Interesting that most the comments are by scoffers and trolls. Anyways...
I met a graduate-student/physicist some years back who was researching fusion physics. Cold fusion. He was really excited about his work, and said something about having to slightly change a paper he'd written because of results from a hot-fusion experiment that had recently been published. No major changes, because the hot-fusion experiment came out (failed?) just like he thought it would, but he had to mention it.
There was a story a month back: The Energy of Empty Space != Zero. Cosmologists now say that matter-as-we-know-it only makes up between 4% and 7% of the universe. The rest is "dark matter" and "dark energy", "dark" because there's no appropriate candidates in the standard physical model. To me, this means that the standard model needs some serious revision, especially if there's no entry for 93-96% of the "stuff" in the universe.
"Free Energy" devices such as the one referenced in the article are simply a way of tapping into the dark energy that interpenetrates everything. They're hard to get right because we don't have a very good understanding of the principles involved, and the institutions that derive their power from the Energy Wars (The Exxon-Mobil/BP/Shell wing of the Military-Industrial complex) use their might to suppress any innovation which might make them irrelevant.
Mizuno has often talked about the prehistory of cold fusion. Most great discoveries are visited and revisited many times before someone stakes a permanent claim. People sometimes stumble over a new discovery without even realizing what they see. Mizuno did his graduate and post graduate work on corrosion using highly loaded metal hydrides. His experiments were almost exactly like those of cold fusion, but they were performed for a different purpose. In retrospect, he realized that he saw anomalous events that may have been cold fusion. At the time he could not determine the cause, he did not imagine it might be fusion, and he had to leave the mystery unsolved. No scientist has time to track down every anomaly. I expect many people saw and disregarded evidence for cold fusion over the years. Mizuno makes a provocative assertion. He says that long before 1989 he wondered whether the immense pressure of electrolysis might produce "some form of fusion." He says: "This kind of hypothesis would occur to any researcher studying metal and hydrogen systems. It is not a particularly profound or outstanding idea. It never occurred to me to pursue the matter and research this further." He appears to downplay the role of Pons and Fleischmann. Perhaps he exaggerates when he says "any researcher" would think of it, but on the other hand Paneth and Peters and others did investigate this topic in the 1920s....
Just out of curiosity, where was your 2000/2001-era Cisco WAP made?
I saw an aritcle (which has since gone offline: Manufacturing: Probably made in China, by someone else) that said Intel made motherboards in Silicon Valley until 1999 or so. The massive movement to Chinese factories was triggered by the need to cut costs at the tail end of the dot-com bubble.
$700 sounds like a price you'd have to charge if you were paying Americans to put your industrial-grade wireless widget together... (I'm assuming your WAP was built like a tank - cisco used to be all about quality, until they bought Linksys for the "consumer grade" product lines.)
I'm not a structural engineer, or a controlled demolition expert. My field of expertise is "human performance". And what I see when I read the "refutation" of Dr. Jones' paper is someone who can't see outside their own "reality box". Reality boxes are composed of our beliefs which filter our experience of the world, and everyone's is different.
... So, the question is, when two people have the same stimulus, why don't they have the same response? The answer is, because we delete, distort, and generalize the information from the outside.
We delete, distort and generalize the information that comes in from our senses based on one of five filters. The filters are, Meta Programs, belief systems, values, decisions, and memories....
So, someone who can't possibly believe that anyone in the United States Government could've been in on the 9/11 attacks will find their own way to believe that 19 Arabs did it.
It's worth pointing out that the invasion of Iraq - a country not associated with Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, and invansion of which was preceded with a heavy round of "they've got Weapons of Mass Destruction!" propaganda - is substantiated by the Conspiracy/Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11. The propaganda machines are currently working in overdrive to extend the terror to Iran. Again, I think this behavior is consistent with the self-inflicted "new Pearl Harbor" view of 9/11 (what the 'Project for a New American Century' was hoping/planing for).
"If Thermate could've been used as a part of the formula to take down the towers, where would it've been applied?" When I think in terms of possibility, I can think of many ways that thermite/thermate would've been useful, even taking into account the objections in the paper you linked to.
This exchange has been fun & useful for me, but I think we've reached the conclusion of our little conversation. I'll check for a reply, but I'm disinclined to follow up, as the story is now 3 days old, and I do have other things to do, as you do, I assume.:)
Why couldn't this evidence that you seem to think existed just be loaded into trucks and burned somewhere?
I assume here you're refering to evidence relating to the supposed controlled demolition of WTC 1&2, and not the previously referenced SEC investigations. Electronics (and whatever else is used for controlled demolition) don't burn to well, much better to rig your equipment with explosives and bury them in a pile of steel and powdered concrete.
And if you were refering to the investigations, I'm sure the investigators would notice that their boxes of papers were missing one day, and that all their computer data had been sabotaged.
Bringing down wtc7 too was simply a case of "killing two birds with one stone".
Assuming the attack was staged, do you have any evidence that wtc7 would have over seen it?
Assuming the attack was staged, the stagers would've had to have triggered the detonators from/somewhere/. WTC7 floor 23 is as good a candidate as any.
Why couldn't this evidence that you seem to think existed just be loaded into trucks and burned somewhere?
I assume here you're refering to evidence relating to the supposed controlled demolition of WTC 1&2, and not the previously referenced SEC investigations. Electronics (and whatever else is used for controlled demolition) don't burn to well, much better to rig your equipment with explosives and bury them in a pile of steel and powdered concrete.
If you were going to stage an attack like this would you leave any evidence in any form lying around on the day of the attack?
