The College Boost: Grads Still Outearn Nongrads | St. Louis Fed

This is Part I of a three-part series from the Fed. A little more cheery than Part II, which I posted yesterday. I can't wait for Part III to see their solutions.

On average, families headed by someone with a four-year college degree have 69 percent more income and 201 percent more wealth than families without a degree. The gaps between nongrads and those with a postgraduate degree are even larger.

I fear they are going to bang the drums for equal funding for all school districts nationwide. It's all these socialists and Marxists know. They fail to realize and refuse to accept that even if you do that -- and there will be unintended/unforeseen consequences to doing that -- the race will still go to the swiftest and the fight to the strongest. That's the way to bet. 

from the St. Louis Fed:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/july/college-boost-grads-outearn-nongrads

The College Boost: Grads Still Outearn Nongrads

Monday, July 16, 2018

By William Emmons, Lead Economist; Ana Hernández Kent, Policy Analyst; and Lowell Ricketts, Lead Analyst, Center for Household Financial Stability

This is the first post in a series on the financial returns of college degrees.

A college degree has long been associated with a laundry list of positive outcomes:

• Higher income and wealth
• Better health
• A higher likelihood of being a homeowner
• A higher likelihood of being partnered (married or cohabitating)
• A lower risk of falling behind on loan payments

In response, more and more Americans are pursuing—and earning—a bachelor’s degree. In 1989, about 23 percent of families were headed by someone with a four-year college degree or higher. By 2016, the share had reached 34 percent.

More individuals are continuing their schooling beyond the traditional four-year degree as well. Families headed by someone with a postgraduate degree (such as a master’s degree or Ph.D.) rose from almost 9 percent of all families in 1989 to about 13 percent in 2016.

This remarkable surge in highly educated individuals begs the question: How have the financial returns (expected earnings and wealth) of college degrees fared over time?

The Average Financial Returns to a College Degree

Previous work by our Center for Household Financial Stability has long corroborated the traditional wisdom that a college degree is associated with higher expected earnings and wealth.1 For this analysis, we typically used the Survey of Consumer Finances, often considered the gold standard of data on household balance sheets (asset, debt and income).

When evaluating the financial payoff to a college education, it is useful to ask: How much additional income and wealth does a college-educated family have beyond that of a family that doesn’t hold a college degree?

Income Differences

Pooling all available data (47,776 families), we found that the average family with a four-year degree (grads) earned approximately 69 percent more than the average family without a degree (nongrads). The average family with a postgraduate degree (postgrads) earned twice as much as their nongrad counterpart. Importantly, these estimates controlled for the age of the family, so we were comparing outcomes at similar stages of life.

Wealth Differences

What about wealth? College graduates—both grads and postgrads—accumulated much higher amounts of wealth over their lifetime than nongrads. On average, grad families accumulated 201 percent more, while postgrad families accumulated 242 percent more than their nongrad peers.

These boosts are remarkable, and it’s clear why going to college is such an imperative for individuals and families across the U.S. However, these average returns mask a considerably wide range of outcomes. How do these outcomes vary when considering the race and ethnicity as well as birth decade of these families? That will be the focus of the next post in this series.

Notes and References

1 For example, see Emmons, William R.; and Noeth, Bryan J. “Education and Wealth.” The Demographics of Wealth, Essay No. 2, May 2015.

Additional Resources

• Center for Household Financial Stability
• The Demographics of Wealth: Education and Wealth
• On the Economy: Income and Wealth Gaps: College Grads vs. Nongrads

The College Boost: Is the Return on a Degree Fading? | St. Louis Fed

I'm sure it's not the Feds fault, right?

On average, black college graduates born in the 1980s have little or no additional wealth above their counterparts without a degree. This is true for postgraduate degrees as well.

Get the Fed out of education and watch results go back to where they were before they put their hands on it.

But no!!  We'll continue to ask the arsonists to put out the fire. It appears we've definitely devalued or diminished, but not quite destroyed the value of an education in this country. God Bless America!!


from StLouisFed.org
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/july/college-boost-return-degree-fading

The College Boost: Is the Return on a Degree Fading?

