>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.


Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.

I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

It's still all about the missing link, which has never been found. You have a lot of theory and speculation, but you would be surprised how much science takes on faith about evolution, and these discoveries. Entire societies have been fabricated from the find of a single tooth! Or an armbone..but there is no real proof, which is why science still desperately searches for the missing link that they'll never find.

I'll get back to you on the information question because I need to read through the articles..but even if there was some process for it, how do you get from inanimate material to life? Here's a quote:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747

it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.






>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.


>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.

>> ^deathcow:

the #1 video slot is explained by the brake linings, which are made from pure kittens


That WOULD explain it...

Congratulations! Your video, Testing the brakes on a new Boeing 747-8, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 26 Badge!

http://videosift.com/video/Handful-of-Errors-added-up-to-6-5-million-Tsk-tsk-Boeing

vote for this puppy to clear my queue, and I shall share!

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
If you post it , they will come. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soAk3F0wX9s&feature=player_embedded#at=124

Flight test pilots have an amazing amount of courage and certainly earn my respect:

Here are some videos of the legendary Tex Johnson:

Tex Johnson rolls a Boeing 707

Tex Johnson on test pilots

>> ^critical_d:

That's nuts...the brakes were glowing hot!


That happens on cars too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_VeBU1OGj8

Of course this is much bigger.

Your video, Testing the brakes on a new Boeing 747-8, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.
But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?
You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.
Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.


Why would he go on record stating one thing then suddenly change his mind years later? Why state tests were done considering a full fuel load, then all of a sudden he says "...then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered."

And why would you say they only tested at landing speeds (180MPH) when the quote I posted clearly states 600MPH. Which is it? Was it landing speed 180MPH, or what he said years earlier 600MPH? It certainly can't be both. Why would he also state the the difference between 12,000 gallons of gas and 12,980 gallons of gas enormous? That's far from enormous.

You are right. Now everything he has said is suspect and not to be believed. Disregard every post I have posted with his quotes in them now. And I'll do the same with yours. Thanks.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.


He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.

But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?

You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.

Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.


And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm... Also how did Demartini say ANYTHING after the attacks He's DEAD! He DIED in 9/11!!

As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.


Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?



Really? Again:

Statements by Engineers

"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Wow a few months before. Yup that discredits his entire statement. I better disregard it entirely. And perhaps since he's dead it would be kind of hard to make any further statements on the subject.

Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?

Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@Duckman33
Are you serious? That quote says the building would withstand the collision. The buildings did withstand the collisions. How is that supporting your argument? You can't just throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks, pick a cogent argument or there's no point in even trying to debate.


"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

Yup. that's exactly what it says.... No mention of jet fuel or the fires from it whatsoever. Again, you're right and they are wrong

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^MaxWilder:
1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.also when the constructions of WTC started in 1960's, the largest plane was something like 727, if not even smaller, and that's what the designed were accounting for. A logical situation for a plane hitting such tall buildings would a plane lost in the fog coming down for landing..
757 is a much larger plane, fueled for cross-continent flight, and smashed into WTC going much faster than it would normally fly at such height.


As I posted above and you seemed to ignore. This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

And:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."