zapatos

Unless you want to start using the energy.

Ok, I'm almost convinced. The thing that would have sealed it for me would have been if the government official who organized this would have made sure he was on the plane that hit the tower. That way he'd be above suspicion and wouldn't have to worry about being questioned.

Ok, then I'm back to my question in post # 13. What would have been the purpose of crashing a plane into the tower AND having a controlled demolition of the same building? If you could drop the tower with controlled demolition then crashing the plane into the tower was an unnecessary effort. Why not drop the tower with controlled demolition and use the plane for another target? And while placing explosives on each and every floor might be easy if you were allowed to do so, I would imagine that someone trying to do so surreptitiously on so many floors and not get caught would be exceedingly difficult. While most anything is possible, I just don't see these as credible scenarios.

The question I asked was not simply how to place explosives (which I imagine would be difficult in itself), but how to place them at the location of impact. If it was simply coincidence that the plane hit near where the explosives were placed I guess that is possible. But if the explosives were somehow to be used in tandem with the plane impact to complete the demolition of the tower (which I think Dave might have implying in post #8 with his picture), I'm curious as to how the parties involved could have managed to have the plane hit in such close proximity to the explosives.

Just trying to understand what you are contemplating could have happened here... What would have been the purpose of crashing a plane into the tower AND having a controlled demolition of the same building? If you could drop the tower with controlled demolition then crashing the plane into the tower was an unnecessary effort. Why not drop the tower with controlled demolition and use the plane for another target? As an aside, can you fly a commercial jetliner by remote control? Not something I've heard of before.

Can you describe a credible scenario that explains how the charges were placed at the location of the impact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain http://www.sciencemaster.com/columns/wesson/wesson_part_05.php

It's probably not too hard to explain any human begavior in terms of evolution. On the other hand, maybe we do some things because our parents taught us to do so. Tipping is not a world wide behavior. If no one told me it was expected I imagine I would only pay the amount on my food tab and nothing more. If it is due to evolution, why don't we tip the guy at the hardware store? I believe studies have shown that the vast majority, if not all, of the human brain is used on a regular basis.

Based on the visual evidence a plane struck the WTC and roughly an hour later the tower collapsed beginning at about the level of the plane impact. For the thermite detonations to be set prior to the impact there would have had to be accurate information regarding at what floor the impact would occur, the charges would have to have been set at that location, and the charges would have had to remain intact for an hour after the plane struck very near to where they were placed. For the thermite detonations to be set after the impact would have required moving them to the proper location after the collission, then carefully placing and detonating them, all within an hour. I would suggest the visual evidence is not consistent with a carefully engineered, controlled demolition using staged thermite detonations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor

What are you talking about? Traumatized? Were you traumatized? If so, you are the only person I've ever conversed with who has been traumatized because of 'societal preferential treatment of girls'. You mean he had the audacity to make a decision for himself? Well then of course you should abandon him in his time of need. And he should be shopping for new friends. I love when people who have no experience on a topic (in this case the quality of your life with and without offspring and with or without sexual relations with women) give me advice.

So what they need is some solution that will allow the use of large scale systems, limiting unwanted plants, to increase their profit. This is exactly what herbicide resistant canola has done for canola farmers. Of course there is a downside in that some plants have become herbicide resistant, but the cost of the problems this plant has introduced seems, at least for now, to be minimal compared to the positive impact of this GM plant. From my perspective keeping the benefits of the GM plants and doing risk mitigation on the detriments seems a good approach. I also wonder if there would be an outcry if someone had managed to genetically modify plants to resist herbicides using traditional breeding methods, which has been going on for centuries. Is the modification worse because it was done in a lab instead of a field?

http://www.ussec.org/resources/biotech/USB_BiotechCompendiumForApproval.pdf I could go on... I believe using new technology wisely in all cases is prudent. With all new technologies there is the potential for harm along with the good. But I'm not prepared to do away with mass transportation due to increased high speed accidents, or to do away with newly developed drugs because of potential side effects. To me GM seeds are similar; they offer many benefits along with additional risks. I'd rather minimize the risk than throw out the technology.

Extra weeds seems like a small price to pay.

The people who buy and sell goods are right and the people who steal the goods are wrong.