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

This is the second post in a series on the financial returns of college degrees.By William Emmons, Lead Economist; Ana Hernández Kent, Policy Analyst; and Lowell Ricketts, Lead Analyst, Center for Household Financial Stability

Our May research symposium, “Is College Still Worth It: Looking Back and Looking Ahead,” identified how the returns to a college degree have changed over time and how those returns can be boosted going forward.

For our Center’s research contribution, we focused on how the financial returns to college have changed across generations. We concentrated on income and wealth outcomes for college graduates born in six decades:1

• 1930s
• 1940s
• 1950s
• 1960s
• 1970s
• 1980s

Among racial and ethnic groups, we had a large enough sample to break out our results for non-Hispanic white families and African-American or black families. Similar to the first post in this series, we looked at the boost to income and wealth associated with both four-year (grads) and postgraduate (postgrads) college degrees.

Expected Boost to Income Remains Strong

The figure below shows that expected incomes among grad families of either race have largely held steady across birth cohorts, with the exception of white grads born in the 1980s.

Certainly, the returns were highest among older generations. By our measure, the 1930s generation benefited marvelously from earning a four-year degree. Incomes of grads born in the ‘30s were 72 percent and 109 percent higher than their nongrad peers for white and black families, respectively.

However, given statistical uncertainty or “noise,” we can’t definitively say that the incomes of grads born in the ‘30s were meaningfully higher than grads born in the ‘40s through ‘70s. This tells us that the expected boost to earnings associated with a four-year degree remains largely unchanged over time.

We can say that for white grads born in the ‘80s, their incomes were meaningfully lower than those of previous generations. However, it’s important to note that even the ‘80s grads received a sizable boost to their income. Thus, it appears that grad families of either race, born in any decade, reaped sizable rewards in the labor market.

What about postgraduate degrees? The next figure offers a similar look at the income boost among these highly educated families.

Expected earnings associated with a postgraduate degree have declined somewhat over time among white families. Returns peaked at 108 percent higher income for postgrad families born in the '30s and gradually shifted down to 54 percent for the postgrads born in the '80s.

Among black postgrads, the earnings boost is considerably more volatile across generations. After looking at the statistical noise related to these estimates, we can’t say that the boost to black postgrad income has meaningfully changed over time.

Again, the '80s are a peculiar decade: Similar to their four-year degree counterparts, white postgrads born in the '80s have a lowest income boost than those born in the previous five decades.

The Wealth Advantage Is Falling

The majority of conversations involving the return to a college degree talk about what graduates earn in the job market following school. This is certainly important, and the evidence suggests that graduates continue to have superior incomes over their lifetime.

What is often obscured is how those graduates accumulate wealth over their lifetime. This is an important difference: Research has shown that assets—financial (such as stocks) and nonfinancial (such as a home)—are profoundly important for both financial security and upward mobility.

If wealth is so important, why is it left out of the conversation? Reliable and nationally representative household balance sheet data are notoriously hard to come by. It is precisely this reason that the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) is such a valuable resource. Using SCF data, we found that the boost to wealth accumulation associated with college has fallen across generations.

The wealth advantages afforded grad families, white and black, are shown in the figure below.

A similar trend emerges: Grad families born in previous generations received a much greater boost to wealth accumulation than their nongrad peers. White and black grads born in the ‘30s accumulated 247 percent and 509 percent more wealth, respectively. This compares with 42 percent and 6 percent more wealth for white and black grads born in the ‘80s.

Black graduates born in the ‘70s also accumulated on average a historically low amount of wealth (18 percent) above their nongrad peers. Disturbingly, given the statistical uncertainty around our estimate for the wealth boost among black grads born in the ‘70s and ‘80s, we can’t say for certain that there even is a wealth advantage to a college degree for the average black family.

The fortunes of families holding postgraduate degrees are even dimmer by our estimates, as seen in our next figure.

The enormous expected boost to wealth deteriorates rapidly between the ‘50s and ‘80s generations. Among white postgrads, the wealth boost ranged between 403 percent and 276 percent for postgrads born in the ‘30s through ‘60s.

Compare that with those born in the ‘70s and ‘80s, which had 116 percent and 28 percent higher expected wealth than nongrads. The boost estimated for white grads born in the ‘80s is almost negligible after accounting for statistical noise.

