So you have no idea why a progressive collapse should have taken 26 seconds, or 46, or any other duration. You're just pulling a number out of your ass. Thank you for establishing that.
Just what do you mean by "conservation of momentum"? Specifically, how do you calculate how long the collapse should have taken under progressive collapse conditions? Don't just pull a number out of your ass.
Now go read screwloosechange.blogspot.com's articles on Dave Griffin. The man's facts do not stand to scrutiny.
Re: phone calls: airfones.
Re: Pentagon: when I am drunk, I stagger. Even a skilled acrobat would have a hard time replicating my drunken stagger. But that does not mean my stagger is difficult to do. Hani Nanjour was an inept pilot whose manoeverings were the result of his ineptness. A skilled pilot would have a hard time replicating his flight path, because a skilled pilot wouldn't have flown like that in the first place.
Look at any video clip of the collapse, with a timer on the display. It took 15 seconds for the collapse to get to the stage where dust enveloped everything. At that stage the collapses were still not complete. The seismographs give it several seconds more.
As for being "conservative", these things are not matters for haggling. Tell us specifically, why you think a progressive collapse would take that long.
Your attitude is a major reason why Britain is in such a dreadful state. Having wealth is not a priori proof of having stolen it. Your way of thinking is a major reason why the chavs in Britain behave the way they do.
What is scarier is that you're even looking at detection rates. The founder of the British police services, Robert Peel, pointed out that the job of the police is first to prevent crimes, then to detect those that occur. If you're looking at detection rates you've already lost, because you're looking at the detection rates of crimes that a competent police service would have deterred from happening in the first place.
When you represent someone as a lawyer, you are not only standing in their shoes. You are still also an officer of the court. And when you use your client's money and weight for such thuggery as this, you get the contempt you richly deserve.
Too true, only it isn't a matter of guns. The plain fact is under American law, if you present what a reasonable person would interpret as a credible threat of inflicting grevious bodily harm, anyone on the scene can just plain kill you, using whatever he might have, be it a gun, a knife, or his bare hands. I live in Boston and walk through crowds of obnoxious drunks all the time, and sometimes they even go so far as to vandalize large amounts of property (Kenmore Square when the Red Sox win big - blekh). So it's not that we have fewer overgrown apes in our town centers. It's that our jerks know, even when they're dead drunk, that the moment they cross a certain line, They Can Die.
I walk through the bar districts around Boston all the time, and that line just doesn't get crossed. Wish the same could be said of Britain.
The grand irony of this report is that the CERA is complaining that Peak Oil theorists are using closed sources for their data (which they are not), while the CERA's 16 page report is sold at $1000 a copy.
So if you want to fact check them, you have to pony up. Meanwhile, you can get the other side of the story, with full citations of data from the EIA & IEA here at The Oil Drum, free of charge. Other ironies are also there. The report gives an estimate to how much oil remains undiscovered. Needless to say, if it is undiscovered, how would they know how much is down there?
Even if you are sleeping on the street, there are ways to keep clean enough to present yourself at job interviews. But you still need a maildrop, email address, and phone number to put up a decent facade. The other thing to know is sleeping in a shelter carries a danger with it: tuberculosis. That is why shelter space in the summer is sometimes widely available while many homeless go looking for outdoor spots to sleep. TB is fscking scary.
Dude, there is a world of difference between giving money to develop anti-aging treatments and giving money to deploy said treatments around the world. Ellison gave money to keep his own carcass ticking. Gates on the other hand is giving huge amounts of money to fight against malaria, which mostly afflicts children who are the wrong color. This is even though Gates will not gain even a minute of life from the money he's spending on malaria.
If I were as rich as either of them, maybe I'd go the Ellison route, maybe I'd go the Gates route. But while we can all understand Ellison's motivations, we can admire Gates for where he's putting his money.
Part of life is accepting your own mortality. Gates has. Ellison has not.
By the time Washington crossed the Delaware, he was hardly a guerilla fighter. His troops wore uniforms, drilled, and fought in formation.
And guerilla fighting today is seldom done by people worthy of respect. Giving an AK 47 to a ten year old and telling to fight or you'll kill his family is not the act of a freedom fighter. It's plain old savagery, enabled by the light weight of the AK. And it's what you mostly see in the world's remaining trouble spots.
