segnosaur

Ummm... no, not really. Not sure where exactly you get your math from. That body of engineers comprises hundreds of specialists, working both directly with the NIST, and others independently on their own academic work, as well as referees on various journals. Also see you've forgotten the firement that actually witnessed signs of structural failure in WTC7 before the collapse. But hey, I'm used to sloppy thinking from you. The operative word in the above sentence is 'like'. As in "something like explosions". This doesn't necessarily mean there WERE explosions, or that the building was actually destroyed through controlled demolitions. This has already been explained in a previoius post. Congratulations. Not only have you shown a lack of critical thinking skills, you have been shown to have the memory capacity of a goldfish.

Ummm... first of all, you do realize that those who make the claims are responsible for providing proof. Hey, if you want to play that game, I have proof that the registry actually CAUSES the deaths of innoncent people. The RCMP said so themselves. You can look it up if you want. Secondly, I'd make sure you actually handled statements like that very carefully, and you could be taking numbers out of context. The RCMP may have said that it saves them $3 million/year, but that may only be the direct cost to them... additional costs may be bourn by local/provincial police, or other departments. Remember, the Liberals supposedly capped the cost of the registry at $25 million. Obviously the difference between 3 and 35 must be explained somewhere.

Correction... Some police organizations say that its useful. And we don't even know if that usefullness includes an ability to list individual firearms, or just the ability to do a query into having a FAC. I have no idea. I wish it was more in line of what the DNA database costs but I am no expert on that. I can only go by what the Auditor says. Well, if you want I can post references giving the cost of running similar-sized databases. The price list for an Oracle enterprise liscence is a little under 50,000. (That's for companies... governemets get a discount). The cost of a Dell server is around $1-3000. (Lets assume $3000). Might want to use RAID storage, so lets be generous and add an extra $1000. Lets also be generous and assume you want a second box to have a testing environtment. So, you're talking about less than $150,000 for the database and liscensces. The fact is, hardware is cheap. Its the meat-ware that costs money. In the case of the registry, it includes people to process the forms, people to perform ad campaigns, etc. http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/pricelists.html http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/xserv...799-not-999-655 Which the Tories have made no effort to correct. Perhaps they realize that, with the nature of human beings, there will ALWAYS be problems with the registry. The Liberals almost stood on their head with the registry, with cuts (or even eliminating) the registration fees, advertising campaigns, and amnesties, and they were never able to get better than 75% compliance. Apart from actually sending police into people's homes to count the guns themselves, how exactly do you think they could actually get 100% compliance? Ummmm... just wondering... why exactly do you think the onus should be on the Conservatives to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the registry? The registry has never been proven to be effective either. In a situation where you have 2 options without any significant evidence either way, why should YOUR little assumption be given a higher priority? I've already admitted the conservatives are inconsistent in the idea of applying the concept of "freedom". Are you prepared to do the same and admit the Liberals (as well as the NDP/Bloc) also seek to limit freedoms, just differnet ones than the conservatives? I have seen no evidence from the police that they view that registry as a bad law. Ummm... go back and look at the thread. I wasn't discussing what the police thought of the registry. I was referring to the comment you made that because many gun owners themselves were complying, then there was nothing wrong with the law. (The exact phrase I was referring to was: Given the fear of violence people seem willing to submit to licensing and registration as long as it is convenient and cost effective.) I really have no idea why the tories are doing what they're doing. Maybe they want to score points against the senate. Maybe they believe the registry is a bad idea and want to eliminate it, but realize they'd never get the votes in the house of commons to do so, and brought it into the senate in order to try to shift public opinion (and thus possibly the house of commons). Any opinions are just idle speculation.