Did you mean "leave any evidence... lying around BEFORE the attack"? They'd have to keep it somewhere. If you meant AFTER the attack, of course not. And they didn't.
As for Silverstein getting an insurance payout, I'm getting confused. Who do you think staged this attack, Silverstein, Investment Banks or the Government, or perhaps a combination of the three?
One of our previous presidents warned of a "military-industrial complex". I wouldn't say that "the government did 9/11", but that "individuals who've hijacked the ship of state for their own purposes did 9/11" and, having control of the government, twisted the processes thereof to cover their tracks.
Because much of the physical evidence was willfully destroyed, supposition and logical conjecture will have to suffice. See also Scholars for 9/11 Truth: "We check the official 9/11 story against the facts. Learn about our startling discoveries; share them with friends and demand a reinvestigation."
OK, here is a question for you. If you believe that the government had the resources to stage an attack on the twin towers, why wouldn't they have the resources to produce a fake analysis of the steel and end the debate?
Independent researchers wouldn't be satisfied unless they got their own look at the material. Besides, I'm sure thermate leaves a pretty definite signature, and that would be difficult to cover up. Much easier to just melt the steel down and be done with it.
Also if the purpose of a staged attack was to create a perceived terror threat, why wouldn't it be enough just to crash two planes into the twin towers? What extra threat could possibly be created by demolishing a building (wtc7) that most people weren't even aware of?
The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:
* Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows
* An independent, secure air and water supply
* The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph
These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor. The command-center bunker was the the subject of much ridicule when it was created.
The destruction of WTC7 was necessitated by several factors:
presumably, the demolition of WTC 1&2 was overseen from the 23rd floor of wtc7. Destroying wtc7 was a convenient way to get rid of any evidence.
The SEC, with offices in WTC7, had several ongoing investigations into how investment banks dished out IPO shares during the tech bubble. Destorying wtc7 complicated those investigations (I don't know what ever happened to them, whether the SEC was able to recover, or whether they quietly closed the cases... ?)
Silverstein (owner/leasee of WTC 1, 2 & 7) received an $861 million payment on his WTC7 insurance policy, in addition to the $3.6 billion from the WTC 1&2 policy. (source)
There are a lot of 9/11 claims on the internet. I've recently decided that wtc7.net has limited itself to "just the facts" with the most support, and so I think them more credible than many other sites. See, for example, their critique of Loose Change. They rated each of the Loose Change points with gold coins, nickels, and lead slugs, and certain sections of the film got a lot of 'slug' ratings.
It's all a question of what one believes. Beliefs form from experience. Your experience biases you towards believing that "terrorists and airplanes" took out the buildings, while mine biases me towards believing that rogue elements of the U.S., British and Israeli governments (and perhaps others) were the parties that made the implosions possible...
I read a lot, and I think it's interesting how a conspiratorial view of 9/11 fits into the robber-baron historical narative of the 20th century - Standard Oil, Federal Reserve, WWI, Great Depression, WWII,... Gulf War I, 9/11. Throw Gatto & Holt's insights on the purpose of compulsory government schooling, and history starts to make a lot more sense (to me).
No doubt this is all false as it's a government body but why don't you read this and try to refute their claims: http://wtc.nist.gov/
I am not an engineer, nor am I a self-studied expert in the WTC clusterfuck. But it seems that someone else has already undertaken a critique of the NIST report: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html.
No one's responded to my statements that it would've been nice to have had an analysis performed on the WTC steel. Maybe you can tell me why such an analysis was unnecessary.
I guess it just depends on who you'd rather believe: our loving, caring governmental overlords, or individuals who noticed discrepancies in the official fairy-tale, and have dedicated themselves to exposing massive tyranny & betrayal.
If you start with a conclusion, it's trivial to find evidence to support your intended outcome. Then you simply have to ignore everything that doesn't fit.
It would be intesting to see if this guy still believes the same thing. I would think the design took into account the accidental impact of a 707, i.e. slow speed - trying to actually avoid the building, rather than a deliberate, full-speed impact.
The thinking was that a plane might get lost in teh fog, and a pilot might not notice that they were about to run into the towers, as happened with the Empire State building some years before - a bomber during WWII?
As I understand it, the towers were designed with a strong central core, and the "mosquito net" on the outside provided rigidity. In any case, Both WTC towers took their planes very well. After an initial shudder, they stood rock-solid for a time, until they just sort of liquified. Liquification is consistent with the pre-planted explosive theory of WTC collapse. Again, it would've been nice to have had a failure analysis on the WTC steel, but it was melted down and shipped off before such could be done.
You also need to explain the collapse of WTC7. No planes, minor debris (it was some distance away). There were some fires and, hours later, *pop*, it liquified too. See www.wtc7.net.
Everyone realizes eventually that beliefs they've previously held are false. I know I've had to reconsider my positions several times. On the one hand, it kinda sucks to get your worldview shaken up, but as the saying goes, "the truth shall set you free".:)
Be sure to have the 911 Research Companion to Loose Change handy when you're watching it... The filmmakers make some excellent points, but (according to wtc7.net) flub up a bit too.
Remember that we're searching for truth here. No point in believing falsehoods, and the researchers who wrote the companion help "separate the [Loose Change's] wheat from the chaff".
You obviously can't begin to imagine the force caused by such a large fuel-filled object hitting the building at a high speed.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
The 707 was slightly smaller than a 767, but was also slightly faster. If the WTC towers could take multiple fully-loaded 707s, as Mr. DeMartini believed, it surely could handle a single partially-fueled 767. With this information, now you can apply Occam's Razor to deduce that explosives (Stephen Jones says it was Thermate) must've taken down the towers.
