LOL... look at you trying to save face.

No, you started the energy thread because you were butthurt that you got kicked out of one already. You exist here to second-guess, mock and troll, so you're not fooling ANYONE here that you're suddenly making a good-faithed effort at nuanced discussion. You fraud.

Again:

Take heart, Gambool. You can inject life into your own thread by actually offering some commentary supported by a link from someone... anyone. We're all aware that you have no original thought of your own re: world affairs. We know you never create any threads of your own, but that you made this one (1) out of spite. Don't let it sink to the back pages!! Get in there and thrill us with your insight into the wondrous and limitless world of global energy production. This is your chance to knock it out of the park, after years of coming up remarkably short.

You can do this!!! You know, without Jiggs applying any of that tedious critical analysis or anything.

Gosh, this sounds a lot like "go kill yourself, bro." ... Different when you suggest it, I'm sure.

No, I admire your ability to soldier on through such an angry, miserable, wrongheaded existence. I personally wouldn't have the strength for it, I admire your tenacity

Yeah, I'm the one stumbling. I can find like half a dozen people that have posted the same thing - you're a coward who won't say or post predictions about what will happen.

You're a doomsday wacko yelling on the street corner, and even as time moves on you just keep yelling and moving your timeline forward always claiming disaster is right around the corner.

Oh please. You are projecting here just a bit. ...You literally exist here to troll others, which screams "angry and miserable." ... You couldn't BE more wrongheaded in your assessment of the energy paradigm, so I'd say you soldier on just fine yourself. Your pathology is showing. ...

Less focus on petty hatred towards others, and more focus on the actual issues you continuously fumble.

LOL... so you find verification by recognizing the sheep around you? I'm sure that reinforces most every aspect of your empty argument thus far. "Look!! All these people think like me!!"

And you're a tired and scared dude with far more at stake in this argument than you're willing to admit. Worse, you don't understand definitions that are the pillars of the debate, and that frustrates you to the point of this mod-troll post above.

Anyhow... Nope... Same timeline. Still 2015. Same as it ever was.

This is the part of you guys that fascinates me. That idea that you're so special and smart that you can see what 99% of the population can't.

Well, this "finance can solve anything" forum aside, I'd wager it's closer to 70-80% of the general population that think like you do, hired-wired towards good news and gumdrops and utterly allergic to the concept of sustainability.

Certainly in terms of people out there who, at the very least, recognize that the world has reached long-predicted limits, it's WAY WAY more than 1%.

Good try, though. And good job confirming that, yes, you do find all the verification you need by looking at the sheep around you.

First two pages ruined by kerowo/deuces. It's looking a little promising now.

Where are the Livra quotes?

Is hired-wired kinda like hower power?

Deuces, lady and gentlemen!

lol JJ. The argument you can't refute has to be hall of shame worthy, right? You can't give a shred of critical analysis so you run to the pack for support instead. More argument by lol authority. "I'm right cause you're a poopy head. Right everybody?"

W E A K S A U C E

Deuces, in your example if you remove the VW bug right against the wall - no other VW bugs will move. Is the same thing true if you remove the first story of a building?

Obviously my hypothetical is not meant to exactly parallel the buildings. I am trying to illustrate the principle of equal and opposite reactions (and apparently you are trying desperately to resist my illustration). Gravity exerts a force. A bug driven into other bugs exerts a force.

But stack the bugs on top of each other if you want to make it all about gravity in earnest. Pick up the 2 bugs on top and drop them on the others. Do you think the ones you drop are going to crash through the others and remain intact?

And if you want to make it more like the buildings imagine, instead of cars, uniform blocks of any composition and construction you want and any mass. Take the two blocks at the top, lift them as high up as you want, and drop them on the remaining blocks. What do you think happens? Do you think the two dropped blocks will remain intact while crushing through the remaining ones?

Deuces, you realize that different materials/structures have totally different mass, density, and failure properties?