These are all quantities. What a moronic statement. Really, it is. Really illustrates a lack of critical thinking on your part. I'm rather beginning to suspect you're a troll. Or some sort of spam-bot, putting random phrases in posts. Not like you've actually responded intelligently to any of my statements. So, you are willing to ignore the question (of why so many people didn't see anythig strange on 9/11, of why so many engineers discount explosives) because those are "just quantities". What else are you about to discount because they're "Just quantities"? Should we discount the fact that the earth is round, and immediately launch an investigation into the shape of the earth in order to decide whether flat or round-earthers are correct? After all, while >99.9% of scientists, geologists, and airline pilots believe the earth is round, those are just quantities. Maybe its a giant conspiricy, orchistrated by an evil group composed of geologists and globe manufacturers to convince us the earth is round.

It's impossible, and unnecessary, for us to do so. Actually, yes it is necessary. Ever hear of Occam's razor? The basic premise is "The simplest solution is usually the right one". (Actually, there's a big long explaination for what it is, but the above definition is simple enough.) So, what you have to do is take a complete conspiricy theory, and look at all the faults. Compare that to the "official" version. Even if you think some of the elements of the "official" theory are suspect (they're not; for the most part conspiracy theorists are usually just ignorant), if a complete 'conspiricy theory' has even more problems than the official version, it should be discounted. Nobody is suggestiong we know "all" the truths. But we'd expect at least a basic description in broad enough strokes. Heck, there are even parts of the "official" story that are unknown... for example, we don't know if the hijackers were armed only with utility knives, or if they had guns/bombs too. But in that situation, all of the unknowns turn out to be irrelevant. Whether a hijacker had a knife or a bomb, we know the same thing: security at the Boston airport sucks. On the other hand, every time a conspiricy theorist spouts off with one of their morinic ideas, it makes the entire explaination just totally bizarre. Think the towers were brought down with explosives? Then you have to explain how those explosives got there, how they would have avoided detection, why none of the conspirators has ever confessed, why firemen saw signs of collapse in WTC7, etc. Such things are not "irrelevancies"... they end up putting the whole conspiricy theory into bizzaro world. If it were possible, howcome nobody has ever done so? How come all that the conspiricy theorists can do is point to videos featuring junk science by unqualified people who put out ideas that usually end up conflicting with OTHER conspricy theorists? An explaination for which has already been given... The operative word there is "possible"... that analysis of "explosive dust" was A: done by people who were not qualified, B: did not appear in a proper peer-reviewed paper, and C: contained many fundamental flaws (such as collection and storage of the 'dust' by non-scientific people, without proper controls, and a proper comparison of the material with material that was known to be at the site.) Which of course ignores that while any conspratorators might have had access to those floors, so would maintenance staff at the WTC. The key part of the above phrase is 'imo' (I assme that means 'in my opinion', not "I'm Moronic, obviously", or something similar). You see, the opinion of someone who is A: scientifically unqualified, and B: hasn't exhibited any ability to think skeptically or apply criitical thinking isn't very convincing, at least to me. About the only people it would install reasonable doubt in are other people who similarly lack scientific expertise and/or critical thinking skills. Actually, there IS somethign to be lost... namely, time and money that can be used to actually further human knowledge, catch actual real terrorists, etc. (And, of course, regardless of how much time and money were spent on such an investigation, I'm sure people like you would claim "The conspricy interferred in the investigation! Do over!) So, tell me, what else do you think should be investigated? Should we launch a scientific investigation into whether the earth is really round? After all, it COULD actually be flat. What would be lost if we launch an investigation?

All to the contrary! I have an open mind so I'm not supposing anything on quantity. So, you're assuming that there's some sort of magical explosive that can demolish a building even though, with our current best technology it would require tons. Why not just argue that it was aliens? Or maybe the magical mind control ray that they needed to use on everyone also had a 'death ray' setting? Hey, keep an open mind!

What happened for sure is the destruction of documents of interest (for those interested to know the truth about 9/11) in the collapse of WTC7. Ah yes, that old piece of cr*p. (One that conspricy theorists love to trot out... that WTC7 was destroyed to hide some secret documents.) So, tell me, what else was in WTC7? Did they also store their mind-control ray there? You know, the ray that they would need to make the thousands of people who would have noticed agents wiring the building to collapse that there saw nothing? The one they'd need to convice the hundreds of engineers who have studied the collapse to ignore their years of experience and claim that explosive were not necessary? The one they'd have to use on the firemen to get them to report that they saw signs of collapse long before WTC7 fell? That's some wicked Mind control ray.

