AngusThermopyle

I find Caribou to be quite a bit more gamey than venison, thats my opinion though. I personally enjoy the stronger flavour of wild meats, some don't though. I've known people who simply can't stomach the taste. We have a large meat packing plant just outside of town where some friends of mine work. I like that. It gives me access to a variety of different meats, Buffalo, Caribou, Ostrich etc. All at very reasonable prices (free).

As I stated earlier, I just don't have enough solid info to offer a definitive analysis of the event. What I can say though is that the collapse looked very much like a controlled demolition. If you watch the footage they didn't so much collapse as impload. What astounds me is that structures of this size could naturally collapse and cause so little collateral damage. Of course it could all be just as the official explanation claims. It just seems more than a little odd to me that these buildings were so easy to bring down. Especially the fact that they both came down in such a similar fashion, that seems pretty coincidental to me. Also strange is the fact that these are the only major steel structured buildings to ever be brought down by fire. The Empire State Building survived an almost identical incident and was not in any danger of collapsing. Keep in mind that the Empire State Building is far older than any of the WTC buildings. It all seems to be very odd given the information available.

There are things the U.S. government does that I disapprove of, there are also things our government does that I disapprove of too. I don't see that as reason to insult them though. If you look closely enough you'll find every nation on this planet has done, and is doing things that are questionable at best. The point I'm trying to make is that the topic deals with Chinese standards, or lack there off. That being the case I find it really is unnecessary to slag our U.S. breatheren in that manner. what it does is distract from the point you are trying to make and in large part cheapens anything else you say after that. I've known many Americans, have had American girlfriends, American contacts on a professional basis, American friends. In just about all cases I found them to be likeable people, very friendly. In fact a hell of a lot more likeable than the rabid Canadian type spouting their poison crap about others with a nauseating attitude of superiority. If you don't know any Americans perhaps you should try getting to know a few.

I always enjoyed The Merchant Of Venice. The Menace Of Virgins is really good too.

Buffalo has to be considered amongst the royalty of meats. I also like Caribou quite a bit, it's a lot wilder tasting though. The main draw back to Buffalo is the price, the stuff is ungodly expensive.

Higgly. A good part of your last post was based upon a hypothetical "if". If the U.S. were to become involved.... etc. As such it is irrelevant and adds nothing to the discussion. I stand by what I said, it was unnecessary to cast stones in the manner you did in your initial post. My next question to you is why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to ensure standards compliance for the rest of the world. In the final analysis it is the responsibility of the country producing the goods to ensure compliance is enforced.

I also enjoy a good bit o pork now and again. It's not my favourite, but it is very good. actually I'm a non repentant unashamed meat eater. I have a 16lb Buffalo roast in my freezer right now. I think I'll BBQ it with sweet potatoes, Cauliflower and Broccoli with cheese sauce, mashed potatoes, etc. etc. Then I'll invite some of the guys from work over, they'll just have to bring their own beer.

I believe it's a good sign for you friend. If they weren't serious they wouldn't waste their time with a third interview. I had three meetings when I took this job, not really interviews as such. It would only have taken two but my boss wanted his partner to meet me and form his own opinion. After the second time I knew the job was mine though.

My my! You do make a lot of false statements and present them as facts don't you? all steel buildings do not require fire proof insulation on the structural components. Show me the code where they state this a requirement please. It's certainly not in the copy I have sitting on my desk here. Our company specializes in steel buildings, it's what we do. Thats one reason we've been offered the job on the rings for the Olympics. we've also built a reputation as the guys who will take on the unusual and difficult jobs. We have so far never been required to install insulation on any columns, purlins or girts in any of the buildings we've put up. Neither have we to strip it from any we've assisted in bringing down. As for the question posed by another poster the answer is yes. Location is crucial, not only location but the composition of the earth where the building will be erected. For instance solid bedrock will affect both how the piles are built and also the size and depth of the piles. In softer earth or shale one would use a greater diameter belled pile as opposed to a straight shaft pile. The grade beam can also affect the strength of a building. A shallow smaller grade beam will not give near as much structural integrity as a deeper wider grade beam. Riverwind, I never realized your knowledge of construction and engineering was so extensive. It possitively humbles me when I realize you are equipped with all these irrefutable facts that I've never heard of before. I'm going to have to contact all my fellow cronies and set them straight on the mistakes they've been making all these years. It'll suck to have to go back and install fireproofing on all those steel buildings though. Gonna have to get the codes changed as well.

Thats a rather large assumption on your behalf. Actually in my case, even though I find at times you do make very valid points, I tend to skim them at best. Not because I find them to be of no value, simply because I find the confrontational tone to be very distasteful to me. As I originally stated, I'm merely curious as to why you choose this approach, it's probably a misconception of mine but I get the impression you may be angry about several issues. As I said, it may just be a misconception on my behalf. If so, I apologize for potentially offending you. Oh, by the way, I wear glasses. As such I do tend to have my vision checked on a pretty regular basis. Thank you for your concern though, it made me feel all warm and fuzzy.

