I talked to Ladybug, she's decided to move on to greener pastures.

"Ant and Ladybug, sittin' in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G"

Give it up, ant. Nature frowns on inter-species relationships. Just ask my box turtle.

So, WHERE IS LADYBUG?!?!?! I miss her.

So, where's LadyBug?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ladybug, fly away home, cg' to 'ladybug, fly away home, cg, spider, flies, web' - edited by MINK

Haha, Ladybugs skit! http://www.videosift.com/video/What-Ladybugs-really-do-in-their-spare-time

Are new episodes still made after 2004?

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/ladybug-robot-cleans.html

No fireflies? Bah!

In reply to this comment by firefly:
Oh yeah, it's chock full o' ants! You have to protect all the eggs until the end of the stage when they hatch. Rival colonies try to steal them: so far I've seen regular ants, paratrooping ants, worms and ladybugs (who boot them off the screen), beetles (the "tanks"), and spiders.
Worker ants will repair damaged eggs, warrior ants will help you shoot.
It's a pretty standard mouse-shooter, shoot everything that moves, and get upgrades. Things get pretty hectic after the first stage. Your clicking finger will definitely tire out.
Didn't see any fireflies, though

In reply to this comment by ant:
Let me know if there are really ants in it.

In reply to this comment by firefly:
Aw, I missed the free giveaway time! But thanks for the link, I’ve downloaded the trial and will try it later…
I hope to see you during my visit!


In reply to this comment by ant:
http://game.giveawayoftheday.com/feelers-2/

Oh yeah, it's chock full o' ants! You have to protect all the eggs until the end of the stage when they hatch. Rival colonies try to steal them: so far I've seen regular ants, paratrooping ants, worms and ladybugs (who boot them off the screen), beetles (the "tanks"), and spiders.
Worker ants will repair damaged eggs, warrior ants will help you shoot.
It's a pretty standard mouse-shooter, shoot everything that moves, and get upgrades. Things get pretty hectic after the first stage. Your clicking finger will definitely tire out.
Didn't see any fireflies, though

In reply to this comment by ant:
Let me know if there are really ants in it.

In reply to this comment by firefly:
Aw, I missed the free giveaway time! But thanks for the link, I’ve downloaded the trial and will try it later…
I hope to see you during my visit!


In reply to this comment by ant:
http://game.giveawayoftheday.com/feelers-2/

gorgonheap, took the geek channel a while back, or created it, or something, I have never been there until today-fact of the matter is, I haven't been to my channel since I was coerced by another sifter, who chimed in here, but was too comfy in the fraidy-hole (and lifting the finger off the one on the bong), to come out and play-
I never understood, how geeks learned to relish in their enigmatic square-ness, instead of learning some practical skills-Like how to use a zipper, which fork to scratch with, etc., and none so more adept daily, than this one with the furries/PBS fettish.
This kid loves to make up for all the wedgies in gym class, when there is someone self-linking here, he ripps virtual asshole, like its going out of style, or at least not available to him, while behind closed bed-room door (mom's house), with his pals on Second Life. Oh wait. Sorry. Your a man. TeamFortress2, future sociopaths of America training camp.

Did I miss anybody??? Ahhhh...the mistress of ceremony, opera-glass Sheila, the resident queen of dead blogs, second only to ladybug, in her care for things birthed, and left to fend.(damn...can't find it now, it has a lovely picture of her in her raincoat, and her ass is not as fat as she wants y'all t'believe either......she is, in fact, the stick-figure opposite, which is perhaps why high winds, and disasters that come with getting blown away, excite her. I dunno, a weather blog, is excitement squared, and all the interesting folks DO seem to always be talking about the weather.
Rock and Roll will never die, but it will always insure, that she is in the #1 spot on the Videosift, like the only pimp at a hooker's convention, her job is waaaayyyyy to easy!

This was a real shebang folks, hope y'all all learned something from this experiment......karaidl, you have my vote for the saves, although we really should have developed more a symbiotic, double-team....I am simply not in your league, young goodman braun.

*nominating from days back, dotdude, as interim moderator, or whtevrthrfck that means, and to go and get me another one of these (points to vodkaand blueberrypomegranite thing)and for the best shots so far, well, you gotta do bettter than the crowd pleasing midget, who has reserve bigger than the one Gore sold, and the missle silo on e-bay with no bids and who can guess why, not to mention the flagrant abuse of easy to imagine, proper decorum, I am having a rollicking time so far, and there are those to my right and left left, who no doubt prepare before a job interview, by taping an adolescent's tee tee, in a prophylactic, to their inner thigh, hoping for the best, and a cute manager, boss, or overling....I keep the thought-gathering finger poised upon a period, always, thank you ladybug, ellipsis, is what it's called, and like all grammer, easily abused.....

http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/2007/10/ladybug-tock-su.html

You guys say lets debate, but as soon as someone with inkling of related expertise shows up to the party, you clam up...

The NIST report, which someone claimed had no physics in it..., can be found here

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm

as you can see if you download the pdf it actually does contain physics and hard data. If you get confused by the math let me know and I will help you.

This is very nicely done. And ladybug, I think this point blank answers all of your questions.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Damn, I am good. That's what a Ph.D. gets you these days, I guess. The ability to look it up.

I would like to answer your questions, but before I do...

Have actually read the report published by NIST?

If you haven't, then I suggest you do. It always best to absolutely understand the point of view you are arguing against. To date, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers that present evidence supporting a collapse due to controlled demolition.

I'd like to begin with the point where you seem to suggest, that the buildings are made entirely of steel.

"(forget the fact that these are, and still remain to be, the only 3 steel structures in history that have collapsed due to fire)"

This is not true, and you should clarify your comment. While this may seem a minor point, it is significant because it is the crux of your 5th question.

Onto the evidence:

♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

If this information is true, then I think it is remarkable on many aspects, and contrary to what a lot of people contend. It seems to me that these times are remarkably long, and in light of that I would encourage you to discuss these times with a certified demolitions or structural engineer.

For the most part, the detailed explanation can only truly be answered by detailed simulations, which actually have been done. I encourage you to go to your local library and do a literature search on ISI.

1-5 can be found in the NIST report, and other peer-reviewed articles.

I will address 4, briefly-

4. The answer is not remarkable. WTC7 collapsed because of proximity and momentum transfer (and subsequent events detailed in the NIST report). Rather then go on, you should closely read the scientific report put out by NIST. Before you do, you should also read the Wikipedia post of the subject, it is very well cited and will round out your perspective of the scientific research that has been done to investigate the collapse of the buildings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

If you are truly interested in understanding the nuances of the science behind the collapse, then you must be willing to subject your hypotheses to the rigor of science and evidence that implies something very different than what you believe happened. If you are not willing to test your ideas in a scientific way, then they are a belief. Unfortunately, I cannot argue beliefs only scientifically based points of view.

That said, if you have any further scientific questions, I would be more than happy to answer them or find someone who can.

Sincerely,

MH

In reply to this comment by LadyBug:

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

*anxiously awaits answer*

*promote - (ring ring) it's for you again LadyBug! Get the phone PLEASE!