News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Slashdot Log In
ArcherB (796902)
ArcherB
(email not shown publicly)
Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'
George Orwell
Modding down a comment simply because you disagree politically is a brown-shirt tactic. Down-modding just because you disagree is against the moderator guidelines. Why not post a reply, instead? "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
(email not shown publicly)
Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'
George Orwell
Modding down a comment simply because you disagree politically is a brown-shirt tactic. Down-modding just because you disagree is against the moderator guidelines. Why not post a reply, instead? "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Yes, Fire collapses steel structures
Monday April 30 2007, @11:21PM
"9-11 Truthers" say that there is no possible way that fire could cause the support beams in The World Trade Center to weaken, causing the buildings to collapse. On April 29, 2007 in Oakland California, a tanker truck hauling gasoline wrecked and burst into flames. Fortunately, no one was killed, but the resulting fire weakened the support structure of an overpass causing it to collapse. This, according the the truther argument, is impossible.
Of course, jet fuel is not gasoline. Jet fuel is much like diesel, it burns much hotter and slower than gasoline. Also, the Boeing 767 has a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons of jet fuel. The tanker that crashed in Oakland had 8,600 gallons capacity.
Any truthers (other than Rosie, of course) care to take a stab at this one? Is this enough to make them say, "Hey, maybe planes did take down the WTC", or did the government secretly blow up the overpass to prove the truthers wrong?
Of course, jet fuel is not gasoline. Jet fuel is much like diesel, it burns much hotter and slower than gasoline. Also, the Boeing 767 has a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons of jet fuel. The tanker that crashed in Oakland had 8,600 gallons capacity.
Any truthers (other than Rosie, of course) care to take a stab at this one? Is this enough to make them say, "Hey, maybe planes did take down the WTC", or did the government secretly blow up the overpass to prove the truthers wrong?
Moderator Guidelines
Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:51PM
From HERE:
Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check.
I only bring this up because it seems that SlashDot is turning into more of a DailyKOS than a TomsHardware or an Engadget.