comets like that keep on plunging on sun and that shit is never as big as jupiter, the gas tail of the comet makes it look way larger than it actually is.

i am thinking along those lines as well,but it does look particularity big (not as twice as bis as jupiter,lol,but still somewhat big)

has anyone come across the correct diameter of the comet ?

here are 3 links which will help you:

old space weather.com report from 2003

the comet C/2002 V1 (NEAT) the comet that came close to sun The interesting part is however

"The comet was hit by a Coronal mass ejection during its pass near the sun[4]; some rumoured it had "disturbed" the sun, but scientists dismissed this notion.[3] After the comet left LASCO's field of view around February 23, an object was seen at the bottom of the images. Although technicians dismissed this as a glitch, rumours persisted that the comet had been expelled from the sun." (this can fuel more rumors for century)

http://www.zetatalk.com/index/battros.htm here is email from mitch battros himself, the originator of the theory that this comet disturbed sun in an irreversible way (look at very bottom) he estimates the size of the nucleus to be only 0.5 to 0.7 km.

also this is quite odd,but probably explainable ,tho i can't find a good answer at the moment (Slight controversy arose when the comet failed to break up when it approached the sun, as expected by some scientists if it were a small comet.[3])


Also what evidence is there that technicians dismissed this as a glitch

ya,that will fuel rumors

That zetatalk,i have to say,i am deeply disturbed by that web site in general..but 0.5-0.7 km nucleus is probably right

http://www.nasm.si.edu/etp/comets/cometimg/comet_parts.gif

It just "looks" huge to the naked eye

lol

honestly I dont really care about these planet X theory, but there is one question that always bothers me: Our galaxy is proven to be surrounded by dark matter halo, and scientists still dont have any proper clue about the distribution of it, like whether this stuff is way beyond the outer arms of milkyway galaxy or much closer distributed through the inner arms, what if our sun travelling through the galaxy ends up in close proximity of some dark matter, we have no idea how exactly dark matter gonna interact with normal matter other than gravitational forces.

I found out the reason physicists and astrophysicists have been considering "dark matter" and "dark energy" is because their equations can only account for approx. 4% of all the "stuff" out there/in there. Im not sure,but is it possible the equations aren't complete/correct ... just thinking out laud :)

possible but all evidence suggests otherwise. Thing is all our knowledge is based on incoming electromagnetic radiation, anything that doesnot show up in EM spectrum is essentially invisible.

from wiki
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation.[1] Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe...

Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934, to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters

If i understand correctly dark matter is undetectable and was postulated to account for the missing mass...

I don't know,maybe i am way wrong,but the equation doesn't feel finished yet :)

only other explanation would be theory of general relativity, the best formula for gravitational force we have so far is entirely wrong in distances of galactic scale.

true,well there are some theories out there,but aren't accepted by the general scientific community,so i guess given time,things should progress ..Hubble telescope is still sending picture of astronomical events that weren't predicted and cannot be explained ;)

and here is another step forward:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42692

Better yet...

Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

And the subsequent (easy) steps to getting the correct value for expansion/accelaration aka the issue of Dark Matter solved from the above theory by Erik Verlinde is solved by Johannes Koelman below.

The line of reasoning is as follows (for ease of notation I will work in natural units and leave out factors c, G and h-bar):

1. Consider the cosmic horizon (the edge of the observable universe: a sphere with radius R approximately equal to 2.7 1061 in natural units)

2. According to the holographic principle the observable universe is encoded in N = bits located at the cosmic horizon,

3. A finite temperature T is associated with this horizon. This temperature is determined by an equipartition of the energy Mc2 contained within the horizon over the bits (degrees of freedom) associated with the horizon. Here M = 1.4 1060 is the observable mass of the universe. Using the equipartition expression ½kT = M/piR2, it follows that kT = 3 10-64.

4. An entropic force F = kT grad(N) = kT grad(pi R2) =2 pi kT R is associated with the horizon. This results in a cosmic expansion (1/R) d2 R/dt2 = F/MR = 2 pi kT / M = 1.3 10-123. Presto!

The full article by Johannes Koelman here: LINK

That is, following Koelman's steps above, if the universe were holographic much like the properties shown to be expressed in the thermodynamic behavior of blackholes (i.e., surface entropy of a blackhole as pi*R^2), then the total number of bits in the universe (pi*R^2 = 2.7 x 10^61 = N), k=1, then 0.5T=1.4 X10^60 (mass of the universe in natural units) divided piR^2, the mass of the universe is proportional to the number of bits (entropy) reflecting only the horizon/area (not volume) of the universe (again like a blackhole and essentially a thermodynamic and emergent property).

not gonna argue about this, but for the sake of trolling i must say:

you know, there are people around here that think they can magically make energy appear if they build a machine with their dad.
so i guess anything is possible

what is magic to an ignorant mind is completely common to someone else,and yes free energy (vacuum energy,low energy fusion etc.) has been around for quite some time

NAGNAGNAGNAGNAGNAGNANAGNANASNGANA HAHAHAHAAA
WHAAAAAAAa

lol mingy

LOL INVENTOR

why thank you :)

GEEEEEEEEEEENIUS INVENTOR!!

ME SO DUMB ME SO DUMB YOU SMAAAAAAAAAAART

your not dumb buddy ,don't talk like that

NOOO NOOO YOU SMARK YOU DAD SMART ME NOOOO

MAEKEE MACHINE FOR MAAEKEEE LIGHT!!

congratulations, people like you make the civilization move forward.

aww,you know i will little one,be patient,go play with Lego and well have light in no time :)

YOU MAEKAE MACHINE WITH UR DAD NAO?

I strongly question the rule of the European Patent Office to not allow patents that contradict laws of physics for obvious reasons, but man people like you make me understand why they got this rule...................................................sigh.

You laugh but with exponential growth of technology a lot of it is still in army use (kept secret to the public) as most inventions are ,before a major conflict ,that reveals it.
There is common sense in what im saying,i hope at least one of you can see that

How do you know this if it is kept secret in the army?

my assumption based on historical events ,again,maybe they havent found anything revolutionary in the past 60years ,but if they had it would be in army use and kept secret

its just one of the reasons why free energy is being suppressed,there are plenty more,..i could be wrong about most things i say,but electro magnetic motors,vacuum energy,low energy fusion,hydrogen fuel cells ( the real one) are 100% real

Which, historical events leads you to believe that the army is secretly hoarding free energy devices?

Why would a revolutionary technology be kept in the army secretly and what purpose would doing this serve?

Which, non-weapon technologies have been kept secret from the population exactly?

How do you know these technologies exist?

the Roswell incident for one. ufos. tesla. should I go on?

Oh right, yeah, those spaceships that have been proven to be hidden away...

area51 all Im gonna say

P&L

they're so awesome they still hide 'em

what about teslas work then?

What about it?

why is some of it kept secret?

Which parts are kept a secret?

most of his work...some parts are time sealed and will be released in 50 years or so. lots of it is in teslas special code and its not available to the public to try to decypher and you can only guess how much there is stuff that will never get out.

So what you are saying is:
- Most of his work is being kept hidden
What did this work involve?

- Some of it is being kept hidden for a specific period of time
How does this benefit your argument at all? I thought they were keeping things a secret, not temporarily hiding them...

- It's in a special code that the public doesn't have access to
Who knows how to decode it? Anyone? What use would the code be to the public without the information to use it with?

- The information isn't available for the public to try and decipher it
Well, yeah, it's being hidden because it's so amazing and powerful right?

Yeah, you can only guess at how much stuff will never be released, just like you can only guess that "most" of his work is being kept hidden etc.

i really didnt say anything so special that you have to break it down and analize like you are doing. i just stated that its known that there are things like teslas work, which could be studyed and help everything advance, but is kept a secret. i suggest you look into the stuff he was doing if you havent yet, its pretty interesting.

It wasn't an analysis, just a few pertinent questions.

You state that it's known his work is being kept secret, but really, what is it that is supposedly being kept secret?

If the answer is "I don't know, it's a secret" then for all you know it could be sensitive material regarding non-science based stuff that would damage someone somewhere unjustly.

And more importantly, do you think it's locked up and hasn't been looked at at all just because they want to slow progess?

What Tesla was working on is irrelevant as that doesn't mean it was useful or that any of that is part of the work that is being kept a secret. Perhaps it's all mundane or nonsense or has already been applied and used to advance our understanding and technologies.

im glad you think about stuff for yourself, but on this topic you cant just make up your own story. instead of guessing just search for a documentary on tesla and see what technology he was working on and how everything is in the hands of the power elite. they decide how we will advance.

