kimmy

And my "Alberta Liberal Party Headquarters" profile picture. -k

I'm not sure about mental hospitals, but I think that the way these kinds of theories keep popping up must say something fundamental about the human mind. In ancient times there were all sorts of fanciful mythologies developed to explain the natural world. Later, the organized religions that now dominate our world, and in particular some of the adherents of those religions who are so influenced that their entire lives are focused by these beliefs. And then there are the "new age" beliefs... people who believe that they can perform magic, obtain energy from crystals, and so on. Long-time readers of MapleLeafWeb know that we get occasional visits from fervent believers in NESARA. And orgones. And chem-trails. And on and on. So ... why? What draws people to these ideas? People seem drawn to the unobservable, in forms ranging from the merely far-fectched to the fanciful to the strange to the demented to the utterly ridiculous. Is it built in? Hard-wired? Does our desire to build these mythologies and cling to them serve some sort of biological purpose, like a role in building tribes? -k

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Typical. Your conspiracy site left off the most important part of the question: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?" I'm among the 84% who believe they're lying about how much warning they had, but that's a long way from believing "it was an inside job." His popularity doesn't prove he's right about anything. All it proves is that there's a big market for nonsense, as Bill o'Reilly and Ann Coulter have been proving for years. What else am I behind on here.... -energy to pulverize stuff? One of those basic math calculations I mentioned earlier showed the building coming down with far less kinetic energy than the potential energy it had when it was standing. The top portion alone, the portion of each tower that was above the plane impacts, would have potential energy equal to roughly 40,000 kilograms of dynamite, of which barely half is present as kinetic energy by the end of the crash. So where did the other 20,000 kg of dynamite worth of potential energy go? Pulverizing stuff. Apply the same method to the whole tower, and you'll probably find that potential energy equal to a small nuclear device has been spent on pulverizing stuff. -why is Down the path of least resistance? Because the towers were built that way. They had two metal frames: a central column that primarily supports the weight, and the perimeter structure that withstands lateral force. Remember the part where GostHacked was mentioning that the towers were built strong enough to withstand hurricane-force winds blowing against them? That strength, that ability to withstand lateral force, means that falling over to one side would have taken a huge amount of force to push it over to one side. When the central column lost its structural strength, Down is the path of least resistance because most of the structure that was to resist lateral forces was still intact. You guys persist on thinking of the tower like a tree where if you chop it on one side it should fall in that direction. But it's built a lot different from a tree. Bleh. It goes on and on. -k

Ok. So, PolyNewbie said... and I asked... and PolyNewbie responds... So, even supposing that the planes were remotely flown, you don't consider Bin Laden to have been directly responsible unless he himself was the guy remotely flying the planes? Like, even if he had subordinates travel to the US to carry out the attack, Bin Laden wasn't responsible because the operation wasn't controlled from his cave in Afghanistan? And aside from that, the assumptions you're making are what's ridiculous. The "stand down order" has been debunked. The "no plane hit the Pentagon" stuff has been debunked. "The planes were flown by remote control" is ridiculous on the face of it. You keep saying how it should be obvious to everybody who saw it that it was staged, and yet you can't seem to identify a single compelling feature and start going on about remote controlled planes and anonymous insiders who saw Dick Cheney that day and so on. What about this stuff do you consider "obvious" or even credible? When GostHacked posted some messages about how the WTC collapse doesn't match up with observational experience, I did some basic math (which should be easily reproduceable by anybody with a highschool education) to demonstrate why observational experience doesn't mean much in the face of a 500,000 ton building collapsing. To show that what's "obvious" isn't obvious at all in this situation. And then you jumped in and said "Well I am an Engineer, and I too have done calculations! Verily, there are at least 5 ways to prove that the collapse was a controlled demolition! Why, any cretin can see that the collapse violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!" And when I asked you to elaborate on any of this, you explained that you might be an engineer, but not a civil or mechanical engineer. And you declined to describe any of your calculations. Or enumerate the 5+ proofs that it was a controlled demolition. Or explain how the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves it was a controlled demolition. And you add that it doesn't matter that you can't do any of that, because "it's obvious!" what really happened. In response to debunkers, you've said "anybody who disagrees is obviously in on it!" In response to requests for plausible evidence you've offered theories about remote controlled planes and stand-down orders. In response to my request to justify your claims of scientific proof, you say that you don't need any because anybody can see that "it's obvious!" It's circular and frankly getting lame. -k