The picture is similar for black postgrads, although the decline in the wealth boost starts among postgrads born in the ‘60s. Black postgrads born in the ‘50s accumulated 332 percent more than their nongrad peers. Postgrads born in the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s accumulated only 18 percent, 16 percent and 8 percent, respectively, more than their nongrad peers.

All of those estimates were sufficiently noisy that we can’t rule out that they could be zero or even negative. The implication is shocking: Black postgrads born in the 1960s, ‘70 or ‘80s do not have statistically higher wealth than blacks who didn’t graduate from college.

Why have the wealth returns to both a four-year and postgraduate degree fallen so precipitously across birth cohorts while earnings have fared far better? The third and final post in this series will offer some potential explanations.

Notes and References

1 Our sample was too thin among families born before the 1930s and after the 1980s to provide reliable estimates.

Bono: America is ‘an idea.’ That’s how we see you around the world, as one of the greatest ideas in human history

Bono Speech at Georgetown - Keeping Faith with the Idea of America

JACKSONVILLE - It is somewhat strange that we live in a society where anyone can speak in glowing terms about American exceptionalism - except Americans.

Screw that!! Happy Birthday and God Bless America.

from aei.org
http://www.aei.org/publication/bono-america-is-an-idea-thats-how-we-see-you-around-the-world-as-one-of-the-greatest-ideas-in-human-history-2/

America is an idea. Ireland is a great country, but it’s not an idea. Great Britain is a great country, but it’s not an idea. That’s how we see you around the world, as one of the greatest ideas in human history.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY?!? - GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY?!? - GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

It is after all, INDEPENDENCE DAY we are celebrating, right? Let's take a gander at where we are.


Land of the free? Not so much. Americans' sense of freedom drops, poll finds.

				Land of the free? Not so much. Americans' sense of freed... Americans are feeling 'less satisfied with the freedom to choose what to do with their lives,' according to a Gallup poll. The trend could be linked to a perce...
				View on www.csmonitor.com	Preview by Yahoo

Seventy-nine percent of US residents are satisfied with their level of freedom, down from 91 percent in 2006, according to the Gallup survey, released Tuesday.

That 12-point drop pushes the United States from among the highest in the world in terms of perceived freedom to 36th place, outside the top quartile of the 120 countries sampled, trailing Paraguay, Rwanda, and the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

 Only 10 nations experienced as sharp a drop as the US in terms of the satisfaction of citizens with their level of freedom: Egypt, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Romania, Yemen, Pakistan, and Spain.

Maybe we should celebrate while it ( meaning Independence ) lasts.

from among the highest in the world in terms of perceived freedom to 36th place, outside the top quartile of the 120 countries sampled, trailing Paraguay, Rwanda, and the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

ARE YOU FLIPPING KIDDING ME?? And we're celebrating this? Good God, wake up first!!

It might help if we remember that our forefathers fought for Liberty as the bulwark that would insure their freedom, not Equality. 



I like Liberty, it's easy to define, measure and implement throughout society.

Unlike Equality which while seemingly easy enough  to define ( 2+2 = 4 ) is impossible to measure and implement throughout society.

And lately we have taken liberties (no pun intended) with the definition of equality part.

lib·er·ty

ˈlibərtē/

noun

noun: liberty

1. 1.

   the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

   "compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty"

   synonyms:

   independence, freedom, autonomy, sovereignty, self-government, self-rule, self-determination; More

   antonyms:

   tyranny

   • an instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one.

     plural noun: liberties

     "the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

     synonyms:

     right, birthright, prerogative, entitlement, privilege, permission,sanction, authorization, authority, license, power More

     antonyms:

     constraint

   • the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

     "people who have lost property or liberty without due process"
   • the personification of liberty as a female figure.

     noun: Liberty

Equality was the bulwark for the French revolution and we see how that mess has turned out. Why on earth do we want to follow that example?

• Nobody plays to a tie, except the Japanese occasionally and the soccer-nazi socialists. 
• Nobody fights and dies for equality.
• They fight to be free, to be left alone as long as they aren't harming anyone else. 

