BryanS

Doesn't it seem odd that so many people were ticketed/jailed for "suspicion?" That's the offense. Suspicion.

"Hey! Why am I being ticketed? What did I do??!"

"...Oh... just suspicious... that's all..."

...and it happened 216 times.

I had one of these, a 1992 Premiere. It was a comfortable car. The V6 had excellent acceleration and handled really well. It was fun to drive. The only problem was the electronics. Since it had a Renault engine, shared with Volvo I was told, the home town mechanics could not figure out why I kept going through alternators. Eventually it left my wife and family stranded out on Highway 77 south of Victoria. I had to have her towed to Victoria and nobody there could figure it out either. I had to get rid of her.

The car I mean.

Our family bought one of these new - the 1989 model. It had a 150 hp Mitsubishi (I thought, but not apparently) V-6. And it was decent. 7/70 warranty. This was the "Last Rambler." AMC bought/partnered with Renault on the design of the car, taking design ques from Volvo (headrests/body style)... and then Chrysler bought AMC... and then rebranded the "AMC Premiere" as the "Eagle Premiere" in 1987/88. It was built in Ontario at fairly advanced factory - for the day. It was the last car AMC attempted to put its name on.

The car had what was called "ground switching" electronics. Most electrical systems always have the ground/neutral connected at all times - and switch the hot (on and off).

In the Eagle Premiere... the hot side of the circuit was always connected... it was the ground side that switched on and off.

Backwards.

Needless to say, we had issues with the electrical, as well as the transmission. And one time.. at a red light the car would not move forward. I had to push it through the intersection.... and then drive it home in reverse (on side streets) for that last mile to the house. I never drove it again.

I saw an ad once: "For sale. 1988 Eagle Premiere. $2000 worth of repairs. Asking $2001 OBO."

Our family should have bought the Maxima. But Chrysler cut us a deal that was just too good to refuse...

Days of severe heat and humidity tend to be only a phenomenon of July and August. Every other time, the weather is decent. Many people prefer having hot summers to really cold winters, which is part of the reason why we settled in Texas.

No, they just got lazy.

"Hey guys! Only 1370 miles until we reach California!"

In November: "Jesus. Well... it's kinda cool now... let's just stop here [in Texas]."

In August: "Dammit! Well, I guess it's too late now; we've already settled. We should have kept going..."

That's a mighty big claim you've put out there. Explain it thoroughly.

I could, but I'm not not. It would not be an efficient use of my computer's CPU cycles, which requires electricity, which strains the earth's resources, contributing to global climate change.

Hey - I'm on your side now. There's no need to conserve anything, or change course - no matter what the scientists say. At this point, all they are telling us is that the damage is occurring faster than initially projected... and that it is pretty much irreversible now. We've past the point of no return, so damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!

Screw the future. The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

You're confusing scientists and politicians. Scientists work with raw data and draw conclusions based on that data. If their conclusions lack merit and don't hold up under peer scrutiny, their conclusions are discarded. Science is apolitical to begin with. False paradigms have been developed based on individual political or social leanings, but gone are those days of the "gentleman" scientist using dubious methods to achieve those ends. Science has democratized, and bad ideas don't last long anymore.

It's your politicians who've hyperbolized this issue. Let's clear that up right away. It's a favorite pasttime of certain groups on the right to poke holes in scientific thought, especially the fundy ones who've blown so much hot air perfecting their practice arguing the Bible's timeline as a literal measure of the Earth's age. But, in those attempts, they don't disprove scientific conclusions, they just prove their own lack of understanding in the scientific method.

And, the hemp clothes comment was a joke, but you do bring up an interesting point. Simply because some businesses are profiting from the green initiative, are we then to assume the issue isn't real or lacks merit? Because it seems to me that's what you're saying. Likewise, I could use the exact same logic to say since there are some businesses who stand to profit from denying climate change, then the climate indeed must be changing. Here I thought St Anselm died during the Dark Ages.

