Welcome to American Spirit Radio Show. The show airs 9:00 Thursdays
You can comment with fellow listeners by using the comment section below.
Add you phone number is you would like to talk on air.
American Spirit on Air 7/26/2010
July 26th, 2010President Bush Knocked Down the Twin Towers - NOT!
November 7th, 2007Actor Charlie Sheen has questioned what caused the fall of the Twin Towers and is calling for a new independent investigation of the attack. Sheen has a problem believing the government version of events, suggesting that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government. Some internet conspiracy theorist suggest that the Bush administration might have been responsible for the attacks on 9/11 to create a reason to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq with the goal of helping Bush administration friends in the oil industry.
Don’t believe your eyes! We all watched video of jetliners hitting each of the Twin Towers and then we watched in horror as 56 minutes latter the second tower fell only to be followed by the first tower falling soon after. Sheen stated that 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners feels like a conspiracy theory. So I guess you were watching fake video of the planes crashing into the Towers. Or, maybe the government placed the hijackers on the plane and then used remote controls such as those used in predator drones to crash the planes into the intended targets.
The conspiracy nuts tried to involve me in this story. Cyber Gazette is a side profession for me. I am a self employed structural engineer and my name matches a professional who worked at Underwriters Laboratory named Kevin Ryan who was questioning if the heat produced by burning jet fuel could have brought down the Twin Towers. Two conspiracy theorists and a journalist contacted me through my Ryan Design Group Structural Engineering Consultant website thinking that I was the same Kevin Ryan that was questioning the governments version of events.
They praised me in their e-mails for my courage to blow the whistle on the government conspiracy and they were anxious to talk to me to discuss my findings that jet-fuel combustion would not melt steel and there must be some other cause of the collapse. The reporter called me directly and I explained to him that I was not the Kevin Ryan that works for Underwriters Laboratory. I did let him know that I was a structural engineer and although I had nothing to do with the WTC investigation, I felt that he should be careful not to align himself or write a story based on information gathered in conjunction with these two conspiracy theorists.
The reporter asked me what my concerns were and I explained to him that even though steel melts at temperatures of around 3000 degF, the strength of steel is greatly reduced at lower temperatures. For example at only 800 degF the yield strength is reduced to 77% while at 1200 degF yield strength is reduced to 37%. I also explained to the reporter that the damage caused to the building by the jet impact could have redistributed the loads to the point of bringing some of the undamaged member close to 100% of their capacity and any small reduction of strength from elevated temperatures could have brought on failure of those members.
Then I explained that since I was not part of the investigation, we could just use logic to understand what happened at the Twin Towers without having any engineering knowledge, just common sense. The visual facts are that both Towers were hit by jet airliners that caused extensive damage but did not cause the Towers to collapse. Since both Towers survived the impact, common sense would tell you that they would have continued to stand indefinitely even in their damaged condition until some other condition or loading worsened their situation. It might be possible for one tower to be damaged by impact to just within 99% of its capacity and then randomly collapse a short while later. But to expect two towers to be hit just right so that they both were damaged to 99% of capacity is not logical. Therefore an outside factor must have increased the loading or decreased the capacity of the damaged towers to cause the collapse.
I noted that the smoke rising from the towers was for the most part going vertically indicating that the wind was light on that day, so wind could be ruled out as causing the collapse. There were no reports of earthquakes on that day. But what we could see were raging fires on both towers. Knowing that steel strength is reduced with increasing temperatures and seeing no other outside source of loading to cause the collapse, it only takes common sense to realize that the fires were the final straw that caused the collapse of the Twin Towers.
To believe otherwise would require one to believe that some nefarious conspiracy was concocted to set off explosives in both buildings to finish the job. I told the reporter that this theory is nutty and he should reconsider writing a story suggesting such a thing.
I also sent an e-mail to Underwriters Laboratory warning them how their name was being used in a conspiracy theory but never heard from them in return. Finally I sent an e-mail to the conspiracy theorist explaining that I was not the hero that they were searching for. I also let them know that steel strength is greatly reduced at temperatures much lower than the point at which it melts. They were very disappointed in my response to their inquiries but dismissed my information outright since I was not the Kevin Ryan that was a part of the investigation.
