Huh, guess I was one of the few that saw a porno before I ever saw a horror movie. Guess I was about 9 or 10, older friend's dad was out of town, and said friend had found his Betamax porn stash so he invited all the kids in the neighborhood (boys and girls both) ranging in age from 8-17 to watch. The teens laughed their assess off when all us kids were completely grossed out by the first moneyshot we saw. Seriously, it may as well have been a horror movie for all the kids screaming "What the hell IS that?!?"

Learned a lot that day from the older kids, but mostly learned that 70s porn is cheesy beyond belief. Baum-chika-baum-baum!

About this film, to just highlight some of the heights of absurdity that the so-called intellectual property (which isn't really "property" at all in any consistent definition of the word) can reach, here's something an anti-IP expert, Stephan Kinsella (who, as it happens, is, ironically, also an IP lawyer) said about this new movie, 'Oz the Great and Powerful':

"So, for IP reasons, it's not technically a prequel to the 1939 movie by MGM. This is a Disney film, and it has to follow the original Baum books, not the 1939 movie. That's why in one scene, the witch in the new movie doesn't say "my pretties." She says something like "my pretty ... one." And that's why MGM and Disney lawyers had to meet to come to an agreement on what shade of green was permitted on the skin of the bad witch in the new movie. And that's why no reference to Dorothy's ruby slippers was permitted (that was from the 1939 movie, not the book, which had silver slippers). So once again, copyright distorts culture and life and meaning."

>> ^rougy:

Oh, yeah, joking around and saying that some girl in a video looks hot is exactly the same as robosigning foreclosures and laughing at the people you helped evict.
Right.


I never claimed the two were equivalent, or even close in offensiveness. I do think its moronic to say something so stupid in the middle of a piece about the atrocious behaviors of a law firm. Not only is it insensitive to suddenly objectify two women in the middle of a conversation that had no bearing on the attractiveness of people, but to interrupt the conversation with something so banal gives the impression he doesn't really give a shit about what they're talking about.

Hopefully Baum loses some business over this, but unfortunately I don't see it hurting him in the long run. I understand he was fined $2 million for the actual acts of fraud, so I guess that's something...

I was thinking that Baum profits from the occupation. They could fix these graphics...

"Ba weep granna, weep nini baum" is the Universal Greeting from Transformers The Movie (1986).

In the debate between evolution and creationism, the creationist claim that science has not found the transitional fossils necessary to confirm the theory of evolution, i.e. 'we don't have all the evidene'. Yet, scientists, like myself, don't see that as a valid critique, because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports evolution.

My point being that, you don't need the whole story to find enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or at least eliminate an erroneous alternative hypothesis. As it stands, all of the scientific evidence examined and computer simulations done by NIST and other universities such as UMD, and CU supports the thesis that the collapse of all of the Towers(Including WT7) was initiated by the airplanes crashing. The fact that you and others like you have not read NIST's report to effectively know the points you are arguing against is similar to a creationist saying "I don't need to understand the theory of evolution, because I have read the bible".

Read the report. If you still don't agree with it, then your opinion, at least, is based on scientific fact and not conjecture. I should reiterate the fact that no accredited scientific source supports your conjecture. According to Wikipedia, Steven Jones, is regarded very poorly, and at the least is seen as incompetent and in the worst case a fraud.

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

Jeff King, as I pointed out in a previous post, cannot be confirmed as a research scientist of any kind, let alone at MIT.

You asked me to present you three scientists who were not related to the NIST investigation. That is a very challenging task, primarily because the federal government essentially charged NIST with the scientific investigation. In order to be involved in this research a significant part of the structural and metallurgical engineering community have collaborated. In fact, the way scientific research is done in most countries virtually NO SCINETIFIC RESEARCH IS DONE WITHOUT FEDERAL FUNDING. As a scientist in my experience, these granting agencies have absolutely no influence over the findings of the researchers. Moreover, unlike small research efforts like the cold fusion experiments in the 1980s, such a large collaborative effort makes the likely hood of scientific fraud exceedingly unlikely.

That said there are numerous examples of researchers who are not affiliated with NIST - here are three.

MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm
UMD fire protection engineer Howard R. Baum

A simple literature research would reveal more, but I am at home and I don't have time to go into work today and do a literature search for you.

I encourage you to go to your local library or university and do a literature search for yourself.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
....

You may compile a mountain of data, that describes in detail the whys and hows this event was as they say....and you forget, the most important aspect of arriving at a conclusion that there is.

How can you draw a conclusion, without all the information? You can't-and close don't cut it-There are too many holes in the data that any of these websites whose mission it is to prove it was a conspiracy, and the ones that say it can't possibly be. We are quite simply, not in the need to know group-...

With all due respect Rougy, I submit my following observations for your comment and rebuttal.

I cannot over emphasize how important it is to verify the credentials of people who claim to be scientists.

I have found nothing to confirm that Jeff King graduated from MIT. After an extensive literature search, I have also found it difficult to find any peer reviewed articles that can be traced to his name, which calls into question his claim that he is a research scientist at MIT or any other university/institution. If his website to be believed, he is currently not practicing Engineering and is a Family Physician. There also appears to be no evidence that he has any expertise in Civil, Structual, Fire Protection, or Metallurgical Engineering or Physics. A weaker point because things change, but I think I should also note that although his claim is that he studied electro-mechanical engineering there is no department at MIT, which grants such a diploma.

According to Ref. 1, it appears that a considerable amount of research from a multitude of distinguished scientists has been put into investigating the World Trade Center.[1,2] I could not confirm the $600,000 amount stated. I found a statement on Ref. 3, which said that 16 Million was granted to NIST to investigate the WTC.[3]

I am reminded of a quote.

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

Unfotunately, for select few the impossible is that two planes hit two buildings.

[1]http://wtc.nist.gov/
[2]http://www.enfp.umd.edu/faculty-profiles/baum.html
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#_note-20

Sincerely,

MH

me too, e-baum blows mostly....enough fart jokes already....