"We" have the seats? Which "we" are you talking about? Combined, Edmonton and its suburbs and Calgary and its suburbs make up 45 of the 82 seats in the legislature. -k

That's very well done. And, it jives with other observations. Those supermarket tabloids often have covers with "Caught Without Makeup!" photos, or candids of actresses at the beach or on the street, revealing that many of the beautiful young stars look remarkably *normal* when they're away from their aestheticians and makeup artists and hairstylists, and when their photos aren't being retouched. The lovely and talented Cameron Diaz has battled acne for years... google "cameron diaz acne", and you can find plenty of stories about her skincare "emergencies" and even the theory that HDTV will ruin her career because high resolution will make her every blemish visible. This season's most popular new TV show is "Ugly Betty", a comedy/soap-opera set at a glamour magazine patterned after Vogue. In the second episode, Betty almost loses her job at the magazine when unretouched photos of a young actress are stolen from her. In a scene similar to the Dove video, the actress sits at the magazine's photo-editing console, clicking a button and sadly watching as her image becomes progressively thinner and more distorted and finally vanishes. Anyway, thanks for posting the video, August. I liked it. Like Cameron Diaz, some of us do have skin problems; unlike Cameron Diaz, most of us don't have a SWAT team of skin-care experts ready to jump into action at the first sign of a blemish. -k

Some background material: Hasan started a thread about Orhan Pamuk last December, while Pamuk was on trial for "offending Turkishness": http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=4490 (for more on "Offending Turkishness", see this thread started by Betsy: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6607 ) The "hoax" of which Pamuk is accused of spreading, and the "insult" he has cause Turkey: "Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody dares to talk about it." -Pamuk The Armenian Genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide The official Turkish view is that there was no Armenian Genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide And so that's what Hasan is angry about. -k

For those of you wondering why this thread is in "US Politics," it's because IT'S A US GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY!! CLICK HERE for SHOCKING PROOF!!! -k

If someone feels more comfortable wearing a mask over her face when she goes out in public, I guess that's a personal perogative. If someone doesn't feel comfortable talking to somebody wearing a mask, that should be a personal perogative as well. I certainly never have (and never will) made any effort to approach or befriend someone who covers her face as a matter of daily habit. -k

We've gone from "the 2nd law of thermodynamics" to Bin Laden's living arrangements? Does this mean you're not going to address my questions about your (and Fetzer's) thermodynamics argument? I was really looking forward to reading that. As for Bin Laden's cave... why is it ridiculous? what doesn't fit the facts? Is anybody claiming that Bin Laden never left the cave during the planning, or that his allies never met him at his cave? In a country where the government had declared Bin Laden a "Hero of Islam", I don't believe there was any barriers to his movement in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, and his allies were likewise free to run their camps and travel about the country. What barrier do you see that would have prevented Bin Laden from organizing the attacks? Ha ha. Well, you've outed me. As a member of the shadowy Zurich Waitresses Coven, I'm not just spreading 9/11 misinformation, I helped plan the whole thing. Why? It's all about the greenbacks. With all the military spending since 9/11, and especially the rise in world oil prices, the right people have more money than ever before. Instead of a bunch of college deadbeats at my tables, now my customers are filthy rich oilmen and weapons makers. $4 french fries. $10 glasses of beer. And don't even ask how much the nachos cost. HAHA! Hahahah! It all means one thing: huge tips. Immense tips, in fact. For me and for other waitresses all over the world. That's why we did it. But now you know too much, and you have to die. -k

It sounds to me as though you've already made your decision. The idea of Ted Morton being Premier makes me want to puke because he represents the ugly side of conservatism-- flat earth policies combined with stone-age social views. Ted Morton is the new standard-bearer for the Byfield clan and other bible-belt neanderthals who've plagued politics in this province for far too long. He doesn't belong in the Progressive Conservatives, he should be in the Alberta Alliance or start up a provincial branch of Christian Heritage. His effort to "unite the right" in Alberta by bringing the "Alberta Alliance" cretins back into the fold is telling, as is Ted Byfield's unabashed cheerleading, as is the fact that the "Alberta Alliance" leadership is urging its members to buy PC memberships to support Morton's campaign. No way on earth will I stand up to be counted amongst those creeps. -k