An open mind will not repeat over and over that huge piles of explosive (especially nano- stuff) were absolutely required. So you admit that they 'absolutely' need huge piles of explosives, but at no point have you ever given any sort of reasonable explaination about how: - they would have been able to sneak such explosives on site so that they would not be discovered by either security or other staff - how they would have recruited enough people to carry around those huge piles of explosves, without not one of the people coming back later to say "I was involved". - How they (or even why) they would have coordinated the attack with the "terrorists" - Why, if it was supposedly such a clean demoltion (all the false claims about the building "falling into its own footprint"), that so many surrounding buildings were damaged (certainly NOT the sign of a building demolition)

It is O’Neill not O’Neil. Yes, I typed his name wrong. I find it ironic that, after you have posted so many spectacular blunders in facts, logic and reasoning, that you pick on a small typo in my posting. I guess when you make as many mistakes as you do, you have to do something to try to boost your ego. Typo aside, I was correct in the facts about the individual... they died during 9/11, so why would it be relevant if Hauer had appointed him? In fact, I can just imagine the meeting now: Hauer: I'm part of a big conspricy. We're going to blow up the WTC and become really rich and powerful and we want you to be part of it O’Neill: What do you need me to do? Hauer: We're going to hire you to work at WTC O'Neill: Ok Hauer: Only problem is, you are going to have to get crushed by the building in order for us to become rich and powerful O'Neill: Go f*ck yourself. It also includes WTC1&2, which also collapsed, which Hauer was not involved with. Not to mention that the renovations involving Hauer involved only part of WTC7, not the entire building. Not to mention that even if Hauer managed to wire all of the WTC7 to collapse, you'd have to explain: - The firemen that saw signs of collapse long before the building collapsed, not exactly the way a demolition works - How explosives could survive being stuck inside a burning building for hours before the actual collapse, with none of them going off prematurely Ummm, no. Anthrax is treated with Cipro. Frankly, I'm not even sure why its relevant. The patent for Cipro is owned by Bayer, Hauer is involved with Hollis-Eden, a totally different drug company. If anything, the whole Anthrax scare would have actually HURT Hauer since it would have benefitted the competition. You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it. (Well, maybe you can't actually do it, but I like to remind people that you can't to show how much nonsense your posts include)

Easy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_C...ructural_design Of the 110 stories, eight were set aside for technical services in mechanical floors Level B5/B6 (floors 7/8, 41/42, 75/76, and 108/109), which are four two-floor areas evenly spaced up the building. You see, this is a perfect illustration of people making claims without thinking through the logic. What exactly are you suggesting? That it was ONLY those floors that were wired for demolition? Those floors aren't exactly abandoned. Maintenance staff would require regular access to those areas. (Not exactly the best way to keep things secret.) Not to mention that demoliton crews would never plant explosives on less than 10% when they actually bring down a building. (Heck, that isn't even consistent with the claims of conspricy theorists when they point to their magical 'squibs' and other nonsense.) Or are you suggesting that they used those areas to store explosives, until it was time to wire the rest of the building? That doesn't make sense either, since there would never be a time when every floor of the building would be unoccupied. The buildings had hundreds of offices, and many of them would have people working round-the-clock. I'm pretty sure they'd notice people carrying huge piles of explosives around, regardless if they were being brought in from outside or just from a maintenance floor.

O'Neil died on September 11. Not exactly evidence of an internal conspiracy if the people who would have been involved get killed. Not to mention the fact that you were wrong on your original claim that Hauer was in charge of 'renovations' at the WTC. And not to mention the fact that any sort of plan to plan explosives would also require dozens if not hundreds of people to actually carry on the work, and would require thousands of people to overlook any sort of 'suspicious' activity. You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.

