lol no, it's a cute one though! but you did remind me that it's not winter anymore and time for my avi change!

In reply to your comment:
“http://www.flickr.com/photos/bellatrix3391/443853448/ Your new avatar?”

*save

lmfao rick ... that's why i chose my words carefully and did not say that breasfeeding was nsfw .... but a passing glance from someone at work my not realize that's what is going on ...

old_spider ... i absolutely agree that breast milk is by far healthier than anything else an infant or toddler can receive ... but there is nothing more that an 8y/o child is getting from breast milk at this point in her life ... it's actually psychologically UNhealthy.

i sometimes wish people would jump around this excitedly on the antique roadshow ...

*nsfw (for those that might get in trouble for a boobie shot at work)

as an advocate for BF'ing, this goes WAY beyond what is considered normal and healthy for a child. listening to your child's, sometimes subtle, clues will alert you when they are reading to wean themselves .... animals do it, as do we. i BF my children and they certainly reaped the benefits health and intelligence-wise, but this young child is no longer getting those same rewards.

allowing her child access to her breast for comfort is damaging as her child is not learning to comfort herself. i feel it's actually selfish on the mother's part ... keeping her child from self-actualization and awareness.

*undead

*undead

dupe .... sorry *discard

*undead

*undead

and even better than the original!

i can't even put into words how i feel ... *wipes eyes & blows nose*

i bet that little boy is going to look back on this memory and it's going to feel like he sailed through the air getting to his daddy ... precious!

theo, you have the internet at your disposal .... you should really utilize it a bit more.

Earth's gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago with the Leaning Tower of Pisa ... *smiles*

the more you write, the more respect i'm losing for you ... it's quite sad really.

i'll help you out a bit ....

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time²

or

Time² = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time² = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

"On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast.



But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a collapse should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized -- actually dissociated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once. "

sandman ... as for your comment ... why did they go for something as grandiose as blowing up 2 towers, 4 planes and snuffing out 3000+ lives on sept 11? the psychological factor ...

as quoted from hitler's Mein Kampf: "the principle — which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,"

they were questions, theo and you did not answer them.

valiant effort at sidestepping my questions with your cognitive dissonance, theo ... but i would still like to hear your thoughts on the following:


edit - theo's comment:
“ given that their internal structures weakening is what caused them to fall, of course they're going to fall in on themselves.”
... based on your own post, please tell me how weakening made it possible for 3 steel buildings to symmetrically fall into their own footprint??


what i would like to know based on these undisputable facts:
♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?