So in other words, you don't really have any particular credentials on this subject. I mean, my dad's an electrical engineer, and he can't even put up a shelf. My special guy is also an electrical engineer, and while he's a lot handier than my dad is, I just spoke to him and he affirms that he has no particular knowledge of building skyscrapers. On the bright side, at least you're not a computer engineer... those guys can barely tie their shoes, in my observation. Still, when you use your Electrical Engineering degree to try to "big-man" me into accepting your expertise on a subject that you don't actually have any expertise in, it strikes me as a little dishonest. This is interesting... surely neither you nor Dr Fetzer (who being a doctor of philosophy is probably about as much an expert as most electrical engineers are on the subject of skyscraper construction...) are suggesting that the avalanche of rubble and dust had less or equal entropy to the standing skyscraper? If you can, please direct me to Dr Fetzer's explanation of how the collapse violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Because his explanation can't possibly be as lame as you make it sound. "Orderly and expedient" is a purely qualitative description and has no scientific value. A doctor of philosophy might (if he was an idiot...) look at the collapse and say "gee, that was awfully orderly." A doctor of physics would look at the collapse and see a vast increase of entropy in progress. A massive amount of potential energy was transformed into entropy (heat, sonic, seismic). Dr Fetzer says the collapse was orderly... I disagree. I think the swirling plumes and rolling clouds of dust, the flying debris, and the massive sonic and seismic vibrations are all evidence of chaos aplenty. Thermodynamics takes a beating in a lot of philosophical debates-- especially creationism and evolution-- and more often than not it's being used by people who don't actually know what it means to argue a point to other people who don't know what it means either. There are a number of different ways to state the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but I don't think that either you or Dr Fetzer can find a definition which states that a process that looks "orderly" is in violation of the law. (and further... whatever caused the collapse, the characteristics of the collapse don't change. If it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics whether it was caused by fires or by controlled demolition. Whatever secret ninja skills the Black Ops demolitions crews might have, you're not suggesting they can suspend the laws of physics, are you?) I think for myself, and I apply logic and critical thinking to every decision I make, and I judge my success or failure by how well I've applied that process, not by what conclusion I arrive at. I've just seen nothing compelling from these conspiracy theories to make me believe that it's the most likely explanation. -k

Well, I'm pretty sure I wasn't in on it, so I guess I must be unbelievably stupid, because I certainly don't see anything that I could consider proof that it was a controlled demolition. Are you just referring to WTC7, or were WTC1 and WTC2 also obviously controlled demolitions? Are the professors at Northwestern University, and the universities of Edinburgh and Sydney who put their names and professional reputations on studies supporting professional collapse also unbelievably stupid? The MIT grad students who did research on the issue? Or were they all in on it? Which branch of engineering? If you're going to go around trumpeting your credentials, your specific branch of engineering is an important detail, don't you think? And please outline some of these rough calculations you've done as well. I'm interested to hear. And please outline these five ways, as well. I'm curious to know if you've happened upon something that hasn't already been debunked. -k

It's a political issue because there is contention that people in the Republican party have known about his behavior for a long time and have tried to cover it up rather than taking action against him sooner. If that is the case, it makes the "values" talk seem like a lot of hot air. -k

I've used a number of different chat programs, and most of them provided some sort of option for archiving messages. It can be done if one wishes to. If a message was kept for this long, it's likely because the kid chose to keep it for some reason. If the messages were released at this time, there's a reason for that too. What reason would the kid have for keeping instant messages? Perhaps a blackmail or revenge scheme. But... does it matter? Foley wouldn't have been outed as a scumbag if he hadn't acted like a scumbag. If you're doing something that would be devastating to your reputation if it became known... there's a good chance you shouldn't be doing it anyway. -k

Because right now, the rule that priests must be "celibate" as a practical matter means simply that they are not and never have been married. There is no way to verify whether they've had other, unrecorded encounters. Thus, the far greater chance that you've getting perverts and pedophiles. That is some pretty convoluted reasoning there. There are just as many married creeps, adding them in doesn't really help. That strikes me as unlikely. Given a group of men who are married and have demonstrated sexual relationships with women, and a group of men who claim to be celibate and can't discuss their sexual urges, I've got a strong hunch which group is going to have more homosexuals, perverts, and pedophiles. Deliberately limiting your candidate search to members of that group strikes me as a likely way of hiring a larger-than-average number of creeps. -k