I'm not making up my own story, I'm questioning yours, which seems light on evidence and answers so far (Beyond you stating it is true over and over).

search for a documentary

The fact you don't even have one in mind says a lot, in the same way riddler providing links that have no information beyond "It's a conspiracy!!!" or ones he doesn't even check.

It's good practice to provide credible starting resources when suggesting someone researches something. What if the sources I find disagree with your point of view?

Working on something is very different to having something work. It is entirely possible that everything he was working on turned out to be catastrophic failures or that they were far too costly or impractical to be realistic.

It's also possible that his research has been publicly released, just not credited as his research. You don't seem privy to the contents of his work anyway, so how would you be able to tell the difference?

I was also under the impression that much of Tesla's possessions (if not all) that had been taken by the FBI and classified as secret had been handed back to the family and a museum set up.

So what exactly is being held by the "powerful elite"?

ive been to lectures on his work, read stuff and watched documentarys.. you can find it on the net if you want. but you rather play with words here and asume stuff. which i think is your main point, not to just asume things, but you are doing just that. tesla didnt keep all of his work a secret, lots was, lots was shown to the public but never explained how it actualy worked, so it is known that he got lots of stuff to work. the american goverment only returned a small portion of his posessions to the museum and family. mostly unimportant stuff and as i said before some of it is time sealed. jp morgan was teslas sponsor, if you dont know him, look it up to see what i was saying how this is connected with the power elite holding back our advancement. im not providing you with any links again you can find everything for yourself. i dont want to spend time doing this as i dont belive you will actualy do any work, and im not some little kid trying to boost his ego on the web "proving someo0ne wrong".

You seem completely incapable of saying anything coherent. For someone who has been to lectures on his work and watched many documentaries, I find it strange that you can't provide one example of information that could be hidden or why.

"I like... watched documentaries and stuff" is not very convincing.

Sorry, go away.

why would i waste my time if i explained that this stuff is known and can be found on the web easily. until you look up this stuff you can just continue to talk about your opinions of me because you cant talk with me about the the topic of this discussion obviously if you dont know the facts.. and im nothing special so dont waste your time too and just watch a documentary about him. very easy and entertaining.

I have read about Telsa and watched documentaries about him. I completely disagree that there is anything suspicious about his life or death. It is quite clear that he became erradic and deluded towards the end of his life.

It's a sad day where asking simple questions is considered playing with words.

What I've been getting lately in discussions of this sort (In real life) is that I'm just good at talking and they're not, but that doesn't mean they're wrong!

I spent like an hour the other day explaining that I don't believe in god or anything supernatural, but the person I was speaking to just said that I was young and will one day experience something (traumatic or tragic) that will make me believe.

I likened this to believing in Father Christmas, once you know he's not real there is just no way to go back. Anyway, her excuse to pussy out of my questions or examples was that she just wasn't good at arguments.

My friends don't even bother engaging me in arguments these days :(

Same. They say i'm just anti-everything, while i'm not. I just point at stupid stuff they say. It's probably pretty annoying at times, but i can't stand it, when people state their opinion as fact.

I don't take issue with stating opinion as fact, I do take issue with not being willing to engage in a conversation over why it is wrong though!

Yeah. Had this conversation with a friend recently.

Me: Hey, found this new artist. Pretty cool guy. He plays at a little festival in my city. Wanna come?
Mate: Yeah, heard him on the radio. He's not good.
Me: What? Why would you say that, if you only heard one song on the radio?
Mate: I don't know. He's just not good.
Me: Why?
Mate: I DONT KNOW DONT CARE.

and i'm like ... ???

You should just make up shit about the artist to make him sound awesome. I found out that it works with most people because they are living on some dull wavelength of life and revolves around their own egos, and are willing to believe anything as long as they can pass on the information and make it so that they sound interesting and exciting.

Of course... why are you friends with this person :P If you accept that about your friend you can't really complain :P

Yeah. It's true, i wonder about how I am friends with some of my real good friends. Guess, it's something unexplainable.

It's been like that forever tho. I have to punch my friends in the face with good things, otherwise their egos tell them to back away.
I don't know why it is that way.

Ah well they don't need to agree on everything, variety is the spice of life.

My bestfriend thinks he can change reality by thinking hard enough, we have interesting discussions. (Stupid what the bleep do we know - created a generation of morons) He also thinks microwave machines create cancer. Anyway, most the time we agree and I have learnt a lot from him.

the fastest air plane is 60years old (blackbird) thats quite funny
(there is a new one being built now,that is faster,but still uses basically the same propulsion system )
free energy is dangerous as it makes a person self sufficient,there wouldn't be need for war and most money is made in war (not to mention all the reasons why the corporate elite doesn't want free energy to become public knowledge)

The purpose of the element of surprise ? im sure you can think of reasons yourself

Lets see, if you had free energy, what would you do with it?

How does free energy work exactly? What's the theory?

I guess free theory would need to be without any investment cost for machiney, etc.

Yeah, I totally see that happening...

Because obviously in that case we have "free" energy (wind, solar etc.).

yap.


And if some sort of revolutionary technology works, cold fusion for eaxmple, and it cost's 10 trillion to build enough for the whole world I somehow doubt we won't have to pay energy companies anymore.

no cold fusion is cheap,your mixing it with hot fusion ,which is extremely expensive

can I see a pricelist, please?

Oh and I think 10 trillion for enough energy for the entire earth is not that expensive.

Cold fusion experiments are generally done as a proof of concept, and can be made from mostly household items. LENR is still unproven, though.

I wonder how many of those household solutions one would need to buy to satisfy the energy need of the world.


Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of making energy from plain water, and I am in favor of the whole Iter program, as well. Despite there being rumors that the nuclear waste produced may exceed that of nuclear power plants. But today an implementation is not yet realistic.

I also doubt we will get that energy for a price as low as so many people seem to expect. (Regardless of the profit margin the involved companies will try to get)

Well, again, the tabletop experiments are merely a proof of concept of how it could be done with a more expensive model. The result is the same as "hot" fusion, but merely at lower temperature. If it were real, it would make power absurdly cheap/easy/clean to generate. However, cold fusion is still unproven, and losing support all the time.

btw, you would use heavy water, not plain water. =P

yap, we can only wait and see if there is a breakthrough with any type of fusion.

with plain water I meant the water you can find in the ocean or your kitchen, without needing any other raw materials, as I think you know full well. ;)

i would power my house? like so many people in the world are doing? Do you not see the benefits of producing your own energy supply ?

http://www.overunity.com/
http://www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html#tesla
http://yowusa.com/radio/cttc/2005/cttc-0305-34/1.shtml

I talked about overunity devices in the 2012 thread ,you can pop in there if you like

So if you had a free energy device you would simply power your home?

I'm sorry but you missed the point. Why would governments keep this technology a secret when it would benefit everyone?

And no, "no profit" is not an answer.

If these devices are so great and capable of powering homes the world over, and already are, how comes nobody catches on?

If you're so concerned with producing your own energy supply why don't you invest in something that is proven to work, like wind/solar/wave/etc?

Where the only cost is producing the machine and any maintenance required.

you keep going from one nutcase theory to the next. in the past, which conflicts exactly were fought over 'energy'?

!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and...death_toll

almost every conflict in the previous century

why you ask?

Except for:

The Boer War 2
The First World War
The Second World War
The Cold War (I felt I'd add it in!)
The Suez Crisis
The Israeli invasions/retaliations
The Korean War
The Vietnam War
The Iraqi invasions of Kuwait(?) and Iran
Various fighting in South America
Various fighting in Africa
The campaign against Yugoslavia
The Afghanistan War
etcetcetc

You could argue the two wars against Iraq were about energy, if you push it, but that's about it.

add ww1 to the list ( invasion of iraq)
add afghan war to the list
others are debatable yes

do you realize how narrow your view of the world is? you don't know the first thing about 90% of the stuff you're going on about.
human history is full of all kinds of cruelty and mass murders that did not have anything to do with 'energy' - free or not.

Ya,lol,funny little thing you are

almost every conflict in the previous century

why you ask?

ok, then... explain this to me:

1998-2003 congo war 2
atleast 4.000.000 dead

1959-1975 vietnam war
atleast 2.500.000 dead

1950-1953 korean war
atleast 2.500.000 dead

1939-1945 world war 2
atleast 40.000.000 dead

1917-1921 russian revolution
atleast 5.000.000 dead

1914-1918 world war 1
atleast 10.000.000 dead

...so, almost every conflict in the previous century was about energy and could have been prevented if the evil men-in-black would stop hiding their secret unlimited free energy source from the rest of the world which by the way almost no one - except you and a few other enlighted people - knows about?

lol

There was very little interest for Afghanistan in the US prior to 9/11. The war was triggered by the attacks, end of story.

correct brother. and if you look closely that is why only 4 missions ever landed on the moon (OR SO THEY TELL US). the other 96 exploded in space and the government covered it up.