I think I'm going to willingly remove myself from this discussion before it goes any further. For those of you who wish to continue to deny that something is amiss, whatever it may be and however it ultimately manifests, more power to you. It's not ours or our children's generation who are likely to feel the brunt of whatever's going on anyhow. Probably not. Most likely not. But then, what do scientists know? Hell, it could happen in... 2012. Spooky. I think I read that in the book of Revelations. Or whatever.

You're wasting your time with this crowd.

...the debate is over. In fact, it is so ever that now, today, even if we stopped 100% of our carbon emissions... we're still screwed. It's that bad.

Sooooo.... if that's the case... then why change anything now? The damage has already been done. As long as we can get another 75 years out of the planet - that'll be good enough.

I once got three tickets, in three consecutive days:

Day 1: Parking the wrong direction. Paid it, on line the same day. Got pissed.

Next Day: Blocking the sidewalk... but just barely. Paid it, on line the same day. Now I'm really pissed.

The Next Day: Parking more than 18 inches. Got my measuring tape. Depending on how you measured... 17 3/4... or 18 1/32. Screw'em. Didn't pay it. Still haven't paid it.

Eventually that parking cop stopped harassing the neighborhood. This was near the Hawthorne apts at the Westheimer curve...

All this happened about 8 years ago. No blocked registration. And apparently no warrants for my arrest, because I've been stopped several times since then...

My advice: pay the first two tickets, but no more after that.

Do you know something or is that just a guess?

To be honest, the selection and quality at Aladdin isn't as good when compared to Fadi's, despite the owners being related. But Aladdin is much closer and more convenient for me.

Says the obesity epidemic.

My guess. The food really isn't that great. I give it one more year...

Please, God, give us Bill White.

Perry is an embarrassment to this state.

And Kay B... if she tilts her head to the side... that little candy M&M might fall out.

It's nothing that serious . I'm just annoyed that they ruined the parking situation for Aladdin. But since they did, it'd be nice if it was something creative instead of another burger joint. It's not like there's a shortage of hamburger places in this city.

...that place isn't going to be around much longer...

I agree. Nothing is perfect but I would say concrete is definitely better than steel when exposed to heat extremes. By the way, the empire state building has had planes run into it including a B25 bomber. But I'm not suggesting any building be built to specifically hold up to a plane crash. Would be nice though if engineer/architects would research the effects of fire on structural components when designing a structure. If they did there would be no such thing as things like lightweight truss construction.

They do. And have, for decades.

29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence of Controlled Explosive Demolition

What garbage. So I guess... according to your research methods... if there's an internet, or a.m. radio, reference it must be gospel.

There is a strong, silent super majority of credible civil/mechanical/aerospace engineers... that if presented with the facts... and forced to render an analysis... would absolutely crush the position of these wack jobs and people perpetuating such lunacy.

What is your background, again? Who are we arguing with?

I'm speaking of predominately concrete. The Empire State building was a 60/40 ratio of concrete versus steel. Most high rises these days are just the opposite. The steel in the Empire State building is very well protected. Plus there is no lightweight bar joists used that typically fail in 5 or 10 minutes of exposure to fire.

"The empire state building has exterior Indiana limestone exterior wall, 8 inches thick. The floors are also 8 inches thick consisting of one-inch cement over 7 inches of cinder and concrete. All columns, girders and floor beams are solid steel covered with 1 to 2 inches of brick terracotta and concrete. There is virtually no opening in the floors. And there are no air ducts of a HVAC heating cooling and venting system penetrating fire partitions, floor, and ceilings. Each floor has its own HVAC unit. The elevators and utility shafts are masonry enclosed. And for life safety there is a 4-inch brick enclosed so-called “smoke proof stairway”.

If all buildings were built this way than we would never have to worry about another 9/11.

...No design of any building... of any material... can ever withstand forces imposed upon it, outside of its design limits and safety margins. Concrete has excellent compressive strength but easily fails in tension; you're swapping one problem for another. And I'm no so sure the Empire state building would be standing after a 767 impact. And if not 767, perhaps 747. And if not 747, then surely A380. And if not A380, something else. You can't design for the unknown. You can design to make it 50%, 5x, 10x times stronger... but, if you exceed that margin... it's history - no matter what.

Speaking of failures... Rammer has still failed to answer the simple question: can heat/fire weaken steel? Does he believe in cutting torches? At what point does he believe that heat can actually compromise steel? Nothing.

Keep in mind, WTC7 was not hit by a jet plane.

I have found one reference that steel melts at 2500 degrees farenheit...but it depends on the alloy of steel.

From the AISC website: In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F.

(The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F)

(More science, less namecalling please. Pretend you are Spock explaining it to Captain Kirk.)

What was it hit by though? I am guessing debris from a gigantic building right next to it that also fell into the ground.

...and for some reason... in your mind... you cannot comprehend that metals lose strength when heated.

They do not have to be heated to cutting torch temperatures (2500+deg F) in order to "fail."

You know, I am not going to get into this political trolling thread, but you guys claiming that steel melts so easily while ignoring the burning temperature of the materials in the tower (fuel, paper, wood) don't sound too intelligent either. If you are going to smack down a troll, at least do it in a way that is not so easily refuted.

FTR, paper, wood and fuel burn at temps from 250 to 650 degrees, while steel generally fails at around 110 degrees, depending on carbon content.

This is misleading....

110 degrees... F? would imply that vehicles in Phoenix, AZ would all "fail" in August.

Steel melts ("fails" completely) at 2500 deg F...

Steel begins to lose strength in the range of your paper/wood range in deg F, but not necessarily "fail" - initially.

Jet A fuel burns at about 550 deg F.

Eviscerating a building's structural support system/members followed by heating the remaining support members will reduce the factor of safety of the design to zero, followed by complete structural failure.

But despite this simple factual explanation, that is not enough for the flat earthers. 8 years is just not enough time for them to process this information...

We're talking about WTC 7, not the twin towers.

They all failed the same way: blunt structural damage, followed by fire, weakening the remaining structure, until complete failure.

They should talk to Six Flags first... before opening any theme parks up in Houston... I don't know what was worse: seeing Astroworld slowly decline over the years, or its final demolition.

Steel is indeed very susceptible to weakening in extreme heat. People often misunderstand the nature of steel and incorrectly think it's indestructible. It's one of the first things I learned in my building engineering class back in college.

Yes. And people tend to forget that steel... starts out as a molten liquid. And then solidifies.

...and that old metal... is melted down... and poured into new shapes.

...and if steel... was indestructible, or impervious to fire... then things like this would never work:

...fire cutting steel. AKA cutting torch. But the 9/11 crowd would have us to believe that these things don't work (because fire can't hurt steel). Riiiiight...

There's plenty of need to discuss further.

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/wtc_7.htm

Note the Windsor building in Madrid that burned for 28 hours without collapsing the frame.

1.) Still waiting on the name of a steel skyscraper that totally collapsed (demolition style) due to a fire.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20429

http://www.infowars....7-was-imploded/

2.) I'm really looking for the opinions of architects(since this is an architectural site), engineers, scientists, physics professors, etc.

1.) It's called WTC 7. It had plenty of steel in it. And collapsed, due to fire. No need to find some other example...

2.) Screw the architects. They aren't engineers.

But I am.

Are you?

All I see with WTC 7, from people with your viewpoint, is a bunch of horse crap conspiracy theory. Which you blatantly tried to work into this "engineering" discussion.

For every link you provide, I could provide a corresponding link, debunking the horse crap.

But what point would that serve? There really is nothing to discuss... that has not already been discussed for the past 8 YEARS on this tired, useless topic.

Why argue it here... when you can do a simple google search for "WTC 7" - and wade through countless links and seas of information on this topic...

Please name the building and hopefully include a video of the straightdownward total collapse. A frame that remains does not count.

How about we stick with just WTC 7:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Please read. It also has a "video analysis" that you've asked for. No need to discuss any further on here...

Questions:

1. Could debris from WTC1 travel 355 feet to cause fires in WTC7...while the Verizon building only had minor damage & the Post Office building unscathed?

2. Could fires bring down a 47-story steel framed building?

3. Could fires bring down a 47-story steel frame building in a demolition style fall that didn't damage the Verizon and Post Office buildings?

4. Does the governments claim that "the unique design aspect of WTC7, that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft" realistically explain the collapse?

5. Were firefighters and citizens just imagining the sounds of explosives prior to all three of the World Trade Center building collapses?

6. Could a 47-story steel building fall in 8.2 seconds in a straight-down implosion style...without being imploded?

7. Was it a coincidence that WTC7 housed SEC documents related to approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cases (according to the Los Angeles Times)?

8. Was it a coincidence that Morgan Stanley had 3,500 employees in the WTC complex, the most of any single company?(most escaped death)

9. Am I pointing the finger at Goldman Sachs?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. What was heard is the sound of the building.. about to come down.

6. Yes.

7. Yes. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

8. Yes. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

9. Only you can answer that. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

This thread seems pretty useless.

stay classy houston.

Not going to happen. It's already moved beyond tasteless.

Design-wise...

Even style-wise.

It's just the same old junk, different decade.

Check it out, its VW Passat replacement. VW already released 2 skecthes of the unamed car, so someone came up with a render for it. Expect to see the car on the road in late 2011.

Render:

Sketch:

Thoughts?

Incredible. It still has 4 wheels, 4 doors, engine up front. Like every sedan ever created.

U.S. Deports Lou Dobbs

CNN Host Had Been Living Illegally In Country Since 1961

November 12, 2009 | Issue 45•46

Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez, alias "Lou Dobbs," is escorted by DHS agents to the airport to be sent back to Mexico.

WANTAGE, NJ—Acting on anonymous tips from within the Hispanic-American community, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials on Wednesday deported Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez, who for the last 48 years had been living illegally in the United States under the name Lou Dobbs. According to the Department of Homeland Security, federal agents stormed the undocumented immigrant's home in an evening raid just hours after the 64-year-old newscaster suddenly announced that he was resigning from CNN, and immediately placed him on an Aeromexico flight departing from Newark Liberty Airport.

http://www.theonion....ports_lou_dobbs

Or a property owner can create a deed covenant whereby any future owner of the property is required to maintain it into perpetuity or to build it back precisely according to the original specification in the event of condemnation or a casualty loss.

True though, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat...some more discrete than others.

That's not good enough for these people. Because you'd still be relying on the govt/court system to enforce covenants.

The only sure fire way to keep it around forever - and unchanged - is to remove all private parties from the situation. You can’t blame the home owner for any violations or tackiness… if there is no home owner!

Because everybody's house is like Abe Lincoln's log cabin or The Parthenon. Let's keep it around forever. Only the govt can do that.

Of course, I am being quite sarcastic.

Thank you god that I do not have neighbors like some of the people on here. I have tried, through excessive neglect of my yard, to get the neighbors to complain – to no avail. I almost can’t stand it anymore. I will be forced to take of my yard, driven by my own disgust of how shabby it has become. People just aren’t good for anything these days.

Not to worry...the HAHC will likely turn down the demo request. However, as we all know too well, it will be just 90-days and then they can do what they want. I co-chaired the Houston Heights Historic District East petition drive and have spoken many times before the HAHC. I am sorry to see Proctor Plaza facing this situation. However, I am pleased to see another neighborhood rising up to protest. If I might make a request, please offer a few words about the need for strengthening the ordinance so that no means no. Houston Heights feels like it is battling this fight all alone. There is strength in numbers.

All man-made structures will return to the earth, eventually.

People who cherish their old homes should sell them to local government entities - where they can be preserved "forever."

Let everyone else live in freedom.