Would've been nice if they'd done a failure analysis on the steel so we'd have the evidence to prove who's right. But like the Fire Engineering guy said, all the steel was disposed of as rapidly as possible. Maybe you can tell us why that was necessary.
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
...
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
Your post set of my "false beliefs" detector. You desperately want to believe the official 9/11 story, and your filters prevent you from groking evidence that contradicts your pre-held beliefs. Good luck making sense of your "flat earth".:)
The most un-intuitive thing about 9/11 was simply that a plane flown into a building could collapse it. That's something only an expert could have predicted.
That "planes could bring down the towers" is something that an expert never would have predicted, because the towers were engineered to take a 707-strike, and a 767 is not a whole lot bigger, nor does it carry significantly more fuel. In fact, one of the designers has stated that they believed the towers could've taken multiple 707 strikes.
...
Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.... -source
No, when you get down to examining the details, Nothing makes sense about the official 9/11 fairy-tale.
My favorite one is that there are men and women only, because in Genesis 1, it says God made "man and woman". As if that statement were inclusive of all permutations of gender (personal identification) and/or sex (biological identification). Because first of all, anyone who wants to tell me that there are only men and women, and nothing else out there, is neglecting scientific fact,...
I'm no theologian, nor rabid christian fundamentalist, but I am familiar with the explanation for this particular quote.
001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
"God" is non-physical. This verse says that "Man", being created in the image and likeness of god, is fundamentally non-physical too - call it spirit, soul or whatever. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34).
001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
"God" has both male and female attributes. So does the human spirit, which is both "male AND female". In the process of taking on a physical body, certain attributes usually get emphasized and others suppressed, depending on the gender of the body taken on, in a yin/yang sorta way.
Exceptions occur when the entity taking on a body has other lessons they need to learn, something about gender roles or whatnot.
See the Edgar Cayce material -/Edgar Cayce on the Old Testament/ (?), among others, for more explanations behind the biblical explanations. I figure the authors of the bible did pretty well given the language and words they had to work with.
The TSA WILL bust any lock that they don't have the key for (there is one out there with a TSA skeleton key)
My brother had one of those. He went someplace, the mystery TSA agent with the key opened his bag... and didn't put the lock back after they pawed through all his stuff.
My advice is to be a good little cattle and blend into the background.
yes, perfectly reasonable to try to hide in the slaughterhouse line.
Some believe that rogue elements of the U.S. and other governments have been behind "false flag" terrorist attacks. Then they get their lapdog media to cry out, "Look, crazy arabs attacked us!"
This was in yesterday's email:
...
In January of 2003 FBI and CIA whistleblowers told Capitol Hill Blue that the White House was scripting phony terror alerts to maintain hysteria, upkeep President Bush's approval ratings and milk extra defense funding. The report that five Pakistani men had entered the States via Canada and were planning on carrying out a dirty bomb or biological attack was completely conjured up by the Bush administration's black propaganda office. New York Harbor was shut down to visibly pump up the fear. One of the named suspects, Mohammed Asghar (pictured left), was tracked down to Pakistan by the Associated Press. He was a fat guy running a jewellers shop and had never even been to America.
World Net Daily commented,
"Other sources within the bureau and the Central Intelligence Agency said the administration is pressuring intelligence agencies to develop "something, anything" to support an array of non-specific terrorism alerts issued by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security...CHB reported that FBI and CIA sources said a recent White House memo listing the war on terrorism as a definitive political advantage and fund-raising tool is just one of many documents discussing how to best utilize the terrorist threat."
Since those early admissions, every single major terror alert that the US, UK or Canadian government has issued has proven to be completely fraudulent and scripted....
I, for one, don't believe that a single 767 took out the WTC towers, especially considering that they were designed to sustain MULTIPLE 707 strikes. And don't get me started on the unexplained WTC7 collapse... Terrorists in the Feral Government, not "crazy arabs", are the real enemies of freedom today.
Why do you think "the government" sends children to prison for 13 years? (hint: might want to see my last comment).
7. ONE CAN'T HIDE
The seventh lesson I teach is that one can't hide. I teach children they are always watched, that each is under constant surveillance by myself and my colleagues. There are no private spaces for children, there is no private time. Class change lasts three hundred seconds to keep promiscuous fraternization at low levels. Students are encouraged to tattle on each other or even to tattle on their own parents. Of course, I encourage parents to file their own child's waywardness too. A family trained to snitch on itself isn't likely to conceal any dangerous secrets.
I assign a type of extended schooling called "homework," so that the effect of surveillance, if not that surveillance itself, travels into private households, where students might otherwise use free time to learn something unauthorized from a father or mother, by exploration, or by apprenticing to some wise person in the neighborhood. Disloyalty to the idea of schooling is a Devil always ready to find work for idle hands.
The meaning of constant surveillance and denial of privacy is that no one can be trusted, that privacy is not legitimate. Surveillance is an ancient imperative, espoused by certain influential thinkers, a central prescription set down in The Republic, in The City of God, in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, in New Atlantis, in Leviathan, and in a host of other places. All these childless men who wrote these books discovered the same thing: children must be closely watched if you want to keep a society under tight central control. Children will follow a private drummer if you can't get them into a uniformed marching band.
Since those in the general population have been through the standardized government school system, our legislative class (who have been to special private schools, which Gatto talks about in the videos linked to in my previous comment) can count on certain behaviors. There are a few who didn't take to their programming like the rest, but the masses have been trained to snicker and dismiss - "just another wacko 'conspiracy theorist'".