If the Gulf Stream isn't pushing as much water toward Europe, then the water is lingering longer in the Gulf of Mexico, which goes a long way to explain why so many storms churned up to Category 5 hurricanes as soon as they reached the Gulf all through this autumn. Doesn't sound like fun for North America either.
Southwest was smart enough to option a buttload of oil at $25 a barrel. It will last them long enough to watch while their competitors fail. But after the optioned oil runs out, they might not be sitting as pretty as you think.
It can escalate beyond that. If Airbus's engineering choices here don't pass muster with the FAA, Airbus could make a claim that the FAA's adverse decision was not made in bona fide (good faith) and is in fact a dirty protectionist trick actionable under World Trade Organization/GATT. Not questioning the FAA's sincerity here, just pointing out that when you guys go look at the A380, you will have nasty politics breathing down your neck.
Howard Zinn omits some important details. The Sedition Act went overtly un-enforced in several states, and most people prosecuted under it could not be convicted because no juries could be brought together to convict them. In China, meanwhile...
No, it would not function better. The UN's problem isn't that it lacks power or money. The problem is that it has no effective mechanisms to hold higher officials accountable for when they misuse their power. The UN's bureaucracy has fought tooth and nail to keep itself completely unaccountable. And for that reason the best thing to do with the UN isn't more money, or power. It's less.
Yes, and hopefully our contributions will decline. The UN is a bloated, corrupt abomination, and we're not keen on funding a body whose "peacekeeper" troops have a penchant for tenderloin.
Slashdot Mirror
So you have no idea why a progressive collapse should have taken 26 seconds, or 46, or any other duration. You're just pulling a number out of your ass. Thank you for establishing that.
Just what do you mean by "conservation of momentum"? Specifically, how do you calculate how long the collapse should have taken under progressive collapse conditions? Don't just pull a number out of your ass.
Now go read screwloosechange.blogspot.com's articles on Dave Griffin. The man's facts do not stand to scrutiny.
Re: phone calls: airfones.
Re: Pentagon: when I am drunk, I stagger. Even a skilled acrobat would have a hard time replicating my drunken stagger. But that does not mean my stagger is difficult to do. Hani Nanjour was an inept pilot whose manoeverings were the result of his ineptness. A skilled pilot would have a hard time replicating his flight path, because a skilled pilot wouldn't have flown like that in the first place.
Look at any video clip of the collapse, with a timer on the display.
It took 15 seconds for the collapse to get to the stage where dust enveloped everything.
At that stage the collapses were still not complete.
The seismographs give it several seconds more.
As for being "conservative", these things are not matters for haggling.
Tell us specifically, why you think a progressive collapse would take that long.
You still haven't accounted for how WTC1 & 2 collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
They didn't.
If a progressive collapse was the case it would've taken closer to 25 seconds, or more.
And what do you base that claim on?
Look at the videos and pay attention to the timer.
Then check the seismograph records from that day. The collapse did not take 10 seconds.
The towers did not neatly fall onto their own footprint. They caused heavy damage to several nearby buildings.
Next question?
In most US states, "go on, hit me" is legally a challenge to a duel and thus a felony.
Self defense is not only legal, it's encouraged. But brawling will get you thrown in jail.
Your attitude is a major reason why Britain is in such a dreadful state. Having wealth is not a priori proof of having stolen it. Your way of thinking is a major reason why the chavs in Britain behave the way they do.
What is scarier is that you're even looking at detection rates. The founder of the British police services, Robert Peel, pointed out that the job of the police is first to prevent crimes, then to detect those that occur. If you're looking at detection rates you've already lost, because you're looking at the detection rates of crimes that a competent police service would have deterred from happening in the first place.
Question: do you have any idea how beautiful downtown Detroit looked before WW2?
When you represent someone as a lawyer, you are not only standing in their shoes. You are still also an officer of the court. And when you use your client's money and weight for such thuggery as this, you get the contempt you richly deserve.
Killed on the streets, no. Killed by a fellow gang member, oh, yes. That if you have fellow gang members.