Like we wouldn't expect the WTC to fall the same way a stack of cinder blocks, VW bugs, or pieces of paper would fall.

Given you clearly don't understand how gravity plays into this I'm pretty sure this point is well beyond you.

Can we assume the bottom bugs have been ravaged by fire and debris for the greater part of a day, and have a massive hole in their collective sides?

We are talking about the twin towers but I think you are referring to building 7. Building 7 collapsed in a different way, with some similarities. I don't know that this particular hypothetical is very useful wrt to understanding any aspect of building 7 collapse.

But if you were to do some random damage to the bottom bugs, you wouldn't expect the whole column to go down in free fall for any significant portion. You wouldn't expect, from random damage, simultaneous failings of supporting structures in multiple bugs. If the damage was enough to bring down the column, it would be by a failing here, a failing there, several connected failings at once perhaps but never system wide.

"September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] "


The second tower collapsed fairly early in the morning (around 10 I think) Spewing debris that slammed into tower 7, doing massive damage and igniting fires in the building. Those fires continued to burn uncheked until its collapse at 5:21. That is nearly 7.5 hours of uncontrolled burn, coupled with massive damage to one of the sides of 7. Treat your VW's to the same treatment for the same amount of time and then drop the top two. The top cars will do exactly what happened to tower 7.


Edit: Wait, I just re-read your post. Are you saying that the cause of the twin towers collapse was explosives and not massive damage due to plane strike?

If there really was planes that hit the twin towers where did they go?

Little background: part of the controversy over the twin towers falling is how (in the collapse of each twin) the top of the building above the plance impact site appeared to remain intact while supposedly crushing through the remainder of the towers at approximately free fall, including the overwhelming portion of the remainder which was not damaged. Someone tried to explain how this could happen with a hypothetical of someone standing on a tin can and crushing it (why didn't they just use and egg instead of can since even a tin can provides enough resistance to deter the free fall we saw). This is about the dumbest hypothetical ever so I came up with one a little more faithful to the actual situation- the VW bugs. So dropping the top bugs is just supposed to serve as a thought experiment for the top of the building falling on the rest, and is intended to illustrate that when things collide they tend to both deform if they have the same composition (which the portion of the TT above the impact site and below definitely do).

With building 7, you would expect an uneven crumble if the building was brought down with fire and random damage, although you wouldn't expect the building to come down at all due to fire. You would not expect the appearance of simultaneous failure of all support across multiple floors.

I'm saying that the cause of the collapse has yet to be explained to any usual, acceptable standard. My current assessment, based on some intuitive comprehension and some hard forensic evidence, is that the buildings could have been controlled down. There is no conflicting hard evidence to refute this. I do understand the intuitive objection to the demolition theory: planes hit buildings, buildings fell, nothing could be more obvious, STFU. For years I felt more or less the same way. But the intuition which attempts to explain more detail tends to see the possibility of a demolition. When you go deeper than the timing element of causation, intuition seems to favor demolition.

This isn't proof though. And the hard evidence is not beyond reproach either, though some of it is very solid. The claims of thermite being found at the scene are refuted only by speculation about the "chain of custody" of the sample. Supposedly it is way too likely that the scientist who claims to have found evidence of explosives could have loaded the sample. A Phd professor of physics at an excellent school suddenly becomes possessed by the spirit of a Batman super villain and tries to create national mayhem with a huge scientific fraud. That this is deemed a plausible theory could be why we are having this discussion instead of a very different one.

Deuces do you consider the possibility that your thoughts are flawed? There are psych studies that might provide the answers.

I love it when deuces tries to wrap his craziness is some sort of science.

Link to the thermite evidence?

Here is a summary of some technical debate over the buildings.

You can skip down the the section labeled "The Incendiary “Super” Thermite".
Also read the two sections that follow. This is a summary of both sides which is pretty concise and well written.

I love it when the kids attempt argument by labeling. It's actually crazy, if you're an adult, to think people don't see through that.

No, you are actually a crazy person.