It seems to me that we are getting ahead of ourselves. It is not a question of whether to put more resources into cleaner energy using coal or to put those resources into developing minimally polluting energy production. It is instead, in my opinion, a question of the best method to reduce the impact of energy generated pollutants on the enviornment. Until we look at total projected pollutants using various methods and time frames we are not really in a position to argue which method is preferred. In the end, I agree we need clean energy production. But coal use is so large that using some resources to effect a small reduction in pollutants for a relatively long period of time until clean energy solutions are in place, may be better for the environment than using all resources to minimize the amount of time needed to put clean energy solutions in place. As is often the case the best solution may be a combination of the two. The trick is to find the mix which allows for the most efficient use of resources to minimize the impact to the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

In my opinion the main problem between the parties is that any particular political office can only hold one person at a time. If the Democrat is in, the Republican wants him out, and vice versa. And if you want to be voted in and the other person to be voted out, you have to show that you are different. Otherwise the incumbent may as well stay in. If the politicians were more concerned about America and less concerned with having a particular job the US would be in much better shape. Democrats and Republicans are very similar. The majority of both parties want tax revenue, job growth, a strong military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, low federal debt and deficit, fair voting, equality for all, a fair justice system, perks for their constituents, to stay in office as long as possible, etc. The difference is in the details, and the fact that only one person can hold office at a time makes them latch on to the details as if their political lives depended on them. Which they do. Dividing the country would accomplish nothing, and would be acceptable to very few. People change parties all the time. New people are born with political views that do not match their parents. You will always have a divide. The divide is just particularly nasty now. It won't be later. Just the normal ebb and flow of politics. It will probably get better as soon as people in both parties have a common cause significant enough to let them target their anger at it (extraterrestrials, disease, poor grammar, food shortages, etc.) instead of each other.

Maybe. And maybe we should all be rich. But we're not all rich, and people will be upset when they lose loved ones. Saying things 'need to be' or 'shouldn't be' doesn't change reality. I believe the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion. But in the spirit of cooperation... http://news.yahoo.co...-010853069.html I refer you back to post #24 where I listed several failed terrorist plots where presumably lives would have been lost, or at least their standard of living would have been lowered if the plots were successful. In addition, while I don't know much about terrorist organizations, the following, as well as others, are listed as defunct in Wikipedia: Islamic International Brigade Japanese Red Army Red Army Faction Red Brigades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_Italy

No, it doesn't matter to me either way. I won't know the difference. But it would matter to my family. I would be much more devastated if my child died because someone was angry that an artist I didn't even know drew a cartoon of Allah, than I would be if my child was struck by lightning. Hmm. Could be. Do you have any references to back up this assertion? Yes, I agree. It seems the amount we spend is exorbitant. What I find interesting is that since it is exorbitant, some people no longer seem to have empathy for those victims of terrorism. If this were a thread in the Medical forum and someone brought up a rare disease that only affects very few people living in a certain area, I don't think people would immediately criticize them for talking about it. If the topic is terrorism though, its "eh, quit whining and wasting our time, other things kill even more people!". Seems to me some are taking out their frustration for what they see as an outrageous response to terrorism on the victims of terrorism, instead of on the policy makers.

Maybe it is just me but I don't understand how being struck by lightning is equivalent to being randomly murdered. It is true that the end result is a dead body, so I get that part. What I don't get is how people see no difference in the means to the death. If a kid riding his bike is hit by lightning people don't really get mad, they get sad. If a kid on a bicycle is hit by a car and the driver was distracted by a cell phone, then the driver will likely be punished in some way. If the driver was drunk and should have known better, the punishment would be more severe. If the driver had followed the kid home from school, knew where he would cross the street, then sped up and purposely hit him, it would be worse yet. And finally, if the driver had first sexually tortured the kid before throwing him out of the car and running him over, in many US states the driver would be facing the death penalty (if he lived that long). So none of those means of death matters more to you than being hit by lightning? Like I said, maybe it's just me.

I'm curious about this one. If unintentional, why still carry a severe penalty?

Interesting pedantic discussion, but I don't believe Americans hate a government concept that has never been tried or achieved. I think the OP is referring to the form of government most Americans think of as communism as practiced in countries such as China and the Soviet Union.