Figleaf

Not to mention the poisons that will last a generation or more. All for nothing.

I agree. There would always be some rotation. The issue is how much rotation. You cannot claim that this rotation will always be large enough to cause the table top to tip before it hits the ground. Um... rotation IS tipping. Actually, no. I'm relying on that, not missing it. 1. Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say. Do you accept that one edge (or corner) of the tabletop will hit the ground before the other? 2. Do you accept that your explanation requires the entire final support to collapse catastrophically from top to bottom, faster that the accelleration of gravity? Actually, WHETHER that is what we saw IS the very question under discussion. Reasserting your earlier assertion doesn't demonstrate any mootness. Anyway, you have misstated the official explanation tendered for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. The official explanation is that intense heat weakened the steel. Even so, it is diffcult to imagine how the distribution of jet fuel could have been sufficiently uniform to create a symetrical collapse such as we all saw on TV. And meanwhile, the flying shards that are officially credited with knocking WTC7 down (amazingly some time after they struck) struck only one side of the building and didn't carry jet fuel. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Hey PolyNewbie -- is there any thinking out there about the possibility that flight 93 was meant for WTC7?

There's just so much revealed in a turn of phrase sometimes.

Freespender? Sounds more like a freebooter!

Interesting. can you provide more information on these millions ... who they were (generally speaking), where the lived/died, and how they were killed? Also include some citations for your data please. I'm very interested in understanding this fully. Thanks. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm Thank you for this. If we accept Rummels estimate, the death toll falls short of Sulaco's estimate by at least a factor of c. seven. A terrible toll nonetheless, of course.

I am not claiming that every table would fall straight down - I am simply saying that some structures can collapse straight down after asymmetrical damage. So your experiment does not provide any information that contradicts my example. You've shifted ground, attempting to defend your example by reference to the buildings. Certainly my experiment doesn't tell us all there is to know about the buildings. But it definitely does directly contradict your example. If the spagetti BENDS the book will fall assymetrically. IF the spagetti crumbles AND continues to crumble, uniformly, the whole way down, then yes, the book falls directly downward. But the WTC buildings were not supported by a single uniform centre column.

Let's try this again:We have a table with 4 ridgid legs that can only support 4000N of force. These legs _will_ collapse if exposed to more than that amount of force. They will not bend over or otherwise do any of the things that you claim. That is the assumption that my example is based on. You cannot explain away my example by ignoring the assumptions I started with. But you can't prove anything with an 'example' that bears little connection to the real world. Anyone can prove whatever they like with an example where the laws of physics are whatever they decide. You need to take into account the center of gravity to determine whether/how the load redistributes. Well, so far you haven't added anything that hasn't already been discussed. Your example here has legs 2 and 3 breaking first. The center of gravity of the top lies directy between 2 and 3 and gravity will begin drawing it downward the instant 2&3 give. As PN says, this force creates a bending force on Leg 4 and the table top, not simply a direct downward force. Do this for yourself -- take any L shaped object, turn it upside down so the short limb is horizontal and the long limb points down. Affix the bottom of the long leg to something. Now push down on the exact midpoint of the short limb. See what happens. Again, any length of time will impart some rotation. 1. It begins to collapse AFTER 2 and 3. 2. There is force acting on it. The force of gravity, which 'simple physics' tells us acts wrt the object's center of gravity, i.e. about halfway out in the middle of the tabletop. 3. Even if, magically, the fourth leg collapsed straight down, the resistance of as-yet-intact portions of that leg would supply greater resistance than the air under and to the far side of the table top. For your magical straight downward collapse to continue (presuming simly for the sake of argument it could even begin, which it couldn't) you need to somehow vaporize (as the explosives do in a demolition) the whole of leg 4 to sustain the straight downward fall. Well, now you're changing the example quite a lot. This new scenario is a very special and narrowly applicable hypothetical case which does not capture the nature of the WTC structures. IF there were a single, perfectly centred support (completely unlike the WTC buildings) it would still have to be overcome with a perfectly symmetrical force to collapse directly downward. And as per point 3 above, the damage to the support would have to STAY symmetrical throughout the whole collapse, despite the virtual certainty of chaotic results of fracturing in the material.