Let's get back to our roots. And reverse the trend. Then maybe we can start celebrating.

I close by raining these rather solemn words on an otherwise celebratory parade.
from the blog Golem XIV - Author of the Debt Generation:

The Disloyal - Golem XIV - Thoughts

		The Disloyal - Golem XIV - Thoughts There have been three important men in my life. The dreams of all of them have been betrayed. My grandfather was and in many ways still is everything I admire. He began working down the pit when he was 14 years old. He retired at 65 and a few fleeting years later w...
		View on www.golemxiv.co.uk	Preview by Yahoo

Today it is others they will come for. When will it be people you know, or you or your children? When will voicing or organizing opposition become domestic extremism?

If we do not fight the peace then we will one day soon find we are forced to fight a war. Fighting the peace is hard. It requires standing up and saying things that others might ridicule. But is that so very hard?

Our future is in the hands of The Disloyal. Is their future the one you want? Do you want to live in a country rotted by systemic and protected dishonesty where the law is a whore, democracy a pantomime, integrity and honour sneered at and loyalty to others forgotten? I do not.

9/11 Tribute - Amazing Grace

I know NBC wants us to get back to listening to one of the Kardashians, but we should never forget the heroes of the day and those who continue to serve and protect us.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.


BTW: Now that some time has past and emotions have been brought down from a boil to a simmer, maybe we can get around to answering some of these questions currently unresolved. It seems like Liberty demands that we do so.

The Unanswered Questions of 9/11
September 11, 2012
By James Corbett
Corbett Report.com
http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Unanswered_Questions_of_911_/21435/0/0/0/Y/M.html

In his latest weekly address to the nation, President Obama asserts that America’s questions about 9/11 have been answered. If only it were so.

The questions of 9/11 have only continued to pile up higher since that fateful day, and despite official platitudes we are no closer to having those questions answered today then we were when they first arose. In fact, for some of the most important 9/11 questions, the government’s own documents and records that could conceivably answered them have been destroyed, meaning we may never have answers.

The unanswered questions of 9/11 are too numerous to enumerate, but they include:

-Why has NIST classified the data that they used to make their computer animation of the WTC7 collapse? Would knowledge of how NIST believes the building collapsed really “jeopardize public safety“?

-Why did the DIA destroy more than 2.5 terabytes of data on their Able Danger investigation that reportedly identified four of the alleged hijackers years in advance of the attack? Why did the Pentagon buy up and burn the entire first print run of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer’s book on the program?

-Why did the SEC destroy their records on the 9/11 insider trading question, presumably the most important investigation in the agency’s history?

-Why did the alleged “mastermind” of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, confess not only to plotting 9/11 “from A to Z” but also confess to masterminding numerous crimes that he could not have committed?

-Why did Osama bin Laden repeatedly deny any involvement in the attacks until a series of mistranslated and otherwise manipulated videos came along appearing to portray him as taking credit for those attacks?

-Why was the report of US State Department official Frank Taylor supposedly proving the case for Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11, which NATO used to justify its invasion of Afghanistan, presented in a classified briefing? Why is that report still classified to this day?

-Why did the 9/11 commission rely so heavily on the confessions extracted through torture which even the Senate’s Armed Services committee points out is specifically used to extract false confessions?

-Why did the CIA destroy 92 videotapes of their illegal torture sessions after being specifically ordered by a court not to do so? Why did the courts eventually absolve the CIA of any culpability for this crime?

-Why did Donald Rumsfeld announce a new “war” on September 10, 2001? What was the reason for the 2.3 trillion missing dollars which the Pentagon had lost up until that point, what did Rumsfeld’s “war on bureaucracy” hope to achieve, how was that “war” hindered when the budget analyst office in the Pentagon was destroyed the following morning, and where are the public records into this accounting scandal?

-Why did Rumsfeld go into a regularly scheduled meeting with a CIA officer in his office on the morning of 9/11, after both of the Twin Towers had been struck by airplanes and it had been determined that “America was under attack.” Why did the highest ranking official in the US military remain in that meeting and unavailable for contact even by his highest staff members as the worst attack on US soil in history continued to unfold? Why did he suddenly come out for a photo op on the Pentalawn after the explosion instead of helping to coordinate the defense of the nation?