The fact that you make a new thread each time somebody (Jack Layton, Bill Frist, and now allegedly Gen. Hillier) mentions negotiating with the Taliban gave me the impression that you're cheerleading for the idea. If not, I certainly apologize. Very well then, clarify your position for me: Do you, or do you not support the idea of negotiating with the Taliban? I addressed this in your more recent thread. Click here for details. -k

I love how you people have all this insight into what really happened, all of it based on "well, it's obvious," as if everybody has a frame of reference to judge what's normal when towers get struck by airplanes. And how everybody who doesn't see it is "stupid". "Many studies have been done" ...are you referring to the NIST report, studies by civil engineering departments at Northwestern and Edinburgh and Sydney, or MIT grad student research, all supporting the conclusion that loss of structural strength from fire led to the collapse? Are those guys all stupid because they can't see that "it's obvious" how things really happened? Gosthacked earlier had some obvservations about how "it's obvious" that the rate of collapse of the buildings "proved" that the official story is false. I took a couple of minutes, and a sheet of scrap paper and a pocket calculator, and showed using basic highschool physics that the observational evidence people get from skydiving or dropping tennis balls off of their garage doesn't apply to the WTC collapse. But this kind of thinking is exactly what's underlying most of the objections from you "it's obvious" types. -k

That Jonas Salk... he was a Jew. -k

A guy who saw a bumper-sticker on a rig and believe it's proof that a government conspiracy is at work? You know, there might be government conspiracies... but I doubt they advertise on trucks. The agreement of March 23, 2005 referred to in the thread is the "Security and Prosperity Partnership"... http://www.spp.gov/ ...which seems to be primarily concerned with "the war on terrah", not creating a pan-continental government. -k

Why would you attribute what Bill Frist or what Jack Layton says to myself? I bring you the news. You deal with it. Badly, it appears. Negotiating with the Taliban is a position you've been lobbying for for weeks. That's why I ask that of you as well as of Layton and Frist. You support the idea of negotiating with the Taliban, so I think it's completely fair of me to ask how much you're willing to concede in these negotiations. So how about, instead of dodging the question, tell us how much you're willing to barter when we negotiate with them. -k

At this point it seems logical to assume that many "moderate Afghans" (moderate is probably a relative term in this usage...) have taken up arms to fight alongside the Taliban, viewing it as the only viable resistance against the Western Invaders. At this point it seems as though our troops are fighting two kinds of enemy: the hardcore religious nutjobs known as the Taliban, and Afghans who just want the Western forces to leave their country. Many of these people would probably be happy to lay down their weapons if our troops would just go home. It would be easy to negotiation an agreement with them. But what about the other ones, the real Taliban, who won't be satisfied with anything less than the country being returned to the way things were in 1999? How do you negotiate with *those* guys? They don't have to concede any of their hateful ideas, because they know that "moderates" will fight alongside them to expel the invader, and they know that our political resolve is weakening with every casualty. We can only buy time for the Afghan government to establish the means to care for its citizens and maintain law and order. Western troops can leave Afghanistan when the country is in such a state that when western troops go home, the moderates are content, the Taliban hard-liners are a tiny minority, the Afghan government has the means to defend against them, and the Afghan people are content to support the government. -k

Ok, a couple of thoughts. First, since when is Bill Frist an authority on anything? American liberals consider Frist to be an idiot of the first order. Are you citing his opinion now because you think his opinion is valuable, or just that it conveniently agrees with your own? Secondly, what concessions are you (or Jack Layton, or Bill Frist) prepared to make to the Taliban to bring them into Afghan politics? You've seen evidence in this thread of what the Taliban like to do when they're not fighting for their lives. Certainly we know what the Taliban did when they had control of that country. So, what concessions do you think should be made to them? -k {head of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs killed for educating girls in Afghanistan.}