IMO its true, we dont know exactly how it goes, at least not the common men (im sure elites have better info) but its like civilization is restarted every couple thousands years with some major events like huge floods. As we dig deeper, more and more evidence points to this type of event.

I highly recommend this site http://the-rabbits-hole.com/ start with the video presentation, if youre hooked you can continue with the text material.

Another very very interesting material for this topic is "Secrets of Alchemy: The Great Cross and the End of Time by Jay Weidner" watched it on youtube some time ago but its been deleted.

Yes i know of that,one thing that i found truely fascinating and factual is megalithomania and sunken cities across the world that can be accurately calculated that it was dry land about 11 000 years ago or the end of the last ice age,when see levels rose ,..alot is missing in the history books and main stream scientists still believe the pyramids were built by pulling vine ropes and carved with copper chisels

Obviously there lots of things missing from history, most people just 'LOL' and try to ignore the inconvenient facts, like Kirsebaer and Vo0 in this very topic! Dont know about K but V is a smart guy. He does not want to face the truth because lifes good, bank account, 1st world lifestyle, etc. Its a clear case of negation by loling. Its the only way to be blind on this topic, because they chose to. Anyone that researches start to see all pieces falling in place.

So resuming they will lol all the way till the moment TSHTF, and then their lol will transform into /o\

Its comparable to people stoning anyone who thought the earth isnt flat ,most people just don't like to think outside the norm as its considered unpopular.
But i do feel like more and more are opening to new information and line of thinking,so i guess there is hope :)
Its easy to laugh at what one doesn't understand ,ignorance is a bliss after all :P

ahaha well said :D

lol, both of you are basically saying:

"Yeah, we have crazy ideas and people don't believe us, but people have been wrong before and a few ideas that have been called crazy actually were correct. So, now when we tell you that the ideas that were called crazy once, then found to be true are now wrong, cause we have a crazy idea, as well."
Completely omitting that fact that 99,9% of the crazy ideas in the world have been found to be wrong.
And the believers went on the exact same "brainwashed people, other things were true, too" - rant you two are on right now.

Example?
Evolution has been called a crazy idea back then. Darwin waited 20 years to publish it. Then the majority realized it one of the few crazy ideas that runed out to be true, and now there are some nutcases saying life is 5000 years old.
but I guess they must be right.

If the average conspiracy theorist and or crazy idea advocate, could just concentrate on one or two ideas, I might actually feel indulged to hear them out. But no, they all have at last 15, all equally true...


So yeah: lol.

none of us said these were true, all we said is they were worth a second examination before debunking and putting final "lol".

but that is exactly what I was saying, if it's that has some merit to it, then fine may be it sound as crazy as it wants to be.
I mean there are enough crazy ideas turned true out there, that accusing science of simply ignoring them for being crazy is wrong. "theory of relativity" and it's implications being a good example.

But that doesn't mean one should put nearly the same effort into checking every theory some random person came up with. It's just such a waste.

...that runed out to be true...

actually very few serious scientists and archeologist's believe in that theory now-a-days

99.9 % of the the ideas are crazy,correct

But,one has to research every bit of information to form an objective opinion and im 100% that almost everything thought in school is relative subjective bullshit and is very much a part of the 99.9% crazy ideas

Are you saying most serious scientist do not believe in evolution?

I think we are done here.

It is sad,but yes you are done here

Read his posts in the 2012 thread, your mind is about to explode :p

actually very few serious scientists and archeologist's believe in that theory now-a-days

I read a good article in a scientific magazine about the theory of evolution when it had it's 150th anniversary. I suggest you do the same.
Try to get find an author who is actually a biologist, and don't take it from some obscure website either.

this is the magazine's website, http://www.geo.de/GEO/heftreihen/geo-international
I can really recommend it, the only magazine I gladly pay money for.

fail :(

l



o



l

I mean seriously, point number 8 is so unbelievably retarded it makes it quite obvious people are just trying to find some shit they can throw at the theory of evolution.


Made me not bother to even read the other ones. Might do it though, when I feel like laughing.



It basically like a guy trying to explain something about math and starting of with:

1/0 = 0

Noone with the slightest clue about math will take anything he has to say seriously.

typical becks ,find something you don't agree with and ignore the actual factual information

L

O

L

------people like you will never learn ,thinking you have it all solved and only "see" the information that proves your point

definition of a backward person

there ino information, only misinformation.


see it is very easy to tell that it wasn't written by a curious mind that wants to find the truth, and therefore not using a scientific approach. this is show by the headlines: "Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong"

A person using a scientific approach would say: "I have this problem that I can't explain with your theory and would like to discuss it."

Your kind goes ahead and says: "I have a problem that I can't explain with your theory. I am just gonna assume I know at least as much about the theory as you do and therefore I will conclude you can't explain the problem with your theory either. Therefore I have proven your theory wrong."


Your reply to micke's video already showed that you are unable to realize where the problem in your approach is. Your belief that you do understand everything is what keeps is what keeps you from being a worthy partner in a discussion.

Your own posts serve as a perfect example: Even though you had to admit that I probably know a lot more about steel than yourself, you still insisted that I should abandon my opinion and follow yours.
This is like a tourist demanding to that the local guide follows him, cause the tourist read a guide book once.

so? I astral project to places I want to visit so I have no need for silly books.

peace and love

Matter and energy

HAHAHAHAHAHA

"since your open mindedness cannot handle new information"

well put brother, well put

just saw this... seriously WHAT?

#3, #4 and #5 are plain wrong.

#3 afaik this happened a few weeks ago.

#4 the whole x/y-chromosome theory has been proven wrong a long time ago.

#5 dna repairing any errors? yeah, right. that is simply not true, how can you even claim this? dna damage does happen rather frequently.


#1 and #2 are laughable at best and i cba to read the rest, where did you get this from?

actually ,there is alot of crap on that list :p

i made a mistake ,will try to find the list that i had in mind before posting the one above

no thanks. unfortunately, to me you have lost all credibility, so to me any serious discussion with you seems worthless.

ok,thats fine too,..i admit biology is not my strongsuit :) but if you change your mind,ill try to make my case

Or physics, chemistry, politics, history, sociology and probably geography too.

You'd be right at home with Alchemy though!

Did you not read it properly?

SCIENTIFIC FACT, no further explanation is required, these are facts.

wow you're a retard, every thing you say is so completely and utterly stupid and cannot believe it...

dna error checking? sounds good... hm.. ever heard of mutation?

birds with stump wings??? why would it start out like that?

or that the number of chromosomes is fixed.

I mean it's not like there are sicknesses that are attributed on a wrong number of chromosomes...

also:

Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists.

misunderstanding the concept of evolution completely

Regarding 1: small reptiles searched out niches to survive. Maybe some dinosaurs were getting smaller and faster to feed on prey in trees. Maybe some of them, over periods of thousands of years, specialized in jumping attacks. Jumping attacks became falling from above attacks, like, from trees and such. That's where the development of wing-like structures began, because the best hunters survived, which were the fast ones (light) with big wing-like arms. Falling became gliding, gliding became air-sailing, which became flying.

Only because you lack imagination and sense of mechanics dosn't mean a theory is wrong. You have to disprove it. All you wrote or pasted here was "it's wrong" without the part of disproving it.

how did evolution happen then according to your 'knowledge'?

(ignoring the fact that you're plain wrong when you say very few scientists nowadays believe in darwin's theory... but whatever)

I have no idea,but i know creationism nor the evolution theory are correct,or flawed

The odds that the correct proteins could somehow come together in a functional configuration to make a living cell are so high that it will never happen. The thought that anything can be accomplished by chance given enough time is a myth and a lie. Some people foolishly believe that anything can be accomplished given enough time. That concept is false

You do know that evolution isn't an explanation of how life came to exist right?

It doesn't ?

http://www.aarrgghh.com/gladYouAsked/animalsEvolution_lg.jpg
http://muttslikeme.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/treeolife3.jpg

well maybe not the very very origin but it does go quite a way back

Evolution is a process of change, not a process of creation.

