On 8/25/11 7:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:12:27 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 24/08/2011 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Looks like the Washington monument got some pretty good cracks in it's
walls on this one....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...t_8641358.html

I would not doubt the cracks were already there and the quake just shook
them loose.

But not sure I would want to be too close to it when she goes.

Some better picks and details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wmdJ_blog.html

Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.


The monument was not retrofitted to resist earthquakes.

--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:29:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:12:27 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:06 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 24/08/2011 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Looks like the Washington monument got some pretty good cracks in it's
walls on this one....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...t_8641358.html

I would not doubt the cracks were already there and the quake just shook
them loose.

But not sure I would want to be too close to it when she goes.

Some better picks and details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wmdJ_blog.html

Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

I guess you forgot who was in control of BOTH houses in 1996...

January 3, 1995: Republicans gained control of both houses for the
first time since the 1950s.

In article ,
says...

On 8/25/11 8:01 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:29 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:12:27 -0700, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 24/08/2011 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Looks like the Washington monument got some pretty good cracks in it's
walls on this one....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...st-coast-quake...

I would not doubt the cracks were already there and the quake just shook
them loose.

But not sure I would want to be too close to it when she goes.

Some better picks and details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ngton-monument...

Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

Looks like the quake was just to much for it looking at the places
where it cracked (pics we have available). I am not sure if any
different maintenance would change that. I would guess most of the
restoration was cosmetic, probably not really structural. The original
engineering just seems to have failed..


The Washington Monument is, for all intents and purposes, an
unreinforced masonry structure and has little ability to resist the
seismic forces of a strong earthquake. I supposed a first-class
engineering firm could seismic retrofit it, but the expense would be
enormous and there would be visible differences in the monument's
appearance. There are some cast iron supports inside the monument, but
they are not sufficient to hold the structure up in case of a big quake.

In California, which has a lot of unreinforced masonry buildings,
significant retrofitting has been mandated, but the purpose of the
retrofitting has not been to protect the buildings but, instead, their
occupants. This involves installation of a new steel skeleton inside the
buildings so that when a large quake hits, the outside of the building
may fall into the street, but the inside of the building will not
collapse. That's the theory.

I'd bet that an earthquake in the "7" range would have flattened the
monument.

Oh, boy..... snerk

In article ,
says...

On 8/25/11 7:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:12:27 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 24/08/2011 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Looks like the Washington monument got some pretty good cracks in it's
walls on this one....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...t_8641358.html

I would not doubt the cracks were already there and the quake just shook
them loose.

But not sure I would want to be too close to it when she goes.

Some better picks and details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wmdJ_blog.html

Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.


The monument was not retrofitted to resist earthquakes.

You can't "resist earthquakes", you idiot. You can, however, make a
building not suffer damage in a relatively strong earthquake. Mostly by
making the building less stiff.

On Aug 26, 9:40*am, iBoat More wrote:
In article ,
says...







On 8/25/11 7:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:12:27 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 24/08/2011 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Looks like the Washington monument got some pretty good cracks in it's
walls on this one....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...st-coast-quake...

I would not doubt the cracks were already there and the quake just shook
them loose.

But not sure I would want to be too close to it when she goes.

Some better picks and details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ngton-monument...

Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

The monument was not retrofitted to resist earthquakes.

You can't "resist earthquakes", you idiot. You can, however, make a
building not suffer damage in a relatively strong earthquake. Mostly by
making the building less stiff.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


....and you'd know all about '"less stiff", eh Kevin?

In article 392e2996-658f-42cc-8816-
,
says...

On Aug 26, 9:40*am, iBoat More wrote:
In article ,
says...







On 8/25/11 7:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:12:27 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 24/08/2011 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Looks like the Washington monument got some pretty good cracks in it's
walls on this one....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...st-coast-quake...

I would not doubt the cracks were already there and the quake just shook
them loose.

But not sure I would want to be too close to it when she goes.

Some better picks and details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ngton-monument...

Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

The monument was not retrofitted to resist earthquakes.

You can't "resist earthquakes", you idiot. You can, however, make a
building not suffer damage in a relatively strong earthquake. Mostly by
making the building less stiff.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


...and you'd know all about '"less stiff", eh Kevin?

Are you infatuated with my junk, Coward #2?

In article ,
says...

In article 392e2996-658f-42cc-8816-
,
says...

On Aug 26, 9:40*am, iBoat More wrote:
In article ,
says...







On 8/25/11 7:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:12:27 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 24/08/2011 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:
Looks like the Washington monument got some pretty good cracks in it's
walls on this one....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...st-coast-quake...

I would not doubt the cracks were already there and the quake just shook
them loose.

But not sure I would want to be too close to it when she goes.

Some better picks and details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ngton-monument...

Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

The monument was not retrofitted to resist earthquakes.

You can't "resist earthquakes", you idiot. You can, however, make a
building not suffer damage in a relatively strong earthquake. Mostly by
making the building less stiff.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


...and you'd know all about '"less stiff", eh Kevin?

Are you infatuated with my junk, Coward #2?

Hey, Harry, you forgot to change your handle back!!! BUSTED!

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:52:32 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:55:08 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:29:39 -0400, wrote:


Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

I guess you forgot who was in control of BOTH houses in 1996...

January 3, 1995: Republicans gained control of both houses for the
first time since the 1950s.

Target paid for the restoration.

So, we're supposed to rely on Target for our national monuments?
That's what it's come to? That's what you're advocating??

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:52:32 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:55:08 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:29:39 -0400, wrote:


Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

I guess you forgot who was in control of BOTH houses in 1996...

January 3, 1995: Republicans gained control of both houses for the
first time since the 1950s.

Target paid for the restoration.

So, we're supposed to rely on Target for our national monuments?
That's what it's come to? That's what you're advocating??

Well, our government sure doesn't have the money to do it.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:18:42 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:41:44 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:52:32 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:55:08 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:29:39 -0400, wrote:


Maybe if the right wing would be willing to maintain our
infrastructure, including funding national parks and monuments, this
wouldn't have happened.

The monument was restored in 1996 Clinton must have cut corners on the
restoration.

I guess you forgot who was in control of BOTH houses in 1996...

January 3, 1995: Republicans gained control of both houses for the
first time since the 1950s.

Target paid for the restoration.

So, we're supposed to rely on Target for our national monuments?
That's what it's come to? That's what you're advocating??

Yes that is what it has come to. The feds spend over 40% of GDP right
now, the highest in our history with the exception of the middle of
WWII when we nationalized every industrial company in the US. It is
simply unsustainable.

Well, I don't mind spending my tax dollars on things like national
monuments. Feel free to not send in your tax payments in protest.

The fact is that this is absolutely the wrong time to worry about the
deficit. Right now, the issue is JOBS. If it takes gov't intervention
to get people jobs, that's a heck of a lot better than another
recession.

Taxes? They are currently collecting 43% of all of the total taxable
income in the US (2,17 T of the $5t reported) and to balance the
budget they would need to collect 76%.

As I said, end subsidies, impose penalties on corps that ship jobs
elsewhere, ask the rich to pay their fair share.

That is the AGI of everyone from zero to Bill Gates.

It is scary when you do the "tons of research" I get accused of doing.
In real life it is just looking at the IRS database, available on the
GPO web site and crunching the numbers a little.

So, you don't do enough research? Well, get to it, because your
research seems to be seriously flawed or you're making conclusions
that aren't supported by facts.