A database that the police access thousands of times a day, it seems to me that is must be worthwhile and that is why the police chiefs and unions support the reigistry. The fact that the database is accessed 'thousands of times a day' does not necessarily mean that its a great value to the police. Many of those checks could be a simple matter of protocol (i.e. automatic checks whether there would be a risk or not). In addition, since the registry wouldn't tell you if there were any non registered guns on site (obtained illegally or simply not registered), any cop is going to hopefully treat the situation as a potential risk even if there are no guns registered. So, the cops might check the registry, but if they're smart they won't trust it. So we're spending millions on something who's information will routinely get ignored. I actually work with databases for a living. There are on the order of 5-10 million guns in Canada. I've worked with larger databases than that. The cost of the infrastructure would simply not be a major cost. I suspect things like enforcement, advertising, and data entry take up a much larger portion of the costs. I've already explained a solution that would probably be better: Simply use the Firearms Acquisition Certificate as the basis for police officers doing checks. This eliminates the millions of data entries, and all the enforcement that would be required. And since people typically need a firearms acquisition certificate to get a gun, that should be enough of an indication to police that there is the potential for firearms on a property. Please provide a reference to that. My previous post had a reference to a letter written by the Auditor general in which she said You asked what evidence we have seen that the firearms program has contnbuted more to public safety and saved more lives than the system that preceded it. Neither of these issues was included in the scope of our audit; they are more in the domain of program evaluation, which our Office does not undertake. This was from 2006. Perhaps you have a more recent reference, but from the looks of things she clearly indicates she can't say if the registry saves lives. Well, it isn't up to date because the Tories do not want it to be updated. Actually, even before the tories got into power there were significant problems with non-compliance (not to mention many errors in the database.) I've seen figures everywhere from 25% unregistered to over 50% unregistered, and this was before the Tories took over. If you were a cop, would you trust your life to a registry where you had a 1 in 4 chance of incorrectly trusting the gun registry? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/ http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm Well, once again I need to point out that you haven't actually given proof that the rank-and-file actually supports the registry, nor whether they would prefer the money to be spent in another way. Even more importantly... there is no guarantee that even if the cops think the registry is valuable, that may not necessarily be the case. There are plenty of people who believe things that aren't true (how many believe in alternative medicine, psychics, etc. without proof that those work either?) I'd rather the decision on whether to cancel the registry be made on the basis of best available evidence, and if there's no proof that the gun registry is saving more lives than the best alternatives, scrap it even if the cops want it. We pay our taxes to ensure the money is used to make our society as secure as possible, not to provide a 'security blanket' to the police. Its not a game... its the entire core of the issue. If money were inifinte it might not be a problem. However, money is limited an as such decisions must be made. The fact that you might not like the fact that your gun registry looks less desirable doesn't mean you can avoid that by calling it a 'game'. I think most cops know that the protocols are to ensure they have the trust of the public. As I said, Robert Peel said it is completely necessary for the police to have to do their job. Irrelevant statement. In fact, having a law which is so widely ignored by so many people can only damage trust. Of course, this is not just a 'trust' issue... Even if the public trusted the police 100%, we would still expect controls to be in place to safeguard our freedom. Correction... some people seem willing to submit to registration. Not all do. In addition, simply being 'willing to submit' does not make something a good law. (By that logic, were black people in the U.S. "willing to submit" to segregation laws before Rosa Parks? Don't see why you'd think that. Even before the last election there were a lot of police organizations that were supporting the registry (even if there was no hard evidence that the rank and file did.)