You are right,but the theory still make quite a big assumption of how we were created and not changed into human form from bacteria true millions of years



the major issue ,are the archaeological finds ,which prove everyday that the theory is flawed

It doesn't make any assumptions of how we were created. That link is beyond stupid.

the link might be stupid,but the point stands,search for archaeological finds that baffle scientists ,youll be surprised how much you find

No, you'll get ridiculous websites such as that, which is merely Christian propaganda.

archaeological findings aren't Christian propaganda ,cmon they believe the earth is 11 000 years old or something,what the hell does that have to do with archeology ,they think dino bones were placed there by god to test their faith :))

CONCLUSION

Thus, as we may conclude from the information provided here, Darwinism, the theory of the survival of the fittest and its twin sister, the theory of human evolution, together with the official version of the Paleontology and Archaeology such as they are practiced, are pseudo-sciences.

In fact, they are tools for mind control of the masses. Their main purpose is to cut off the roots of the true history of humanity, and promote a naturalistic and mechanistic view of life as "survival of the fittest." They promote atheism as a means of destroying Christian civilization.

We find the same hate of God and of Christianity in Marxism and Freudianism.

A very interesting read is the book of Richard Wurmbrand "Marx & Satan" where we discover that Marx was a Satanist priest with a deep hate of God and desire for the ruin and annihilation of the human society. How can we explain this deep hated nourished in the hearts of these men? Was it satanic possession?

I will close with this fact -- at the funerals of Karl Marx, in his speech Frederich Engels compared Marx to Darwin as titans of the human mind, and this suggests the high probability that Darwin was Karl Marx's "Luciferian brother".

It's like he doesn't even read his own links...

the link might be stupid,but the point stands,search for archaeological finds that baffle scientists ,youll be surprised how much you find


-i already said that the link is irrelevant to the point

obviously i don't agree with the conclusion ,..

But what archeological finds baffle?

The fact the first (and only) link you provided was just some Christian writing garbage with no substance in there at all doesn't fill me with confidence in your ability.

im trolling on 10topics at the same type,i just didn't have time to read the link properly ,..i will search for proper finds tomorrow

rofl

you seem to follow the rule that the more improbable a theory is, the more likely it is to be true.

or:

the more "underground" the so-called scientists, who've come up with some idea, are, the more likely it is for said idea to be true.

hehe yes,with all the missinformation that is almost the case,but not really,don't generalize

let me rephrase:

the more retarded a statement is, the more likely you are to hop on the bandwagon

What inkind said.

Also:

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the Universe may be common rather than rare," commented Dr Carl Pilcher, who leads Nasa's Astrobiology Institute.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8208307.stm

evolution hasn't ever been proven to be fact at all. everyone's been looking for the "missing link" which has yet to be found.... for any species of any type of life on this planet.... bacteria, insects, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, plant life... within all that, not a single missing link has ever been found to link two completely different species together to show any kind of evolutionary path.

the theory of evolution was darwins idea to prove that black people were inferior to white men.

the theory of evolution was darwins idea to prove that black people were inferior to white men.

I'm gonna need proof on that one, cause it certainly hasn't been part of the articles I read about Darwin, and sounds just like slander.

everyone's been looking for the "missing link" which has yet to be found

Which one hasn't been found? Australopithecus afarensis? Australopithecus africanus? Paranthropus aethiopicus? Homo habilis? Paranthropus boisei?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Fossils and the genetic record would like a word with you.

oh, I am sure there is some link missing somehwere that has yet to be found.

I mean, what are the odds of having found fossils of every single species that has ever existed. Especially considering there are stillunknown species alive today.
It is beyond me how someone can try to use that to deny all the existing evidence...

Oh sure - especially with the chance a fossil actually has of being in a place where it is safe enough to survive being found.

Regardless, this guy seems oblivious to the fact that we've been finding missing links for decades, and that EVERY fossil is technically a transitional fossil.

yeah, i bet darwin went to madagaskar to prove exactly THAT

they're singing songs of this visit on madagaskar to this day.

No, I researched about 15 to 30 minutes into this so called Planet X and I concluded that the arguments for the existence of it are flawed. This has nothing to do with me enjoying a 1st class lifestyle or that my bank account is good. What does this even have to do with anything? I'm sure you are implying that anyone who has a good lifestyle must conform the the common norm. This might be true, but that does not mean these people can not use common sense or logic to conclude something is true or not. In this case, I used common sense, knowledge of sources and legitimacy of websites to base my opinion on the subject.

no-one here ever said nibiru-x existed ,but his line of thinking is correct ,its easier to agree and not think for yourself then to investigate ,learn new theories and ideas ,taking usual public indoctrination (media,school..) systems with a grain of salt

you're not the one 'thinking for yourself, you're the one relying on the decompost crap the internet has to offer. instead of accepting the complexity of reality you're so far into this conspiracy bullshit you even believe it's 'complicated new theories' when all you do is seek easy answers for all the things in the world you are unable to understand at a glimpse.

you're like a kid with ADD believing he's the next einstein. relax, take a deep breath and realize life isn't simple, your 'theories' are.

my theories are simple ?


:)))))))))

thats how much you understand whats being discussed here

the way you type and use punctuation shows that you have never written a serious essay about anything.

life is inherently simple, brother... therein lies the great wisdom

peace and love

15 to 30 min? O man thats what i call serious researching! ^^ You must be an erudite on the topic! Tell me, for a start, what do you believe of the "New World" Airport in Denver or the big telescope in the vatican, both things coming to existence right after some articles in important science magazines talks about clues to a dark star, and while infrared sats costing millions are built, all info about it starts to be supresed. Doesnt that kicks your "WTF" switch? What about all the spiral glyphs in high altitude places all over the world with a line crossing it, exactly like the norway spiral? ... etc ...

Yes, that is what it took me to form my opinion. I read both sides of the argument and concluded that your side of it is flawed. This did not take me very long at all, 10 minutes of that video, which is just some random guy talking about a few captured images that he perceives a certain (flawed) way.
About Denver Airport, I want to write "lol" and be done with it. Actually, I'm being polite when I say that. This answer will probably not satisfy you, so let me just tell you I did some research again (this did not take me more than 15 minutes) and concluded that these assumptions are ridiculous. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopoliti...nver03.htm does not convince in anyway that there is some crazy theory behind it. Sorry, it just doesn't. Conspiracy theorists are actively looking trying to seek a true meaning that is not there behind literally anything. They research too much into one side of the topic and base a flawed opinion on that. They then go out to call anyone who does not believe their flawed, conspiracy theory a "brainless conformist". It's pitiful.
The other things you rambled about, I'm sure there is a logical explanation for that but I have no more time to discuss petty conspiracy theories.

haha okok, what youre missing here is that in the rabbitshole presentation, theres no intepretation of the facts, he just put the info togheter. You have to watch the entire presentation. I would really recomend you to check the rest of the vids, lots of interesting info. Best of luck.

Note: Im not saying that the lucus presentation has the ultimate truth, just that everyone should watch it (complete, not 1/13 of the material) and form its own opinion.

and after that just watch zeitgeist and loose change and 100 other videos all just to "form" your opinion and waste an entire week.

hooray.

but tell you what, if you start reading the relevant scientific books on any topic those videos mention I might indulge you.

For example, a guy who believe the ductile strength of steel stays constant right until the melting point, should read a book or two on steel.

i mean seriously, the knowledge is out there, why go for some compressed short version a random person selected and made into a video when there are books that go much more into detail. And they even quote sources where one can find more good knowledge.

also, rofl:

YOU ARE SELLING THE VIDEO I FILMED WITHOUT EVER CONTACTING ME ABOUT IT?

http://the-rabbits-hole.com/discussions/?vast...mp;t=136.0

conspiracy right there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo&feature=fvst

Its hard to find a serious person who agrees with the main stream theory anymore

Its called a demolition ,looked it up

All the physics you agree with but you find nothing strange with 9/11

rofl

serious people don't post on youtube.

go read a book on steel and several more on building construction and mechanics if you have the open mind you say you do.

But I guess you prefer being spoonfed by youtube videos...

rofl

you didnt watch it did you? be more in denial please

i think its obvious i know more about steel then you do,but go ahead claim that for the first time in human history 3 modern steel skyscrapers collapsed because of a fire (oh and into its footprint :))) )

Hi, I am a certified industrial engineer. My job is to build compressor stations, which are 95% steel.

Just today I verified the foundation load of a gas/water cooler, under environmental loads while assuming nozzle loads of 5 times API 661 and a max. temperature of 110°C


But please, tell me about steel...