The irony is it could have been a small issue, except the CPC mishandling of it led to a bigger issue. The government could, when this first came up, have simply said: 'Thanks for bringing this to our attention; we will act immediately to bring our practices in line with the British and Dutch and expect this to be completed by XX date. Next issue?' But noooooo, they've got to weasel and dodge, dither and kvetch, accuse others of being unpatriotic, and ultimately look like fools and let Canada's reputation suffer another small cut. What makes governments make such poor choices?

Speaking of science, I just did a little experiment to understand the table example better. I'll describe it... Materials: scotch invisible tape four wooden matches four dimes, different mint years. 22 (almost) identical 6hr VHS tapes Method: 1. Clip lucifer heads off the matchsticks. 2. Use tape to affix matchsticks near the corners of one VHS tape to create a table-like structure with legs of equal length. 3. Use additional tape to reinforce three legs. Mark fourth (weak) leg. 4. Place 'table' on floor. 5. Place dimes on top of 'table' near each corner, dated side up. 6. Record date of each dime to match each corner. (QV diagrams). 7. Set all VHS tapes to midpoint of tape play-time. 8. Add VHS tapes to top of 'table', one by one, until table falls. 9. Observe eventual collapse and record location of dimes. Results: 1. The table fell at 11 videotapes. 2. The fall occurred to quickly to observe with certainty. 3. On investigation, two 'legs' were broken: the 'weak leg', and the other leg on the long side (q.v. diagrams). 4. Two legs remained intact. The location of the dimes was recorded. (per diagrams (q.v.). The table did not fall symetrically despite symmetrical placesmnet of load.

But wait a minute. You just said that the responsibility for signing the original agreement to turn prisoners over to the Afghans was the soldiers' fault, not the Liberals, because the soldiers gave them bad advice. So shouldn't you now be saying that all the confusion is the fault of the soldiers and not the government? Slimy manouver there, Argus. You sleazily substituted 'soldiers' for 'Hillier' in a transparent piece of filthy rhetorical fraudulence. And it's not the dishonesty that suprises ... it's the ineptitude.

Yes, to be pestered with pointless arguments as weak as yours -- what wickedness did I do in a past life? It's a pretty simply concept, Dancer: Students are not 'in school' when they are not in school. Like when they're at home. May I ask you something in all honesty? -- What do you think you are trying to accomplish with this disputation?

Interesting. can you provide more information on these millions ... who they were (generally speaking), where the lived/died, and how they were killed? Also include some citations for your data please. I'm very interested in understanding this fully. Thanks.

THey allowed plenty of anti-Jewish, anti-Chinese, anti-French slurs to stand as well. The place was not responsibly operated.There were death threats against forum members that were not deleted. Sounds like they were having a lot of troll trouble. I don't see how that can make your contrivance to undermine their efforts any more acceptable. In fact, it looks like you set up a situation that let you falsely play the 'race' card in order to deliberately shut the place down, interfering with the plans of the corporation and the enjoyment of all the other users. Reprehensible.

Sorry, factually they do, It's called the Safe Schools Act and Regulations. And it's law. Oh really? Then please reference the section(s) of that act that supports your contention about activities away from school. Like the part of my post you decided to trim away? That's just a wee bit dishonest, don't you think? No, I cut it away because it was irrelevant. But, it's interesting that you bring up dishonesty because I was begining to wonder about yours. Let's look, shall we? Point 1. You refered to the Safe Schools Act and Regulations saying "it's law". HOWEVER, your link goes to a department of education Guideline -- not an act, not a regulation. So, EITHER you misrepresented your source OR you don't understand the nature of your source. If the former, your honesty is deficient. If the latter, your knowledge is insufficient to sustain the arrogant approach you are taking to this discussion. Point 2. You suggested that your source supports the premise that schools' authority extends to non-school matters. HOWEVER, the very first paragraph in the link you provided under the heading 'Guiding Principles' says: All participants involved in the publicly funded school system – students, parents or guardians, volunteers, teachers and other staff members -- are included in this Code of Conduct whether they are on school property, on school buses or at school- authorized events or activities. which clearly does not extend to non-school activities in the way you have contended. So, in this regard, again, either your honesty is in question or your grasp of the facts is disturbingly lacking. Based on the foregoing (without some additional materials to support you), your argument is shown to be wrong by the very materials you have cited. (I anticipate that you'll lose your temper now.)