But now we're seeing that the wackos were right all along. Is the conspiracy still a "theory" if there's a ton of evidence supporting it? (not all theories are supported by evidence, of course, but many are, and substantially so)
It's often painful to consider that we've been fooled, so we tend to believe that 'papa goverment' loves us all, and wants the very best for us, no matter the evidence that the institution, "democratic" as it may be, has been hijacked.
... and a low incidence of the ability to reason clearly, that is the problem with the US electorate.
This is why it's important to subvert a country's system of education first, before taking over the rest of the government.
Horace Mann (instigator of the compulsory government school) was much enamored with the Prussian system of schooling, which inspired in the subjects passive obedience to the government (source: Two Hundred Years of American Educational Thought, by Henry J. Perkinson). He thought he could take the good parts of the system without the bad. Haha...
... But his [Mann's] contention is that this spirit of the system is separable from the manner of teaching itself. And here American teachers can learn much.
The Prussian schoolmaster, he [Mann] discovered, combined complete mastery of subject matter with superb pedagogical finesse. They taught from "the head," never relying on a textbook. Beginning not with abstract theories -- neither principles, rules, nor axioms -- but with objects and phenomena familiar to each child, these master teachers encompassed elements of reading, spelling, writing, grammar, drawing, and general information into every lesson. Students in the Prussian schools, unhampered by the artificial formalisms of rote memorization, enjoyed learning; the liked their teachers and held them in high esteem. The teachers rarely used physical punishment; they secured discipline through the affection and respect -- even awe -- the students had for them. The Prussian schoolmaster was the complete authority; children unquestionably accepted and believed what he said.
Horace Mann dreamed of making American teachers as authroitative as their Prussian counterparts.... (Perkinson pg. 77. Italics in original, bold my emphasis)
So remember: The purpose of government schooling is the installation of obedience in the population, so the masses won't mutiny when word gets out that we're being screwed (this story also) in a dog-and-pony-show sorta way.
because I've discovered the reason behind the pain, and the datahand keyboard doesn't address the cause. Like the Osteopath said, my arms didn't work because my hips were off-kilter, which led to my shoulders compensating, which screwed up the nerves running down my arms. or something like that.
took out a blazer with my MR2 once...
on
The Hybrid Scooter
·
· Score: 1
I had a '91 toyota MR2 - a relatively small two-seat mid-engined car. I had a green light, and noticed half way through the intersection that my velocity vector was scheduled to intersect with that of a red chevy blazer in the middle of the intersection. Later I decided that she was talking on her cell phone and didn't notice that she was supposed to stop. I hit my brakes, kissed her left-rear tire, and had a front-row seat to watch her car flip right in front of me. She'd noticed a bit too late that the light was red, and had her brakes on full. This put all the weight on the front two tires, allowing the light contact to upend her car.
My car was lightly damaged, hers was totaled. Drove it for a few more years, until I kissed another car's rear tire. That was a sedan of some sort, and all it did was spin 90 degrees.
Have a scan of the accident polaroids somewhere... Oughta put them online.:)
forgot to make sure I was logged in before I hit 'post'. oops.:)
so anyways, these "ergonomic devices" are just crutches that don't make the actual problem go away. Sure, having a crutch is better than having nothing at all, but before long you'll become dependant on it, and thusly begins a downward spiral. Better to fix the problem than to continuously treat a symptom (surgery is usually for a symptom, and not a cause).
With that said, anyone want my datahand for $500?:)
If your general surgeon f's up your gastric bypass surgery because he was not adequately trained, and you get transferred to ICU and...
While it's true that lots of people are having the "surgery of the week" (gastric bypass), I wonder how our ancestors avoided morbid obesity without the availability of Gastric Bypass Surgery.
Not really. Gastric bypass is yet another example of the allopathic (a derogatory term coined by a homeopath) philosophy of treating the symptom while ignoring the cause, or perhaps, treating the symptom because they don't know what else to do. $20,000 (gastric bypass costs range from $17-24k) could get you a full treatment program with a competent hypnotist, several years worth of organic vegetables and natural foods, and a handy rainy-day fund to boot. But if insurance covers a $20,000 surgery, why should the fatty care what it costs?
My grandfather says the only thing he really remembers about Milton Erickson was how he was always "bitching" about having to learn anatomy, go to med school & residency, etc (Milton was an M.D./psychiatrist), when all he really wanted to do was hypnosis. Over the course of his career, Doctor Erickson "fixed" more people than the entire psychiatric establishment combined, and medical school was mostly irrelevant to the skills he had.
The emphasis on specialties causes a vast case of "missing the forest for the trees", which has led to medical costs rising out of control. Soon no one will be able to afford your services, so you might want to start learning about cost-effective options now, before you're unemployed. See, for example, Dr. Zieve's book Healthy Medicine: A Guide to the Emergence of Sensible, Comprehensive Care. I'm a big fan of osteopathic manipulation too, as another skill in the quiver that everyone should at least know is available.
The paranormal has had three centuries to demonstrate it exists. How many more centuries of statistical noise should be gathered before we state that we are as certain as experiment allows to say it has absolutely no basis in fact?
Suppose, for a moment, that Telepathy was a normal phenomena, a skill that anyone could access. However would the earth's self-appointed ruling class keep the roiling masses in line?
For example, could George W. Bush's handlers have pushed the populace into initially accepting the necessity of invading Iraq, if most of us could tell telepathically that the alledged WMDs were a bald-faced propaganda ploy?