But thanks for showing clearly just how open your mind really is. You refure to read a book, because you think you know it all. You're just your average conspiracy theorist. i'm out of here.

http://www.discoverynews.org/wildlife-monkeys...-evil1.jpg

move along nothing to see here :))

Your job description alone should help you understand it better,but sure,you obviously see steel buildings fall into its footprint everyday

i read books,much to your surprise

* are brother. are.

The claim that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire is 100% bullshit. It's a catchphrase that conspiracy theorists have come up with (it's in Loose change amongst others), but a complete lie and few people take the time to do a little research to verify if that claim is true. The truth is that steel frame buildings CAN and HAVE collapsed due to fire.

Read this about WTC and fire:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canoffi...olumnstobu

These are examples and studies of structural steel being vulnerable to fire:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/somelin...fthebehavi
(some of the links are outdated)

Here is a very concrete example of THREE out of four steel buildings collapsing due to ONE fire at a factory in Thailand:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071209073635/htt.../fir01.htm

Seriously, do some research before blindly believing stupid claims like that. They can be debunked by doing minimal research.This applies to the rest of your claims too.

edit: here's yet another example, this time with a smaller building (but still a steel building): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/he...105942.stm - and to quote the article: ""Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof" + "The roof collapsed inside the building". Comment from a guy who was also debunking the claims of a CT: "This is a building with far less load placed on its structural supports AND one which suffered no impact damage. Or would you like to claim that the British government demolished a toilet paper plant?"

about the Thiland industrial disaster

4. It is reported that buildings numbers 1-4 were four story buildings constructed with an unprotected steel structure.

and this compares to a modern skyscraper how? :))

---------
After a B-25 bomber crashed into the empire state building on July 28,1945 (huge fire,that burned out,leaving the structure of the building intact) All plans for future skyscrapers in NYC had to withstand a direct airliners/bomber carrying full cargo crash ,which the engineers of All WTCs clearly testify that it was built accordingly ,and not one of them predicted any of the WTC to fall ,even more into its footprint ? :)))

poor investigation but nice try

be more naive please

Don't try to go off on a tangent, the links I provided give numerous examples of modern buildings collapsing due to fires, and some are even scientific studies SHOWING the effect of fire on steel.

ya,rofl im going of on a tangent when you cant supply single piece of evidence and rely on unsubstantial "studies"

look at your links carefully ,i doubt you went through them

Yes you did go off on a tangent since you started mentioning planes hitting the WTC when we were talking about the impact of fire on steel buildings, the one claim I addressed in my response to you. This is the definition of going off on a tangent.

How did I not supply evidence when I provided you various links (and not only the one about the buildings in Thailand) to _modern steel buildings collapsing due to fire_? This is EXACTLY what we were discussing. Take this as an example of addressing a point instead of going off on a tangent.

Why exactly are the studies I also linked to "unsubstantial"? Let me guess... "Oh shit, here are actual verifiable scientific studies showing clearly the impact of fire on steel, and in the process clearly proving me wrong, I'll just call them "unsubstantial" because I have absolutely no way of digging myself out of the hole I've made for myself". Nice going genius. If you're going to discard them then maybe explain us why they're not relevant (I wish you good luck since 1) they clearly are 2) you know jack shit on the subject)?

you just don't listen do you

your ego has blown way out of proportion

think about what your saying and go through my comments and your links again

Hmm, apparently your strategy is equivalent to shutting your ears with your hands and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". Absolutely brilliant. Either answer the examples and studies I linked to or stop replying. I gave you concrete evidence of the impact of fire 1) on modern steel buildings 2) on structural steel itself directly.

rofl,look whos talking,there is not one thing in your links to prove your theory ,not one thing

but ye,ignorance is a bliss,im sure you sleep like a baby

How do concrete examples of collapsed steel framed buildings not prove that the claim "no steel building has ever collapsed except for the WTC" is wrong?
I went one step further, and showed how regardless of actual collapses you can see through scientific studies the impact of fire on structural steel.
Are you at any point going to even address what I posted or are you just going to stay in denial?

again , all buildings are not the same,that tawain industrial fire can NOT be compared ,find me a modern skyscraper that collapsed into its footprint ,but i bet demolition experts set fire to buildings all the time,since its so cost effective and precise

There were other examples, did you even check the links? You're unbelievable.

And I'll repeat myself AGAIN, I also gave you links to studies that show that FIRE HAS AN EFFECT ON STRUCTURAL STEEL, READ THEM. Do you not understand how these studies make your entire argument meaningless? It doesn't matter if they're in a skyscraper or not, it has been scientifically established that fire has an effect on protected structural steel. If you don't believe the studies I linked to you only have to look for yourself (hint: you won't find such studies on conspiracy websites).

Here's another fun fact: if you look for info on Madrid’s Windsor Building (*cough* skyscraper *cough*) fire, you'll probably find a good number of conspiracy websites citing it as an example of a skyscraper that sustained a major fire without collapsing. What they DON'T tell you, however, is that:

all the structural steel in the fire-affected area collapsed, leaving the concrete core standing. Fire protection for the Windsor’s structural steel was in the process of being upgraded, but that work had not reached the upper levels. Arup, the fire protection engineering firm, says that the steel would likely have failed even if it had been fire-protected. [...] CTs often use the Windsor Building fire to support their claim that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed, completely ignoring the fact that fire destroyed the Windsor’s steel. The WTC buildings had cores of steel, not concrete.

From the first link I gave you. It's one of several examples of steel girders failing in a skyscraper due to fire.

btw since you're focusing on skyscrapers and not "buildings", I suppose you already agree with what I said in my first post: "the claim that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire is 100% bullshit"?

No your examples don't compare ,Windsor isn't the only building that didn't collapse,search more

Read this carefully

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
-----------------------
No amount of "physical damage to the south face of building 7" can account for these three collapse features:

* WTC 7 fell vertically with great precision.
* WTC 7 fell at nearly the rate of free-fall.
* WTC 7's rubble pile was amazingly tidy, confined almost entirely to the city block on which the building stood.
----------------------
These characteristics are precisely what the art and science of controlled demolition seeks to accomplish through the precise placement and timing of the detonations of large number of explosive charges.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
---------------------------------
The construction of Building 7 was that of a typical modern skyscraper, except that it had even thicker beams near its base because it straddled an electrical substation. The idea of a "chain-reaction collapse", dressed up with the scientific sounding term progressive collapse, is ludicrous -- there are no examples of progressive total collapse of steel-framed buildings outside the alleged cases of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7.

* WTC 7 fell vertically with great precision.
* WTC 7 fell at nearly the rate of free-fall.
* WTC 7's rubble pile was amazingly tidy, confined almost entirely to the city block on which the building stood.

1 - This is a rather subjective statement and isn't even beyond the realms of possibility anyway. Who defines "great precision" in this context? A bunch of conspiracy nerds?

2 - If the steel frame could no longer support the loads, yeah, I'd expect the building to collapse at the rate of free-fall. Why what speed would you expect it to collapse?

3 - This last one is just beyond silly and requires some very well researched citations to be meaningful

really?

So yes, basically demolition experts set fire to buildings and watch it implode into its footprint in hours ,with little to no costs

How is it not a standard practice :P

What? Reply to what he said, Mr.

And yeah, you're looking for scientific proof for this shit and you come up with articles that contain phrases like "great precision". this fails so hard, it's unbelievable.


Sun is pretty hot.

watch this : http://www.youtube.com/v/g6Z36kkixz8

_________________

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtcplan.jpg
Above is a map showing the relative position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it was not significantly effected by the collapse of the towers due to it being shielded by buildings 5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc4a.jpg
Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc5fire.jpg
Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtc1a.jpg
The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806building6.jpg
In addition, Building 6, which was even closer to the north tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned demolition months later), suffered even more extreme fire and debris damage, but the building did not fall down implosion style like the towers and Building 7.

also read this post: http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1886862#pid1886862

No, since you're not even bright enough to articulate your own opinions. fuck off with your copy&paste+youtube shit.

"you cant handle the truth,can you"

Please form a post in your own words. I might consider reading it, if it's not full of your stupid use of ze comma.

oh you little hypocritical shit,you havent formed a creative individual thought since i started the thread

but ye, regurgitate the information that is being ingrained in your from childbirth on ,your doing a good job

Show me yours, i'll show you mine.

it's you who can't handle it, because you are desperately looking for an escape in almost everything.

only certain people can be open-minded gullible enough to simply believe if something happens once by accident, it becomes easily reproducible and controllable.

