David Chandler is a High School Physics teacher.
You may have done something like this in high school physics lab.
Remember...32 ((feet per second) per second)?
Ming
___________________
This is a revised analysis of WTC7 freefall collapse by David Chandler a High School Physics teacher. He has included an analysis evaluating the claims made by NIST in their Final Report of WTC7. However, what is most compelling about this video analysis is the pure, unbiased scientific scrutiny that David gives to the collapse. He is truly "spot on" with his application of the universally applicable law of free fall bodies due to the acceleration of gravity. After any open-minded, logical person views and comprehends what they watch in this video, there can be no doubt that that building came down at virtual free-fall speed...which raises the question, how could that be? The only reasonable answer is via controlled demolition...and that raises the question how could that be pulled off on the very same day "a surprise attack" was perpetrated on the US. After all, controlled demolitions take weeks and weeks of planning and coordination to put in place and test. A whole series of questions then follows...Could Arab terrorists have access to this building or the twin towers? If not then who? All unanswered questions, that to date have no good answers...that the 911 commission report failed to uncover or even discuss. Please watch this video and pass it along to other technically-inclined and savvy folks. Thanks to ae911truth.org!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
World Health Organization (WHO) says cell phones can cause brain cancer
October 26, 2009. The results of the decade-long Interphone study on cell phone safety are that heavy cell phone use increases the risk of developing brain tumors later in life.
The study, which focused on three types of brain cancer and tumors of the parotid gland, found a significant increase in cancer after a decade or more of cell phone use.
When a cell phone tower connects with a cell phone, electromagnetic radiation is created. When the cell phone is held against the ear, this radiation penetrates the brain.
read more
Related Articles
* Rats Dive into Cell Phone Debate
Kristen Philipkoski 11.03.99
* Phone mast health worries: transcript
Tuesday, 8 February, 2000, 22:27 GMT
* Professor at UW studies effects of cell phones Lai's research is known outside the U.S.
Tuesday, January 2, 2001
* UW Study: Magnetic Fields Might Damage Brain Cell DNA Feb 19, 2004 at 2:23 PM PST
Story Updated: Jul 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM PST
* Study finds link between cell phone use, rare type of brain tumor.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) October 13, 2004
* You Don't Deserve Brain Cancer - You Deserve The Facts By Amy Worthington
observer@coldreams.com 2-23-5
The study, which focused on three types of brain cancer and tumors of the parotid gland, found a significant increase in cancer after a decade or more of cell phone use.
When a cell phone tower connects with a cell phone, electromagnetic radiation is created. When the cell phone is held against the ear, this radiation penetrates the brain.
read more
Related Articles
* Rats Dive into Cell Phone Debate
Kristen Philipkoski 11.03.99
* Phone mast health worries: transcript
Tuesday, 8 February, 2000, 22:27 GMT
* Professor at UW studies effects of cell phones Lai's research is known outside the U.S.
Tuesday, January 2, 2001
* UW Study: Magnetic Fields Might Damage Brain Cell DNA Feb 19, 2004 at 2:23 PM PST
Story Updated: Jul 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM PST
* Study finds link between cell phone use, rare type of brain tumor.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) October 13, 2004
* You Don't Deserve Brain Cancer - You Deserve The Facts By Amy Worthington
observer@coldreams.com 2-23-5
Prescription For Disaster (Gary Null)
Watch the whole thing.
Ming
_________________
Prescription for Disaster is an in-depth investigation into the symbiotic relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care. During this thorough investigation, we take a close look at patented drugs, why they are so readily prescribed by doctors, the role insurance companies and HMO's play in promoting compliance, and the problem of rising health care costs. We examine the marketing and public relations efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, including sales reps, medical journals and conferences. Further, we look at alternatives to traditional pharmacology and drug therapy, such as vitamins and nutritional supplements, and why they are often perceived as a competitive threat to the drug manufacturers. Alternative therapies also include diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle. Prescription for Disaster takes you on a journey through the tangled web of big business, the way disease is treated today, and the consequences we suffer as a society.
Ming
_________________
Prescription for Disaster is an in-depth investigation into the symbiotic relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care. During this thorough investigation, we take a close look at patented drugs, why they are so readily prescribed by doctors, the role insurance companies and HMO's play in promoting compliance, and the problem of rising health care costs. We examine the marketing and public relations efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, including sales reps, medical journals and conferences. Further, we look at alternatives to traditional pharmacology and drug therapy, such as vitamins and nutritional supplements, and why they are often perceived as a competitive threat to the drug manufacturers. Alternative therapies also include diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle. Prescription for Disaster takes you on a journey through the tangled web of big business, the way disease is treated today, and the consequences we suffer as a society.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dr. Kate Scannell: Educating doctors -- When Pharma writes the script
In Sunday's Oakland Tribune, aka , Bay Area News Group-East Bay.
I'm surprised, why did the editor(s) approve this?
It's just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that Pharma writes the script for and appoints the gatekeepers in the FDA, CDC, WHO, etc., including the ACCME and CME.
Ming
______________________
LAST YEAR, pharmaceutical companies paid about half of the cost of educating America's doctors who sought to maintain their certification. That's a whopping $1 billion of marketing — er, "education" — meant to influence how doctors in practice should treat their patients.
If the notion of drug companies teaching physicians disturbs you, you may want to ask your own doctor about "Zisain'tsobad" — an "anti-disturbiosis" pill I learned about at the last industry-sponsored educational seminar I attended. However, if you are not concerned about this troubling arrangement, you may wish to ask your doctor whether you have TMO (Too Much Obliviousness) — because you might be helped with "GetReal-II", a second-generation attitude-adjuster available in pharmacies now.
Personally, I am waiting for the discovery of a pill that will eradicate pharmaceutical companies from medical education. I've not heard this being discussed at any of the seminars, but I remain hopeful (thanks to my once-a-day DreamOnz!).
It is hard — but not impossible — to avoid drug-company sponsored "medical education" when it is so prevalent and regularly camouflaged. As a doctor, you often feel like a captive audience; most states require you to take a certain number of courses each year in continuing medical education, or "CME," to maintain your accreditation.
A group called the "Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education" (ACCME) is charged with monitoring the quality and integrity of CME courses provided to doctors. That's a formidable task when half of the CME funding is provided by a powerful industry with a tremendous stake in convincing physicians to prescribe their products. The task is more ominous when you consider that more than 100,000 CME activities involving more than 750,000 hours of instruction were provided to physicians in 2008 alone.
One certainly hopes that the ACCME has hired more than the four staffers it had assigned in the prior year to monitor CME activities, according to ACCME watchdog Daniel Carlat.
A few more recruits seem necessary if the accrediting agency expects to stand up to the 90,000 drug representatives the pharmaceutical industry employs and the overall $30 billion-$50 billion it annually spends on drug promotion and marketing.
Concerns about the drug industry teaching physicians ought to be central in the current debates over health care reform and cost containment. Ridding physician education of pharmaceutical marketing messages would help to limit biased, overly exuberant, and costly prescribing practices. Testimony offered in recent hearings at a Senate Committee on Aging claimed that the government could save $900 billion over the next decade if industry-financed CME was eliminated.
Cost to the medical profession's reputation — hard to capture in dollar signs — might also be recouped if patients could better trustdoctors to uphold standards that do not arise from the drug industry's marketing departments.
However, the elimination of industry-financed medical education is going to require many doctors to suffer a painful withdrawal process. The truth is that the medical profession would not be so addicted to drug money if we physicians had just said "no" from the beginning of our unhealthy liaison with pharma.
Many of us doctors have knowingly attended industry-funded CME conferences, feasting on the shrimp or pizza that drug companies use to lure us into their sponsored talks. We have collaborated with pharmaceutical companies — for a fee — to promote their research and publications.
Most disturbingly, many of us have accepted drug money for the explicit purpose of insider influence over our own colleagues, delivering drug-marketing messages in the guise of industry-sponsored CME.
For example, a Boston Globe editorial this month revealed that one drug company alone — Eli Lilly & Co. — paid at least 60 doctors in Massachusetts more than $580,000 in total during the first three months of the year to deliver speeches about its drugs to otherdoctors. The company provided the content for those speeches. Furthermore, it was projected that fully one in six doctors might be taking speakers' fees from drug companies.
Last week, the head of the ACCME said he was prepared to take stronger action to curb commercial bias in medical education. However, I see no convincing evidence that his group will be any more effective than it has been on the watch so far.
Some people feel that the solution will come only by legislative action that aims to curtail industry influence. For example, some states — like Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont — have passed so-called "sunshine laws" to set limits on industry payments to physicians or to require public disclosure of those payments. And perhaps they are right.
But I would prefer to see another solution. Maybe I've taken too much of my DreamOnz, but I am holding out hope that my profession will take the lead and break the cycle of drug money addiction that has all of us in its hold.
Kate Scannell is a Bay Area physician and syndicated columnist.
I'm surprised, why did the editor(s) approve this?
It's just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that Pharma writes the script for and appoints the gatekeepers in the FDA, CDC, WHO, etc., including the ACCME and CME.
Ming
______________________
LAST YEAR, pharmaceutical companies paid about half of the cost of educating America's doctors who sought to maintain their certification. That's a whopping $1 billion of marketing — er, "education" — meant to influence how doctors in practice should treat their patients.
If the notion of drug companies teaching physicians disturbs you, you may want to ask your own doctor about "Zisain'tsobad" — an "anti-disturbiosis" pill I learned about at the last industry-sponsored educational seminar I attended. However, if you are not concerned about this troubling arrangement, you may wish to ask your doctor whether you have TMO (Too Much Obliviousness) — because you might be helped with "GetReal-II", a second-generation attitude-adjuster available in pharmacies now.
Personally, I am waiting for the discovery of a pill that will eradicate pharmaceutical companies from medical education. I've not heard this being discussed at any of the seminars, but I remain hopeful (thanks to my once-a-day DreamOnz!).
It is hard — but not impossible — to avoid drug-company sponsored "medical education" when it is so prevalent and regularly camouflaged. As a doctor, you often feel like a captive audience; most states require you to take a certain number of courses each year in continuing medical education, or "CME," to maintain your accreditation.
A group called the "Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education" (ACCME) is charged with monitoring the quality and integrity of CME courses provided to doctors. That's a formidable task when half of the CME funding is provided by a powerful industry with a tremendous stake in convincing physicians to prescribe their products. The task is more ominous when you consider that more than 100,000 CME activities involving more than 750,000 hours of instruction were provided to physicians in 2008 alone.
One certainly hopes that the ACCME has hired more than the four staffers it had assigned in the prior year to monitor CME activities, according to ACCME watchdog Daniel Carlat.
A few more recruits seem necessary if the accrediting agency expects to stand up to the 90,000 drug representatives the pharmaceutical industry employs and the overall $30 billion-$50 billion it annually spends on drug promotion and marketing.
Concerns about the drug industry teaching physicians ought to be central in the current debates over health care reform and cost containment. Ridding physician education of pharmaceutical marketing messages would help to limit biased, overly exuberant, and costly prescribing practices. Testimony offered in recent hearings at a Senate Committee on Aging claimed that the government could save $900 billion over the next decade if industry-financed CME was eliminated.
Cost to the medical profession's reputation — hard to capture in dollar signs — might also be recouped if patients could better trustdoctors to uphold standards that do not arise from the drug industry's marketing departments.
However, the elimination of industry-financed medical education is going to require many doctors to suffer a painful withdrawal process. The truth is that the medical profession would not be so addicted to drug money if we physicians had just said "no" from the beginning of our unhealthy liaison with pharma.
Many of us doctors have knowingly attended industry-funded CME conferences, feasting on the shrimp or pizza that drug companies use to lure us into their sponsored talks. We have collaborated with pharmaceutical companies — for a fee — to promote their research and publications.
Most disturbingly, many of us have accepted drug money for the explicit purpose of insider influence over our own colleagues, delivering drug-marketing messages in the guise of industry-sponsored CME.
For example, a Boston Globe editorial this month revealed that one drug company alone — Eli Lilly & Co. — paid at least 60 doctors in Massachusetts more than $580,000 in total during the first three months of the year to deliver speeches about its drugs to otherdoctors. The company provided the content for those speeches. Furthermore, it was projected that fully one in six doctors might be taking speakers' fees from drug companies.
Last week, the head of the ACCME said he was prepared to take stronger action to curb commercial bias in medical education. However, I see no convincing evidence that his group will be any more effective than it has been on the watch so far.
Some people feel that the solution will come only by legislative action that aims to curtail industry influence. For example, some states — like Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont — have passed so-called "sunshine laws" to set limits on industry payments to physicians or to require public disclosure of those payments. And perhaps they are right.
But I would prefer to see another solution. Maybe I've taken too much of my DreamOnz, but I am holding out hope that my profession will take the lead and break the cycle of drug money addiction that has all of us in its hold.
Kate Scannell is a Bay Area physician and syndicated columnist.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Government Hijacks Kids TV To Propagandize For Swine Flu Shots
They did it to me when I was a kid. I just didn't know it.
Ming
__________________
The federal government has accelerated its $16 million dollar PR campaign to brainwash and coerce increasingly suspicious Americans into taking the swine flu vaccine by weaving their propaganda into a popular pre-school show for children currently airing on PBS Kids.
Sid the Science Kid is a half-hour series produced by Jim Henson Productions and KCET in Los Angeles, California. The program is bankrolled in part by The Boeing Company, a titan of the military-industrial complex.
read more
Ming
__________________
The federal government has accelerated its $16 million dollar PR campaign to brainwash and coerce increasingly suspicious Americans into taking the swine flu vaccine by weaving their propaganda into a popular pre-school show for children currently airing on PBS Kids.
Sid the Science Kid is a half-hour series produced by Jim Henson Productions and KCET in Los Angeles, California. The program is bankrolled in part by The Boeing Company, a titan of the military-industrial complex.
read more
Monday, October 19, 2009
Xanax (anxiolytic addiction and withdrawal)
Gwen Olsen spent fifteen years as a pharmaceutical sales rep working for such health care giants as Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbott Laboratories. She enjoyed a successful, fast-paced career until several conscious-altering experiences began awakening her to the dangers lurking in every American medicine cabinet. Her most poignant lessons, however, came as both victim and survivor of life-threatening adverse drug reactions. After leaving pharmaceutical sales in 2000, Gwen worked in the natural foods industry first as an Account Manager for Nature's Way, and then as a Regional Sales Manager for Gaia Herbs. She is currently a writer, speaker, and natural health consultant.
In this video Gwen discusses anxiolytics (anti-anxiety medications). These medications are sometimes also called minor tranquilizers. These drugs include the benzodiazephines such as Valium, Xanax and Ativan. Buspar is also non-benzodiazephine anxiolytic.
These drugs are highly addictive and people experience severe withdrawal symptoms when coming off of these drugs.
Gwen specifically talks about her own Xanax addiction.
She also discusses "rebound syndrome" and "discontinuation syndrome", which are basically just withdrawal symptoms.
Ex Drug Rep -- Manipulating Doctors
Ex-Pharma Sales Reps talks about manipulating doctors to sell more drugs.
In this video Gwen discusses some of the tactics used by some pharmaceutical sales reps to get doctors to prescribe their drugs.
This included tactics like minimizing harmful side effects to doctors, presenting statistics in a slanted way, accusing anyone that speaks out against psychiatric drugs as being a Scientologist, psychological profiling of doctors to best know how to convince them to prescribe your drugs, etc.
Gwen Olsen spent fifteen years as a pharmaceutical sales rep working for such healthcare giants as Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbott Laboratories. She enjoyed a successful, fast-paced career until several conscious-altering experiences began awakening her to the dangers lurking in every American medicine cabinet. Her most poignant lessons, however, came as both victim and survivor of life-threatening adverse drug reactions. After leaving pharmaceutical sales in 2000, Gwen worked in the natural foods industry first as an Account Manager for Nature's Way, and then as a Regional Sales Manager for Gaia Herbs. She is currently a writer, speaker, and natural health consultant.
The United States health care system is killing Americans at an alarming rate, even though we spend over fifteen percent of the Gross National Product (GNP) on health care. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, our health care outcomes ranked only fifteenth among twenty-five industrialized nations worldwide. Adverse effects from prescription drugs have become the third-leading killer of Americans. Only heart disease and cancer claim more lives. We trust our doctors to inform us and our government to protect us from medical malfeasance that may put profits ahead of consumer health and safety. But the fine line walked by the FDA between the interests of the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the American public has continually been crossed. The result is the unleashing of an unprecedented number of lethal drugs on the U.S. market!
Gwen Olsen learned firsthand the danger that lurks in every American's medicine cabinet, working in the pharmaceutical industry. But her most poignant education would come as a victim and, ultimately, as a survivor.
Ex-Pharmaceutical Rep. Speaks Out
Gwen has more... written a book called, "Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher""
More compelling than the last video.
Ming
________________
"Gwen Olsen is a woman who use to be a pharmaceutical sales rep for 15 years until her niece killed herself while taking antidepressants.
More compelling than the last video.
Ming
________________
"Gwen Olsen is a woman who use to be a pharmaceutical sales rep for 15 years until her niece killed herself while taking antidepressants.
Pharma Not in Business of Health, Healing, Cures, Wellness
Sounds like Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, but that's another, related, story
Ming
________________
"The truth from an ex-pharma pusher: very interesting! The Pharma industrie is out to keep us sick, not to make us better. I have read the research wich proves that excercise is more effective than anti-depressants, that anti-depressants are not more effective as placebos. So in fact they are as useful as a placebo. While excercise is truly helpful. Meanwhile these anti-depressants do alter the chemical pathways in your brain making them highly addictive. Which is brilliant for the pharmaceutical industries because it means you will be buying them for ever because you will be addicted for life! The withdrawal symptoms are so severe than many people never manage to cut loose. As people suffer so badly from the symptoms they go back to their doctors who give them heavier doses to alleviate the symptoms. etc. The same goes for the flu-vaccins. There are new flustrains every year. However, flu-vaccins are largely ineffective. Doctors still want you to take them even though 70% of doctors do not take them themselves."
http://clouddragon.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/dont-die-of-n1h1/
Ming
________________
"The truth from an ex-pharma pusher: very interesting! The Pharma industrie is out to keep us sick, not to make us better. I have read the research wich proves that excercise is more effective than anti-depressants, that anti-depressants are not more effective as placebos. So in fact they are as useful as a placebo. While excercise is truly helpful. Meanwhile these anti-depressants do alter the chemical pathways in your brain making them highly addictive. Which is brilliant for the pharmaceutical industries because it means you will be buying them for ever because you will be addicted for life! The withdrawal symptoms are so severe than many people never manage to cut loose. As people suffer so badly from the symptoms they go back to their doctors who give them heavier doses to alleviate the symptoms. etc. The same goes for the flu-vaccins. There are new flustrains every year. However, flu-vaccins are largely ineffective. Doctors still want you to take them even though 70% of doctors do not take them themselves."
http://clouddragon.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/dont-die-of-n1h1/
Judge Halts Mandatory Flu Vaccines for Health Care Workers
October 16, 2009, 12:58 pm
Judge Halts Mandatory Flu Vaccines for Health Care Workers
By Sewell Chan AND Anemona Hartocollis
Daniel Barry for The New York Times Dr. Richard F. Daines, the state health commissioner, issued the vaccination requirement in August.
Updated, 4:21 p.m. | A judge on Friday morning halted enforcement of a New York State directive requiring that all health care workers be vaccinated for the seasonal flu and swine flu.
The temporary restraining order by the judge, Thomas J. McNamara, an acting justice of the State Supreme Court in Albany, comes amid a growing debate about the flu vaccine. On Friday afternoon, the State Department of Health vowed to fight the restraining order, saying that the authorities “have clear legal authority” to require vaccinations, and noted that state courts had upheld mandatory vaccinations of health care workers against rubella and tuberculosis. Justice McNamara scheduled a hearing for Oct. 30 on the three cases before him, involving the flu vaccine.
The state health commissioner, Dr. Richard F. Daines, through the State Hospital Review and Planning Council, issued a regulation on Aug. 13 ordering health care workers to be vaccinated by Nov. 30 or face fines.
Dr. Daines later explained the reasoning behind the vaccine, saying in a statement on Sept. 24:
Questions about safety and claims of personal preference are understandable. Given the outstanding efficacy and safety record of approved influenza vaccines, our overriding concern then, as health care workers, should be the interests of our patients, not our own sensibilities about mandates. On this, the facts are very clear: the welfare of patients is, without any doubt, best served by the very high rates of staff immunity that can only be achieved with mandatory influenza vaccination – not the 40-50 percent rates of staff immunization historically achieved with even the most vigorous of voluntary programs. Under voluntary standards, institutional outbreaks occur every flu season. Medical literature convincingly demonstrates that high levels of staff immunity confer protection on those patients who cannot be or have not been effectively vaccinated themselves, while also allowing the institution to remain more fully staffed.
Terence L. Kindlon, a lawyer for three nurses who sued the state, asserting that the order violated their civil rights, said the judge’s ruling was a victory. New York was the only state in the country to mandate vaccinations for health care workers, he said.
The nurses — Lorna Patterson, