A stack of $100 dollar bills totaling one trillion dollars will make a pile 568 miles high...that is twice the height of the International Space Station. Since Obama came into office, we have 15 of those piles of cash.

Four more years of Mr. Obama will bury us all...in debt.

Mr. Romney, of course, has a record of financial responsibility, but you don't like him for...whatever your reasons are.

Definitely looks like an homage to Groucho.
>> ^artician:

I wonder how his research is going on the effects related to a larger-than-average mustache in zero-gravity?

thanks!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

>> ^RadHazG:

anyone know what that green halo is?


I'm guessing that it is aurora; a less energetic presentation than this: http://videosift.com/video/Aurora-Australis-as-seen-from-the-ISS

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

No, he'd send weird materials up to the space station, and he'd run experiments to determine their melting points. It sounds cooler if you just say "melt stuff in space" though.

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
"melt stuff in space"? What does that mean? Like, shoot lasers at satellites? Suspend things in his shop and melt them with jets of hot air?

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Yea, the guy that made it used to melt stuff in space for a living, so I'm not surprised it came out pretty awesomesauce.

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
Best BM timelapse I've seen. Just forwarded it to portland@burningman.com in fact.

Thanks for uploading it!

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Thanks man!

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
*promote

"That's not a penis. It's a space station!!!" - Gwiz making the horrific tolerable

I think this was mostly because, although it changes frequently, he was sporting a Zoidberg icon at the time and I could actually hear in my head the crabby voice looking up at the sili-penis in awe.

Now this is water with feces floating in it. This is not part of the experiment, these just float around the space station for the last few weeks that toilet 3 has been broken.

@TheFreak, @Deano, @Hive13:

Technically, there is no place in the universe where one is not affected by gravity. The astronauts on board the International Space Station are also pulled towards the Earth with a force almost as strong as the one we feel here on the ground. What we usually mean when we say "Zero G" is rather "Free Fall" which is what these base jumpers experience to some degree in the same manner as the astronauts, at least at the start before they reach terminal velocity. Although if you want to be pedantic, "weightlessness" is a better term than zero gravity.

None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?

your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.

The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

>> ^shponglefan:

I suppose if your standard for "looks like a controlled demo" equals "grainy footage of a building falling down", then yeah. I'm not sure why people expect a building collapsing due to structural failure is going to look any different. And really, you have to ignore so many things to even consider that it was a controlled demo:
1. The fact the building was damaged from debris and then on fire for 7 hours;
2. The fact that wiring the building in advance and in secret would be an incredibly complex undertaking;
3. Why the building was wired at all, since for all of this to happen would require the towers to be wired correctly, planes hitting the main WTC 1&2 towers, those towers collapsing, the debris hitting WTC 7 and causing it to burn for hours before finally setting off the charges to bring it down... it's a plan of epically complex undertaking with no evidence beyond grainy video footage of a building falling down. So why waste taxpayer dollars to chase what amounts to little more than conspiracy fantasy?
Plus, there's this bizarre idea that somehow a building hit by debris and then left to burn for 7 hours should somehow be impervious to eventual structural failure leading to collapse. Like somehow buildings in America are immune to gravity unless specially placed explosives are involved. I just can't fathom the mentality to believe all that.
>> ^Fade:
Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.

I suppose if your standard for "looks like a controlled demo" equals "grainy footage of a building falling down", then yeah. I'm not sure why people expect a building collapsing due to structural failure is going to look any different. And really, you have to ignore so many things to even consider that it was a controlled demo:

1. The fact the building was damaged from debris and then on fire for 7 hours;
2. The fact that wiring the building in advance and in secret would be an incredibly complex undertaking;
3. Why the building was wired at all, since for all of this to happen would require the towers to be wired correctly, planes hitting the main WTC 1&2 towers, those towers collapsing, the debris hitting WTC 7 and causing it to burn for hours before finally setting off the charges to bring it down... it's a plan of epically complex undertaking with no evidence beyond grainy video footage of a building falling down. So why waste taxpayer dollars to chase what amounts to little more than conspiracy fantasy?

Plus, there's this bizarre idea that somehow a building hit by debris and then left to burn for 7 hours should somehow be impervious to eventual structural failure leading to collapse. Like somehow buildings in America are immune to gravity unless specially placed explosives are involved. I just can't fathom the mentality to believe all that.

>> ^Fade:
Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.

Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
Just because you can't believe something is possible doesn't mean it isn't.
If you think we aren't living in a 'Tom Clancy-esque' world then you are sadly deluded.
I don't care about the conspiracy theories anyway. What I care about is that I am not convinced that wtc7 was brought down by fire. It looks like a controlled demo so why wasn't it investigated as such?

Well, I happen to think it was brought down by the Death Star. So maybe they should investigate that too?
The reason it wasn't investigated as a controlled demo is because the controlled demo theory is what it is: a wacky conspiracy theory based on extremely flimsy evidence and full of giant gaping holes.

That's no boob, it's a space station!

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
*promote the *comedy - can't take calls in-flight, unless you're in space.

>> ^Hyperdrive:
That's no lawn. That's a space station.

That is the funniest comment yet! Cracked me up! Thank you for the laugh! :-D

I'm enjoying this video. That music makes for such a drama as the realization of the full illusion effect draws to a close!