In doing research for this article, I have since learned more information of interest. I previously did not even know if there was a Kevin Ryan that worked at Underwriters Laboratory as the e-mailers could have been making up their story. But as you can see from the reference links to the right, Kevin Ryan did publish a letter of concern on the issue of jet-fuel causing collapse of the Towers.
However, his finding is not inconsistent with the events of the collapse. In the latter report by NIST (also linked to on the right) jet-fuel is not attributed as the source of the ongoing fire. The jet-fuel would have burned off in a short amount of time. The ongoing fire is attributed to the flammable contents of the Twin Towers and to a lesser extent the contents of the jetliner.
The bottom line is that we all watched on TV that day and we all saw the fires that raged up to the point of the building collapse. So Kevin Ryan�s test at Underwriters Laboratory could have shown that the jet-fuel did not cause the collapse while at the same time the Twin Towers collapse was caused by fire. Of coarse the conspiracy theorist only pick the facts that support their theories and ignore what the rest of us understood by just using our common sense.
Let�s look at some of the other claims by the conspiracy theorist and see if there are reasonable explanations to counter their arguments.
One claim is that when the towers collapsed you could see the windows shattering out from the top floor down as though explosive charges were set off. However, if the building collapsed in one quadrant first, this sequence would cause the building to torque, distorting the exterior frame. The steel is ductile and would yield under this torque to some degree, but the glass set within the exterior steel frame is not ductile and would shatter as the frame distorts.
Another claim is that Explosions in the basement of the Towers at the time of the jetliner impact are consistent with high explosives being set off and not consistent with jet-fuel traveling down the elevator shafts and exploding as the government claims. If the jet-fuel did not cause the explosions then how did the explosions occur at the exact same time as the jetliner impact. Witnesses indicated they smelled kerosene which is what jet-fuel is. Jet-fuel falling over 70 stories down an elevator shaft could easily become vaporized by the fall making it very explosive. If high explosives were used to help bring down the building then why didn�t the building come down immediately?
A concern of Charlie Sheen is that 19 hijackers with box cutters couldn�t hijack 4 planes. In the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, the passengers were allowed to speak to loved ones before the crash and verified that events went down as documented. To believe otherwise would require you to believe these passengers were lying to their families right before their deaths.
WTC building 7 collapsed into itself as though it was destroyed by a controlled demolition. If the center columns of a building fail first, the collapse of these columns will pull the surrounding columns in towards them as they collapse. It doesn�t matter if these columns failed by a controlled explosion or other causes.
There are many other ridiculous claims that are not worth the time rebutting because to believe them you would have to believe that there are hundreds of people in the government, military and private sector working together to fool the American people while not allowing a single leak amongst themselves.
But a more interesting aspect of this story is how we have reached a point in our country where some of our citizens have become so hateful of the President that they can not be objective in analyzing circumstances that effect our lives. Have we become so partisan and divided in this country that we assume the worst in each other even when common sense seems to indicate otherwise? Has politics become a street fight where any tactic is acceptable because the ends justifies the means?
Have we become a country of people who vote for whomever will protect our own self-interest by whatever tactic is necessary, instead of a country based on common principles of freedom with personal responsibility, of hard work and self-reliance? President Bush did not murder 3000 of our fellow Americans for his own personal gain. Anyone who thinks otherwise is reflecting on their own shortcomings and personal biases.
Americans Schizophrenic Over Oil Policy
November 7th, 2007Despite barriers from Democrats and Environmentalist to drilling for oil in 2000 acres out of 1.5 million total acres at Anwar Alaskan Animal Wildlife preserve, Americans are almost worried as much about our foreign dependence on oil as they are concerned over the war in Iraq. This is according to a poll released Thursday by the magazine Foreign Affairs.
Almost half of the respondents surveyed for the Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index gave U.S. policymakers a failing grade in weaning the country from foreign oil. Viewing the magazines web site, however, might lead one to believe the poll is part of an agenda the magazine has on foreign oil importation and energy consumption. Public Agenda is touted as a nonpartisan group and conducted the poll in early January. But funding for the poll came from the Ford foundation which has supported partisan causes in the past.