-Why is there such a massive discrepancy between the 9/11 commission’s official finding of the time of entry of Dick Cheney into the Presidential Emergency Operation Center on the morning of 9/11 and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s testimony of the timing of that arrival?

-Why did the US government contract with Ptech, an enterprise architecture software firm, to install its backdoor access software on some of the most sensitive databases in the US government? Why did they continue to use Ptech even after it was discovered that its sweetheart investor was a specially designated global terrorist on the Treasury’s own terror list? Why did they declare that there was nothing untoward in the software mere hours after raiding Ptech’s offices in 2002? And what was Ptech doing in the basement of the Pentagon on 9/11? What interoperability tests was it running on the link between FAA and NORAD systems on 9/11, and how did that interfere with the FAA and NORAD’s response?

-And, perhaps most tellingly of all, how did four highjacked aircraft fly so wildly off course for such lengthy periods of time without being confronted by a single fighter interceptor, and why did the Pentagon admittedly and on the record lie to the American public about the timing of its response that day?

These and many, many questions like them have been asked by the victims’ family members, the first responders, members of the US military, American congressmen and women, intelligence agents, foreign dignitaries and heads of state, and concerned members of the public across America and around the globe. And still, 11 years after the events themselves, the American president has the gall to suggest that all questions have been answered and it is time for Americans to move on.

On the contrary, Mr. President. Those who are concerned with 9/11 truth and justice will continue to fight on, to answer the questions that your government cannot and will not answer, whether those answers come now, 11 years from now, or generations from now. Those who fight for 9/11 truth will not give up until these questions have been answered. Echoing the words of those brave souls in the wake of that other great American tragedy, the OKC bombing:

“We search for the truth. We seek justice. The courts require it. The victims cry for it. And God demands it.”

For more on the unanswered questions of 9/11 truth, please watch the latest episode of The Corbett Report podcast, “The Meaning of 9/11 Truth“:

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org


The Third Building Which Collapsed on 9/11 Was Not Hit By a Plane
September 11, 2012
http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Third_Building_Which_Collapsed_on_911_Was_Not_Hit_By_a_Plane/21432/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense

Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is “impossible”, “defies common logic” and “violates the law of physics”:

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded

John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis,writes:
Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash – twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust

Graham John Inman points out:
WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

Paul W. Mason notes:
In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

David Scott says:
Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

Nathan Lomba states:
I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings.

This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures

Edward E. Knesl writes:
We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

Steven Francis Dusterwald:
The symmetrical “collapse” due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

John S. Lovrovich:
It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering

James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Christopher Michael Bradbury:
It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural engineer with 18 years’ experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological matters

Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings and other types of structures
Lester Jay Germanio, 20+ years experience
Daniel Metz, 26+ years experience
Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
Marshall Casey Pfeiffer
Paul A. Thomas
Steven Merritt
Kers Clausen
Dennis Kollar, American structural engineer
Doyle Winterton, American structural engineer (retired)

David Topete
The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineershave questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous experts in other disciplines, including:

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says:

The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

And a prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why Building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

9-11 explained in 5 minutes!!!.mp4

ONLY IN AMERICA

This is the best comment I read today:

1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black. 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE,and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

<"( );::::::;~ ~;::::::;( )">

The Greatest Play In Baseball - Rick Monday Saves U.S. Flag - 35 Years Ago

Photo by Jim Roark
Rick Monday grabbing the American flag away from two protesters.

Today, I have little doubt that Rick Monday would be portrayed as the criminal. Denying these miscreants their constitutionally protected right to free speech. Those idiots are lucky they weren't stomped into the ground. I'll bet if Lasorda's fat behind got to them first, it might have been a happier ending for the two offenders.

HAPPY 35TH ANNIVERSARY, RICK MONDAY!!

Rick Monday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American flag incident

Rick Monday grabbing the American flag away from two protesters.