No, I think the 'paranormal' proves itself, and such proof must be violently suppressed by those who wish to maintain the power structure status quo. Government Schools and a scientific establishment greatly assist this ambition. See my other posts in this and the other story.
I[t] just appears that like any other ability (sight and hearing included) different people have different levels of innate ability, and in the case of telepathy the vast majority are below the threshold of being able to notice it at all, and those few that do lack the a significant way of testing and training the ability.
The primary difference is in the training people pursue.
Ingo Swann says the "superpowers" are universal, and can also be trained. Some people are better than others, as with any field of human activity, but that has more to do with the level of development achieved in previous lifetimes than anything else. Some people are born super-psychics, others as a math-wiz, others as a music virtuoso, etc - all levels of competency evolve and develop over multiple life experiences.
In addition to labeling Randi as a 'fraud' yesterday, I also gave a link to Mr. Swann's recent piece on the biological basis of Telepathy.
Ingo regularly castigates the parapsychology establishment for undertaking poorly designed experiments. I think Mr. Swann says that telepathy and the other "superpowers of the human bio-mind" (remote viewing, telekenesis, out-of-body-travel, etc.), are experiences first, and everyone has a different experience. The differences are such that the phenomena do not respond well to the exacting controls of standardized trials.
I know I myself have had any number of experiences unexplainable by the standard "scofftic" crowd...
For example, my dogs' cranio sacral therapist came by today. Advanced Cranio Sacral technique works at the junction between matter and energy, between the physical body's non-living atoms and the life force that animates it.
I myself have had good experiences with a competent Cranial Osteopath. When the one dog started limping after he got chased out of the back of the truck by grandpa's wheelchair, I searched out someone who uses cranial technique on animals. "Ask and ye shall receive, search and the door shall be open to you." The other dog was adopted at approximently 6 years old, and three years later he was still a nervous wreck, acting like he expected to get kicked to the curb at any moment.
The "injured dog" took to the work immediately. Two sessions later, no more limp.
The "heartbroken dog" has taken a lot more work. At the start of the first session, he wouldn't let the lady touch him. She asked me if it was okay if she worked 'remotely' - I said it was fine by me. She sat some distance away from the dog (2 or 3 feet), and did her thing as I watched. Before long, he opened up to the treatment, and allowed her to proceed.
"Heartbroken dog" has had... probably around 8 sessions, and he's totally changed. Whereas before he was in a constant state of panic, he's now happy and playful. Whereas before his ears were constantly pulled back, as if to say "oh no, what have I done!", the ears are now perked forward, as "hey, what's going on here?"
My aunt adopted a one-eyed 6-month old Doberman almost 3 years ago. The dog was wild; my dad said he needed Ritalin. "Cowboy" wouldn't let the cranio-sacral therapist touch him at all for the first two sessions, and she did her work separated by a couple feet of air. I had to sneak him out of the boarder's for the second session, and the lady who was staffing the front desk said "you can go get him, because he doesn't like me." A week and a half later I saw her again, and she said "he's [cowboy] not as aggressive as he used to be..." After the third session everyone started noticing what a changed dog he was. Today that same staffer at the dog boarding house commented on how "cowboy loves me now" - quite a change from the "I'm gonna kill you" bark he used to give her.
Slashdot Mirror
I met a graduate-student/physicist some years back who was researching fusion physics. Cold fusion. He was really excited about his work, and said something about having to slightly change a paper he'd written because of results from a hot-fusion experiment that had recently been published. No major changes, because the hot-fusion experiment came out (failed?) just like he thought it would, but he had to mention it.
There was a story a month back: The Energy of Empty Space != Zero. Cosmologists now say that matter-as-we-know-it only makes up between 4% and 7% of the universe. The rest is "dark matter" and "dark energy", "dark" because there's no appropriate candidates in the standard physical model. To me, this means that the standard model needs some serious revision, especially if there's no entry for 93-96% of the "stuff" in the universe.
"Free Energy" devices such as the one referenced in the article are simply a way of tapping into the dark energy that interpenetrates everything. They're hard to get right because we don't have a very good understanding of the principles involved, and the institutions that derive their power from the Energy Wars (The Exxon-Mobil/BP/Shell wing of the Military-Industrial complex) use their might to suppress any innovation which might make them irrelevant.
The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe goes into the history of research into "Zero Point Field".
Just out of curiosity, where was your 2000/2001-era Cisco WAP made?
I saw an aritcle (which has since gone offline: Manufacturing: Probably made in China, by someone else) that said Intel made motherboards in Silicon Valley until 1999 or so. The massive movement to Chinese factories was triggered by the need to cut costs at the tail end of the dot-com bubble.
$700 sounds like a price you'd have to charge if you were paying Americans to put your industrial-grade wireless widget together... (I'm assuming your WAP was built like a tank - cisco used to be all about quality, until they bought Linksys for the "consumer grade" product lines.)
So, someone who can't possibly believe that anyone in the United States Government could've been in on the 9/11 attacks will find their own way to believe that 19 Arabs did it.
It's worth pointing out that the invasion of Iraq - a country not associated with Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, and invansion of which was preceded with a heavy round of "they've got Weapons of Mass Destruction!" propaganda - is substantiated by the Conspiracy/Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11. The propaganda machines are currently working in overdrive to extend the terror to Iran. Again, I think this behavior is consistent with the self-inflicted "new Pearl Harbor" view of 9/11 (what the 'Project for a New American Century' was hoping/planing for).
"If Thermate could've been used as a part of the formula to take down the towers, where would it've been applied?" When I think in terms of possibility, I can think of many ways that thermite/thermate would've been useful, even taking into account the objections in the paper you linked to.
