
Man the mods have it in for you today . . . I'd have given you an insightful on your OP. But the game already exists, and is what made Slashdot so popular . . . geeks looking for any pedantic correction they might find to make. Before I came to slashdot I did not know what pedantic meant, but it was kindly pointed out to me, as in the beginning I exhibited this same behavior. It would be an hilarious show, especially when evolution was the topic.
When the new phenomena is a fire that burns for 7 hours, then it is the likeliest candidate. By inserting this "new phenomena" strawman you are trying to make it sound as if the less likely event (A) is more likely than this "strange new phenomena we have never observed" (B). This is wrong because we are not talking about an alien ship with lasers (which would fit into your description of B). We are talking about a fire, that burned far longer than the best case fire protection on the structural members. This may not happen very often, or ever in this kind of building, but classifying it as a "new phenomena" is a falacy. This phenomena very well when the structure was designed, which is why there is fire protection and a fire code, and a life and safety code, and rules about accessibility and safe landings etc. I will forget about the planes, and 9/11, and simply look at the fact that a fire burned for 7 hours. If you want me to also ignore that, then you are asking about some alternate universe. But with the fire then it is most likely that the fire was the cause of collapse. Why is that so hard to grasp? The fire burned on 3 floors, and was hot enough to move the structure such that a main column failed. It is very likely that this would lead to further failures because of the extent and temperature of the fire, and the fact that the fire protection had ceased to be effective for over 3 hours. So this naturally leads to a cascade of other failures.
I was going to ignore you, but you might want to re-read the post I was replying to. But thanks for the pedantic and incorrect assessment. Yes, we are talking (prior to the above) about WTC-7. A building that at best had a 4 hour fire rating on its structure, and had a fire burning in it for at least 7 hours. Regardless of the cause, this kind of situation can (and in this case did) cause a complete collapse of the building. There are some who claim that "just a little fire" could not cause this. I am attempting to refute that claim. If you want to contribute to the debate please read and understand the thread, and then post.
That's a loaded question. If it was a fully loaded (fuel) airplane crashing into it, I would say yes, that is more likely. If it was, oh, let's say, an alien space ship with sharks and frickin lasers, then I would say it was someone on the inside. In no event would I call it a "controlled demolition" as there was far too much damage to the surrounding area.
Yes of course.
No it was not perfectly symmetrical, how can a video possibly show that? The heat of the fire caused the asymmetrical structure to begin to fail. Once it starts to fall gravity takes over, and the massive floors fall essentially straight down, and that led to a pancake collapse of the building. Any sideways or twisting forces from the initial failing conditions would quickly be overwhelmed by the much larger forces due to the mass of the structures falling. They most likely would completely disappear after the first pancake event. The complete fall is difficult to time, and you would need to resort to seismic records to begin to estimate it. Trying to time it from a video is, well, the stuff that conspiracy theorists thrive on, but it is not conclusive in the least. I'll leave it to you to figure out how much resistance would have to be in place to stop 15 floors of the tower falling 20-30 feet. The energy in that is an enormous value, and it is likely that there were several floors where the steel was sufficiently weakened such that the first few pancakes had much less resistance than they otherwise would have. Go take a structural engineering class and quit repeating the mindless rants of people who don't know any better.
and the asymmetrical initial condition will cause more general failures which then leads to the big heavy thing falling straight down.
I don't understand your question.
slides.
No, because what you're not getting is that the collapse on to the lower mass will lose energy, force and acceleration somewhat as it goes, which is what happens in a building collapse. As the debris and floors compact their tendency might then to be to go out over and elsewhere assuming that they can, losing even more energy and force at a pretty reasonable rate. It may or may not just keep on going depending on the conditions.
You are speaking in absolutes, so I had to fix a couple of things for you. Are you really saying that this building could not have collapsed this way? (yes you are) The weakened structure of a few floors may allow enough momentum to build such that it could not cause a floor by floor pancake collapse? (yes it could, it is a question of how many floors and how weakened the structure) Are you suggesting that if it was possible then demolition companies would in fact do this? That claim alone suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.
As an aspiring architect (Master's degree) as well as an engineer BS Aero, I can tell you that architects are some of the last people who you can trust to tell you how a building's structure might fail. It's like asking a sculptor to build an automobile engine, or perhaps to tell you how the engine might react when the exhaust gasket fails. Big heavy things like to fall straight down, and the asymmetrical initial condition will cause more general failures which then leads to the big heavy thing falling straight down.
I think that nuke is a good idea for base load, much better than coal. But renewables are also very good, and an important part of the energy portfolio. There are places where the wind is nearly always blowing. Trying to suggest that wind farms are a bad idea in those places is asinine. San Francisco did a study with PV on rooftops commercial buildings and found that even on the cloudiest days the PV was producing at 70-80% of capacity. So maybe you could try looking a little deeper than the surface level FUD spewed by big oil about renewables, and by being less of an ass you might actually contribute to the dialog.
No real estate agents
I probably agree with most of what you wrote there, so you meant this as a good thing right?