pap

I went twice. It was my eldest daughter's first ever vote, so I drove her and her mum down later. Quiet at 11:45 but chocka at teatime.

aintforever has consistently proven himself unworthy of any sort of substantive response. I only deal with original content.

Hehe. Nice one, mush. That's a score of 4. Try to step it up, if you can.

A few election predictions from Telegraph columnist Janet Daley http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100272641/my-completely-unscientific-prediction-of-todays-elections/

You're making part of my argument for me. The state of solidity is there only briefly, disappearing near the top of the building. After that, it's dust and some other debris, we're not dealing with one large object anymore. That's really a bonus argument. Even if it were one solid detached lump, how far did it have to fall? Where would it get the acceleration from to produce such crushing downward forces?

So we're back to dispersed mass suddenly being more destructive than intact mass? Are you seriously arguing that:- a) 15 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 95 intact floors underneath it? b) 30 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 80 intact floors underneath it? EDIT: just an answer to a) will do.

On a related note, anyone got any guesses on what turnout will be? Suzanne Moore will be out of a job if it bucks the trend, I reckon:- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/21/never-mind-ukip-electorate-anger-alienated

You're entirely entitled to your views, Tim - cheers for being gracious enough to allow me to have mine - even if your stats are a little off. This is an interesting graph of opinion polls from 2008. I'm definitely in a minority. I can live with that.

Its exactly the same. The twin towers were 110 stories high and the planes hit and weakened the structure at floors 95 (north) and 80 (south) - ie there were between 15 and 30 stories above the weakened floor - more floors in fact than in most of the buildings in those videos.

When every explanation demands an explanation, how strong is your point in the first place?

Complex character. Not sure whether he did more harm than good over the long term. He was the only one of Asquith's group that was happy about the war in 1914. "Winston alone remained buoyant". He started the blockade of Germany immediately, held in place until well after the war, which was eventually a key mechanism in getting the Germans to sign up to Versailles. On the other hand, he did call for the starvation blockade to be lifted in 1919, although that was arguably more to do with not wanting Germany to fall prey to Bolshevism in its destitution. As others have said in different threads, the Nazis could have been stopped when remilitarising the Rhineland, so in that sense, it's a huge shame that he wasn't listened to earlier. That said, he did terrible deals for Britain and the world during the war. It's not surprising Churchill coined the term "iron curtain"; he was responsible for giving most of it away to Stalin. Britain started the war as first power and lost the Empire. In that sense, he's one of the most disastrous PMs we've ever had.

I'm certainly enjoying the chaotic nature of the bolted-on embellishments. Take the weakened floors 15-30 stories down. Fire has a habit of burning upwards, so I'd be interested in the precise thermodynamic situation that allowed it to make its way down at least 15 floors in less than an hour, and somehow manage to get hotter than the origin of the fire. Perhaps it used the lift.

As opposed to your "no agenda" mainstream media, eh? Is Farage Hitler yet?

Ah, it's not really a contest. Neither myself nor Special K will walk away from this with our minds changed. Fair play to him and others for not being an arse when putting his views across.

You're being naughty on two points here. 1) You've chosen a lower floor. Fair play. You acknowledge this. 2) Every building in that video has explosives in it, strategically placed to weaken the entire structure.

Of course kinetic energy rings bells, but are they applicable here? If the tops of the towers were dropped onto the bottom intact from a distance, you've got a decent point. However, you're asserting that the top bits, which let's remember, were attached to the base of each tower, both built up enough acceleration to crush the rest. This is despite the fact that much of the mass exploded outward. Doesn't work for me.

badgerx16 has a point. Of course there is rubble. You still have exactly the same condundrum. Lots of small things inexplicably creating more downward pressure than one large, intact thing. The vast majority of those buildings were pulverised, though.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

That is of course, the amusing thing. The weight that was "dropped" was actually part of the thing it dropped onto, and had been since the buildings were constructed. So, to clarify - the official line is that the bottom of the building was crushed by the weight of its own top floors after they'd been rendered into dust. Sorry, but that's not remotely feasible.

Not much left, is there? Unsurprising.

Good question. I don't know, and the 9/11 community has been in paralysis arguing over the toss. Major theories include controlled demolition and directed energy weapons. The latter was scoffed at for many years, but now that directed energy weapons are actual line items of actual US Defense (sic) budget submissions, it has gained a bit of traction.

If you suspend the laws of physics, yes. You still have the bag of sugar condundrum to deal with.

Get your notebook out. It's junior science time at the minute

You'd assume wrong. The intact mass will kill you. The dust will disperse. Drop an intact bag of sugar on a tall glass, and the glass will probably break. Just drop the sugar itself, and it won't.