This exchange has been fun & useful for me, but I think we've reached the conclusion of our little conversation. I'll check for a reply, but I'm disinclined to follow up, as the story is now 3 days old, and I do have other things to do, as you do, I assume.
And if you were refering to the investigations, I'm sure the investigators would notice that their boxes of papers were missing one day, and that all their computer data had been sabotaged.
Bringing down wtc7 too was simply a case of "killing two birds with one stone".
The thermate proposition is Professor Jones' theory.
/somewhere/. WTC7 floor 23 is as good a candidate as any.
... lying around BEFORE the attack"? They'd have to keep it somewhere. If you meant AFTER the attack, of course not. And they didn't.
Assuming the attack was staged, do you have any evidence that wtc7 would have over seen it?
Assuming the attack was staged, the stagers would've had to have triggered the detonators from
Why couldn't this evidence that you seem to think existed just be loaded into trucks and burned somewhere?
I assume here you're refering to evidence relating to the supposed controlled demolition of WTC 1&2, and not the previously referenced SEC investigations. Electronics (and whatever else is used for controlled demolition) don't burn to well, much better to rig your equipment with explosives and bury them in a pile of steel and powdered concrete.
If you were going to stage an attack like this would you leave any evidence in any form lying around on the day of the attack?
Did you mean "leave any evidence
As for Silverstein getting an insurance payout, I'm getting confused. Who do you think staged this attack, Silverstein, Investment Banks or the Government, or perhaps a combination of the three?
One of our previous presidents warned of a "military-industrial complex". I wouldn't say that "the government did 9/11", but that "individuals who've hijacked the ship of state for their own purposes did 9/11" and, having control of the government, twisted the processes thereof to cover their tracks.
Because much of the physical evidence was willfully destroyed, supposition and logical conjecture will have to suffice. See also Scholars for 9/11 Truth: "We check the official 9/11 story against the facts. Learn about our startling discoveries; share them with friends and demand a reinvestigation."
Independent researchers wouldn't be satisfied unless they got their own look at the material. Besides, I'm sure thermate leaves a pretty definite signature, and that would be difficult to cover up. Much easier to just melt the steel down and be done with it.
Also if the purpose of a staged attack was to create a perceived terror threat, why wouldn't it be enough just to crash two planes into the twin towers? What extra threat could possibly be created by demolishing a building (wtc7) that most people weren't even aware of?
The destruction of WTC7 was necessitated by several factors:
There are a lot of 9/11 claims on the internet. I've recently decided that wtc7.net has limited itself to "just the facts" with the most support, and so I think them more credible than many other sites. See, for example, their critique of Loose Change. They rated each of the Loose Change points with gold coins, nickels, and lead slugs, and certain sections of the film got a lot of 'slug' ratings.
It's all a question of what one believes. Beliefs form from experience. Your experience biases you towards believing that "terrorists and airplanes" took out the buildings, while mine biases me towards believing that rogue elements of the U.S., British and Israeli governments (and perhaps others) were the parties that made the implosions possible...
... Gulf War I, 9/11. Throw Gatto & Holt's insights on the purpose of compulsory government schooling, and history starts to make a lot more sense (to me).
I read a lot, and I think it's interesting how a conspiratorial view of 9/11 fits into the robber-baron historical narative of the 20th century - Standard Oil, Federal Reserve, WWI, Great Depression, WWII,
No doubt this is all false as it's a government body but why don't you read this and try to refute their claims: http://wtc.nist.gov/
l .
I am not an engineer, nor am I a self-studied expert in the WTC clusterfuck. But it seems that someone else has already undertaken a critique of the NIST report: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.htm
No one's responded to my statements that it would've been nice to have had an analysis performed on the WTC steel. Maybe you can tell me why such an analysis was unnecessary.
I guess it just depends on who you'd rather believe: our loving, caring governmental overlords, or individuals who noticed discrepancies in the official fairy-tale, and have dedicated themselves to exposing massive tyranny & betrayal.
If you start with a conclusion, it's trivial to find evidence to support your intended outcome. Then you simply have to ignore everything that doesn't fit.
It would be intesting to see if this guy still believes the same thing. I would think the design took into account the accidental impact of a 707, i.e. slow speed - trying to actually avoid the building, rather than a deliberate, full-speed impact.
:)
The thinking was that a plane might get lost in teh fog, and a pilot might not notice that they were about to run into the towers, as happened with the Empire State building some years before - a bomber during WWII?
As I understand it, the towers were designed with a strong central core, and the "mosquito net" on the outside provided rigidity. In any case, Both WTC towers took their planes very well. After an initial shudder, they stood rock-solid for a time, until they just sort of liquified. Liquification is consistent with the pre-planted explosive theory of WTC collapse. Again, it would've been nice to have had a failure analysis on the WTC steel, but it was melted down and shipped off before such could be done.
You also need to explain the collapse of WTC7. No planes, minor debris (it was some distance away). There were some fires and, hours later, *pop*, it liquified too. See www.wtc7.net.
Everyone realizes eventually that beliefs they've previously held are false. I know I've had to reconsider my positions several times. On the one hand, it kinda sucks to get your worldview shaken up, but as the saying goes, "the truth shall set you free".
Be sure to have the 911 Research Companion to Loose Change handy when you're watching it... The filmmakers make some excellent points, but (according to wtc7.net) flub up a bit too.
Remember that we're searching for truth here. No point in believing falsehoods, and the researchers who wrote the companion help "separate the [Loose Change's] wheat from the chaff".
The 707 was slightly smaller than a 767, but was also slightly faster. If the WTC towers could take multiple fully-loaded 707s, as Mr. DeMartini believed, it surely could handle a single partially-fueled 767. With this information, now you can apply Occam's Razor to deduce that explosives (Stephen Jones says it was Thermate) must've taken down the towers.
Would've been nice if they'd done a failure analysis on the steel so we'd have the evidence to prove who's right. But like the Fire Engineering guy said, all the steel was disposed of as rapidly as possible. Maybe you can tell us why that was necessary.
Your post set of my "false beliefs" detector. You desperately want to believe the official 9/11 story, and your filters prevent you from groking evidence that contradicts your pre-held beliefs. Good luck making sense of your "flat earth".
Wonder how you're going to feel when you realize that the so-called "crackpots" were right all along...
That "planes could bring down the towers" is something that an expert never would have predicted, because the towers were engineered to take a 707-strike, and a 767 is not a whole lot bigger, nor does it carry significantly more fuel. In fact, one of the designers has stated that they believed the towers could've taken multiple 707 strikes.
No, when you get down to examining the details, Nothing makes sense about the official 9/11 fairy-tale.
I'm no theologian, nor rabid christian fundamentalist, but I am familiar with the explanation for this particular quote.
"God" is non-physical. This verse says that "Man", being created in the image and likeness of god, is fundamentally non-physical too - call it spirit, soul or whatever. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34).
"God" has both male and female attributes. So does the human spirit, which is both "male AND female". In the process of taking on a physical body, certain attributes usually get emphasized and others suppressed, depending on the gender of the body taken on, in a yin/yang sorta way.
Exceptions occur when the entity taking on a body has other lessons they need to learn, something about gender roles or whatnot.
See the Edgar Cayce material -
KJV Genesis (1st result from google) bible quotes from: http://www.rosicrucian.com/bible/01_gen.htm
The TSA WILL bust any lock that they don't have the key for (there is one out there with a TSA skeleton key)
My brother had one of those. He went someplace, the mystery TSA agent with the key opened his bag... and didn't put the lock back after they pawed through all his stuff.
My advice is to be a good little cattle and blend into the background.
yes, perfectly reasonable to try to hide in the slaughterhouse line.
This was in yesterday's email:
I, for one, don't believe that a single 767 took out the WTC towers, especially considering that they were designed to sustain MULTIPLE 707 strikes. And don't get me started on the unexplained WTC7 collapse... Terrorists in the Feral Government, not "crazy arabs", are the real enemies of freedom today.
Since those in the general population have been through the standardized government school system, our legislative class (who have been to special private schools, which Gatto talks about in the videos linked to in my previous comment) can count on certain behaviors. There are a few who didn't take to their programming like the rest, but the masses have been trained to snicker and dismiss - "just another wacko 'conspiracy theorist'".
But now we're seeing that the wackos were right all along. Is the conspiracy still a "theory" if there's a ton of evidence supporting it? (not all theories are supported by evidence, of course, but many are, and substantially so)
www.prisonplanet.com/
www.loosechange911.com/ - the official 9/11 story doesn't seem to add up
www.911revisited.com/ - explores the evidence that pre-planted explosives took down WTC
www.whatreallyhappened.com - covers all the classic conspiracies - JFK assasination, U.S.S. Liberty attack by Israel, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, etc.
It's often painful to consider that we've been fooled, so we tend to believe that 'papa goverment' loves us all, and wants the very best for us, no matter the evidence that the institution, "democratic" as it may be, has been hijacked.
This is why it's important to subvert a country's system of education first, before taking over the rest of the government.
Horace Mann (instigator of the compulsory government school) was much enamored with the Prussian system of schooling, which inspired in the subjects passive obedience to the government (source: Two Hundred Years of American Educational Thought, by Henry J. Perkinson). He thought he could take the good parts of the system without the bad. Haha...
See also John Gatto's Underground History of American Education. Gatto tells us in his works that a Prussian "education" is exactly what we receive in the standardized government school experience.
So remember: The purpose of government schooling is the installation of obedience in the population, so the masses won't mutiny when word gets out that we're being screwed (this story also) in a dog-and-pony-show sorta way.
because I've discovered the reason behind the pain, and the datahand keyboard doesn't address the cause. Like the Osteopath said, my arms didn't work because my hips were off-kilter, which led to my shoulders compensating, which screwed up the nerves running down my arms. or something like that.
I had a '91 toyota MR2 - a relatively small two-seat mid-engined car. I had a green light, and noticed half way through the intersection that my velocity vector was scheduled to intersect with that of a red chevy blazer in the middle of the intersection. Later I decided that she was talking on her cell phone and didn't notice that she was supposed to stop. I hit my brakes, kissed her left-rear tire, and had a front-row seat to watch her car flip right in front of me. She'd noticed a bit too late that the light was red, and had her brakes on full. This put all the weight on the front two tires, allowing the light contact to upend her car.
:)
My car was lightly damaged, hers was totaled. Drove it for a few more years, until I kissed another car's rear tire. That was a sedan of some sort, and all it did was spin 90 degrees.
Have a scan of the accident polaroids somewhere... Oughta put them online.
forgot to make sure I was logged in before I hit 'post'. oops. :)
:)
so anyways, these "ergonomic devices" are just crutches that don't make the actual problem go away. Sure, having a crutch is better than having nothing at all, but before long you'll become dependant on it, and thusly begins a downward spiral. Better to fix the problem than to continuously treat a symptom (surgery is usually for a symptom, and not a cause).
With that said, anyone want my datahand for $500?
I agree with the Anti-AMA/medical monopoly crowd.