Actually, the school does NOT have a 'right' to use extraneous/irrelevant considerations to pick and choose who gets to enjoy a school activity. Actually, students don't have a right to damage the reputation of teachers. Teachers, like anyone else, can action defamation through the courts. Let's consider an analogy... Person A is a veteran on a pension. His neighbor is Person B, who works in the Veterans Affairs department. Person A has a dog who pees on Person B's bushes. Person B cuts off Person A's pension until he promises to curb his dog. Did Person B act correctly?

Sorry, factually they do, It's called the Safe Schools Act and Regulations. And it's law. Oh really? Then please reference the section(s) of that act that supports your contention about activities away from school.

I'm sure you have a source to back up this assertion. I'm making a negative assertion saying there is no authority. You are making a positive assertion saying there is authority. Accordingly, it is for you to support your positive, not me to support my negative. My negative is proved by the absense of your positive.

It's Riverwind's example, and it's a massive simplification, but it does work to some extent. What it shows, however, is that Riverwind is wrong. You are right. Tables don't fall straight down unless the strenght of each and all the legs is overcome all together in perfect balance.

Fine. Each time you increase the load the normal force on the remaining leg would increase to match the weight of the load. The system will remain motionless until something breaks. The important thing to note is the leg must always support the full weight of the load ... Until something breaks. It seems like you chose to ignore the important part of my post: "What will happen? A-the tabletop will give, spilling to books toward the far corner; B-The leg will bend and possibly break, tipping the top toward the far corner; or (the least likely) C-the leg will begin fracture/crumble at its weakest point (become detached from the ground) and the top will fall directly downward until the uncrumbled upper meets the uncrumbled lower and the resistance of that meeting tips the top in the direction of the far corner." With the leg at one corner, assuming the tabletop is perfectly rigid (which is a quite an assumption), if you increase the load on top uniformly across the whole surface (or in the center of the tabletop) the downward stress on the inside of the leg will be higher than the downward stress on the outside of the leg creating the possibility it will bend an possibly break from over-flexion on the outer side of the leg. If it doesn't bend, it will crack/fracture/crumble at the weakest point in a direct downward direction UNTIL resistance from the intact upper portions of the leg (striking either the lower intact portion of the leg or the floor below). At that point, with the leg no longer being affixed to the floor, the table will topple in the direction of least resistance ... trhough the air in the direction of the corner furthest from the leg. Consider: T=top C=center of gravity of the load (top) L=upper leg l=lower leg W=weakes point of the leg F=fracture/crumble Image 1: Starting out TTTTCTTTT L L L L W l l l Image 2: TTTTTTTTT <---Load added TTTTCTTTT L L L L F <---weight above compromises the leg here l l l Image 3: TTTTTTTTT TTTTCTTTT L L L L . <---leg ceases to support load, and your assumption is the load moves straight down l l l Image 4: TTTTTTTTT TTTTCTTTT L L L L <--- upper portion falls straight down, impacts lower portion (i.e. meets resistance of lwr leg) l l l Image 5: TTTTTTTTT TTTTCTTTT ----> path of least resistance for table top L L L L l <---- leg no longer fixed l l

Thanks for your information. Based on that, it looks like the RCMP has declined to take the matter far enough for the crown to get into the act. While you're "here" (so to speak) would you have any conjectures on how the poice could conclude there is nothing to investigate when at least one participant in the matter (Hart) appears to acknowledge that a payment was pivotal to the course of events?