This entire post is you going off on a tangent, except for the first line where you completely discard my entire previous post (actually all of them, for that matter) without even addressing any of what I said.

Building WTC7 is precisely not relevant to this discussion since we're talking about _other buildings than the WTC_, or did you not notice?...

Address what I said, since your sentence about the Windsor hotel shows that you didn't even get my point.

skyscraper falling? brother? no didn't think so.

live long and prosper

don't waste your time.

It is clear that he is very selective about what "truth" he believes.
Statements from engineers building the WTC must be true, even though even semi-smart person would make that statement if they don't want to face a gant lawsuit.
Statements from other engineers must be wrong becuase they have been bought by the government.


Again, don't waste your time. Apparantly, there are still people who believe Paul McCartney died in 1966...

you made another statement out of thin air

actual engineers everywhere find the main stream explanation ridiculous,obviously your not one of them,which makes me doubt just how much of an engineer you are

yeah, well all engineers I know in real-life share my views.

and i have no single doubt I know way more than you do. The thing is that none of them consider that shit important enough to voice their opinion on webpages, an dI just do it for fun. As opposed to the few odd ones who feel the need to share their different view.

But yeah, to a person who is unable to consider such things it might look like th e majority of engineers shared his erratic believe. Because all you seem to do is look for stuff to prove what you believe instead of also looking for things that disprove it.


So, you really fulfilled your main mission here, you gave a great example of a closed mind: Yourself.

c'mon becks,can you not see your doing it yourself ?

But yeah, to a person who is unable to consider such things it might look like th e majority of engineers shared his erratic believe. Because all you seem to do is look for stuff to prove what you believe instead of also looking for things that disprove it.

You only see what you want and block out any other information that would negate your beliefs

I too believed long ago that there are actual terrorists and the main stream story is correct,but with so much proof debunking it,i seriously don't understand how anyone can not have a single doubt about it,with so many holes in the story

who are those guys then? CIA? jews trying to trick us?

What proof of another scenario do you have? Go ahead and give me one. I'm NOT asking for bullshit holes in the official story, I'm asking for actual POSITIVE evidence of a conspiracy. I'm waiting.

In addition to the visual and testimonial evidence, there was clear physical evidence that explosives and incendiaries were used to bring down WTC 7.

Swiss-Cheese Steel: Within a few months of 9/11, three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) had issued a report about a piece of steel from Building 7 that was described in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton as “[p]erhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”13 Part of the mystery was the fact that the steel was “extremely thin,” indicating that the steel had “melted away,” even though “no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” Another part of the mystery was that atoms in the steel seemed to have combined with sulfur “to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures,” but as to the source of the sulfur, “no one knows.”14

Describing this mysterious piece of steel more fully, an article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel” in WPI’s magazine, said:

“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies . . . reveal that . . . a eutectic reaction . . . caus[ed] intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese . . .. A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture [involving sulfur]. . . . ‘The important questions," says [one of the professors], ‘are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from?’”15

The thinning and the holes even suggested that the steel had vaporized. Explaining as early as November 2001 why fire could not account for this mysterious steel, Glanz paraphrased one of the three WPI professors, Jonathan Barnett, as saying that it “appear[ed] to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.”16

Another New York Times story reported that the same phenomenon was described by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of the University of California at Berkeley, who had received a National Science Foundation grant to spend two weeks at Ground Zero studying steel from the buildings. According to reporter Kenneth Change, Professor Astaneh-Asl, speaking of a horizontal I-beam from WTC 7, said: “Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.”17

These reports clearly showed that something other than fire had been making things happen in the buildings, because the fires could not possibly have been higher than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, while the boiling point of steel is roughly the same as that of iron, which is 5182°F. But even if the steel had not evaporated but had simply melted, that by itself would have proved the point, because the melting point of steel is only a little less than that of iron, which is 2800°F. (An obvious source of both the melting and the sulfidation would be a well-known incendiary, thermate – a “mixture of thermite and sulfur . . . which lowers the melting point of iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system,” which is “useful in cutting through steel.”)18




Therefore, clear evidence against the official account of Building 7, according to which it was brought down by fire, existed in plain sight in the form of videos of its collapse, published testimonies about explosions in the building, and physical evidence reported in the New York Times. The reasonable inference to draw from this evidence – namely, that the official account is false – was reinforced by the first official report on this building’s collapse, which was issued in 2002 by FEMA. Besides including as an appendix the paper by the WPI professors containing the study of the Swiss-cheese piece of steel recovered from WTC 7 – a study that attributed the erosion to “oxidation and sulfidation” while adding: “No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified”19 – the engineers who wrote the FEMA report admitted that their “best hypothesis” about why WTC 7 collapsed had “only a low probability of occurrence.”20

Apparently you have some trouble reading since I said:

I'm NOT asking for bullshit holes in the official story, I'm asking for actual POSITIVE evidence of a conspiracy

"This could not have happened like this" is not positive evidence. I clearly said I was not asking for a BS list of what you think are holes in the official story, since I knew you were going to serve me with a C/P of the same old retarded claims that have been debunked over and over again. I asked for POSITIVE EVIDENCE of a conspiracy. Do you have any to provide? Still waiting.

molten vaporised steel isnt evidence ,ok..i gues your that stupid

listen to this short interview : http://www.youtube.com/v/g6Z36kkixz8



Here is something more interesting:

Source: OpEd News - Alan Miller

James James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES...llapse.wmv]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/...]

Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.

Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:

· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)

· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986

· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST

· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association

His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?cPath=...

For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://patriotsquestion911.com%20/p

----------------------------

This is good as well:

Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.

I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.

Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview, Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue elements within the government).

Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters."

_____

watch this short video: http://www.youtube.com/v/rQhnB5s_A5s

__________

If this doesn't at least get you thinking ,then your practically a lost cause mate

Do you even read my posts? Do I need to stop putting spaces after my commas so that you understand what I'm saying?

I said I did NOT want "we can't explain this" "look at this, it's a hole in the official story" stuff. I ASKED FOR POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY.

Regarding Niels Harrit's paper, it was debunked quite some time ago, but I guess you're not too interested in checking your sources as long as they agree with you.

Leslie Robertson - Structural Engineer / Designer of WTC:



On the Structural Engineers Association of Utah's website, James Williams (SEAU President) described what Robertson said at an October 2001 conference: "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running".

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/hotslagil3.jpg

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Bro...esized.jpg

NIST is the source of the photo above. NIST admitted doctoring the image.The intensity levels have been adjusted

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/5.jpg

Do you even read my posts? Do I need to stop putting spaces after my commas so that you understand what I'm saying?

I said I did NOT want "we can't explain this" "look at this, it's a hole in the official story" stuff. I ASKED FOR POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY.

direct proof of a coverup is in the posts if you read it

yes i do read yours,but the amount of nativity with you is unbelievable

its a fucking gov. coverup,tell me exactly what kind of positive evidence do you expect

I've read your posts and the only attempt at positive evidence was Niels Harrit's paper which has been debunked. You can claim it was a coverup all you want, that doesn't make it true. You haven't been able to provide me with one single example of positive evidence it was a conspiracy. I'm still waiting.

Don't you get it? It's all covered up. You have to read through pages and pages written by shitheads to get to the truth.

Sad.

To be fair, if I read all the crap that he has I'd probably believe all of that too just on the principle that I can't have wasted so much time reading that crap to not believe it.

It's why I don't read the bible too...

Wasting your time, man. I dominated him out of the last 9/11 thread when all of the "collapsed" buildings that he was using in his argument had pictures with the steel frame undamaged. You won't get a direct argument out of him on the issue, as he's either extremely dense, or being paid.

I must have missed the thread, I only saw the one where you made a fool out of yourself.

It's so cute when you think you can read.

it's so cute when you think your opinion is a reference point.


How about you enlighten us about british English being wrong, again?

Perfect example.

yes, I know.

Really hoping you'd write a "True English dictionary", soon. So those Brits can learn to properly spell the language they stole from the Americans.

I didn't need another example, but feel free to keep letting it out on my shoulder.