If your general surgeon f's up your gastric bypass surgery because he was not adequately trained, and you get transferred to ICU and...
While it's true that lots of people are having the "surgery of the week" (gastric bypass), I wonder how our ancestors avoided morbid obesity without the availability of Gastric Bypass Surgery.
Not really. Gastric bypass is yet another example of the allopathic (a derogatory term coined by a homeopath) philosophy of treating the symptom while ignoring the cause, or perhaps, treating the symptom because they don't know what else to do. $20,000 (gastric bypass costs range from $17-24k) could get you a full treatment program with a competent hypnotist, several years worth of organic vegetables and natural foods, and a handy rainy-day fund to boot. But if insurance covers a $20,000 surgery, why should the fatty care what it costs?
My grandfather says the only thing he really remembers about Milton Erickson was how he was always "bitching" about having to learn anatomy, go to med school & residency, etc (Milton was an M.D./psychiatrist), when all he really wanted to do was hypnosis. Over the course of his career, Doctor Erickson "fixed" more people than the entire psychiatric establishment combined, and medical school was mostly irrelevant to the skills he had.
The emphasis on specialties causes a vast case of "missing the forest for the trees", which has led to medical costs rising out of control. Soon no one will be able to afford your services, so you might want to start learning about cost-effective options now, before you're unemployed. See, for example, Dr. Zieve's book Healthy Medicine: A Guide to the Emergence of Sensible, Comprehensive Care. I'm a big fan of osteopathic manipulation too, as another skill in the quiver that everyone should at least know is available.
The paranormal has had three centuries to demonstrate it exists. How many more centuries of statistical noise should be gathered before we state that we are as certain as experiment allows to say it has absolutely no basis in fact?
Suppose, for a moment, that Telepathy was a normal phenomena, a skill that anyone could access. However would the earth's self-appointed ruling class keep the roiling masses in line?
For example, could George W. Bush's handlers have pushed the populace into initially accepting the necessity of invading Iraq, if most of us could tell telepathically that the alledged WMDs were a bald-faced propaganda ploy?
No, I think the 'paranormal' proves itself, and such proof must be violently suppressed by those who wish to maintain the power structure status quo. Government Schools and a scientific establishment greatly assist this ambition. See my other posts in this and the other story.
... Better yet, on a moon mission.
I seem to recall that The Field mentioned experiences that Edgar Mitchell had while on the Apollo 14 mission (sorry, don't remember specifics). The astronaut later founded the Institute for Noetic Sciences, which studies metaphysical topics...
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I[t] just appears that like any other ability (sight and hearing included) different people have different levels of innate ability, and in the case of telepathy the vast majority are below the threshold of being able to notice it at all, and those few that do lack the a significant way of testing and training the ability.
... probably around 8 sessions, and he's totally changed. Whereas before he was in a constant state of panic, he's now happy and playful. Whereas before his ears were constantly pulled back, as if to say "oh no, what have I done!", the ears are now perked forward, as "hey, what's going on here?"
The primary difference is in the training people pursue.
Ingo Swann says the "superpowers" are universal, and can also be trained. Some people are better than others, as with any field of human activity, but that has more to do with the level of development achieved in previous lifetimes than anything else. Some people are born super-psychics, others as a math-wiz, others as a music virtuoso, etc - all levels of competency evolve and develop over multiple life experiences.
In addition to labeling Randi as a 'fraud' yesterday, I also gave a link to Mr. Swann's recent piece on the biological basis of Telepathy.
Ingo regularly castigates the parapsychology establishment for undertaking poorly designed experiments. I think Mr. Swann says that telepathy and the other "superpowers of the human bio-mind" (remote viewing, telekenesis, out-of-body-travel, etc.), are experiences first, and everyone has a different experience. The differences are such that the phenomena do not respond well to the exacting controls of standardized trials.
I know I myself have had any number of experiences unexplainable by the standard "scofftic" crowd...
For example, my dogs' cranio sacral therapist came by today. Advanced Cranio Sacral technique works at the junction between matter and energy, between the physical body's non-living atoms and the life force that animates it.
I myself have had good experiences with a competent Cranial Osteopath. When the one dog started limping after he got chased out of the back of the truck by grandpa's wheelchair, I searched out someone who uses cranial technique on animals. "Ask and ye shall receive, search and the door shall be open to you." The other dog was adopted at approximently 6 years old, and three years later he was still a nervous wreck, acting like he expected to get kicked to the curb at any moment.
The "injured dog" took to the work immediately. Two sessions later, no more limp.
The "heartbroken dog" has taken a lot more work. At the start of the first session, he wouldn't let the lady touch him. She asked me if it was okay if she worked 'remotely' - I said it was fine by me. She sat some distance away from the dog (2 or 3 feet), and did her thing as I watched. Before long, he opened up to the treatment, and allowed her to proceed.
"Heartbroken dog" has had
My aunt adopted a one-eyed 6-month old Doberman almost 3 years ago. The dog was wild; my dad said he needed Ritalin. "Cowboy" wouldn't let the cranio-sacral therapist touch him at all for the first two sessions, and she did her work separated by a couple feet of air. I had to sneak him out of the boarder's for the second session, and the lady who was staffing the front desk said "you can go get him, because he doesn't like me." A week and a half later I saw her again, and she said "he's [cowboy] not as aggressive as he used to be..." After the third session everyone started noticing what a changed dog he was. Today that same staffer at the dog boarding house commented on how "cowboy loves me now" - quite a change from the "I'm gonna kill you" bark he used to give her.
I'm sure there will be any number of