Prev: New Experiments Rattle Space Weather Research
Next: Origin of life elsewhere and close together
From: Mike E. Fullerton on 9 Jun 2010 22:00
New article explains how the US government's official explanation for
what happened on September 11, 2001 includes violating the laws of
physics. NIST's explanation of how WTC 7 fell violates the
conservation laws, law of conservation of energy and the law of
conservation of momentum.

http://knol.google.com/k/michael-fullerton/nist-wtc-7-9-11-theory-violates-the/1hwr2894wxokh/10#view


Since crackpots don't know they are crackpots here are some other
signs you are a crackpot:

1) attack people instead of their arguments
2) divert attention from unassailable points by introducing irrelevant
arguments
3) build up false positions to attack instead of the opponents actual
position
4) engage in all manner of other logically fallacious reasoning

___
Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.
From: Androcles on 9 Jun 2010 22:27

"Mike E. Fullerton" <inforequest(a)spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote in
message news:6ih016p1sli5cdvqvuovus6sl18c0i0teb(a)4ax.com...
| New article explains how the US government's

Take it to a US government newsgroup, crackpot.




From: eric gisse on 10 Jun 2010 03:11
Mike E. Fullerton wrote:

> New article explains how the US government's official explanation for
> what happened on September 11, 2001 includes violating the laws of
> physics. NIST's explanation of how WTC 7 fell violates the
> conservation laws, law of conservation of energy and the law of
> conservation of momentum.

For fucks sake. Go away troofers.

>
> http://knol.google.com/k/michael-fullerton/nist-wtc-7-9-11-theory-
violates-the/1hwr2894wxokh/10#view
>
>
> Since crackpots don't know they are crackpots here are some other
> signs you are a crackpot:
>
> 1) attack people instead of their arguments
> 2) divert attention from unassailable points by introducing irrelevant
> arguments
> 3) build up false positions to attack instead of the opponents actual
> position
> 4) engage in all manner of other logically fallacious reasoning
>
> ___
> Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
> the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.

From: spudnik on 10 Jun 2010 22:03
there's a guy, a mister Griffith, an academic in theology,
who publishes books about the 9/11 "controlled demo.'

I went to a talk he gave, got there late, and only caught
his last, two, bogus statements, which I challenged (hint:
one involves "box-cutters").

his next book removed these two items!

thus&so:
see if you can find the U.S. Reference Climate Network,
without googoling yourself. well, recently,
when I tried to find it with a search,
it was stated that it had somehow been abandoned,
even though it was nothing but a dataset of 28 continental stations.

thus&so:
wow, what a quibble. of course, if
you think in terms of blackbody absorption & radiation,
the distinction is rather slighter, and
NASA's qualifying terms are correcter.

thus&so:
cap&trade is as old as Waxman's '91 bill under HDubya, and
the editors of the WSUrinal just love it; however,
they refer to Waxman's current bill as "cap&tax,"
without ever explaining, why. (see my letter to Rep. Hamilton,
belowsville .-)

thus&so:
really; my city promotes all green stuff, in cooperation,
I suppose, with the WAND Corp., and also "global" warming.
they just had two authors of a book, _Smoke and Mirrors_,
at the library, who use the tobacco science baddies
to demonize the "global" warming deniers. they just had
an editorial in the LAtribcoTIMES, and they dyssed S. Fred Singer,
as per usual with mainstream GCMers -- which is mostly
what they are, not really AGWers.
look at Singer's retrospective metastudy on glaciers,
please; thank *you*.

thus&so:
Schroedinger's cat is dead;
long-live Schroedinger's cat!

thus&so:
I tried the 3D glasses, the other day, and it was really weird,
*without* closing one eye in the mirror; makes one's eye's look flat &
glassy.
(I assumed, UA wasn't using the red & blue kind.)

thus&so:
how does the "gravity swing" differ essentially
from the radiometer, if both are just pendula?
how does merely asserting the error of Lorent's contraction,
which seems quite reasonable to those of us,
who believe that atoms have angular momentum,
mean that you have disproven special relativity?
> I don't see how e = hf applies where there may be no atomic absorption.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Dear Rep. Lee (http://centeroncongress.org):
Californians are at fault, probably being User #1 of Gulf oil & gas
via pipelines ... all because of spill off of Santa Barbara in '68.
Now, A.G. Brown is determined not to drill, at all. (Also, the
offloading facilities in the Delta must have contributed greatly to
the problems with Katrina.)

Look; oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure. Perhaps
it was a Natl.Geo. article on offshore driiling, showed that approx.
one XXValdez/year seeps (organically) from the bottom of the Gulf --
while "we" are pumping like crazy.

British P. is the #1 operator in the Gulf and Alaska; maybe, their USA
ops should be nationalized. The WSUrinal often likens Waxman's bill
to "cap&tax," but as far as I know (and as Rep. Waxman seemed to
admit, in our brief conversation) it is just "let the arbitrageurs and
daytrippers make as much money on our energy, as they can."

An expert on emmissions at a UCLA forum agreed that a small carbon tax
would achieve the same ends, but that "that is politically
impossible." The Urinal also noted-in-passing that a tax would work,
but that was in a guest editorial, promoting cap&trade ... the same as
the Kyoto Protocol, which Dubya'd have signed, if he knew that it was
just "free trade, free beer & freedom in the free market." And, it is
the same as Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill on NOX and SO2, viz acid rain.

So, how did it go, then, and who made the money?

--Sincerely, Brian
From: spudnik on 11 Jun 2010 18:13
OK, I'll tell you the first one that I heard Griffith say,
at the end of his 9/11/2001 Truth talk:
that it was absurd that a terrorist could cut your throat
with a box-cutter, when it was legal to have one
in commercial flight.

thus&so:
sounds interesting, but I doubt that you will get much of a reading,
since M&M et sequentia did not -- but, it was *a* reading. now,
you'd probably call that, entrained aether, but I really don't
see any need for such in "electromagnetism
with no Pascalian (perfect) vacuum" (and I recall reading,
the air is half hydrogen, 500 miles out e.g.)

> I can get EarthÂ’s speed and direction without reference to any stars!

thus&so:
I read [*] the name of the unindicted co-conspirator
of HDubya in Iran-contra, Oliver "Buck" Revell,
who laid down the law at the NSF meeting,
that "global" cooling would henceforth not be funded. see,
I put that word in scare-quotes, becuase it was the self-
same flat-map miscomprehension of insolation
-- merely the differential from pole to equator --
that presupposes that glaciation requires a lesser temperature,
or that deglaciation'd require a greater one.
*
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/

--Stop BP's and Waxman's arbitrageur's delight,
the cap&trade that the WSUrinal *calls*, Captain Tax (but,
there seems to be no provision for goment revenues )-!...
Fermat's Next Theorem: http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: New Experiments Rattle Space Weather Research
Next: Origin of life elsewhere and close together