Ummmm... not really. You see, I'm starting to ignore your posts because they seem like they are just random junk with no real meaning. At least here you made a real claim, one that, of course, is completely false. So, exactly how many ways are you wrong? Lets see.. - Jerome Hauer was not involved in renovating the World Trade Center. He was involved with setting up the emergency response center, but he was not involved in doing any sort of wide-scale renovations in the building itself. (The only renovations he would have been involved in were on one floor in WTC7....he would have had nothing to do with the 2 towers, or other floors of WTC7.) - Where exactly is your proof that the twin towers of the World Trade Center got any sort of renovations (directed by Hauer or anyone else) in 1998/1999? - How exactly do you think Hauer could have actually managed to plant the tons of explosives needed to bring the buildings down without a lot of help? I'm talking dozens if not hundreds of people running through the buildings, carrying tons of explosives

Unfortunately, those that favour some sort of master Criminal theory orchistrated by Cheney or some shadowy group don't realy do anything to bring 'informed discussion' to the thread. Look how often I've asked for some sort of overall description about what happened on 9/11. NOT ONE conspricy theorist has bothered to try to respond in any meaningful way. Not exactly new.. these same type of arguments have been put forward by conspiricy theorists since day 1, and they have been soundly debunked. I've highlighted the most important word in the above statement... he said it was like a firecracker. Whenever people experience something out of the ordinary, they tend to put it into terms they can come to grips with. For example, anyone caught in the north tower when the south tower collapsed would probably claim they felt shaking and something that sounded like an explosion. And why wouldn't they? We see a lot of explosions (on TV, in the movies, etc.) Very few of us will here ever be near a collapsing building, so when we have the rumblings and shakings, we're going to try to describe it as somethig we know. Lets try to think logically about this, ok? - Notice that in all of this, you won't find anyone who claims they actually saw explosive devices - These testimonials also tend to lack a time frame. When you take a statement like "threw me 40 feet" without a time frame, is it referring to the time RIGHT BEFORE the collapse? During the collapse? When the planes hit the tower? Yes, technially there were explostions... when the plane it the building, the fuel in the tanks exploded. (I'm sure there may have been secondary explisions, such as from UPS batteries overheating.) None of this is any sort of proof of demolition. Oh, and here's a big question for you... when a building is demolished, the explosives are set off RIGHT BEFORE the building collapses. If you had all these people close enough to hear explosions and be 'thrown back' by them, then how exactly woudl they have survived? A demolished building collapses in less than a minute after detonation; anyone close enough to the demoltion charges would have been crushed.

and they also seem to be the ones that defend the Patriot Act in the US saying that if you haven't done anything, you've got nothing to sorry about... Isn't it also ironic that you're criticizing "conservatives" who would defend the patriot act, but seem to be supporting the gun registry which runs on pretty much the same principle? ("Register your guns, and if you haven't done anything, you've got nothing to worry about")

Having said that, the registry is now in place and the costs, according to the Auditor, are now manageable for the program. Well, I guess it all depends on how you see the word 'managable'. It is true that the Liberals instituted a cap of around $25 million per year, and hey, that is 'managable'. I have no reason to believe future costs will escalate more than that. But wht the Auditor general does is examines how money is spend. Even they will admit that it is not in their mandate to examine public policy. So, lets say that costs ARE $25 million/year. The salary of a provincial police officer in Ontario is between 44 and $81,000/year. Assuming police cost around the same in other provinces, the money spent on the registry could be used to hire over 300 police across the country. Personally, I'd feel a little safer with those extra police than with a list of guns that may or may not be up to date, most of which will never be used in a crime. (And for which much of the same benefit could be obtained by simply handling FACs better.) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Life/Ontario+...5470/story.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006/812.pdf Heck, if you really wanted to save lives, if the money for maitaining the registry were put into health care, they could double the number of MRIs in the country in less than a decade. I never said they were. (Although who knows how many cops would be happy to see them go, but just won't say so because they know it would never fly.) I used that as just an example of how we, as a society, are willing to give up a little of our potential security because we do not want to give up certain freedoms to the police. There is a major difference between cars and guns: A: If someone has a firearm, very few people if any will ever see it (compare that to the average automobile, where I will encounter hundreds of drivers on a daily commute.. the fact that I encounter more people means that more control is needed), B: there are a lot more crimes committed using cars (especially if you count traffic offences) than with guns. MOST gun owners will never use their firearm to commit a crime. Many (probably even a majority) of drivers will, at some point, break the law with their cars (even if its just a speeding ticket.) Well, here's a suggestion... why don't you do what I do, and actually wait for any evidence to be provided? Now, Garry Breitkreuz (the MP most eager to scrap the gun registry) has some stats on his site suggesting that he does have polling information suggesting 'rank and file' cops are against the registry. (Granted, I can't blame you for being skeptical, given his bias and the fact that some of the data is fairly old.) http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/990628.html Of course, something else to consider... if there IS a poll asking police about the gun registry, will the question simply be a "gun registry, yes or no", or will it be along the lines of "gun registry yes, or more funding for other police programs". After all, I'm sure some police might support the gun registry if its the only option, but if they thought the registry could be removed and the money spent on other law enforcement options.