On this one I have to agree with M.Dancer. I noticed the rather pointed slur directed at the U.S. when I read the post. I wondered what poor Chinese quality control standards had to do with America. All nations have both faults and strong points, if relevant these should be mentioned, in this case however I find the statement made was totally irrelevant. With manufacturing moving more and more to third world/emerging countries I believe the issue of standardization will become more immediate and at the same time far more difficult to achieve. Keep in mind also that many times associated problems can be laid at the door of an individual, not so much the standardization organization. Any and all regulations are only as good as the effort to comply displayed by the individuals involved in the implementation of these regs. I must admit though, the Chinese method of ensuring compliance is rather extreme e.g. execution or suicide.

Also good for many others across this country. I intend to buy a couple of houses in Sask, You can get a nice house in that province for about $4000 to $8000. In the near future I intend to buy a couple of them at least. I can see it going the way it has in Alberta actually.

I have a question for BC2004. It really has nothing to do with the topic, I'm just curious. Why do you despise Canada so much? After reading a great many of your posts I can see that you harbour a great deal of contempt and scorn for your Northern neighbour. Almost everything you post has a derogatory tone to it. Honestly, I don't think it helps you get your point across very well. As I said, I'm just curious.

It's rather difficult to come up with evidence when that same evidence was whisked away at amazing speed and melted down as scrap in China don't ya think? Speaking of which, I must give credit to the guys who did that job, they were fast, really fast. The speed with which it was done would certainly impair any efforts to analyze the debris. As I said, I'm not going to put forth a theory on the collapse, I don't have enough information to form a truly informed opinion. What I will say however is that there are a lot of factors that just don't make sense. Something is definitely not right about the whole damn thing, too many unexplainable events.

I do see what you are saying however I think you aren't quite getting what I'm saying. In order for buildings like the WTC to collapse the way they did through the impact of a modern mid size jetliner you would have to have an impact force many times that delivered by the mass of the planes. they would also have to impact the structure at several levels from all sides You would also have to accept that JP4 or JP5 on that day burned with a thermal rating far beyond any previously recorded temperature. Given that one plane struck each structure those buildings should not just have dropped to their basements, they should have started to lean in the direction of the strike where the heat would be most intense. A heat that simply could not be generated by Kerosene or burning office dividers and desks. However, supposing that by some miracle the total BTU value of plane and fuel was sufficient to melt the support columns, the buildings should still have fallen in the direction of the impact. Thats basic thermo and physics. Partisan belief and conviction can be admirable, but they will never trump an honest analysis of the physical truths. There are certain immutable laws that govern all of us and no amount of wishing will make them go away.

Okay, i can see now you just don't get it. Buildings don't just fall over, they don't just naturally collapse into their own footprint either. Buildings fall down according to their structure. One building may have a main support structure that is symmetrical with other structures attached at asymmetrical positions and angles. This building would not collapse in the same way that a simple multey level box type building would collapse. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not offering up any opinion on the cause of the collapse of the WTC, you seem to think I am. I don't have enough raw uncontaminated data to do that, all of that that stuff is classified. To be honest, my life is busy enough already, I don't have time to obsess over who actually brought down the towers, what I am saying is that your statement about buildings collapsing into thier own footprint naturally is a false statement. Can you refute what I say? Can you show me some credentials you have in order to make what you said an informed opinion or merely a personal opinion based upon second hand sources? Are you now going to deny having said that? Are you going to make me do that tedious quotation thing just so you can ignore what I bring up? Just admit it, you really don't know much about how buildings go up, or conversely, how they're brought down. In that case I'd say your opinion is based on second hand knowledge, not on first hand experience. Don't you agree?

Actually, what I said was that your statement about buildings "naturally collapsing" into their own footprint was incorrect. Just a question inspired by curiosity, how many controlled/uncontrolled demolitions have you been involved in? Must be quite a few if your response and authoritative tone are any indication. As I previously stated I'm in the buisness. Not that it's any ones buisness but the position I hold is multi faceted. I act as Safety Officer, Purchasing Officer, Special Projects Manager and lastly, Company Geek. Our next big Special Project involves erection as opposed to demolition. We've been awarded the contract to fabricate and erect the Olympic Rings for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. We aren't sure yet if we want this project though. The rings will be suspended 300' above the harbour and we'll build both them and the support tower that will arc out over the harbour. Now we just have to decide whether we want it or not. Sometimes I think we should take it, other times not. As Special Projects manager I would certainly be intimatlly involved in this one. We're not sure if we want the hassle of dealing with the media for one thing since we've been told Discovery Channel will be doing a special on it. We are not actually a demolition company per se, however we do work intimately with such companies on a fairly regular basis. Often the demolition and construction guys have to work hand in hand on projects in order to avoid costly mistakes. So, I do have more than a passing familiarity with the demolition trade. As I said earlier, your statement was false. Please do not try to obfuscate the statement in question.