The two most famous moments of Monday's career were both associated with the Dodgers. In the first, on April 25, 1976, during a game at Dodger Stadium, two protesters, William Thomas and his 11-year-old son, ran into the outfield and tried to set fire to an American flag they had brought with them. Monday, then playing with the Cubs, noticed they had placed the flag on the ground and were fumbling with matches and lighter fluid; he then dashed over and grabbed the flag from the ground to thunderous cheers. He handed the flag to Los Angeles pitcher Doug Rau, after which the ballpark police officers arrested the two intruders. When he came up to bat in the next half-inning, he got a standing ovation from the crowd and the big message board behind the left-field bleachers in the stadium flashed the message, "RICK MONDAY... YOU MADE A GREAT PLAY..." He later said, "If you're going to burn the flag, don't do it around me. I've been to too many veterans' hospitals and seen too many broken bodies of guys who tried to protect it."

[2] On August 25, 2008, Monday was presented with an American flag flown over Valley Forge National Historical Park in honor of his 1976 rescue.[3]

At the end of the season, the Cubs traded Monday to the Dodgers in a five-player deal with two players (one of whom was Bill Buckner) going to the Cubs.

At the September 2nd, 2008 Los Angeles Dodgers game, Rick Monday was presented with a Peace One Earth medallion by Patricia Kennedy, founder of the non-profit organization Step Up 4 Vets, for his actions on April 25, 1976 and his military service with the Marine Corps.[4]

The Greatest Play In Baseball - Rick Monday Saves U.S. Flag

Uploaded by giramino on Jun 10, 2008
On April 25, 1976 at Dodger Stadium, Rick Monday of the Chicago Cubs, grabbed and secured the American flag from two individuals as they were attempting to burn our flag in the middle of the playing field. It was an outstanding display of American Patriotism. Due to the numerous references to 'allah' and insistence that their chairs be faced in a certain direction while being questioned, the two, a father and his son, were described to be muslims by several security personnel including an off duty police officer in attendance at the game who went down to the security room soon after the incident. Others claim that the two, William Errol Thomas and his brother, later corrected to be Thomas and his 11 year old son (not identified due to his age) were war protesters. Others claimed Thomas escaped from a mental institution, others said that his wife was being held illegally and against her will in a mental institution and various other claims. Regardless, it's probably safe to say that what they attempted to do was a disgrace to our American Flag and every American citizen. Aside from public ridicule, Thomas incurred minimal legal actions for his actions. He was fined $60 for trespassing and placed on probation for a year. No formal charges were filed against his 11 year old son who was treated as a juvenile offender. Something that was also confusing was obtaining the flag burner's real name. Security personnel at the stadium said that his name was William Errol Morris. However, the police report and court records all list him as William Errol Thomas, Aka William Errol Morris (Criminal courts building record Case# 31-543367 Thomas, William Errol, Jr. Violation Sec. 602, P.C. one year probation and ordered not to enter Dodger Stadium during probationary period.) His attorney in the public-defender's office said that Thomas was American Indian, a transient living out of the back of his car. DMV yielded no information nor did the registrar of voters or Veterans Administration. The Bureau of Indian Affairs in Phoenix had no information nor were there any military records.

The Past, Present and future in Politics

The election results are in. There are still votes to be counted and races to be decided, but maybe now is a time to step back, take a deep breath, distance ourselves from the white-hot rhetoric of campaigning and take a look at what has been presented to us. We are at a very important crossroads here in the good old USA.

Take a look at the passion of a Tea Partier, the cool logic and wisdom of a Thomas Sowell, a sobering video from Citizens Against Government Waste and an inspirational acceptance speech by a person who is helping to change the face of the Republican Party, Marco Rubio.

And my other personal favorite Lt. Col. Allen West did win in Florida. He understands the Constitution when it says that the government should "promote the general welfare" not "provide welfare". Therein lies one of the fundamental differences we face today. Listen to this man and tell me you would not line-up beside him or follow him into battle.

GOD BLESS THIS MAN AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

Since it appears to be such a major issue, check the tape of West's acceptance speech as the camera pans the crowd around the 7:45 mark. Check out the racial composition of the crowd and then look again at Allen West. West is a product of the Tea Party. Then tell me if the truth fed to you by some of these knuckleheads in the media isn't just some sort of artifice to divide people rather than bring them together. Oh, and please, just one of you haters from the left please refer to Lt. Col. Allen West as an Uncle Tom or an Oreo. And please do it to his face. And please, Oh God, please let me be there to see it.

