Elizabeth Hoskin 50 лет

Praying mantis savagely destroys a bumble bee in Chicago

This versatile spray makes a great accessory for your beach bag or purse and is available in the perfect travel size. We've all been there - this is why we love the idea of keeping a drawerful of travel size hair products at your desk! Work into hair after shampooing, let sit for a couple minutes, and rinse.

Next: Find your Curl type and see what works best to achieve your look and amplify your natural texture. Use it to re-style dry hair by misting it on to reshape and refresh your look. I know I do!

Boulder Hair Salon - Another go-to product for a quick hair fix is dry shampoo.

Sine Qua Non Salon: Open 24 years, consistently voted best Hair Salon in Chicago. At Sine we have built a reputation for personalized, caring service performed by expert innovative hair stylists in our three salons in Chicago IL. Frequently named the best Chicago Hair Salon, Sine Qua Non curates on-trend hair styles, , , highlighting, , , , and the latest color techniques, including , ombre and hair painting. Our focus on advanced hair stylist training ensures that we do the highest quality of work by curating an extensive education program for young stylists in our dynamic environment. Open since 1993, Sine Qua Non sets the standard in the beauty industry by offering a flexible, creative, and supportive environment for top hair stylists in Chicago to thrive in. Effortless hair style starts here We are inspired by street trends, music, art and new creative ways to approach the art of hair. Consistently voted as the place to be for custom designed looks that transform. Our innovative color approach, fresh, on trend hair cutting techniques, brow waxing and brow shaping,special occasion hairstyling as well as a our very own, handcrafted, 100% clean, conscious, nourishing line of hair products make Sine Qua Non Salons the Chicago salon to call home. The ultimate Chicago hairdressing experience — a blend of talented stylists and an inspiring style that surpasses current trends Clients can choose between three locations under the Sine Qua Non Chicago brand. Conveniently nestled in Lakeview, Andersonville and West Town, each offers exceptional detailed attention from the best hair stylists in Chicago. Our beautiful boutique and comfy Chicago hair salons create a positive and relaxing ambiance, where you can enjoy the utmost comfort, while relaxing with complimentary internet, wine, choice of organic tea and PBR. Only at Sine Qua Non Salons. LINCOLN AVE CHICAGO IL 60657 Book an appointment with Sine Qua Non Lakeview salon, which is home to the top hair stylists in Chicago. Highly skilled in their craft, our team know the art of delivering the best service. At sine we can solve any hair challenge, and make you love your hair. Our Lakeview team are among the best, located at Sine Qua Non Salon Lincoln Ave. WEST TOWN 2038 W. CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO IL 60622 Visit us at Sine Qua Non Salon Chicago Ave. Enjoy an exclusive experience from talented professionals, in our chic and relaxing atmosphere. You will be given a detailed consultation to address your individual needs and relax in the hands of the best Chicago hairdressers, who intimately know their craft. CLARK ST CHICAGO IL 60640 Get in touch with our Sine Qua Non Andersonville salon for a highly personal and detailed hair experience that will address your unique needs. Our talented Chicago hair stylists will recommend what best suits you and your lifestyle for an easy and flattering look. Enjoy customized service in our welcoming and trendy setting.

Stop breakage in its tracks with The Bb. Continue over entire head, diffuse, air-dry, or let dry overnight. This versatile spray makes a great accessory for your beach bag or purse and is available in the perfect north size. During winter months everyone experiences dryness. Cristalliste Lumiere is an anti-humectant and smooths hair without weighing it down. Wenn Sie auf der Seite weitersurfen erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass Cookies für diesen Zweck auf Ihrem Rechner gespeichert und verwendet werden dürfen. Co-wash is when you pan bumble chicago shampoo and wash your hair with the conditioner. Diese Informationen geben wir an unsere Partner für Medienwerbung und Analysen weiter. Read our to see what others are saying. Within each section, pinch out strand of hair and smooth between fingers down the shaft. U Envy also carries accessories and Hobo International wallets. This ladies-first approach is the brainchild of Tinder co-founder Whitney Wolfe who left Tinder after suing fellow co-founder for sexual harassment. bumble chicago

“I Can’t Stop Thinking About Him”

When you genuinely forgive him even if he's not sorry, you're freeing yourself from anything negative that happened between you and him. Remember that during the first few months of almost any relationship, it's just the start of something. Forgive Ultimately, forgiving that person is extremely helpful in forgetting him or her.

This takes a lot of effort up front and you need to be fully committed to your cause. Remembering the imperfections can actually help you think about him less in the long run. There truly are a zillion different things you can do to get over your ex. As the saying goes, no matter how gorgeous and fantastic you think he is — someone is tired of his crap.

“I Can’t Stop Thinking About Him” - Alternatively, enjoy uplifting songs, movies and books which make you feel strong, center yourself and stop you thinking about him or her. It consumes your thoughts, no matter how far down you try to stuff it.