It reminds me of the time ix schooled him so bad on climate change, it was almost painful to read, yet vedic kept on posting because he was just incapable of admitting he was wrong :p It's pretty sad though, it's like he needs to have the last word at all cost just to be able to tell himself that he "dominated" the other guy. The same happened with the 9/11 thread, he contested one of the examples I gave based on a picture of some pillars still standing in the middle of a collapsed building, then discarded all the other cases of collapsed buildings based on that one picture for one of the examples (which was completely unrelated to the other examples of collapsed buildings), and this despite undisputable evidence of total collapse in the other cases. He's an idiot that will never change his mind or admit he's wrong in a discussion, I sincerely wonder why you even reply to him becks :p

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1791121#pid1791121 for his pathetic attempt at proving ix wrong. That discussion alone shows why it's pointless to argue with him, he will never acknowledge a valid point that contradicts what he says, so why bother? You can't have a discussion with someone like that, now I just ignore him. He's probably going to reply to this post too because his ego won't let him sleep if he doesn't :p

About r1ddler, did you notice how so far he's stopped replying after I said multiple times I was asking for positive evidence? It's the achille's heel of conspiracy theorists: you can debunk their bs all you want, they'll just keep coming back with more, but the moment you ask them for actual positive evidence of the conspiracy/coverup they're so sure of, they have absolutely nothing :)

I know, and I won't engage in a serious discussion with him anymore.
He is like a roomate I once had, that got incredibly stubborn when he was drunk, and would never accept a different opinion.* But he was aware of that and apologized once sober. So we just made a deal to not discuss anything after five beers or more.

I still can't resist poking vedic from time to time =]





*Actually had him and another roomate banging doors and shouting once, after I came back from a night out. I couldn't understand what it was about. I later found out what the topic was "If my sister says I would be a great father, does that make it true?" :P

He's part of it! OMG! You might be onto something here.

Find him and go Jack Bauer on him.

More likely just dense.

This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

when are ever gonna start to read conciously?

Mr. Quintiere is a great example of someone following the scientific process. He read the report, lists his problems and ask questions he would like to have solved. He also provides a theory that might solve some of the problems and does not imply a conspiracy theory.

If I were him I would be outraged at people like oyu trying to hijack my work!

You're absolutely right, it's very frequent for conspiracy theorists to misquote and hijack the work of experts to serve their purpose. A good example is the case of Danny Jowenko, who is often mentioned by CTs for his initial comments on WTC7 when he was presented with a video of it collapsing. What they don't show you, however, is the rest of the interview with him, particularly about buildings WTC1 & WTC2. Watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdEtxFFx-Q4#t=3m15s

It starts with a presentation of conspiracy theorist Richard Gage citing Danny Jowenko to support his claims, then the video switches to the part of the iview with Jowenko that CTs don't show since he says there was absolutely no controlled demolition on buildings WTC1 & WTC2. He adopted the same view on building 7 when he was presented with more information on the collapse.

Clear display of intellectual dishonesty from the CTs :)

great find, but I am starting to think you know more links about this topic than is healthy for you ;)

Well he could have been suspicious of a conspiracy, so researched it, and then concluded that there was none.

sure, but it still is a lot ;)

Well it's just that I've been in a lot of discussions with conspiracy theorists, so I've had to do quite a bit of research on the subject :p I've personally never believed in any kind of US government conspiracy on 9/11, for several reasons, but I still took the time to investigate their claims without letting my beliefs influence my research. I suppose it's needless to say I never came across anything that made me change my mind :p

"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth."
- Pierre Abelard

Even though it's painfully obvious that the VAST majority of civil engineers consider there's absolutely nothing wrong with how the three buildings fell, you can be sure that if you press r1ddler on the issue he's going to mention "scholars for 9/11 truth". Each time someone mentions that joke of a group I love linking to when the founder got his ass handed to him (regarding the particular case of the attack on the Pentagon) a couple of years ago - twice.

Part one (letter by the founder of the group, James H. Fetzer, and the reply by J.R. Dunn)
Part two (same)

Pure gold, read it :p

thanks, I will.


I also had a thought this morning.
Why have I not seen a single person who had a conspiracy theory go like this:

"I had a theory, and I spend three years researching it, collecting evidence. It turned out I was wrong. Here is a 2 hour video of what I found out, as I want to spread the knowledge I gathered and why I was wrong. This should help people who have come up with a similar theory."

just read the first one, they are both unlikeable, atleast for me

Yeah I looked at a couple of Dunn's articles and I don't necessarily agree with everything he says or his general tone, but he still does a very good job at debunking the claims of the other idiot :)

the thing with both guys was that they loved expressing their own opinion as facts, and thats really annoying.

also i found dunn's whole debunking to be really agressive.. way to not come across as superior as he'd like to

fundamentalists. people who rely on fundamentals. when you realize who declared war on them and when and scroll back in a few charts, stuff becomes painfully obvious. we have been living in a headfake for the past 10 years. keep making fools of us, it is too late to save anything. it will be painful to watch but listening to all the close minded smarties as the Rome burns makes it bearable since deep down us realists know we deserve it because of you.

While I know you're just trolling, don't bother arguing the steel frame issue with him as he's just trolling. Find visual evidence to the aftermath of ANY of the events he links to, and you'll find that the steel frame was left intact the way it should have been.

"There was a major industrial fire with a significant loss of life"

as opposed to insignificant loss of life? typical ruthless close minded babble. I shall read no more.

peace and love

It's always nice to get a glimps into the mind of conspiracy theorists. In this case, they believe that SOMEONE is able to pull of a massive conspiracy, encompassing thousands of people of different nationalities all around the world, none of whom has so forth come forward with this knowledge, but is at the same time stupid enough to accidentally "leak" the information to a news organisation? Why? Is the BBC in on it? Are the reporters? Why even give out the information at all?

Of course, that the BBC simply made a mistake is out of the question. After all, prior to 9/11, everyone knew exactly which world trade center building had what number.

prior to 9/11 I thought WTC just were the two buildings. And I even saw them with my own eyes in '96..

Hitler burned his own Parliament building and blamed it on communist terrorists ,to force the german people into war

AW SHIT A CONSPIRACY ;OMG ;THATS SO FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE,History never repeats itself :)))

You do realize that this is something completely different and Hitler didn't burn it himself or through a conspirator?

At the time it was thought the Nazis were co-conspirators though, so unless people pay attention it's easy to see why someone would make that mistake.

If there's one thing riddler seems to do best, it's not paying attention ;)

Next thing he'll do is provide me with links to some of his bookmarks to "prove me wrong".

Ya sure,its not exactly the same..

from wiki

The day after the fire Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany and was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. Despite the fact that Marinus van der Lubbe claimed to have acted alone in the Reichstag fire, Hitler, after having obtained his emergency powers, announced that it was the start of a Communist plot to take over Germany. This sent the Germans into a panic and isolated the Communists further among the civilians; additionally, thousands of Communists were imprisoned in the days following the fire (including leaders of the Communist Party of Germany) on the charge that the Party was preparing to stage a putsch

What does that remind us of?

That wiki is often an unreliable source.

wiki got that one perfectly right.

that you can't read well?

that you're an idiot, unable to comprehend a simple text.

that bbc thing is just noise, no theory stands on it. typical lawyer picking on minutiae.

serious people don't post on youtube.

serious people also do not use idiotic generalizations. if you are doing something creative where you need to keep up with the trends like graphic design, make-up, hairdressing, etc. youtube beats most schools as long as you can sort through the junk. first hand expert knowledge.

granted.

I should have said, serious people (as in people who do that research for a living) hardly ever post video replies to conspiracy theories on youtube.

So most researchers working for the government or a corporation haven't posted on youtube regarding conspiracy theories ,could be something to do that they like their job?

(btw. many still do,i don't know where your looking,they are called whistle blowers on the interweb :) )

http://fukung.net/v/22721/818aa169c92519f6430abf7d34d65cfd.jpg

:D

It sounds to me like you want to believe.

I'd advise you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

I'll do you one better: rofl

Kirsebaer summed it up best.

could you put a little bit of space after ","?
your texts looks extremely dense without it and it does not let dark matter exist this way

hehe,thats cute :)

=(

in any conspiracy there needs to be someone who doesnt want the truth to come out. in this case i cant think of a reason why anyone would want to disguise the existence of this. so if someone is claiming that this thing exists and 99,9% of experts disagree, my conclusion (without reading anything) is that it is bullshit...

nasa new about it,but posted the video online the very last moments,they did think we were "done" thats why it wasn't shown to the public..anything that has a very high probability of causing panic,has to be avoided at all coast

its just my thinking why it could be the case,but like i said i don't believe in planet-x

You guys should check out this video on Electric/Plasma Universe theory. I suggest starting the video at 12:09. Around minute 40 they give an interesting explaination of comets, treating them as charged particles in an electric field.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#

Electrical and Plasma scientists have been creating models of the universe that are based on the fact that electric current runs through the plasma connecting planets, stars, galaxies and super clusters. Modern astrophysics is based on Einstein's equations, which completely ignore the electromagnetic dynamics in the universe.

i've seen it before ,thought it was quite good actually ;)

The experiments and theories have completely changed my view of the universe. I hope more scientists catch on to the idea.