Anyway, roll the tapes. Somewhere down the line of this post, I do believe you will be looking at the next President of the United States. God willing, sooner rather than later.

It may have helped to have some of this information before voting but I was a little bit distracted by the Giants recently.

WOW!! THESE PEOPLE SEEM MORE CONCERNED AND PASSIONATE ABOUT THEIR COUNTRY THAN A DANGER TO IT.



http://thedebtweowe.com/a-stunning-rendition-of-the-fourth-verse-of-the-star-spangled-banner

Political correctness dominates America today and we have lost many of the principles that this nation was founded on. If the pilgrims were still alive today, they would be trying to run away from America.

One year, in school we recited this version. For what reason, I don't recall. So I do know the words to this verse by heart. You probably could not recite this version...in a public school today. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

And please don't start any of that "I don't see any people of color in that video" nonsense. To that I can only ask one question.

"WELL, WHY NOT?"

A similar variation of the same question crossed my mind around the 7:50 mark of the Allen West acceptance speech video. Some things need to change. Very soon.

I'll let Thomas Sowell explain one of the other "big issues" that some of the "enlightened" ones pretend they understand better than the rest of us.

They spent a good part of the last week or so trying to catch Christine O' Donnell in a Palin-like "gotcha" moment that backfired. It simply displayed either their ignorance of the Constitution or their utter contempt for same, take your pick.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251250/forgetting-constitution-thomas-sowell

Forgetting the Constitution

The assurance that “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution shows our elites’ ignorance.

Politics is not the only place where some pretty brassy statements have been made and repeated so often that some people have accepted these brassy statements as being as good as gold.

One of the brassiest of the brass oldies is the notion that the Constitution creates a “wall of separation” between church and state. This false notion has been so widely accepted that people who tell the truth get laughed at and mocked.

A recent New York Times piece said that it was “a flub of the first order” when Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for senator in Delaware, asked a law school audience, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” According to the New York Times, “The question draw gasps and laughter” from this audience of professors and law students who are elites-in-waiting.

The New York Times writer joined in the mocking response to Ms. O’Donnell’s question, though admitting in passing that “in the strictest sense” the “actual words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in the text of the Constitution.” Either the separation of church and state is there or it is not there. It is not a question of some “strictest” technicality.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a “wall of separation” between church and state, either directly or indirectly.

For more than a century, no one thought that the First Amendment meant that religious symbols were forbidden on government property. Prayers were offered in Congress and in the Supreme Court. Chaplains served in the military and presidents took their oath of office on the Bible.

But, in our own times, judges have latched onto Jefferson’s phrase and run with it. It has been repeated so often in their decisions that it has become one of the brassiest of the brass oldies that get confused with golden oldies.

As fundamentally important as the First Amendment is, what is even more important is the question whether judges are to take it upon themselves to “interpret” the law to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it plainly says.

This is part of a larger question, as to whether this country is to be a self-governing nation, controlled by “we the people,” as the Constitution put it, or whether arrogant elites shall take it upon themselves to find ways to impose what they want on the rest of us, by circumventing the Constitution.

Judges circumvent the Constitution by reading their own meaning into its words, regardless of how plain and unequivocal its words are.

The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.

NOW THAT'S DANGEROUS. WE HAVE FOLKS IN THE HIGHEST POSITIONS OF POWER IN THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE EITHER IGNORANT OR DERISIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

This is the looming danger we face as a nation and all these folks that seek to pit one group against another are diverting our attention from a problem that will fundamentally change our country and make our way of life and our standard of living unrecognizable and unreachable for future generations.

from Citizens Against Government Waste:



The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. - Proverbs 22:7

And now, since it is becoming increasingly apparent that the whole "Hope & Change 1.0" thing was nothing more than a pile of rhetoric, I give you some real hope for some real change looming on the horizon.

MARCO RUBIO ACCEPTANCE SPEECH:




LT. COL. ALLEN WEST, "THE REVOLUTION" SPEECH:



LT. COL. ALLEN WEST ACCEPTANCE SPEECH: