slightly premature considering they are talking about burying the whole place like Chernobyl.

*promote

Fcuk dude...



Magnitude 3.5 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA June 06, 2008
Magnitude 3.9 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA June 04, 2008

He nailed the size and location...

http://www.syzygyjob.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=13&Itemid=2

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2009/

He appears to be wrong for most of 2009 & 2010 and if you publish this every month..
"7.0+M globally, probably within the Pacific Ring of Fire where 80% of the strongest quakes have occurred in the past."

He hasn't made any predictions since 2010 and it appears he had the same guess for like a year straight. But he has been correct a few times a few days ahead. Most people don't think there is anything to syzygy.

...

The Ark website launch video is AWESOME!! Imagine these same talentless rich kids singing without the post and without the autotune!! It's truly epic.




Also the announcer... he says stuff like "this girl has more talent than I have in my little toe". The band looks like high school garage band.


they put the Factory in Music Factory.

The other helicopter footage had the same BULLSHIT title. This isn't new footage. I'm not sure why "FOIA" means it is new or was hidden or somehow meaningful. This is clips of the same WTC7 footage.

>> ^Pantalones:

Back to the video...
The NatGeo program made three claims, and then supported them with an experiment. This guy did more experiments and contradicted NatGeo. Thus the process of science. We all remember science right? Testing, changing the variables and retesting for the fuck of it to gain a better understanding? Clearly the NatGeo conclusions were at best incomplete, and at worst completely wrong.
When it comes to receiving new information, there are four possible responses:
1) Outright rejection based on a bias, which can include previous education.
2) Complete acceptance.
3) Curiosity and an impulse to investigate potential flaws or openings for more explanation.
4) Complete disinterest and remembering that now ice cold Hot Pocket left in the microwave.
Scientists are either #1 or #3. Great scientists are by definition #3 at some point in their life. The rest of us (pundits, politicians, citizens, etc...) fall into the other two categories.


Thanks for this. The point of the video is that the official story and investigation declared this impossible. The official media shows on this like NatGeo and PopMechanics make bold statements and act as experts and declare things impossible.


Some guy proves them all wrong in his back yard.


Anyways, the fact of the matter is the WTC was built like a box within a box, and the floors for each level spanned the outer tube to the inner core. The reality is that no possible fire could take down the inner core. Yes, heat even from jet fuel could maybe weaken the hangers and they might give. We would then have to talk about energy of "pancaking" and acceleration and forces, which I think there are legitimate questions about.

But the reality is that the inner core would maybe bend over from damage, maybe the pancaking might cause problems at the base.. but it seems impossible for the inner core to collapse, especially from fire. Go google how it was constructed and where the official damaged sections from the plane and jet fuel officially were. In one tower the core was more damaged.

I would rather we just update the 4 yr old video embed.. then keep a new submission..
http://videosift.com/video/Turbo-Encabulator-a-training-video-must-see

For reference...

NIST report and press conference:
Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes [thermite] and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

FEMA:
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel...

FEMA:
Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 to 800 degrees C (1290 - 1470 degrees F).

NIST:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent [***NOTE: no reference] of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Modulus of Elasticity for Steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html

What is concerning is that thermite was rule out because of the noise, and that 1000 lbs would be needed.

Also, no one has explained the UL testing on the steel for 6 hrs at 1000C?

Finally, what is troubling is that softening girders causeing collapse, fine, steel is weakened at 1400degF, but the core wouldn't fall. Certainly wouldn't break apart.

What I found interesting is that official groups when to great lengths to say thermite cutting is impossible.. Especially mythbusters.. And some guy does it in his backyard. That's what really makes this interesting.

Skip to 7:20 for non-politcal parts.

*promote

Here's what happened...

Some asshole, lazy, pathetic guy named Clarence Thomas ended up on the Supreme Court of the United Stated. He sleeps, sits back, has never once asks a single question or speaks in five years. He along with Bush appointee rule on some insane Citizens United case, and overturn 100 years of campaign finance law. This same Thomas clown also once wrote that.. “the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.” This same asshole uses the pickup line, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Cornell Law

The case was actually about a special interest group, funded by for-profit movie maker guy who aired Hillary hit movie 60 days before the election.

Instead of ruling on "Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as the broadcast 'ads'" SCOTUS didn't rule on the actual case, but instead made a far reaching leap to rule somehow that corporations have First Amendment rights (a legal arrangement to protect shareholders from liability)... Also, not only do they have First Amendment rights, but they don't have to obey and campaign finance laws or contribution limits.

So an individual can only contribute so much, but if you put your money into any corporation, you can just donate as much as you want to run ads on TV as a special interest.

Two justices should have recused themselves. In fact, if Obama didn't fail to investigate any crimes committed recently, they would have followed up...

"A year after the decision, Common Cause asked the Department of Justice to investigate conflicts of interest on the part of two of the Justices in the majority. The organization noted that Thomas's wife was the founder and president of Liberty Central, a conservative political advocacy group that would be empowered to accept corporate contributions to run campaign advertisements. In addition, Scalia and Thomas had participated in political strategy sessions organized by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, who stood to benefit from the decision"

*infomercial *commercial *spam

The truth is that wikileaks has disclosure legal agreements with three major papers and runs every State Dept cable through the pentagon. The reality is that every cable is redacted by the US pentagon, and who knows what they are releasing on what schedule.


Who knows at this point if Wikileaks is working for themselves, the US govt, mossad?


The truth is also that wikileaks submission has been down for like two years. You cannot submit "leaks" to them anonymously anymore, and they have NOT fixed this in two years. That is the truth about wikileaks.