Yet the government pursues drug users and ignores unregistered guns. If you want to argue that enforcement of drug laws under the Conservatives is an invasion of our rights, fine. I might even agree with you. But you (and the other parties in the House of Commons), by wanting to keep the gun registry, are substituting one form of government interference in our lives with another form. (If you really cared about freedom, maybe you should consider supporting the Libertarian party...)

You know, I'm quite sure that there probably have been some crimes that have been prevented/solved with the help of the registry. But that doesn't necessarily mean the registry is a "good thing". You have to look at costs vs. reward. The registry has cost over a billion dollars to set up, and continues to require millions of dollars to administer. Whatever benefit the registry has shown since then, its possible that we could have had a greater number of solved/prevented crimes if the money were spent in other ways (additoinal police officers, more equipment, DNA data bank, etc.) Then you also have the other issue: Even IF the police were happy with the gun registry, does their happiness outweigh the loss of freedom that individuals in society feel over the gun registry? (For example, I'm sure the cops could solve a lot of crimes if they didn't have to bother getting search warrants; however, most people probably feel that the risk of allowing warrantless searches isn't justified by the reduction of crime that would result.) The gun registry is a case where the government is interferrng with our rights (right to privacy among them), even if you think such an invasion is minor. Keep in mind that much of the 'vocalization' is not necessarily coming from the rank-and-file (who may or may not support the bill), but from various organizations who may not be accuratly representing the views of the citizens.

Well, I suppose it depends on whether the people involved consider it a 'bad' law. Here in the western world we do have a history of ignoring laws that are either unenforcable or in some way "wrong". Look at the number of people who are regular users of pot, even though its technically illegal. Drug laws are ignored by many people because they consider them A: silly, B: a waste of time, and/or C: an unnecessary intrusion into their lives. Some people feel the same way regarding the firearm registry.

A little perspective is in order here... As I pointed out before, many of the concessions on the part of the unions were not concessions at all... giving up a cost-of-living increase when inflation is so low doesn't really mean that much. As for executive pay...whether you think executives are overpaid or not, the amount of compensation they receive is such a small part of a corporation's budget. Ummm... here's the thing... in most places in Canada and the U.S., unions have an incredible amount of power and can easily shut down any auto manufacturer. In most cases, those manufacturers had a choice between either A: Accept a bad union deal, or B: don't produce ANY cars and go out of business. For many people, that's not exactly much of a choice. Its kind of like saying that ransom paid to hijackers means the people paying are "happy" to do so, whereas in many cases they're trying to select the lesser of 2 evils. If the workers were getting way more than they deserve, then they SHOULD be asked to give up more. (Average labour costs were 30% higher at GM/Ford/Chrysler than Honda/Toyota. If people at Honda/Toyota thought their wages were sufficient, why exactly should a Ford worker expect significantly more? Actually, I am against all unions. Its just that the CAW is especially vocal/problematic. You see, unions are a form of collusion/price fixing/monopoly. In ANY other situation, such activity would be considered illegal. (Companies can and do get charged if they make arrangements with their competitors to artificially inflate prices.) Yet when you have unions, you have a group of people providing a 'good' (i.e. their labour) where they are conspiring with other co-workers to artificially inflate prices. So why is price fixing a federal offence in one case, yet totally accepted by people such as yourself when you slap the word 'union' on it?

Nice to see you providing so much evidence to support your claims. That's right, you DIDN'T provide any such evidence. Lets look at some numbers, shall we? In 2007, the average labour cost for GM, Ford and Christler was between $70 and $76. The average labour cost for Honda/Toyota was $48. So, on average, the labour will cost around $25/hour more for unionized labour (around 34% more). Now, at one point I remember the unions claiming that only 7% of the cost of a new vehicle was labour. (I don't exactly trust their calculations, but lets assume they're correct). The average cost of a new vehicle in 2008 was $30,877. Applying a 34% savings to the 7% of labour costs means that, if everthing else were equal, you'd have to pay $740 more for an American car on average then you would for a Japanese care. Assuming you had 2 cars of similar sizes/features, to a lot of people paying $740 more would be enough to cause many people to buy the cheaper vehicle. That's the equivalent of getting free car insurance for a year. That would be enough to fill a standard gas tank with gas rougly 20 times. Now, how many people do YOU know who would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for product A than product B? Now, I'm sure that some people will use the claim "But its management's fault that they produce cr*py cars". Well, I've already admitted that management is not totally blameless. However, if labour costs were lower, then GM/Ford/Chrysler could lower the price of their 'cr*py' cars, and at least some people would be willing to give up a little quality in order to save some money. Sources for data: http://www.wheels.ca/article/28474 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...pecialGlobeAuto

First of all, you wouldn't happen to, you know, have any actual PROOF that the U.S. spent more investigating the Challenger than 9/11? You made the claim, now you have to support it. Secondly, lets assume you're right. (You're not, but lets pretend you are...) What do you think is harder, investigating the shuttle disaster where there is no first hand knowledge over what happened, or investgating 9/11, where we have A: confessions by the hijackers themselves, B: airline records, C: About a gazillion minutes of TV footage. You weren't misquoted... Once again... ALL THREE towers, INCLUDING WTC7, damanged surrounding buildings when they collapsed. WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint; it damaged neighbouring buildings. (I believe the reference I gave pointed out that buildings were damaged more than 70 feet away.)

Ummm... no. Science is not an ideology. Science is a way of discovering knowlege about the world. It involves building hypothesies, collecting evidence, and then accepting or rejecting the hypothesis based on the data presented. The fact that you would consider 'knowledge' to be nothing more than an 'ideology' reveals why exactly you don't seem to be capable of recognizing your conspiricy theory as bunk, and why you seem to be incapable of actually putting together rational thoughs on the issue. Since when did knowledge and expertise become 'prejudices'? When you go to the doctor, do you usually get a second opinion from the janitor?

references please Ummm... what exactly did you want a reference to? Here's a reference to a peer reviewed paper detailing the collapse of the towers (note: they are actually describing the strutural failure; they are not attributing it to explosives, death rays, mini-nukes, bionic cochroaches, or any of the other explainations that conspiricy theorists like to trot out.) http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf It was: A: written by people with an academic history in structural engineering (unlike most conspiricy theory 'experts', like Jones, who are writing about fields they have no experience in) B: appeared in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, a peer-reviewed journal, where any articles are reviewed by multiple experts in the field (who have no stake in the outcome) in order to ensure there are no major flaws in the article

Yeah, here's a commnet... Why exactly is most of the 'evidence' that conspiricy theorists rely on in the form of videos? Perhaps conspiricy theorists, instead of wasting time watching videos of documentaries and speeches by their favoirite 'believers', would be better served by taking a few remedial science classes. Meanwhile, while the average conspiricy theorist is wasting time watching videos, scientists and engineers are publishing articles in peer reviewed journals debunking the nonsense of conspiricy believers.