eric1978 Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 That is hilarious. You have no logical answer so you belittle my point by making fun of my grammar. Not surprising. I try to not bother arguing with you as much as possible, because your forcefield of denial is impenetrable...so it's not really worth my time responding. Needless to say, you calling me dense in a sentence written at a 3rd grade skill level struck me as too ironic to pass up.
flytyer57 Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Really, because I've heard that the twin towers were actually built poorly and highly criticized by engineers at the time of their construction. But I could always be misinformed. According to one of the designers of the World Trade Center (WTC), the towers were originally designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707; There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
flytyer57 Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 That's a ridicules comparison. There are 442 plants in the world to date. How many have been attacked? There are 104 in the US, again how many have been attacked? Even those built before the present threat are easily protected. It's interesting that while we are humping over windmills and solar panels that will need to go on forever across the countryside to supply us with a partial answer to renewable energy, China is building nuclear generating plants all over their countryside. You can't store AC energy and a nuclear plant can meet demand on a sunny, windy day or a cloudy, quiet day, even during the night. Maybe, just maybe, if we can get our government out of the pockets of big oil,coal etc., they will get into funding renewable energy sources that will make us able to use wind, solar etc. efficiently instead of giving their greedy contributors tax breaks. Nobody is saying it's gonna happen overnight, but it's gotta happen. Just lose the "Rushbeckian" fearmongering for a minute and think about it. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
gotmuddy Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I try to not bother arguing with you as much as possible, because your forcefield of denial is impenetrable...so it's not really worth my time responding. Needless to say, you calling me dense in a sentence written at a 3rd grade skill level struck me as too ironic to pass up. What forcefield of denial? I said in the last thread that it is possible that man is changing the climate. That is the leftist's M.O. everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
troutfiend1985 Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 According to one of the designers of the World Trade Center (WTC), the towers were originally designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707; I know that, but I'm reffering to his peers. May be a monday morning quarterback move, but I do remember a lot of people crying foul about the desgn structure of that building. No need to split hairs though as I know where you are coming from. “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Maybe, just maybe, if we can get our government out of the pockets of big oil,coal etc., they will get into funding renewable energy sources that will make us able to use wind, solar etc. efficiently instead of giving their greedy contributors tax breaks. Nobody is saying it's gonna happen overnight, but it's gotta happen. Just lose the "Rushbeckian" fearmongering for a minute and think about it. Show me where big oil has a measured concern about renewable energy. Why would they be concerned with an industry that they don't currently participate in? Do you know of a generating plant that runs on gas or diesel? If they had their way we would be using Natural gas, something they do have some interest in and that is cleaner than coal. You and others just cop out by blaming a radio commentator or a political party, but you can't back it up with facts. Neither party to date has come up with a viable plan that isn't based on $$$$$$$. I don't have a Rushbeckian fear because I don't listen to him, not that I have any problem with him. After all he has the same rights under the first amendment that you do, even if you would like to abridge them I'm a big boy and I can do my own research without his help. I have many reasons to doubt wind power and solar, if for no other reason I like to have electricity through the night. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I know that, but I'm reffering to his peers. May be a monday morning quarterback move, but I do remember a lot of people crying foul about the desgn structure of that building. No need to split hairs though as I know where you are coming from. They were, but not the 767, unheard of at the time. They were also a unique design, something that is left out by most theorist. One of the reasons that nuclear plants take so long to build is because of all the safety and quality control steps. One of the controls is a massive containment cap to keep it all in, and as a by product, keep things like pesky planes out. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
kevthebassman Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 With regards to nuclear power stations being the target of terrorist attacks, I don't think that will be a serious threat. Smart design of the power stations and the current level of security around them (which is impressive) ought to be enough. If and when we start building these, and use the power to solve our dependence on petroleum, we can pull our troops out of the mid-east. Once we've gotten our big darn noses out of their affairs, there simply won't be the seething anti-American sentiment in the region that makes recruitment of suicide bombers possible. Look at history. We've only had a problem with Islamic terrorism since we've had troops there. An energy-independent America will be a stronger America. There's no arguing that fact. How we get to that point is the problem. If we didn't have government, whether driven by the lunatic environmentalists (as opposed to sane environmentalists, which I count myself as) who oppose anything that isn't powered by unicorn farts and pixie dust, or government driven by money from lobbyists for big oil and coal, standing in the way of progress, we could have the problem licked. Which is not to say that I don't believe that the government doesn't have a part to play in driving this forward. I'm just tired of seeing the leviathan of lazy and irresponsible government standing athwart the road of progress.
flytyer57 Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Show me where big oil has a measured concern about renewable energy. Why would they be concerned with an industry that they don't currently participate in? Do you know of a generating plant that runs on gas or diesel? If they had their way we would be using Natural gas, something they do have some interest in and that is cleaner than coal. You and others just cop out by blaming a radio commentator or a political party, but you can't back it up with facts. Neither party to date has come up with a viable plan that isn't based on $$$$$$$. I don't have a Rushbeckian fear because I don't listen to him, not that I have any problem with him. After all he has the same rights under the first amendment that you do, even if you would like to abridge them I'm a big boy and I can do my own research without his help. I have many reasons to doubt wind power and solar, if for no other reason I like to have electricity through the night. You need to go back and reread what I wrote. I never said anything about big oil having a measured concern with renewable energy. They should though since their livelihoods are at risk when there is no more oil. As for the "Rushbeckian" comment, I'm trying to get you to lose the attitude that is so outrageously demonstrated by the likes of Rush and Beck saying that if we go to "renewable energy" it would destroy the economy and bankrupt the nation along with killing all the jobs... There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
gotmuddy Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 As for the "Rushbeckian" comment, I'm trying to get you to lose the attitude that is so outrageously demonstrated by the likes of Rush and Beck saying that if we go to "renewable energy" it would destroy the economy and bankrupt the nation along with killing all the jobs... have you ever listened to beck? everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
Recommended Posts