Actually you are wrong on that one. Buildings do not naturally collapse into their own footprints. How do I know this? Could it be because I'm in the buisness? Why do you think demolition companies work so hard to achieve just this affect? I have been present at both controlled and uncontrolled demolitions. If a building collapses without carefull planning it does not do so in a uniform manner. Factors such as piling depth, rebar size and frequency of/various materials used in the construction of the building will all affect the collapse to varying degree's. I've seen a few buildings that have come down due to poor engineering and or construction work. They tend to spill quite far when they collapse and always leave extensive sections standing or intact. I've always wondered why those buildings came straight down, in fact, when I first saw them go down my first thought was "controlled demolition". I don't think your experience with these matters is very extensive judgeing by what you posted.

Actually ClearWest, that statement is not entirely accurate. There are numerous examples in existence already of products that do not have to have ingredients or contents listed fully. The public has stated a desire for the ingredients of these products to be disclosed fully for quite some time now, to no avail. One example would be the ever unpopular cigarette. Companies are not compelled to publicly disclose the contents of cigarettes by law. The reason being trade secrets, if you look into the WHMIS system you'll find quite a few products that are covered by this act.

This is an example of highly specious logic. In effect it appears that you are saying since mistakes were made previously it justifies the mistakes being made now. As for sanctions supported by Canada, that has very little to do with the previous posters point. On the other hand, the argument advanced by the previous poster was also dubious as to it's validity. In other words, the previous posts both show themselves to be of suspect value in the context used.

I'm a bit of a movie nut, I generally watch a movie every day, on weekends more like three or four. I've seen both movies under discussion and enjoyed them both. Niether one will go down in history as ground breaking efforts to advance the art, but both have positive merits as well. They're just visual stories folks, nothing more than that. Distastefull? I just don't see that . Death Of A President deals with a very real concern actually. It touches on a present reality, the fact that many many people dislike GW and have valid reasons for wanting him dead. As for Borat, it's nothing more than satire. In fact it does have some pretty amusing moments. I liked the Anthem singing part as well as the "traditional wedding sack". If you want a good movie then try anything with Anthony Hopkins, you just cant go wrong with that guy. He's a superb actor who has the ability to make you actually believe in the characters he portrays. You wont see him playing the part of the gay cowboy in love. Incidentally, parts of Broke Back Mountain were filmed here in this town where I live. Such a shame that my little town's claim to fame is a steaming pile of dung passing itself off as fine cinematic art.

I honestly can't answer your question as regards people moving, I would never presume to know their motivation. As for population density I merely commented that I don't think a greater population has much to do with overall quality of life. Since the topic deals with easychair's impending move to Calgary, which is in Alberta I don't think your ramblings about employment in the rest of Canada are very relevant at all. Have you been to Alberta? If not then it's a little presumptuous of you to imply that there is a lack of natural beauty in this province. Don't you think? Of course there is beauty across the entire North American Continent. Only a fool would attempt to deny that. I simply cant understand your desire to take a simple factual statement and turn it into a pissing match akin to that heard in a schoolyard. I wont argue the point with you however. I'll agree instead. You're right, there is no work in Canada, everyone is homeless and as for beauty, you're right again, this place is a real shit hole. Happy now?

Actually I live in a province where they are crying out for workers. So much so that they now plan to fast track immigrant workers. Here in Alberta we have buisnesses closing because they cant find workers to staff them. Since Christmas I've had four job offers, offers meaning that I did not seek these jobs, people came to me and offered me the job. We've been turning down jobs because we don't have the man power to full fill them. One of our priorities is trying to find new employees we can use. I live in a small town, yet I could still find a job here within an hour maximum. But I guess you're right, no work around here for anyone, it must all be one big fat lie. You know, the whole shortage of workers thing. As for the whole U.S. has geographic diversity thing. When did I ever say Canada has more than the states? What I said was easychair would be moving to an area that is geographically beautifull and that Calgary is a city with lots of wide open green areas. Perhaps in future before responding so vigorously you should read a little more carefully. As for the homeless issue. I know the PC line is that they don't want to be there. I think however if you look at it a little more closely you'll find many of them are where they are because of personal choices they made. I'm sure some of them are in that situation because of circumstances beyond their control, but that is far from being all of them. Many are where they are because they choose to use debilitating drugs, because they don't like rules, they don't like having to be somewhere and perform assigned duties when required.

In answer to the question. No, We do not have the capabilities to assert our sovereignty against a world power. A positive start is the contract for the new patrol vessels. At least we'll be sort of visible with them. As for who has a legitimate claim to these area's I don't really know. After all, that really is the problem, no body knows. It truly is the last frontier on this planet. What i do know is that it's extremely rich in resources that we need (and in many circumstances require) as does everyone else. i can see this shaping up to be the next territorial dispute that will be hotly contested by the polar nations of the world. Not that the USA is a polar nation but I'm sure they'll need a big part of that particular pie.

I actually live that. Sorry if you don't. When I first moved here I came with nothing, I stayed at a friends house. I had a job the second day I was in town, by 4:00 PM actually. One month later I had found a management position with a good company. Since I've been here I've been accepted into the community and welcomed by most that I've met. Can I ask what is so hard to believe about that? Do you not believe that I live in a place with such geographic diversity and beauty?