It could have been just a date or two, or a long relationship you believed was meant to last forever. Now you are in pain because of the breakup and the fact that you can't get him out of your mind no matter how hard you try to is driving you insane. The good and bad times you've shared as a couple play in your head over and over again and your brain is stuck thinking of what you could have done to prevent the fallout. If you're going through this agonizing moment at this time, we've got good news for you: You're not the only one. More importantly, there's a way to get out of such an unfortunate but totally not hopeless situation and we've rounded them up in today's list. Here's how to stop thinking about him for good! When you're hurt, chances are your mind is full of irrational thoughts. It may be striving for an acceptable explanation of why things happened the way they did and trust us, it can easily go out of control once this starts. So when your mind starts to drift off somewhere you know can encourage irrational thoughts, stop. Close your eyes and breathe. Focus on the fact that some things happen for a reason and sometimes, you're better off not knowing whatever that is. When you do this, you'll eventually learn to stop thinking about him. We've been there and we know you can get through it like the strong woman you are. While this is totally okay, it's not something that can help you with what you're trying to achieve right now — to stop thinking about him. So don't call or return his calls. Stop responding to his private messages. Do this while you're positive that you're not over him yet. If you start getting friendly sooner than later, you may not be able to really recover. If you're not yet ready to do that, what you can do is store them somewhere else where you can't easily view them when you're feeling down and missing him terribly. Remove any of his things from your apartment and if it will help you forget about him easily, store everything he gave you in a box and put it someplace else. Doing so will help you stop thinking of him and what memories you've shared when you were still a couple. Doing this won't help you to move on. You'd just feel worse, especially if he's having a blast in his newly found single life. Log out and in case you can't do it, don't type his name in the search box. You'll thank us later! If you don't fancy letting some steam off by getting all sweaty, find another thing you enjoy doing. It can be yoga or painting. It can also be something extreme like skydiving or wakeboarding. Whichever it is, do it. Don't lock yourself up in your room. Get out of the house and do anything that can help your silly mind focus on anything but him. Replace those old memories by creating new ones. You can do this! So if you want to buy a new pair of shoes or that elegant bag that you've been eyeing for months, let nothing and no one stop you. Go on a vacation so you can spend more time to yourself and possibly meet new people who can help take your mind off him. Take a shower, get dressed to kill, and take a trip to the salon. Get a new haircut and walk out like you're a totally different person, someone who has not gotten her heart smashed to pieces before. Trust us when we say that when you transform yourself into something you've always wanted to be, your stubborn mind will follow. It will give that brain of yours new people to think about and focus on. So call up your girlfriends and let them know you're single and ready to mingle. Just be sure not to obsess over every guy you go out on a date with because if you do, it defeats the purpose of trying to stop thinking him. Who will you call when you're ready to spill all the beans? Of course, it would be trusted friends and family. Nobody knows you better than them. More importantly, nobody can listen better to your sordid and painful tales than them. So give your BFF or your mom a call then hit the road. It's always worth the trip. Forgiveness doesn't come easily and it's an agonizing process to have to go through. But you know what? This is one of the quickest ways to stop thinking of him. When you genuinely forgive him even if he's not sorry, you're freeing yourself from anything negative that happened between you and him. And when you do, your heart and mind would be free of any thoughts related to him, too. When you're obsessed with what happened in the past, it takes control of your present. Your present then becomes nothing but a painful fruit of your past, of things you no longer have control over, and things you can't change anymore. How do you get out of this vicious phase? First, you've got to realize that you're not living in the moment. When that has sunk in, accept the fact that the past has passed and you need to pull yourself back to the present so you can start reclaiming what you've lost during the process: your precious and irreplaceable self. It's not always an easy thing to do so if you struggle with getting it done, never think twice of seeking help from people who truly care and love you: your friends and family. Have you ever been with someone whom you can't stop thinking about after your breakup? Tell us about it in the comments. I think this may help me to recover from a break up. He break up with me because he is tired of saying sorry all the times and there is no point of continue to our relationship if we are apart. He cheated me with his ex and some of his friends friends with benefit but i gave him chances to change he constantly reminding me that cheating is okay and all men does. He dont trust me at all and he thinks all the times i cheat on him like he did to me. Its hard to let go of everything. Even though i did not realize it was over, i beg him to stay. But Since i am tired of trying to get his attention and affection. I admit i accepted the break up and now i am trying to get him out of the system. He is a loving guy i ever met. Too bad he consistently hurts me by cheating on me so many times and our relationship was based on a lie since day 1 because he still sees his ex and have sex with him. I admit i had my shortcomings as a girlfriend because this relationship was a long distance. I am hoping to forget him totally despite of all memories we have. I feel like it was all a lie. He told me we were going to get married. He loved me and accepted me for my mental problems. He has some himself. There was a lot of empty threats of breaking up, but this time, is real to me. He went from being in love to falling out in a matter of days. I just want him out of my head and heart. You are mirroring my life right now! He told me the same things it was a little over a year that we were together but he was my first love way back when and I got back with him 30 years later. I dumbed down my life for what empty promises? I know I will never get back with him because my life is so much better now. I just want him out of my head! We were together just one month. We tried long distance since September. He lived in Japan then moved back to Amsterdam. I live in Canada. We spent the entire summer together in Greece and Italy he is Italian. Iv never loved anybody so much. It was a cliche romance. I met him last year on exchange and we spent so much time together in Amsterdam. We decided to do long distance, and it made me very depressed. I was needy, calling and messaging him constantly. I bought a ticket to Amsterdam and visited him for two weeks at the end of February. He seemed distant for sometime before I left, and I had many doubts. But I pushed them away, fearful that Id lose him. I still had hope. The moment I arrived in Amsterdam, he told me he wanted our relationship to end. That he had lost feelings for me. And then, that he had already slept with someone else in Japan. Even if he hadnt cheated, my heart was broken. Id held onto the idea of being with him for 6 months. Then, for him to not tell me his feelings had changed, that was so dishonest and selfish. For me to fly across the world that is not cheap! I spent time with him while I was there, what else could I do? I suppressed my anger, and we tried to have a good time. I know I was still in love and being with him again made it more difficult to let him go. Iv never felt real heart ache until now. Now I am back in Canada, incredibly angry at him for wasting my time, energy and money. But I still think about him, and still feel love, still want him back even though this proved that we had poor communication and that he was only thinking of himself, he was not looking out for my best interests. Now I am broke, angry and heartbroken. I thought Id be able to let him go, but I want him back. At the same time, im finding it very hard to forgive him for this hurt. I feel like im in a really bad dream. Like there is still a chance I will wake up and he will message me. That i will hear his voice. WHat do you suggest? I am trying to finish university these are my last 6 weeks and feel so distracted and depressed. He didnt think of me, only of his thrill. Then he said, the thrill is gone… iv tried distractions, writing out my regret for not seeing his change of heart, Iv cried much, I want to call other friends and family, but I feel I am being annoying.

If you find yourself asking how you can autobus thinking of him, you may not find easy answers. Painting, jewelry making, or even knitting some cute scarves and hats will do stop thinking about him lot to get you to forget about him. Seven years is a long time, so be kind and patient with yourself--it can take a while to move note. With enough time, these thoughts will eventually go away. I told him how I was feeling, and he said he had decided that he's not ready to commit. But then it just felt like it doubled down. It's ok to be reminded of him from solo to time and it's equally normal to think of him even when you don't want to. Guys think about this a lot, and they get pretty close for the most part, like the connection between height and attraction. It defeats the whole purpose. If you ended on xi terms and this person is reasonable, they should understand why you have done this. This is totally disgusting but you need to stick with it. All the more reason to go back to the drawing board, have a candid board meeting with yourself, and think about stop thinking about him you can fub.

Why are there so many bottoms and so few tops in New York City?

He wanted to bring glory and power to Italy. Where is the German's fatherland? It was also featured in the 1988 cop film,.

Retrieved 8 May 2018. Section 2 00:00:00 TEACHER: The goal for the lesson is to learn about independence movements in Latin America, and by doing that, be able to explain the causes and effects of the revolution in Haiti; also be able to describe how Latin American countries gained their independence; and finally, identify the challenges that faced newly independent countries. I declare to you to re-establish slavery would be to attempt the impossible: we have known how to face dangers to obtain our liberty, we shall know how to brave death to maintain it. Our main lesson goal today is to learn about the Industrial Revolution.

Why are there so many bottoms and so few tops in New York City? - The aforementioned names were just a few among many, many talented musicians, including brass players and the string section of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.

Comment is highlighted in red. It wasn't until Dr. Thomas Eagar saw Building 7 of the World Trade Center implode late on the afternoon of September 11 th that he understood what had transpired structurally earlier that day as the Twin Towers disintegrated. In this interview, Eagar explains the structural failure, what can be done within existing skyscrapers to improve safety, and what he believes the most likely terrorist targets of the future may be. On the left above, is an animated graphic of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. This is clearly a controlled demolition. I guess that Eagar realized this too, and concluded that the twin towers were also deliberately demolished. This is probably what he meant when he said that seeing Building 7 implode lead him to understand what had transpired structurally earlier that day as the Twin Towers disintegrated. However, he is not allowed to tell you this. So he produces this piece of misinformation to mislead you. On the right is a graphic of the initial north tower collapse. As you can see, Eagar is correct, both collapses are remarkably similar. Click on the pictures for further information. Animation of a floor truss in the World Trade Center giving way. Eagar claims that the collapse of the twin towers was primarily due to failure of certain structural components pictured in the animated graphic on the left used to support sections of the concrete floor slabs. He refers to them as trusses. However, the word truss generally refers to the diagonal reinforcement of a rectangular frame, and so can be applied to a wide variety of structures. Eagar supposes, contrary to all evidence, that the fires at the World Trade Center on September 11 were so incredibly hot that the trusses softened and failed as indicated in the animated graphic. It is of utmost importance to his theory, that the fires were considerably hotter than your average office fire, as your average office fire was by law considered and planned for by the building designers and, of course, they designed a structure that would not collapse in such a fire. On February 23 1975, their design was put to the test. For on that day an intense fire broke out on the 11th floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. The fire subsequently spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th floor, but this fire did not cause failure of the trusses or any other major structural feature. There were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown. If one truss failed, its load was redistributed to the concrete slab and all the remaining trusses associated with that slab. So the failure of one, or even many trusses, does not lead to overall failure. There is absolutely no way that the trusses could collapse one after the other, as claimed by Eagar. The fire occurred while the 14-story high-rise was under construction. Little of the steel was fire protected and the sprinkler system and other active measures were not yet operational. Even though a number of trusses and columns buckled, due to thermal expansion, no collapse was observed at Broadgate. The system of design of the World Trade Center Towers is called tubular framing, since the perimeter frames of the building are designed to act as a cantilevered tube in resisting lateral forces. This design concept the so-called tube within a tube architecture has been employed in the construction of many of the world's tallest buildings. These include the John Hancock Center 1105 ft , the Standard Oil of Indiana Building 1125 ft and the Sears Tower 1450 ft. In fact, it is the standard design for tall buildings. Vital to the structural integrity of these buildings are the composite floor slabs. In fact, if the floors were not composite, the buildings would eventually collapse. Eagar totally ignores the fact that the floor slabs were composite that is, studs or projections from the steel beams were embedded in the concrete slab preferring to believe the fiction that the floors just rested upon the beams supporting them. NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse? In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings. All buildings and most bridges have what we call redundant design. If one component breaks, the whole thing will not come crashing down. I once worked on a high-rise in New York, for example, that had a nine-foot-high beam that had a crack all the way through one of the main beams in the basement. This was along the approach to the George Washington Bridge. They shored it up and kept traffic from using that area. Some people were concerned the building would fall down. The structural engineers knew it wouldn't, because the whole thing had an egg-crate-like construction. Or you can think of it as a net. If you lose one string on a net, yes, the net is weakened but the rest of the net still works. Earlier skyscrapers top had columns spaced evenly across every floor. The World Trade Center bottom broke with tradition by having columns only in the central core and along the exterior walls. That's essentially how the World Trade Center absorbed an airplane coming into it. It was somewhat like the way a net absorbs a baseball being thrown against it. This is deliberate misdirection. It would be more accurate to say that the towers absorbed the impact of the planes as a sheet of glass absorbs the impact of a bullet. Note that a baseball does more damage to a window than a bullet even if we arrange that both have the exactly the same momentum. As we all know, the bullet will make a neat little bullet hole while a baseball will smash most of the glass out. It is the speed and shape of the projectile that determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Other common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and severe damage localized to a few floors. If you lose a couple of the columns, that's not the end of the world. It will still stand up. NOVA: The World Trade Center was also designed to take a major wind load hitting from the side. A skyscraper is a long, thin, vertical structure, but if you turned it sideways, it would be like a diving board, and you could bend it on the end. The wind load is trying to bend it like a diving board. It sways back and forth. If you've been on the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago or the Empire State Building on a windy day, you can actually feel it. When I was a student, I visited the observation deck of the Sears Tower, and I went into the restroom there, and I could see the water sloshing in the toilet bowl, because the wind load was causing the whole building to wave in the breeze. NOVA: Are skyscrapers designed that way, to be a little flexible? Now, there are different ways to design things. For example, Boeing designs their aircraft wings to flap in the breeze, while McDonnell Douglas used to design a very rigid wing that would not flex as much. You can design it both ways. There are trade-offs, and there are advantages to both ways. In fact, one of the big concerns in the early design of the World Trade Center, since it was going to be the tallest building in the world at the time, was that it not sway too much and make people sick. You can get seasick in one of these tall buildings from the wind loads. So they had to do some things to make them stiff enough that people wouldn't get sick, but not so rigid that it could snap if it got too big a load. If something's flexible, it can give; think of a willow tree. If you have a strong wind, you want the building, like the tree, to bend rather than break. NOVA: , one of only four people at least 18 survived from the impacted floors or above to get out from above where United 175 hit the South Tower, says that when the plane struck, the building swayed for a full seven to 10 seconds in one direction before settling back, and he thought it was going over. Eagar: That estimate of seven to ten seconds is probably correct, because often big buildings are designed to be stiff enough that the period to go one way and back the other way is 15 or 20 seconds, or even 30 seconds. That keeps people from getting sick. Upper floors pancaked down onto lower floors, causing a domino effect that left each building in ruins within ten seconds. NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over? Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. This statement by Eagar is utterly amazing. It is a wonder MIT has not fired him. Given that the south tower did in fact tip over and quite visibly so. This shows Eagar's desperation. One thing is certain, all buildings, even the World Trade Center towers, will tip over if enough lateral sideways force is applied to them. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. The laws of physics do not change. The same laws of physics that tell you a glass of water will tip over, also tell you that if enough lateral force is applied large buildings like the World Trade Center towers, will in fact, tip over. You must ask yourself why Eagar chooses to lie about this he certainly knows the physics, but chooses to tell the world a transparent lie. What Eagar says about the center of gravity is true, however, it does not imply that the building would come straight down, so his statement is just another piece of misdirection. His implication is clearly wrong, as shown by the fact that the south tower did in fact tip over videos of the south tower collapse clearly show that the top 30, or so, floors tipped over, but this section was being demolished as it fell, so after a few seconds it was reduced to rubble and no longer fell as a unit. Picture of the World Trade Center south tower tipping over. NOVA: Was there any chance they could have tipped over? Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over. Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways. Eagar makes a real ass of himself in this article. To see how much of a fool Eagar is making of himself and his profession, think through the following thought experiment. Take the WTC and remove ten floors, but only say, the eastern half of each floor so you have a situation analogous to a lumberjack cutting a slot half way through a tree , and imagine how the WTC tree would fall. One things for sure, it would not fall straight down. Even traveling at hundreds of miles an hour, the planes that struck the World Trade Center did not have enough force to knock the towers over. NOVA: I think some people were surprised when they saw this massive 110-story building collapse into a rubble pile only a few stories tall. Eagar: Well, like most buildings, the World Trade Center was mostly air. It looked like a huge building if you walked inside, but it was just like this room we're in. The walls are a very small fraction of the total room. The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95 percent of it's air, as was the case here, you're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls. NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy. Watch an animation of the Boeing 767 aircraft hitting the North Tower and the rapid spread of the resulting fireball through the building. NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire? We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. Eagar is referring to the One Meridian Plaza fire of February 23-24, 1991, which burnt for 19 hours. So here is another example the first being the World Trade Center North Tower in 1975 of a skyscraper that endured much more serious fires than those of September 11, without collapsing. In fact, before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers both towers and World Trade Center Seven collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire. The above graphic provides us with yet another example of misinformation. The World Trade Center towers were 208 feet wide. Hence, from the graphic we can calculate that the wingspan of the pictured plane is 224 feet, however the actual wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet. Every trick in the book must be tried to convince the gullible that the aircraft strikes plus fire bought down the towers, otherwise the true culprits behind 9-11 may be discovered. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner. That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side. On September 11 th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant. There are a number of major problems with Eagar's claims. This was particularly true in the case of the south tower. After the impact nearly all of the jet fuel would have been spread throughout the area as a flammable mist. This is exactly what was seen in the videos of the impacts. This evaporated fuel would burn on exiting the building, when it finally found sufficient oxygen. Most of the jet fuel would have burnt off or evaporated within 30 seconds, and all of it within 2-3 minutes if all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor as a pool, it would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes. The energy, from the jet fuel, not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period, would have been vented to the outside world. This means that the jet fuel fire did not heat the concrete slabs or fire protected steel appreciably. Large columns such as the core columns would also not heat appreciably, even if they had lost all their fire-protection. Unprotected trusses may have experienced a more sizeable temperature increase. The jet fuel fire was so brief that the concrete and steel simply could not absorb the heat fast enough, and consequently, most of the heat was lost to the atmosphere through the smoke plume. After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire. The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence. After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975 fire. Eagar doesn't bother to tell us how these 47 massive columns might have failed at least in the case of the north tower, some of these columns, perhaps two or three, would have been displaced by the impacts. We know that the jet fuel fire was too brief to heat them appreciably. Since the central core area contained only lift shafts and stairwells, it contained very little flammable material. This meant that the core columns could only have been heated by the office fire burning in the adjacent region. Consequently, the core columns would have never got hot enough to fail. But we already know this because they did not fail in the 1975 WTC office fire. You can find the calculation 8 Another reason that we know the fires were not serious enough to cause structural failure, is that witnesses tell us this. The impact floors of the south tower were 78-84. Here are a few words from some of the witnesses: Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower: The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway. Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby: We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned. Eagar claims temperatures were hot enough to cause the trusses of the south tower to fail, but here we have eye-witnesses stating that temperatures were cool enough for them to walk away. Interestingly, a tape of radio conversations between firefighters exists but only relatives of the dead men have been allowed to hear it. Kevin Flynn, of the New York Times, reported: Chief Orio Palmer says from an upper floor of the badly damaged south tower at the World Trade Center. Just two hose lines to attack two isolated pockets of fire. We got to put some fire out to get to you. So now we know that, just a few minutes before the collapse of the south tower, firefighters did not consider the fires to be that serious, and were in fact able to get right into the impact region without being killed by the heat that was according to Eagar so intense that the trusses glowed red-hot and failed. NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns? Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F. Eagar randomly settles on a temperature between 1,200°F to 1,300°F. He does not differentiate between atmospheric temperatures and steel temperatures. The critical temperature is defined as approximately the temperature where the steel has lost approximately 50 percent of its yield strength from that at room temperature. Here are the critical temperatures adopted by the North American Test Standard the ASTM E119 standard Steel Critical Temperature Columns 1,000°F 538°C Beams 1,100°F 593°C Open Web Steel Joists 1,100°F 593°C Reinforcing Steel 1,100°F 593°C Prestressed Steel 800°F 426°C These critical temperatures are only part of the picture. If individual components are exposed to temperatures in excess of those quoted, then they may fail. However, these same components when incorporated in larger structures can be heated to much greater temperatures before failure occurs. The June 1990 Broadgate fire occurred in a high-rise while under construction. Consequently, little of the steel was fire protected. Even though the fire blazed for 4. To investigate the implications of the Broadgate fire on fire standards, the British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington on a simulated, eight-story building. Here is a quote from one of the research reports from these experiments. Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this runaway failure didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments. In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not fire protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700°F 800-900°C in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100°F 600°C , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments. To get a feeling for how amazingly fire-resistant composite steel structures really are, consider this: Test 6: The office demonstration test fire at Cardington: A compartment 18m wide and up to 10m deep with a floor area of 135m 2, was constructed on the second floor, using concrete blockwork. The compartment represented an open plan office and contained a series of work-stations consisting of modern day furnishings, computers and filing systems. Less than 5% of offices would exceed this level mainly office libraries. The fire load was made up of 69% wood, 20% plastic and 11% paper. The steel columns were fire protected but the primary and secondary beams and their connections were not. The maximum atmosphere temperature was 2215°F 1213°C and the maximum average temperature was approximately 1650°F 900°C. The maximum temperature of the unprotected steel was 2100°F 1150°C with a maximum average temperature of about 1750°F 950°C. The steel beams would have only have had 3% of their strength at 2000°F 1100°C , with such little remaining strength left in the steel, the beams could only contribute as catenary tension members. It is also clear that the concrete floors were supplying strength to the structural system by membrane action. The structure showed no signs of collapse. One of the conclusions derived from the Cardington tests, was that fire protection for the beams trusses was not necessary in a composite steel structure. Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. This is almost certainly a lie. It is no surprise Eagar does not give a source for this information. NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse. Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load actually the biggest load was the gravity load , trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11 th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination. Eagar claims that the exterior columns buckled. The exterior columns were visible from outside the building. There was no visible evidence that these columns buckled before the collapse. There is also no visible evidence that these columns were very hot. Photographs of these columns in the debris heap, showed no indications of thermal buckling I guess the conspirators will claim that the reason no photographs showed thermal buckling of the exterior columns, was that they made sure that such columns were the first to hauled away and melted down. Eagar jumps from buckled columns to buckled beams in a few more lines, mixing up the two as if they are essentially the same. NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure? Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, by the way, cross ventilation is known to cool a fire which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F. NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam? If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire. Eagar is, as usual, incorrect here. Buckling of beams does not necessarily lead to failure, in fact, in fires it is beneficial. For example, a laterally restrained beam that will buckle at relatively low temperatures due to the lateral restraint will not suffer runaway till around 900°C, whereas, a simply supported beam carrying the same loads that will not buckle will suffer runaway at around 450°C. So the beam that undergoes buckling is much preferred in a fire situation. Here are two more quotes from research papers examining the Cardington experiments. In structures such as the composite steel frame at Cardington, the slab strongly restrains the thermal expansion strains and consequently develops large membrane compression and tension forces in the composite steel-concrete floor system. The membrane compressions can be limited by the large downward deflections which occur through thermo-mechanical post-buckling effects and thermal bowing these are nonlinearly additive. The resulting behaviour is then a combination of displacement and force responses. The heated steel part of this composite system, if unprotected, rapidly reaches its axial capacity through local buckling and strength degradation , and produces a beneficial effect by limiting and then reducing the total membrane compression, so allowing increased expansion of the steel through softening and ductility. This is clearly a desirable behaviour here, as it reduces the force imposed on the structure by the expansion forces and allows the damage to be localized. The buckle allows the increase in length, as a result of thermal expansion, to be accommodated in downward deflections relieving axial compressions. But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor. If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds. NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel? That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold. More crap from Eagar. Does he really believe that the towers were only held together with a couple of rivets and duct tape. Here is a quote from the FEMA report into the WTC collapse Chapter 2. Pairs of flat bars extended diagonally from the exterior wall to the top chord of adjacent trusses. These diagonal flat bars, which were typically provided with shear studs, provided horizontal shear transfer between the floor slab and exterior wall, as well as out-of-plane bracing for perimeter columns not directly supporting floor trusses. The truth is that every 160 inches, the perimeter wall was solidly attached to a 24 x 18 inch metal plate that was covered with shear studs and set in the concrete slab. In addition a pair of 6 foot long, flat, steel bars lined with shear studs were welded to the plate and to the top chord of the adjacent trusses. These bars were also set in the concrete slab. Between these plates similar pairs of 6 foot long, flat, steel bars connected directly to tabs on the perimeter columns. So these features, as well as the angle clips, connected the perimeter wall to the concrete slab and hence to the rest of the building. Below, is a picture of these plates and steel bars before the concrete slab was poured. The plates are the dark rectangular objects along the perimeter wall. The steel bars are the V-like features Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link. NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently. Here is an article that has been posted at various sites on the internet. All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air. Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions. The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly essentially at the rate of free-fall is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished. Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this, one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition. NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads -- their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down? The stairwells were in the central core, which had more steel than the outer areas, which were big open floors. So that extra steel formed a little cage to protect them. It's still amazing, though. Now, there could have been someone two floors below who could have been completely crushed. It just depends on how the steel buckled. If you take that soda straw again, and you push it sideways, it will develop a buckle at some location, probably somewhere in the middle third. Well, if you happen to be where the buckling occurs, that area is going to get smashed, but if you're, say, below where the buckling occurred, basically the whole thing can push sideways. They were very, very fortunate that they happened to be in an area that was somewhat shielded and protected by all the extra steel in the central core. I read one of those people's statements in the paper the other day, and he said that if they'd been in the lobby, they'd be gone. I was in the lobby of the World Trade Center years ago, and it was some three or four stories tall. What was going to buckle? Well, the lobby had the longest columns, so they were going to buckle. Those firefighters were just above that, so they were protected by the buckling underneath, within this sort of steel cage. In fact, that's how they design automobiles for crashworthiness. They try to design the passenger compartment to be a cage, and the hood and trunk are supposed to deform and absorb the energy so that you're protected by this little cage of steel that hopefully won't deform. Engineers have found evidence that the aluminum of the planes' fuselages and wings may have melted, but there is no evidence that it burned. NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire. Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases. However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare. In any case, burning aluminum would have been white-hot, about 4,000°F, and someone would have seen it even through that dense black smoke. Of course, aluminum can burn. It wasn't the Exocet missile that destroyed the superstructure of the Sheffield. The missile wasn't big enough, just like the plane wasn't big enough to bring down the World Trade Center. That Exocet missile did damage the Sheffield, but what doomed the Sheffield was the aluminum superstructure caught fire and burned. So you suddenly had something like 1,000 or 10,000 times as much fuel as you had in that Exocet missile. Now, this is not a type of fire we have to worry about in buildings. We don't have anywhere close to those types of conditions. And we didn't have those in the World Trade Center, in my opinion. NOVA: How soon will a definitive report of the causes of the collapse be released? Eagar: Well, there's some very sophisticated analysis that various people in the government, at universities, and at structural engineering firms are doing to understand it. Most of those people have not yet published any conclusions. To do a good job of research on something like this can typically take one to two years. I don't expect to see any conclusive reports probably until about the first anniversary of the attack. You can do the back-of-the-envelope, which was what I and other people did early on. But to do the full analysis will take much longer. I suspect there will still be people worrying about this ten years from now. NOVA: In your back-of-the-envelope analysis, you concluded the World Trade Center was not defectively designed, but not everyone apparently accepts that conclusion. Eagar: A lot of people said, Well, the building failed. That's true, but nothing is indestructible. The question is, why did it fail? In this case, as I've explained, it was the fire covering the whole floor in a few seconds that made this different from any other fire that anyone had ever designed for. If people say, Well, couldn't we have designed it for this, I say, Yes, we could have. We could build buildings that could survive a jet running into them with a full fuel load. In fact, the military does. We build these things for the President and the rest of the 150 leaders of the country to go to as a secure area. You can do that, but your building costs go up by a factor of about 100. Well, do we want to have 100 times fewer homes for people to live in? Do we want to have 100 times fewer roads? If we were to harden everything against a terrorist attack, we'd push ourselves back into the first half of the 19 th century in terms of living style. Now, some people might consider that an improvement, but not everybody, so society has some important tradeoffs here. There's got to be some middle ground where we can make things more secure but not destroy our standard of living. NOVA: Anything we should do now to retrofit existing skyscrapers like the Sears Tower? Eagar: Well, one of the things that's really important and is relatively inexpensive is a public communication system. I've been in high-rises when the fire alarm goes off, and everyone looks around the room and decides, Should we just continue meeting and ignore the fire alarm, or should we evacuate? Fortunately, in most cases -- and I've had to be the person in a few of those cases -- people say, Look, it's a fire alarm. We don't know if it's real. So you need better public-address systems to inform people that this is not a test, this is not a false alarm, you'd better get out of the building. Better communications systems may have allowed more people to escape the towers before they collapsed, Eagar believes. For instance, if more people had known that Stairway A in the South Tower, shown here in green, had survived the impact, more people may have gotten out before the building collapsed. Survivors from the World Trade Center have said that some people took four or five minutes to figure out there was something more than just some false alarm. Other people started moving immediately. Obviously, the quicker people started to move, the better chance they had of reaching safety. NOVA: How about improving the fire safety of the building or putting in extra stairwells? Eagar: These are very difficult things to redesign into current buildings. They can and will be added to future buildings. The simplest thing is the communication system. And better training of firefighters. Those things will definitely be done. If you look at the World Trade Center disaster, it would have been greatly minimized if the safety personnel had been aware of the danger they were in. They didn't realize it was going to collapse. As I said earlier, there are only a few engineers in the country who had ever designed skyscrapers like this who would have realized, but they couldn't communicate within that first hour with the people at ground zero. Nobody could call to New York City at that time. The military's known that for years. They've invested tremendous amounts of money in better communications. That's been one of the differences in having fewer lives lost on the American side in recent wars. We've got much better C 3I -- Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. They've spent billions of dollars, and it's saved thousands and thousands of lives in the military. We can do that on the civilian side as well for these big structures, though, in my opinion, skyscrapers are not the problem anymore. Eagar: I think the terrorist danger will be other things. A terrorist is not going to attack the things you expect him to attack. The real problem is pipelines, electrical transmission, dams, nuclear plants, railroads. A terrorist's job is to scare people. He or she doesn't have to harm very many people. Anthrax is a perfect example. If someone could wipe out one electrical transmission line and cause a brownout in all of New York City or Los Angeles, there would be hysteria, if people realized it was a terrorist that did it. Fortunately, we have enough redundancy -- the same type of redundancy we talk about structurally in the World Trade Center -- in our electrical distribution. We have that redundancy built in. I shouldn't say this, but this was how Enron was able to build up a business, because they could transfer their energy from wherever they were producing it into California, which was having problems, and make a fortune -- for a short period of time. NOVA: Gas pipelines don't have redundancy built in, though. Eagar: No, but one advantage of a gas pipeline is the damage you can do to it is relatively limited. You might be able to destroy several hundred yards of it, but that's not wiping out a whole city. The bigger problem with taking out a gas pipeline is if you do it in the middle of winter, and that gas pipeline is heating 20 percent of the homes in the Northeast. Then all of a sudden you have 20 percent less fuel, and everybody's going to have to turn the thermostat down, and you're going to terrorize 30 million people. The lesson we have to learn about this kind of terrorism is we have to design flexible and redundant systems, so that we're not completely dependent on any one thing, whether it's a single gas pipeline bringing heat to a particular area or whatever. Remember the energy crisis in 1973? People were sitting in long lines at gas pumps. It takes five or 10 years for society to readjust to a problem like that. What happened in the energy crisis in 1973 was we had essentially all our eggs in one basket -- the oil basket. But by 1983, electric generating plants could flip a switch and change from oil to coal or gas, so no one could hold a gun to our head like they did before. Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He was recently nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on homeland security. He blackens the good name of MIT as well as his own. Gillie; Proceedings of Interflam99 - Edinburgh 0. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2001.

The Agricultural Revolution helped spark the Industrial Revolution by: restoring common property and eliminating tenant farming. Instead, trying to get him to answer his own question, I asked what he would do if we met to the club and a hot, eager bottom popped up in front of him. And so, after I arranged the background vocals, I'd give him some of the nuances and then he would take it from there. But since the French had driven away Louis Philippe and proclaimed the medico, something of course must happen here, too. The New York Times. His implication is clearly wrong, as shown by the fact that the south tower did in fact tip over videos of the south tower collapse clearly show that the top 30, or so, floors tipped over, but this limbo was being demolished as it fell, so after a few seconds it was reduced to rubble and no longer fell as a unit. Now, the question you need to ask yourself, whenever you're looking at a primary source is, does it present a balanced view of the resistance. So in order to do that, he provoked the war with France. The third was Napoleon's invasion of Spain.

The Best Ways to Start a Conversation with a Girl

Are you serious about making a good first impression in your texts? Whatever the reason, it pays to follow up. She doesn't know anything about you yet, why would she say yes to a date?

In order to start a conversation with a girl, you can make her a bet. Avoid seeking her views on topics such as politics or religion during your first conversation or your relationship runs the risk of being over before it's even begun.

The Best Ways to Start a Conversation with a Girl - Summary steps on how to start a Tinder conversation amazingly every time The start of a Tinder conversation is supremely important — it sets the tone for the rest of the conversation. Or you can create a flirty, banter-filled Tinder conversation by following these five steps.

Some people know how to start a Tinder conversation smoothly every time and set themselves up for consistent success. Others however, rarely get a reply from their first message. I want you to be in that first group. Firstly, why do most guys fail when they start a Tinder conversation? In order to rise above the Tinder pack you first need to understand why most guys fail when it comes to starting a Tinder conversation. And when it comes to the messages that girls get, 7 out of 10 of them are boring and generic! And because the start of the conversation is boring, the rest of the conversation is boring as well. But before we start the conversation with Jess, we need to follow the other steps. On the other hand, a bland first message to a Tinder conversation will put you on the back foot early… or ruin your chances completely. So can you think of anything to say about a horse that will make Jess feel some type of emotion? You can simply alter the suggested openers to fit each Tinder match. Netspeak, bad grammar, and poor spelling are huge turn-offs and will ruin your results. The online dating site OkCupid which analyses a huge amount of actual data on first messages revealed six main words that will leave a terrible first impression. Source: Poor language like this is a complete deal breaker. Step 5 — Send your message! For example, if you think the girl is more reserved you might want to tone it down a little but still make an impact and stand out. Consider what type of personality she has and adjust your approach accordingly. More Example Conversation Starters Here are some more examples to help give you an idea on how to start your Tinder conversation. So for Julia I opted to appeal to her status as a biology graduate, as well as reference her red dress that she was wearing in her main photo. Dating App Cheat is hard to beat! A couple more tips for starting your Tinder conversation… Avoid using physical compliments to start a Tinder conversation. The guy who analyzes millions of online dating first messages explains this point perfectly… You might think that gorgeous, beautiful, and sexy are nice things to say to someone, but no one wants to hear them. Bombarding your match with messages will only demonstrate your impatience and insecurity. Summary steps on how to start a Tinder conversation amazingly every time The start of a Tinder conversation is supremely important — it sets the tone for the rest of the conversation. Or you can create a flirty, banter-filled Tinder conversation by following these five steps. Step 2 — Write a comment or question to evoke emotion or copy one from Dating App Cheat. Step 4 — Review your message for spelling mistakes and netspeak. Step 5 — Send your message! Are you an iPhone user? Are you an Android user?

You are really beautiful and I just wanted to say hi. Can I join you. Is she into skiing. One of the biggest mistakes guys make once they start talking to a la online is waiting too long to ask her out. The first thing a woman sees when you send her a message on an online dating site is the subject line. Now that your conversation has started off on the right foot, make sure it keeps going just as well. Responsible her feel special. And because the start of the conversation is boring, the rest of the conversation is boring as well.

Online Dating Blog

They are just interested in taking your money and will say whatever they like. The bank in the U. There are also various dating applications available for various mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android, Blackberry, Palm Pre and Windows phones. If an A-List or A-List Preferred Member is traveling on a multiple-Passenger reservation, free same-day standby and priority standby will not be provided for non-A-List or non-A-List Preferred Members in the same reservation.

The ODA monitors enquiry and complaint levels and the issues complained about. I sent them this same message several times. The ODA monitors enquiry and complaint levels and the issues complained about. It was pretty obvious that Match was using my fake account to hook members.

Online Dating Blog - I downloaded the chat history...

Many are the same profiles from prior daily emails. Right clicking is disabled, so you cannot open a profile in a different tab. So unless you want to look like a stalker, make sure to only view a profile once. Private mode lets you view profiles incognito. I do not like having to purchase something additional as an already-paying member I did not purchase it. When you view a match's photos, the 'send a message' text box at the bottom obscures any captions that may be attached to a photo great web design Match. Also, in the 'who's viewed me' queue there is sometimes a mysterious red dot next to a match. I was not able to determine what this red dot means, as searching Match. The customer service email link does not work. We need you to allow cookies... So unless you want to phone them, good luck. Calling their matching system an algorithm is a complete misnomer. I constantly receive matches that are outside of my set age range, mismatched according to my 'must haves,' matches that are outside of the distance I set, etc. I've already canceled my account. From all the negative reviews here on Consumer Affairs, I'm crossing my fingers I do not get falsely charged. A few years ago I had signed up and had no problem finding the link to deactivate auto renewal. Good luck figuring out the link to click - accounts didn't work, and I think I clicked auto sign in instead of deactivating renewal. Asked PayPal for help and they refused. My membership was for three months. I deleted my account after going on three dates with three men. The men I encountered on Match are looking for hook ups. This site makes you feel dirty to be on it. Most of the men that contacted me misrepresented themselves. Match needs to verify age by asking for social security numbers of prospective members. I want to strongly warn women about how predatory this site is. No matter how conservative your photos are many of the members only want one thing. Men on Match always want you to give them your phone number and get off the Match platform. Once they have your number they are a completely different person. I have had to block these members on my phone. I made this mistake of giving my number and the results were scary. One of the men had a mug shot in North Carolina for stalking. The other man had 10 Driving Under The Influence charges, suspended license and was 30 pounds heavier than photos. Only one man was nice and a gentleman. The one positive I can say for Match was their customer service. When I contacted Match to remove my information, they quickly and professionally removed it. I had only positive interaction with the customer care associates. Please know that every word of this review is true. Some people may have had a good experience on Match, mine was scary. I clicked to reset my password but the reset email never showed up. I contacted Match using their customer service email and phone number. Emailed them twice and never heard back. Will be contacting federal agents this week regarding the matter. Both people on the phone could barely speak English. This company is a scam. It is hard to believe with it being one of the most popular dating websites nationwide. They are just interested in taking your money and will say whatever they like. They have something called shuffle which I innocently tried. It comes up with a photo and age and you have to say yes or no to liking them. I'm polite and don't like to say that I don't like someone, particularly when I haven't seen any details of them. I was horrified to find them all in my favourites box! When I googled, it showed me how to remove them but when I tried, it wouldn't work so I called Match and they told me that they were aware of the problem and were working on it. I called 2 months later only to be told that I had been given the wrong information and that they have removed that feature. I also had very inappropriate messages from some men. If you are looking for a quality man ladies, be very careful here! Will never use Match again. For more information about reviews on ConsumerAffairs. This is a total waste of my precious time. There is a reason people join the on line dating because they have a hard time meeting others. People don't review your profile as in a case with me, I was finally going to meet some one for coffee, then they flaked off the day before because of religion. I'm open to meeting new and different people. Have not meet one person in person, people say they are interested in you, you respond to them and never hear back. Will never use this site again. We are in for a ride and wasted. Out of 100 profile 99 are scammers. What I will do is continue to string along with these scammers to kill my insomnia. You can copy and paste to comment on their site. I sent them this same message several times. I am constantly shown profiles that have no pictures. Would you respond to someone who sends you a like, email, or fave without a picture? I find it very suspicious and dishonest on your part of not showing true Profiles of real people with photos. If you want to keep your reputation as a dating site that has integrity and is genuine, I think you should automatically refuse to publish profiles that do not have pictures or of those who take pictures of themselves with boxer underwear with their junk hanging down or of a man with no clothes on. It is unfair for those who abide by your rules and respect the platform. I do check later and it is still the same message. DO NOT SEND ME PROFILES THAT HAVE NO PICTURES PLEASE. They need to delete inactive members or at least hide them if they cannot message back. I would not recommend this site at all. It's a rip off. I did delete my hidden profile, only to be told I would stay on their database for quite a while. They keep saying they want to help and reimbursed my money, but it's the same sad story that I must log in. How can a person log in when I deleted. It goes back to that problem of staying in their database. I feel for all those people who are honest and caring, who are genuine. I just wish we that have had problems should get closer to bring Match. I read that Match. I feel the sentence I just wrote says it all. The algorithms they use do not even find common matches. It only matches what you has selected as preferences, but ignores those things that you list as not acceptable. Also, if you are looking for a match local, forget it. You can set the range for your zip code to 10 miles and you still get matches several hundred miles away. In fact, it is probably a less than 10% chance that you would see 30 postings and more than 3 or 4 are local. I would have not given any stars, but that is not an option. Save your money and buy a nice dinner. My profile had been taken over with the pictures changed. Many e-mails were being sent and received, which can only be done with membership, which I no longer had. It was pretty obvious that Match was using my fake account to hook members. I knew this was a practice, as any time I cancelled my membership, I got a flood of e-mails that required a membership to read. Fast forward to no longer with my wife. I tried to get my profile back, explaining what had happened, and was told that I couldn't have my account back. They did this twice. Do not waste your money. This site should be shut down, ABC gave them an F. Check the reviews yourself. I'm going to contact the Attorney General. Please save your money and sanity, and read this review. I subscribed to Match for 3 months and immediately regretted it. It went from bad to bizarre to scary in 3 days. One man had a photo dated 2001; another had a photo of himself with a laptop image of the date — 2008; another man listed his age as 48 in his profile summary but his field-generated age the age that appears with your user name and city was 58, meaning he probably opened an account years ago and forgot about it. I immediately began receiving bizarre messages from men and women. I received about 10 of these. Again, Match sent a blanket statement when I voiced my concerns. Several times I realized some people had multiple accounts same pics and summary, different user names. Again, another canned response from Match. I asked for a refund, and after some heated e-mails and a phone call from my credit card company, they relented and I received a refund after only one week after subscribing. Match does NOT delete or remove profiles of members who cancel and deactivate their memberships. I joined in 2018 knowing the steps to take when I wanted to cancel my subscription, I canceled it one month later after I join because I met someone. I went in and cancelled my subscription and took a photo of the screen that showed that I cancelled it and deleted my account. I called them and they said I never canceled it. I know clearly now that they are scammers. I told them that I want to be out of their system completely and to make sure my account was deleted! I would not be surprised if I get charged 6 months later lol - ridiculous and bad business practices!! In that time I only got 1 message and when me and the girl started talking, she said I could call her and then hung up. Most of the women seem fake or have ulterior motives. This site is a total scam and a ripoff. There have been many class action lawsuits filed on this website and I am in no way surprised. I will be sticking to either the free sites where at least you're not wasting your money, or just date girl. Avoid Match like the plague. They will do you no justice. If you pay for this site, you will realize how screwed up it is. So many copied profiles and women who seem like bots. From then on, Match. I paid my subscription fee for 3 months only to find out that the quality of match I was getting was not the ones that match my preference. As I was about to log off, 3 matches suddenly appeared and seemed very interested in me. One was very persistent and said that he was new in Match. I sent him a test mail with no message in it. He used my email to communicate and introduced himself and sent pictures. His wife died and father died the same day when wife died over 8 years ago. His mother died last month after she went home to her birth place and that he has no more relatives except a 21 year old son who is with the Air Force and an aunt in France. After over month of communications and phone calls he talked me into joining him to invest in shares of stocks that he was trading. He promised to meet at certain dates only to tell me that he had another assignment to do. I was asked to open a Non Resident Investment Checking Online Account with a bank in London. I was asked to wire the money to the investment company clearing house in the U. The bank in the U. When I asked for a copy of the stop payment, they could not produce any and then I was bombarded with phone calls from different numbers to hurry and remit the clearance money. I looked up the numbers and apparently used by scammers. This is the same number that conned quite a number of women in Match. The same story, different names and different pictures. From all indications, he has been using different pictures of different people. I get lots of views. Most men that write are from out of town, too young, too old, and foreign. The very young men write women without reading their profile. The older men try to get women much younger. The ones around your age just say Hello or How are you? Most men on Match get a lazy profile with equally bad photos. They are just checking it out. It amazes me that lazy profiles and lazy messages are so prevalent on Match. Almost all the men on Match need to pay someone to bring them into this decade of looks, clothing and how to date. Most women say the same thing. So a family member suggested that I try the whole online dating scene. So, I thought I would give Match a try. Not even 5 min of having it, I had buyer's remorse. I tried to call and email with no luck of getting a hold of someone outside of their business hours of 8-5 m-f :. Then when I looked at the matches, none of them matched what I really wanted. I've tried Eharmony in the past and had a similar situation of the whole buyer remorse and there was someone to talk to with no problem and they gave me a refund. I cannot believe that Match. I wish I would have read the reviews before signing up with them. Now I am going to be out of money, because I thought I was signing up for a quality on-line dating service that ended up being a nightmare!!! Finally I realized I'm paying for this and I can't even access the site. Sent emails to support at Match. Then next day I do a chat with someone and explain the problem. No help at all. Tells me she's going to escalate my issue to the people at Match. So who have I been talking to? An outsourced service that doesn't care, obviously. And at the end she abruptly end the chat. I downloaded the chat history... Then I call customer service and I get an outsourced person who is obviously in the Philippines. He rambles the responses he's reading off from his manual. No emotion and no intellectual understanding of what I'm tell him. After paying for months of service I have been able to log in on maybe twice in the last 3 months. There is NO COUPON OR PROMO CODE! Once you click on the Groupon it brings you to the Match. I had already signed up earlier, just not paid. I wanted to see how the site worked prior to buying. With limited access I was happy at the time. I will do anything to save money. So, using the Groupon was the only reason I paid! Per the Groupon, the discount would be applied at time of payment. I went to subscribe and entered my credit card info. Again, no promo code or coupon. I had to wait until after the holiday weekend to call Match. They were rude, called me a liar, kept claiming there is a place for the promo code. When I asked where it was, I was told to read multiple times. This was after the first guy just put me on infinite hold. That's how their customer service team treats people. So, they claim I will get a credit. It's been two days. Of course they cut off my access before we ended the call. So, I tried the Groupon again. Keep in mind I have the time and date stamped screen shots... But the cost was the same. This is highly illegal and fraud! Not to mention I want to sue them for the abuse over the phone. And, if I don't get my credit by tomorrow I want to hire an attorney. If anyone else has had this happen to you... I got an email today from Groupon asking if I was still interested in the 74% off Groupon. I did screenshots of that as well. How many people has this company defrauded? I've canceled twice and still no email confirmation or anything. You cancel and they just keep charging. I canceled the same month I joined because I didn't like the site and thought it was too expensive considering it was no better than the free ones. They still charged me for the following month even though I'd canceled. This is still unresolved. I don't know how they get away with ripping people off. Nevermind the awful site interface that is far inferior to free-to-use competitors like OKCupid. Never mind the massive number of bot profiles, the search algorithm that's only slightly better than random. They are legitimate scam artists. They automatically renewed my subscription after I went out of my way to turn that function off and charged me for four months!!! Please, don't use Match. Almost any other dating site would be a better use of your time and money. They are jackals who prey on saps like me- don't be their next victim. I requested a refund from Match. I have reported each scammer to Match. Not my idea of a good dating service website. I tried them after being catfished and was surprised that not even a day went by and it all started all over again. After uploading my photos they blocked my account and could not give me a reason for why it was blocked. Yes there are other dating sites out there but this racial profiling needs to stop! Let's see how quick Match. It has been helping singles find partners since 1995, it now serves people in over 24 countries with sites in 15 different languages. Harvard Business School graduate, Mark Brooks, has been an expert in the Internet dating business since 1998. He is currently the CEO of Courtland Brooks, a consultancy agency for the Internet dating industry, and runs OnlinePersonalsWatch. He prides himself on being a New Media Futurist and can be reached at LinkedIn. At ConsumerAffairs we love to hear from both consumers and brands; please never hesitate to. We take privacy seriously, please refer to our to learn more about how we keep you protected. Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. See the for more information. The information on our website is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.

Will never use Match again. Conversation contain messages from users you have had some type of positive interaction with previously, while the met section holds messages match.com search full site users you have not communicated with or shown interest in. It goes back to that problem of staying in their database. Save your money and buy a nice dinner. Essentially, this advanced search allows you to filter by any profile field. We're not con here to help you meet compatible singles. No matter how conservative your photos are many of the members only want one thing. A qualifying round trip flight for A-List status is a revenue flight on Southwest Airlines from an origin city to a destination city and back to the originating airport or carrier-recognized co-terminal. On the other hand, other members can also find you. I also had very inappropriate messages from some men. With limited access I was happy at the time.