I regret teaching my great nephews that ring around the rosie thing. The "all fall down" part isn't fun for a 60 year old.
Icon busters. Adele should not sing live. Stay in the studio. Beyonce's stage looked like an Egyptian bat mitzfa
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I need coffee.
I'll take your coffee and raise you a ...
fennec fox.
It's amazing how sane, rational adults can seem to be so desirous of these new Japanese Relocations and all the attendant lies that surrounded that event.
It's amazing how sane, rational adults can seem to be so desirous of allowing another group of people to suffer through what the Japanese had to go through.
Doesn't anyone recall the gigantic lies about Iraq and Afghanistan, the death and destruction that was heaped upon them for no reason at all?
You should be asking each other,
How Quick Can So Many Members Change the Topic Away From Such Obvious Lies, Such Blatantly Unscientific Notions?
@tsarstepan,
Effin fennec fox for full-bodied flavor? Faugh. Funky. Fail.
camlok wrote:How Quick Can So Many Members Change the Topic Away From Such Obvious Lies, Such Blatantly Unscientific Notions?
I would like to know how but you have to teach me such wonderful skills..
As I mentioned to another poster, you people of science probably won't have seen it, if China or Russia had tried to pull off a scam of this magnitude, with myriad holes huge enough to fly 747s thru, they would have been laughed off the planet.
I love fennec foxes, but what about Betty White?
Let's assume for a moment that some of the 19 Arab hijackers flew two jets into the twin towers.
How did they cause the collapse of WTC7?
How did they get it to fall at free fall speed from normal office fires that have never ever, before or since caused any steel frame building to EVEN collapse?
How did they get it to collapse in a better, more uniform fashion than any other controlled demolition has ever done?
How did the failure of one column, NIST's scientific study, cause a free fall, a completely uniform collapse?
NIST's computer simulation, done to support their unscientific, untenable supposition, does not match the numerous videos of the actual collapse. Science MUST follow reality or it is not science.
So many valid questions. Why do they remain, not only unanswered but not even discussed, by people, not just you folks here, but by scientists.
Does anyone find it suspicious that the study that is the foundation of the NIST report was published on September 13, 2001, two days after the collapse of the three towers?
Does anyone find it suspicious that though this study, scratched out on a napkin, was seemingly, able to provide a complete description with reasons and scientific equations for ONLY, the twin towers collapse, yet NIST, with all the resources of the US government didn't do any study beyond "the initiation of collapse, the start of the collapse?
Does anyone find it suspicious that this study, scratched out on a napkin, defies the laws of physics?
Does anyone find it suspicious that the authors of this study, scratched out on a napkin, two days after the collapse, haven't been able to put their powerful thinking skills to tell us all why WTC7 collapsed? They have had over fifteen years.
Does anyone find it suspicious that the free fall collapse of a 47 storey office tower, a completely impossible event, was not even mentioned by the 911 Commission?
@timur,
Quote:I would like to know how but you have to teach me such wonderful skills..
Start by looking at the numerous questions in the post three after yours, timur. You don't have to do the science, just answer as to whether any of those huge anomalies seem at all suspicious to you.
camlok wrote:You don't have to do the science
But I do, camlok, and my science tells me that it's illusory to try reasoning conspiracy theorists.
They are made of the same material as religious nuts.
No need to come back with your mantra..
@timur,
Your science tells you that the "scientific" paper that is the raison d' etre for the official US government conspiracy theory was published two days after 911. How is that scientific? When was it written, in August?
Your science tells you that jet fuel and office furnishings can melt steel, vaporize steel, melt molybdenum?
Or does your science, like that of NIST's, allow you to categorically deny the myriad examples of those molten metals, the pictures, the eye witnesses, the temperatures found within the rubble pile, the scientists who described these molten steel girders?
Quote:He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007]
bullet He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001]
bullet Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin.” [BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001]
bullet He finds a foot-long twisted shard of steel that is “like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel.” He comments, “I haven’t seen anything like this [before].” [BERKELEY DAILY PLANET, 10/20/2001]
bullet He finds “severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes].” He believes this is the result of the planes having destroyed the elevator walls, thereby allowing burning jet fuel to pour down into the building, igniting fires hundreds of feet below the impact floors. [CBS NEWS, 3/12/2002]
@timur,
I only asked "You don't have to do the science, just answer as to whether any of those huge anomalies seem at all suspicious to you", and you can't even address that one simple question.
Instead, it's the usual attack scenario. That is so unAmerican, the very antithesis of science.
Oh, look! They tried downing this tower but they were not good with explosives.
@timur,
Your science tells you that it is scientific for NIST's number 2 scientist to categorically deny the existence of molten metals, when that same number 2 scientist is seen in pictures pointing to and touching the end of a molten, vaporized steel girder.
Copy and paste "John Gross denies molten metal touching molten steel beam" into Google. Click on Images. He's number 1 and number 4 picture.
Here's a video of him categorically denying it, watch him squirm throughout.
NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existance of Molten Steel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAl3vubzSQw
@timur,
That's your science, timur?
@jespah,
Still unsure why people go loco over fennel...
...not even sure if nots just a plant left by an outer world research party, that collects data on those who eat it.
"Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science."
https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html
