192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
camlok
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 05:26 pm
@farmerman,
No, I most assuredly do not. I'm guessing that that has something to do with FEMA's description of WTC steel turned molten.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
camlok
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 05:27 pm
@oralloy,
Nor is this an example of honestly addressing anything.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 05:42 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes, I saw that. One day X, the next day Not X. That's some fine tuning.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 05:46 pm
@Debra Law,
He's a dilly, that boy. Because this crowd is so extreme, they are justifiably getting hit from every direction. I suspect that will make their extremism more acute in the near future at least.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 06:04 pm
@camlok,
I think you are using words in a way thqt youre not quite sure what they meqn.Qre you familqr with Phse Rule in metallurgy? The oncept of "wutectic"
camlok
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 06:16 pm
@farmerman,
I'm not using my words. I'm using the words of FEMA, NIST, Dr Leroy Hulsey, the last gentleman who stated that the likelihood of the NIST report on WTC7 being true was ZERO.

As to the words you are using, I really don't want to be making guesses as to what you mean. Does "wutectic" mean "eutectic"? If so, then yes, I know what it means.

How does molten steel, steel that has been vaporized, molten molybdenum and some others appear where there was no legitimate fuel source capable of melting those metals?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 06:53 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
How does molten steel, steel that has been vaporized, molten molybdenum and some others appear where there was no legitimate fuel source capable of melting those metals?

You are the only person here who seems to think that such molten/vaporized metals occurred.

Hint: Molten aluminum is not molten steel.
camlok
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 07:05 pm
@oralloy,
How do you expect to be considered as someone who can be considered serious
as regards discussion when you can't even access provided sources?

Just check FEMA's Appendix C, the link for which I have given you numerous times. There are pictures.

Check the other sources I have provided.
camlok
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 07:06 pm
@oralloy,
Hint: Molten aluminum is not molten steel.
-------

I am suitably impressed by the depth of your knowledge.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 07:18 pm
Paul Waldman on whether the GOP might actually investigate the Russia issues honestly. Not so much.
Quote:
We all know that if this were happening under a Democratic president, Republicans in Congress wouldn’t just be investigating, they’d shut down every other bit of congressional business to do nothing but investigate. After all, they conducted seven separate investigations of Benghazi, a tragic but fairly straightforward event, in the hopes that it could be used to bring down Hillary Clinton. When Bill Clinton was president, they opened investigations into such weighty matters as whether Bill and Hillary murdered their friend Vince Foster, whether they had misused the White House Christmas card list — on that one they heard 140 hours of sworn testimony — and, I kid you not, Socks the cat. Yes, Dan Burton, then the head of the House Oversight Committee, once demanded to know whether taxpayer resources were being used to respond to childrens’ letters to the President’s cat.

That was an outrage worthy of serious scrutiny. Russia manipulating our political process? Whatevs.

So there’s no more doubt: This Congress is utterly incapable of conducting the investigation this scandal deserves. We’re talking about a hostile foreign government intervening in an American election on behalf of one candidate, even that candidate’s campaign advisers allegedly had secret contacts with that hostile government. This is potentially as significant a scandal as Iran-Contra, or even Watergate.
WP
It's worth remembering that when Obama won his first election and had majorities in Congress, Rush Limbaugh passed on a prediction and warning to his listeners. He said that with all this power, the Democrats were going to run ceaseless so-called investigations into everything under the sun in order to damage the GOP. He was dead wrong. That didn't happen even when much of the Dem base was calling for investigations into the manipulation of data by (mainly) Cheney's office, the misinformation forwarded by the administration at the time and covert manipulation of media by the Pentagon

In this case, I think Limbaugh was just lying or spinning. I suspect he actually thought this would happen because it is exactly what he and the modern GOP would do.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 07:38 pm
My god in heaven, these last four weeks. You struggle for some analogy, some metaphor or some phrase that will do the trick to describe what's gone on. I'm am a loss. The closest I can get is imagining what Phillip K Dick might have come up with if he'd been asked to do the screenplay for Reefer Madness.
Quote:
After stewing in anger during four rocky weeks in the White House, President Donald Trump had his say Thursday.

He spent 80 minutes in an impromptu East Room news conference shredding his critics, relitigating the election, bragging about his crowds, crowing about his accomplishments and denying, deflecting and obfuscating a series of mushrooming bad stories that have dogged his presidency and depressed his approval ratings.

It was an extraordinary scene in the White House, which Trump essentially turned into a venue for a campaign rally, trashed the country's most influential news outlets, cited approval polls and spread misinformation. It came two days before Trump will hit the road for a campaign rally in Florida, where he said the crowds would be "massive."
Politico
RABEL222
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:02 pm
@blatham,
Well, were on our way to 1890 when every child over 6 years of age had to get a job for the family to survive. But the 1% will make out fine which is whats important to conservatives.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:23 pm
@camlok,
Friction of a falling building. Sorry, I said earlier I wasent going to discuss this with you anymore. I apologize.
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:27 pm
From here on out, if anyone wishes to speak with me, all that's required is to begin with the salutary, "Dear Disney Prince". If you reach that far across the aisle, I'm your guy.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:30 pm
@blatham,
Dear Disney Dunce, I enjoy reading your posts. Respectfully, c.i.
farmerman
 
  5  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:38 pm
@camlok,
Just because youve read something doesnt seem to me that you UNDERSTAND what you read.
Eutectics is not just a point, its an entire scale of PT relationships unique to every natural compound and alloy. Steel (ASTM A36) has a "recipe" which includes some Mo which changes the crystals from body centered to face centered(this changes their dynamics modulii an CE's). Mo showed up in the dust in a range slightly higher than just the steel. It probably camw from light fixtures an exit signs etc
DID you know that the rubble was radioctive a bit? That was from the discharges of the 3H in exit signs. It read something like 20K pi-C/g. JUST FROM EXIT SIGNS. Ive seen that the "Truthers" were BSing tht someone set off a small tactical NUKE (probably Pu due to its size requirement. ACTUALLY, the radioactivity was due to Tritium).Almost all the truthers have one thing in common. They are like our own gunga snake
1. Theyre fairly ignorant about their opinions in science

2 Wont be willing to rad and learn real science

3 They all Need to be part of some fringe belief

Its not orth our time arguing with you. You wont lern anything because you only read and listen to crap tht agrees with you

blatham
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
This fellow has it.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:51 pm
@farmerman,
Nor does it mean that I don't understand, or that I am not capable of understanding.

Have you read FEMA, Appendix C yet? Have you seen the molten steel? Have you seen the molten metal pouring from WTC2?

People say a lot of things. Why bring up issues that I haven't raised at all?

You bring up a lot of things that don't illustrate a scientific approach at all.
camlok
 
  0  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:54 pm
@RABEL222,
Rabel: Friction of a falling building.
===========

Is that the reason you offer for the molten metals found at the WTC?
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2017 08:58 pm
@blatham,
I've never thought of you that way.. oh prince.
I'm mixed on Disney since family members worked for Disney way back when, the olden days of yore, but I wasn't all that engaged as a child or adult myself.

Ok, ok, I did like Thumper.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 11/01/2024 at 12:19:36