While Americans are giving their government a failing grade for reducing their dependence on foreign oil, they are overlooking their own role in reducing our need for foreign oil. Exploration off Florida has been all but banned because of Americans concern for the tourism industry there. Drilling for oil in Anwar would have little effect on the environment by any reasonable measure, but politics continues to plaque any hope for drilling. SUV and minivan sales account for about 1/2 the sales of new cars even as newspaper headlines animate SUV’s by blaming the vehicle for accidents instead of poor driving.
Private industry could also reduce our dependency on foreign oil as new communication technology could be used to allow many workers to perform their duties from home, telecommuting to work.
Americans used to understand the principles that made this country great. Freedom afforded by a capitalistic society coupled with personal responsibility and pride of country used to guide the country. More and more, Americans are looking to the government instead of the markets to control their interests. Personal responsibility and common sense are abandoned for personal satisfaction. Divisions of the country into special interest groups by political forces has paralyzed our ability to logically tackle issues of concern.
85 percent of respondents said the U.S. government could do something about energy independence if it tried. Nearly 90 percent said that the lack of energy independence jeopardizes national security. The poll did not ask if respondents wanted to shift the country to socialism to accomplish energy independence.
Trials for Combatants: Scalia Says ‘Give Me a Break
November 7th, 2007Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland that the U.S. Constitution does not protect foreigners captured during war including those held at Guantanamo Bay. ‘War is war, and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,’ Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying. ‘Give me a break’
Scalia’s view reflects common sense as many example of how a fair trial would not be possible during a time of war can be given. Imagine if a soldier had captured an enemy combatant and then when that soldier returned to battle he was killed in action. Would our side have to release the captured combatant because the witness is now deceased?
But an even more fundamental argument can be made. If we are bound by the rules set forth in our constitution, would we be able to engage a person that is armed but has not yet fired at our soldiers? Could we break into homes to search for combatants? If combatants have the right to a civil trial under our constitution, then why wouldn’t that same combatant have other rights listed in the constitution?
When asked by an audience member about whether Guantanamo detainees have protection under the Geneva or Human Rights Conventions Scalia replied, ‘If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy,’ reported Newsweek. Scalia’s son served in Iraq.
Justice Breyer and other progressive justices on the court have expressed the willingness to consider precedents and laws of other countries in deciding matters before the Supreme Court. Justices Scalia and Thomas believe in interpreting the constitution by the original intent at the time it was enacted.
In other news, Scalia hand jestered a reporter in reference to questioning over his integrity and impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state. He was in Boston as the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers’ Guild luncheon and was also there to attend a lawyers and politicians mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. It appears Justice Scalia did not take kindly to the implications in that line of questioning.
Immigration March Threatens U.S. Sovereignty
November 7th, 2007More than 500,000 protesters marched through Los Angeles in opposition to proposed legislation in the U.S. House that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally and would also impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Many states provide schooling, free health care and other benefits to illegal immigrants sending a mixed message to those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally. It is estimated that 12 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the U.S. This large number of lawbreakers has made it impractical to deport all those who are here illegally.
For years both political parties have been courting the Hispanic vote, ignoring public sentiment that enforcement of immigration laws is a necessary part of an orderly society. The Democrats see illegal immigration as a way to boost their liberal voting base. The Republicans are pressured by businesses that need a cheap reliable work force. Lower wage U.S. citizens increasingly have lost their work ethic and feel they are entitled to less menial employment. Mexican workers are seen as hard workers that are grateful for any opportunity.
President Bush addressed the issue last Saturday and called for legislation that does not force America to choose between being a welcoming society and a lawful one. “America is a nation of immigrants, and we’re also a nation of laws.” This statement seems inconsistent with policy since the President has done little to secure the border since being elected. 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in this country would seem to indicate that increasingly the U.S. is willing to ignore its laws in return for expediency and convenience.
Some protesters made references to civil rights protests of Martin Luther King and hinted that now is the time for their revolution. One protest sign reads “I didn’t cross the Border, the Border crossed Me.”
