Comment: This comparison is too weak to be called science.

(See in situ)


This comparison is too weak to be called science.

In science, you need consistency in order to test 1 variable at a time. This situation has several variables all taking place at once, yet you guys think it should be an example of what should have happened in the twin towers.

Variables:
1. Height-The twin towers were 110 stories high. This tower was only 40.
2. Design-Their construction was completely different.
3. Fire location-The fire on this tower ran up the side. The fire in the WTC was near the center.
4. Response-Nobody was fighting the fire in the WTC, it was too high up.
5. Source-A plane hit the WTC. No plane hit this tower.
6. Mass-The mass of each WTC is several times the mass of this tower.
7. Unnacounted for-I am no expert and wasn't at the scene, so it is easily possible that several other variables exist which I have not accounted for, further adding to the list of variables which make this comparison unscientific.

Now I'm not claiming to be able to tell you exactly how I think either of these fires should have played out. I'm no expert and each situation is different, however I can tell you that making this comparison is too weak to even be called science. It rests securely in the realm of fallacy.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).