We shall see... I think the Conservatives recognize that achieving a significant environmental policy would be a major triumph. (their predecessors had years to do it, and accomplished... nothing.) I think they recognize it will likely be a factor in their political success or failure in the next election. And, they must recognize that "voluntary" anything is not going to cut it in the eyes of voters. Canadian voters want some kind of environmental policy. Even Alberta voters don't oppose the idea. Alberta leaders have attacked Kyoto, but recognize the popularity of environmental objectives with the voters and have argued that Kyoto be replaced with a "made in Canada" (etc etc) environmental policy. Albertans will accept a Conservative policy because (unlike Kyoto) it'll be a "made in Canada" policy. Other Canadians will accept a Conservative policy because (unlike the Liberals Kyoto implementation) it'll actually happen. -k

I'm arguing that *air resistance* was a negligible factor. The math I did earlier shows that as the weight of the falling object increases, the effect of air-resistance on acceleration decreases. Since the weight of the falling object in this case was so enormous, the effect of air-resistance becomes insignificance. We'll look at the resistance of the remaining structure next. I have verified it in a really fun way. Skydived a few times. We left at 10,000 feet. Pull the chute at 5000 feet. So in ~30 seconds I fell ~5000 feet in freefall. The wind resistance was not enough to hold me back, but collapsing on other floors below me might cause a slight delay in the collapse. Wind resistance did hold you back. You fell 1540 meters in 30 seconds. In a vacuum, it would take you only 17.7 seconds to fall 1540 meters. Your free-fall took almost twice as long as it would have if there were no air resistance. Everybody's heard the phrase "terminal velocity". That's the point at which the air resistance of the falling object is exactly equal to the force of gravity on the falling object. The falling object doesn't accelerate downward anymore, it just falls at a constant rate. So, how fast did the towers collapse, anyway? You said earlier that the collapses took 10 seconds. The NIST report says 12 seconds (source) Either way, they collapsed slower than freefall. The buildings were hit at .79 and .87 of their height, or roughly 330 and 360 meters of their total 417 meter height. A 50,000 ton object falling from 330 to 360 meters from a stationary start would take 8.2 to 8.3 seconds. (easy to calculate using simple kinematics formulas.) So whether the collapse took 10 or 12 seconds, it came down slower than free-fall. If you use the 12 second collapse, the rates of acceleration work out to 4.6m/s^2 and 5m/s^2 If you prefer the 10 second number, the acceleration works out to 6.6m/s^2 and 7.2m/s^2 Either way, it's significantly slower than the standard gravity figure of 9.8m/s^2. Since we've already dismissed air resistance, the only explanation for the slower-than-freefall collapse is the resistance of the remaining structure. So, it turns out that the strength of the surviving structure *did* slow the collapse, by a minimum of 26.5% to as much as 53%, depending which building and which time number you use. Inevitable question #1: "why wasn't the remaining structure strong enough to stop the collapse completely? It was strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above it, so why did it collapse at all?" Answer: the stationary case and the moving case are different. Home experiment: take a pane of glass out of your bedroom window. Put horizontally with supports at the corners, and gently rest a brick on it, in the middle. You'll probably find that your bedroom window is strong enough to support the weight of the brick. Probably even several bricks. Maybe even a cinder-block. But what happens if instead of gently resting the brick onto the window, you drop it? Uh-oh. That probably doesn't work very well. You probably don't have to drop the brick from more than a couple of inches for it to break through the glass. So why the difference? Well, if you gently rest the brick on the window, the window only has to provide force equal to the weight of the brick to keep things stationary. But if you drop the brick, even from a few inches, then to bring the brick to rest, the pane of glass has to absorb the kinetic energy of the brick. The brick has to lose all of its kinetic energy, and the only place for it to go is into the pane of glass. The pane of glass will dissipate some of the kinetic energy as vibration (ie, loud noise), and store some of the kinetic energy as potential energy (by bending.) Since your bedroom window is not very good at either of these things, this becomes a "failure mode." Like your poor bedroom window, the 77th floor of WTC2 would have had to absorb the kinetic energy of the object falling on top of it. In the case of WTC2, the object coming down onto it would have been a 50,000 ton box. Like your poor bedroom window, the 77th floor didn't have much of a chance of coping with that amount of kinetic energy. It vibrated (as evidenced by the loud sound and by seismic readings during the collapse) and it bent (as evidenced by its collapse onto the 76th floor...) and a snowball effect resulted as each successive floor faced that much more kinetic energy and had even less chance than the floor above it. -k