Protests in other cities were also surprisingly large including 50000 in Denver , 20000 in Phoenix and more than 10000 in Milwaukee. More demonstrations are expected in a “National Day of Action” organized by labor unions, immigration groups, civil rights organizations and religious groups. Those supporting tougher enforcement of immigration laws will probably stay home and watch a movie.
Colapse of American Socialistic Schools
November 7th, 2007Despite the Iraq war being in the news just about every day, a new poll out recently found that 60% of young Americans, 18 to 24, can not find Iraq on a map. And with all the news on Hurricane Katrina last year, a third of this same group could not find Louisiana on a map of the United States, while one half could not find Mississippi according to a Roper poll conducted by National Geographic.
“Geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world”, said National Geographic Society President John Fahey. The statement was part of a 5 year National Geographic media campaign called “My Wonderful World.”
President Bush introduced the “No Child Left Behind” initiative at the federal level as a response to the voters displeasure with the state of American education, even though education is a state responsibility. This program sets student achievement standards in reading, language arts, math and science with periodic testing to see if these standards are being met. Federal funding is withheld for failure to meet testing goals.
The “No Child Left Behind” federal program shows that American’s are willing to throw more money at education problems instead of addressing the core problem with our education system. Our education system is currently based on socialistic principles that have been shown to be a failure as practiced throughout the world by many governments. Socialism as an economic principle sounds better than capitalism on paper, but does not recognize the incentives of rewards, responsibility, and freedom in increasing productivity, at the same time lifting all to a higher level.
This same comparison can be made in our education system as can be made to an economic model. Providing each and every child the best possible education by taxing all Americans for the good of all Americans sounds great on paper. All children are born innocent and each must have an equal chance and education as inferred by the phrase “No Child Left Behind”. The problem with this idealistic approach is that standards are lowered to meet the level of the lowest performing students and the students that achieve at a level above this end up being undereducated.
The American education system has been operating under a socialistic model for so long now that it is unlikely that solving the education problem is possible. Most parents and voters believe that the best way to solve our education problem is to spend more money on our public education system, bringing it up to higher standards. The politicians, looking to get re-elected are only more than happy to oblige. Many other parents are of two income families or single parent families and are more interested in using K-12 schooling as a form of daycare. They are apathetic to the philosophical implications involved and are just trying to get through life, subjugating their responsibilities to the government.
The currency in a capitalistic based school program would be grades and achievement not money. The student that works hard and achieves more could cash in their achievement with the reward of a better quality of education. Students and parents would choose the best courses as required to meet their educational goals. Students that are disruptive or under achieving would have limited options as their currency (achievement) would be limited. Educational standards would follow the needs of the most responsible students instead of being pared down to the lowest common denominator.
To honestly discuss the problems with education today you must also address the whole institution of K-12 education in a capitalistic model. Of coarse as we are becoming more and more a socialistic society, this becomes more difficult to do and almost politically impossible. In a capitalistic model, each child would be considered developing capital that can produce to a certain level if properly trained. In a capitalistic model we should invest more money in the highest level of child as this will result in the highest level of return on our investment. A child whose potential return is not increased by providing training should be directed into a different career path.
Education should be evaluated as a return on investment. A students earning potential with a lower cost education must be compared to the students earning potential with a higher cost education. If the increase in earning potential is not increased by more than the increased cost of the higher education, then the increased capital expenditure in that education was a net loss.
You must honestly consider the goals of education to address our educational problems today. Look at your current job. If you were educated to read and write by your parents and had two years of schooling in math and science, would you be able to perform your current job? How many of you could do your current job if you had never gone to K-12 school and were taught to read and write by your parents and were given two years of training in math and science. At $8000 per student per year, your K-12 education cost $100,000. For probably over 60% of graduates, their current job could be performed just as well if they only had two years of education and the knowledge given by their parents.
How might a capitalistic model work in education. Here is one possibility. All children would be given an elementary school education. During this elementary school education, students would earn currency through achievement and hard work. Students with higher achievement would have more options to higher education. Disruptive or underachieving students would have less options. After grade 5, students and parents would choose the schooling that is best to fit their educational needs. Schools would compete to attract students. Public schools over grade 5 would become non-profit entities that would have to compete for students, including competition against private schools, cyber schools, and religious schools.
The size of student scholarships would be based on achievement of the student established through ongoing standardized testing and on school performance. Teacher pay would be based on market forces. Teachers that attract higher achieving students would also receive higher compensation. Schools that overspend on school buildings and facilities would not be competitive and would fall by the wayside.
This is just on model that would bring competition to our education system. This would increase the quality of the education system while at the same time significantly reduce the cost of education. This idea is impossible to implement because the powerful teacher’s unions would spend millions in a media blitz to protect their interests. Parents that use school as a daycare for their kids would form another block against change. And most of the rest of us have been brought up with a socialistic model of schooling and consider this the norm.
So instead we will keep throwing money at the problem and keep wondering why our kids can’t find Louisiana on a map.
Spoiled Americans Want Cheap Gas with No Mess!
November 7th, 2007The GOP legislature has come up with a plan to repeal tax incentives for oil companies and rebate taxpayers $100 to offset the high price of gasoline. This measure is seen as political posturing in an election year since this proposal will not produce one additional gallon of gasoline to offset demand. Reducing incentives and artificially keeping gas prices low would hurt supplies under normal economic models.
The Senate Finance committee headed by Republican Senator Charles Grassley is going to investigate the finances of the top 15 oil companies in response to public demand to the rising cost of gasoline. Grassely wanted to make sure that oil companies were not avoiding taxes while making record profits. The likelyhood that reducing oil company profits will reduce the pain to the American consumer is insignificant as oil profits on gas work out to 9 cents per gallon while taxes per gallon are around 50 cents. But the American people need to see action taken in light of the increase in gas prices.
The Democrats, with Senator Charles Schummer in the lead, have been blaming the oil companies for the problems of rising prices. Senator Schummer is proposing to break up the major oil companies that he considers monopolistic. The Republicans are responding to Democrat attacks by proposing their rebate idea and also by investigations into the oil companies. The Republicans are also proposing an amendment which would allow for drilling for oil in Anwar Alaska while most Democrats are opposed to drilling in Anwar.
Other moves being considered include halting purchases of oil for the strategic oil reserves until after the summer driving season and reduction in the number of gas formulas required by the federal government in different regions of the U.S.
Since the only purpose of the politicians is to get re-elected, and not to solve the energy needs of the public, the real issues involved in energy policy are being glossed over. The first issue is that the majority of American voters only care about the bottom line and are ignorant of the issues effecting energy policy. This ignorance has made it possible for politicians to fool the voters by shifting their anger toward the oil companies and away from federal policies that cause disincentives to oil exploration and nuclear energy.
The issue that is taboo for taxpayers to consider, and politicians to mention, is that rising prices as set by the market might be necessary to make exploration for oil feasible on American soil under the strict environmental conditions that we demand. American’s demand high environmental standards while at the same time they demand inexpensive gas all the while demanding energy independence.
Oil drilled in other countries, with less strict environmental laws and easier forms of energy to remove from the ground, has made it possible for Americans to have their cake and eat it too. We avoid the environmental issues by letting other countries deal with the mess, which allows us to also have cheap oil. Many of these other countries have second rate economies making them as dependent on us to buy their oil as we are dependent on them to supply us the oil.
The choice is ours if we are informed on the issue. The U.S. has one half the worlds supply of shale oil. The Gulf of Mexico off of Florida has the potential for meeting our energy needs, but oil rigs off Florida’s coasts are considered unacceptable. The Anwar wildlife preserve in Alaska could provide a supplement to our needs with little effect on the environment. Higher gas prices would be an incentive for American consumers to drive more economical vehicles. Higher gas prices would make more expensive ethanol fuel profitable and more prevalent. Research into other forms of automobiles would become feasible such as cars that run on hydrogen.
But it is easier to blame the 9 cents a gallon profits of the oil companies for our energy problems then it is to look in the mirror of our Hummers and ask what level of energy independence, energy conservation, environmental standards and gas prices is right to meet the requirements of our daily lives balanced with our national security. We have the resources and American ingenuity to meet our energy needs. Do we have the integrity and political will to honestly debate this issue and reach a balance between cost, environmental standards, and national security. Judging from the debate coming out of the U.S. senate, we do not!