You are correct up until the point when 2&3 collapse. At that point the forces of the system immediately redistribute to find a new equilibrium - just like they redistributed to 2&3 after leg 1 collapsed.Consider a situation with light table top and a strong leg that is attached to the floor. The table top would remain suspended in the air and the full weight after legs 2&3 disappeared. There would be no rotation and no collapse and leg 4 would have the full weight of the table top pushing down on it. A system with a heavy table top would not behave any differently immediately after legs 2&3 collapse. Top _cannot_ move until something breaks or bends. What happens next depends on what breaks/bends faster. If the leg breaks faster then the table collapse straight down. If the connection to the floor breaks faster the table topples over. In this example, the table leg is completely overloaded which means there it could never bend before it collapsed. It is a phsysically impossibility. Your example does not represent what really happens -- Take your one legged table with the top supported at one corner and the leg affixed to the floor. Incrementally add load to the middle of the table until something gives. What will happen? A-the tabletop will give, spilling to books toward the far corner; B-The leg will bend and possibly break, tipping the top toward the far corner; or (the least likely) C-the leg will begin fracture/crumble at its weakest point (become detached from the ground) and the top will fall directly downward until the uncrumbled upper meets the uncrumbled lower and the resistance of that meeting tips the top in the direction of the far corner.

Thank you for your reply. I don't know about the story you're refering to. It certainly did not come to my attention. I wonder if people in the forces heard more about it than the Canadian public did. In my opinion it is important to investigate allegations of mistreatment when they arise, precisely (a) to thoroughly clear the accused if they are innocent and ( weed them out if they are guilty to preserve and uphold the good name of the Forces. No proof that Afghan security forces have abused prisoners? You mean other than the reports from the prisoners who say they were abused? You mean other than the reports of human rights organizations? Yes, I can see that, but I can't see why they would get pissed off when the political leadership is criticised for failing to carry out its role properly. When I hear that the troops are pissed off about that, I think their opinions are being manipulated by the government of the day. Well, let's consider that. The taliban government was overthrown -- that's good. A bunch of Taliban sympathizers have been confronted and bested, frequently. A good many Afghan's lives have been saved and/or improved. Am I missing anything? That's certainly an admirable record. But I doesn't convince me there is a happy conclusion coming for the mission or Afghanistan. Again the taxes thing, soldiers not only pay taxes but also are allowed to vote, and alothough i'm not pionting the finger at anyone there are some that have said"shut the fu*k up and do what i pay you to do" and that soldiers do not have a vioce in all this... I was commented on taxes by way of indicating that the people of Canada must be supporting the mission because our taxes continue to be used. I'm certainly aware that military people pay taxes. Well, there are what? 3000 members in-theatre? They have a close-up perspective on the situation. And there are what? 30,000,000 other Canadians with a remote perspective on the situation. I'm not convinced that the close-up perspective is necessarily the better one. Still here. Still trying to do the right thing, like you are. I find that just alittle funny, and the same time belittling, Funny because the people that are saying this have not even been there, or spent a just few days on the ground, and what qualifactions do they have. Many of us have numerous qualifications. But qualifications aren't really the point. It a question of judgement, not strategic judgement, but rather cost-benefit judgement (and whose costs and whose benefits). I think you're wrong to take it as a slight. It's not meant to be, but since it IS ultimately the democratic polity that will make these decisions, we need to discuss them frankly. Well, sometimes circumstances change. Sometimes people reconsider their choices. I don't doubt the honour. And I mean no criticism of the men and women doing the work when I say the mission is futile. But on the one hand I don't a plausible route to 'success' in the mission as it's currently constituted. How will a few thousand soldiers recreate a whole society? And on the other hand, I don't see it as our fight, especially poised against the cost of what reconstituting the mission for success would cost in lives and money both.

Factually, they have no such obligation, and no such authority. Normatively, I think that the school is the absolutely wrong institution to shoe-horn into that role.

I agree but I truly do not know what the role of school should be. Are going to out-of-town school trips part of that role? If out of town trips are provided by the school, then the only reason for excluding someone should be a valid one within the schools appropriate authority. I agree and I think that is the harsh reality of life. I acknowledge that my arguments are normative ones, but based on a descriptive understanding of the surrounding authoritative context. Would you teach your child to denigrate teachers? Indeed not, if it were my kid, I would probably suspend internet privileges and makes sure that either a convincing in-person or a thoroughly written apology was tendered the the aggrieved party immediately. But I'd do that whether the target was a teacher or neighbor or a delivery person or dogwalker or whatever. The point is that out-of-school teachers shouldn't use or have any more power that anyone else.

Sorry, there is. Well, once again, it looks like you're not reading things before you hold forth on them. I said there was no basis for a school to make up rules about non-school matters and all you've done is reference a set of such unfounded rules. Your response does not answer the point.