Isn't that exactly what I just said? That regardless of how "hard" (the word is in quotations because I am not sure if semantically speaking we are working from the same definition of "more hours worked") someone works, the government is already taking a set amount? I've bolded your own words that mirror my own.

If the government takes a quarter of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/10th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/100th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

That was exactly my point and you seem to agree with it - the government is taking a set amount regardless of how hard you work, whether that's 15 hours a week or 40 hours a week or 80 hours a week. How "hard" (again, as in # of hours) someone works is irrelevant to how much the government is taking.

Your underlying assumption is that working more hours = more money, which is simply not the case for 1. all salaried employees in the workforce and 2. businesses that are subject to market forces/demand. How can someone work 80 hours a week if their business doesn't have sufficient demand/customers to even produce that much? That's like saying home construction workers/architects/building contractors at the trough of the housing crisis would have worked harder if only the government would lower taxes on their income. That's bullshit because home building and renovations/improvements were at record lows during that time.

Unemployment itself is a far, far bigger problem than lowering taxes if we're talking about average Joe Citizen trying to make an honest living.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.
This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.
Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.

>> ^quantumushroom:

1) Motive?
2) How does a conspiracy which would no doubt involve 100s of people keep itself a total secret for 10-plus years?


THANK YOU! They can't keep Clintons BJs a secret...how in the HELL are they going to keep this fucking thing a secret. It's absolute bullshit.

I didn't miss that memo, but after reading their opinions I decided to put more stock in the opinions of the other 99% of architects and engineers in the US alone who either didn't agree or didn't think the issue was worthy of comment.

You apparently missed the memo about the fallibility of professionals including architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers (especially), and accountants (see Arthur Anderson and Enron). There are just as many people wearing tinfoil hats in the professions as in any other field. >> ^Fade:

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:
@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

>> ^Fade:

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:
@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?



I suggest that those engineers and architects wouldn't simply be saying "hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire" and might not come under the scope of people i was referring to I would hope those people have a bit more to say.

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

was the wtc7 fire somehow magically hotter than all the other skyscraper fires that never resulted in a collapse?
Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

Why didn't this building collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

or this one?

http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

You clearly don't understand structural engineering so I seriously doubt you would have a firm grasp of rocket science.
>> ^Skeeve:

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.
So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:
I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.

So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.

This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:

I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:

A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Yes, the Sift is not ready for the TRUTH, what with reason and evidence getting in the way and all that.
But keep preachin' brother!

@marinara
It's one thing to know that stepping in in Libya to aid a grassroots revolt (while not doing the same elsewhere, e.g. Syria) is about oil, it's another entirely to suggest that the big evil guv'mint would take the risk murdering 3000 of its citizens for a 700bio$ in contracts. The terrorist attack on 9/11 was definitely opportunistically manipulated, but that doesn't make it a big conspiracy.


I'm still waiting... please share.

And for someone calling out lies to believe Libya was a "grassroots revolt" is hilarious. It's already been admitted that NATO had special forces on the ground from the beginning of the "humanitarian mission". The so called rebels were a bunch of incapable dumbfuks that were more interested in killing each other than taking on Gaddafi. Those damn conspiracy nuts were right AGAIN.

>> ^hpqp:

Yes, this definitely deserves the lies channel, just not necessarily for the reason the poster put it there.


Please, do tell.

>> ^marinara:

promote
Remember, we've spent 700 billion dollars on homeland security since 9/11. If you think that's not enough motivation (for a false flag attack) then you probably think we went into Libya for "humanitarian aid"


Thanks for the promote, but I'm afraid most people choose the blissful ignorance of illusion over embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality.

If they didn't do that, worse things would happen. Good job, high-rise building architects!

[edit] Can I rescind my vote? I've been duped!

http://videosift.com/video/Architects-Engineers-Solving-the-Mystery-of-WTC-7

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.

Forgetting for a moment Democrat Blarney Fwank was the Architect of the Housing Collapse...

Maxine Waters charged with multiple violations by the House Ethics committee from activities starting in 2004, refused to step down, re-elected in 2010, Ethics trial to start soon.

Charlie Rangel charged with multiple violations by the House Ethics committee from activities starting in 2007, refused to step down, re-elected in 2010, ethics trial since 2010, ongoing…..

William Jefferson charged with multiple counts of corruption in 2006, refused to step down, re-elected in 2007, convicted of multiple counts of corruption in 2009

Marion Barry charged with multiple counts of drug offenses and perjury and convicted in 1990, refused to step down, jailed in 1991, re-elected in 1994, still "serving"...

And don't forget Gerry Studds!

Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were each separately censured by the House of Representatives for an inappropriate relationship with a congressional page — in Studds' case, a 1983 homosexual relationship with a 17-year-old male.