Ye,its really eye opening and just makes sense ,i hope for the same,tho they will take their usual time :)

Watch this film and in an hour know more than most NASA scientists about the fundamental force that forms and sustains the universe (summary below).

Anyone who starts their introduction loses my interest right away.
Saying that scientists at Nasa know less than an hours worth about electricity and plasmas? yeah right.

That the site where they sell their DVD is not even registered only adds to it.
Visit: www.thunderboltsdvd.com


I'll pass.


you can have the mandatory lol though:

lol

a closed mind is a closed mind

hahaha


Because I don't like to waste my time on shit, and prefer to learn things that are actually real and happening and interests me, I I have a closed mind. Good to know.
In that case I really, really prefer to have a "closed mind".


Just out of curiousity, do you use a spam filter for your email account?

you waste more time on shit then you can possibly imagine

You are certainly not the person to judge that.

at least more then you,which is quite obvious,i take the time to investigate everything,you only conform to your belief system by regurgitating what youve been thought like an obedient parrot

read a book, yet? Or do you rely on "researching" on the internet.
But good to see you resorted to insults, cause facts are certainly not your kind of thing. Have fun wasting your life.

the books you read are quite different from the books i read,i bet that

its not insulting if its true and im sorry if i offended you

:) I looked into this briefly when someone posted a vid about it in that "other" thread, and boy oh boy, it's fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott

If you don't want to listen to the ideas then don't. You may find them interesting if you do. If you have the time to troll, then you probably have the time to watch the video.

While I agree the scientists in this video hurt their own ideas by coming off as pompous, there is a lot of truth to what they say. Einstein's equations do not include electricity, and to his own admission, do not accurately describe the real world. Astrophysicists have been blindly using his equations and ideas for years, conjuring up things like dark matter/energy, space time, and black holes to fill in the massive voids of knowledge. Unlike modern astronomy, Electrical and Plasma Astronomy are empirical sciences. Meaning the theories can be tested in the lab, because electrical and plasma dynamics are scalable.

r1ddler I really hope you're trolling. I've seen you post several times about the double-slit experiment, but what kind of understanding of quantum mechanics do you really have except from youtube vids?

It's also quite funny that you claim you know more about steel than an engineer working on it every workday. What books did you read? Where did you get your education? If you haven't read anything or don't have an education, how did you get your knowledge?

I'm also gonna go ahead and post this again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

I guess you're like 15 or something and want to be different but don't claim you know more about science than actual scientist using an actual scientific method to gain understanding and knowledge

Most engineers,ive met ,with much better credentials agree completely ,i have no idea in what kind of a bubble he lives in.

Also i find it funny that closed minded people like to post that youtube video,as if its their bible

I am much older then that sir,all i claim is there are real scientists that have a completely different view from the main stream scientific community that everyone follows blindly

rofl, you don't even know my credentials, and say they are worse.
Says a lot how diligent you are about selecting evidence. Not at all, you just believe what you want to believe, whatever doesn't fit your views must be wrong.

ya i admit i jumped to a conclusion there,plainly because of your replies

i see alot of people jumping to conclusions based on your replies... interested?

great link, hadn't seen it.

But funny to see how it completely goes over r1ddler's head.

"open-minded" my ass.

that video has been posted everytime someone mentioned religion on ESR

i have no idea how you havent seen it before

the video it self is fine,but people using as their defense to their closed minded beliefs ,is not

No I used that video to point out your closed mindedness. You didn't answer any of my questions either

you failed to pointed out your own closed mindedness tho :(

So what exactly makes me closed minded?

the inability to think for yourself

ok, I'm done. this is sad really, it seems this conspiracy theory/tin foil hat/internet-"scientist" thing is getting more and more popular.
I should've just taken the lol-approach

Good luck in future endeavours.

you fear what you don't understand

"lol" for your convenience

good luck

What exactly don't I understand? I believe my understanding of both quantum mechanics and steel far exceeds yours.

Go through the comments and post your opinion on why wtc7 collapsed,i do want to hear what you think

Quantum mechanics is such a relative and vast science ,hardly anyone agrees on a matter ,but please,tell me how do you understand that experiment

yeah, i bet your understanding of quantum mechanics and shoe shining is off the charts

irony is that they will take the fact, that less and less people, who know their stuff, reply to them, as a reason to think they are doing something right.

looking at your posts ,you don't know the meaning of irony

again, all you know to do is writing insults and making yourself look like you don't know what you are talking about.

Fortunately, irony is explained in ever dictionary. Go check it out.
As soon as you are able to explain what irony I intended to show in my statement, we can consider to discuss if it is correct or wrong. Until then, your opinion counts for nothing, as it is only backed by your own assumptions and insults.


But a syl said, really interesting to learn something new, by getting a very close view of a die-hard conspiracy theorist. Thank you for that.

yes stick your head in the sand

i don't know why your looking in the dictionary when you can clearly see irony in your posts

your arguments are based on outdated beliefs and theories ,but sure,go to sleep becks,your government has everything under control

4.

2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0

moonlanding is fake

The government also ordered hit on JFK

The earth is hollow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

hallow meaning the very center is a miniature black hole the size of a basketball


quite possible


:)

Do you read David Icke?

The way I see it is if any of these conspiracy theories are correct it'll be Ike's theory.

David Icke has the magic ability of combining them all into one unified theory. Quite genius actually.

brother, join us in consuming the very matter that will blow your mind. literally. have a blast. expand your thinking abilities for at least 10 000 times. snort a line. go wild.

http://www.davidicke.com/articles/medicalheal...tomic-gold
http://monatomicgold.co.uk/index.php?a=davidicke

peace and love.

Yeahhhhhhh... ok.

"this fascinating substance indeed has "exotic" properties and can literally, according to lab data, alter space, time and gravity"

if that doesn't get you hooked, nothing will.

lol david icke,he has a lot of it wrong.but there is still quite some truth to it

a serious person just cannot take his reptilian work seriously

but

Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms.

http://www.theresonanceproject.org/images/haramein_award.jpg

This guy is the next Einstein =)

I don't get this because his paper comes up with this insane value that is nowhere near the strength of the strong force. Or is this like a joke?

It's a way to sell DVDs.

no its not a joke?

no, the moon ordered hit on JFK!

Bing!

ESR crimestop is working at full capacity in this thread. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68&am...r2-2r-7-HM

Can't believe I almost let my self get sucked into this thread. Retardedness averted, barely.

Still fun to read, though only in small doses.

your just afraid that your mind desnt explode from all the openmidedness in this thread.

or is it implode?

p.s Sujoy is a reptilian

this site is overrun by reptiles!

Mkeiy is an idiot...And so is becks....

stop projecting.

You're a fucking retard, go masturbate on yourself.

haha

r1ddler I really hope you're trolling. I've seen you post several times about the double-slit experiment, but what kind of understanding of quantum mechanics do you really have except from youtube vids?

It's also quite funny that you claim you know more about steel than an engineer working on it every workday. What books did you read? Where did you get your education? If you haven't read anything or don't have an education, how did you get your knowledge?

Just quoted micke to clear this up.
Oh yeah, and how exactly am I close-minded?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

You answer him by linking to a video explaining that mash is precisely not close-minded, and that you're the gullible and close-minded one. It's like you're the embodiment of idiocy.

cute logic

gg brb buldings perpetuum mobiels kthx

Watch that video again,and try to do it objectively now,it could help you

You do understand that you're the guy in green, don't you?

You do understand that your the closed minded guy who spams the video ,making you think your open minded

Ahhh yes, the good old switch-a-roo.
Very nice.

7/10

Omg, can't believe it took me so long to watch that video and make fun of you.

You're either
a) a class-a troll. In that case, thanks for the entertainment.
or
b) a class-a idiot. In that case, thanks for the entertainment.

Watch that video again,and try to do it objectively now,it could help you

You do understand that your the closed minded guy who spams the video ,making you think your open minded

I still can't believe he posted this. I mean, I ... it's ...

i knew this thread was retarded since i read the title
now that i actually clicked on it and skimmed through, i'll just be the one hundredth close minded person calling the OP a retard

i wonder how many will it take for a wakeup call..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpJE5Y2dKJ0&feature=related

Tho this is interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57AXJ00RmR0&feature=related


watch the rest aswell