Too true, only it isn't a matter of guns. The plain fact is under American law, if you present what a reasonable person would interpret as a credible threat of inflicting grevious bodily harm, anyone on the scene can just plain kill you, using whatever he might have, be it a gun, a knife, or his bare hands. I live in Boston and walk through crowds of obnoxious drunks all the time, and sometimes they even go so far as to vandalize large amounts of property (Kenmore Square when the Red Sox win big - blekh). So it's not that we have fewer overgrown apes in our town centers. It's that our jerks know, even when they're dead drunk, that the moment they cross a certain line, They Can Die.
I walk through the bar districts around Boston all the time, and that line just doesn't get crossed. Wish the same could be said of Britain.
The grand irony of this report is that the CERA is complaining that Peak Oil theorists are using closed sources for their data (which they are not), while the CERA's 16 page report is sold at $1000 a copy.
So if you want to fact check them, you have to pony up. Meanwhile, you can get the other side of the story, with full citations of data from the EIA & IEA here at The Oil Drum, free of charge. Other ironies are also there. The report gives an estimate to how much oil remains undiscovered. Needless to say, if it is undiscovered, how would they know how much is down there?
Even if you are sleeping on the street, there are ways to keep clean enough to present yourself at job interviews. But you still need a maildrop, email address, and phone number to put up a decent facade. The other thing to know is sleeping in a shelter carries a danger with it: tuberculosis. That is why shelter space in the summer is sometimes widely available while many homeless go looking for outdoor spots to sleep. TB is fscking scary.
Dude, there is a world of difference between giving money to develop anti-aging treatments and giving money to deploy said treatments around the world. Ellison gave money to keep his own carcass ticking. Gates on the other hand is giving huge amounts of money to fight against malaria, which mostly afflicts children who are the wrong color. This is even though Gates will not gain even a minute of life from the money he's spending on malaria.
If I were as rich as either of them, maybe I'd go the Ellison route, maybe I'd go the Gates route. But while we can all understand Ellison's motivations, we can admire Gates for where he's putting his money.
Part of life is accepting your own mortality. Gates has. Ellison has not.
By the time Washington crossed the Delaware, he was hardly a guerilla fighter. His troops wore uniforms, drilled, and fought in formation.
And guerilla fighting today is seldom done by people worthy of respect. Giving an AK 47 to a ten year old and telling to fight or you'll kill his family is not the act of a freedom fighter. It's plain old savagery, enabled by the light weight of the AK. And it's what you mostly see in the world's remaining trouble spots.
If the Gulf Stream isn't pushing as much water toward Europe, then the water is lingering longer in the Gulf of Mexico, which goes a long way to explain why so many storms churned up to Category 5 hurricanes as soon as they reached the Gulf all through this autumn. Doesn't sound like fun for North America either.
Southwest was smart enough to option a buttload of oil at $25 a barrel. It will last them long enough to watch while their competitors fail. But after the optioned oil runs out, they might not be sitting as pretty as you think.
It can escalate beyond that. If Airbus's engineering choices here don't pass muster with the FAA, Airbus could make a claim that the FAA's adverse decision was not made in bona fide (good faith) and is in fact a dirty protectionist trick actionable under World Trade Organization/GATT. Not questioning the FAA's sincerity here, just pointing out that when you guys go look at the A380, you will have nasty politics breathing down your neck.
Howard Zinn omits some important details. The Sedition Act went overtly un-enforced in several states, and most people prosecuted under it could not be convicted because no juries could be brought together to convict them. In China, meanwhile...
No, it would not function better. The UN's problem isn't that it lacks power or money. The problem is that it has no effective mechanisms to hold higher officials accountable for when they misuse their power. The UN's bureaucracy has fought tooth and nail to keep itself completely unaccountable. And for that reason the best thing to do with the UN isn't more money, or power. It's less.
Has the US gotten you arrested for criticizing the government? No. Learn to understand differences in degree or you'll seem downright inane.
And now you understand why we in the US can't take you very seriously nowadays.
Yes, and hopefully our contributions will decline. The UN is a bloated, corrupt abomination, and we're not keen on funding a body whose "peacekeeper" troops have a penchant for tenderloin.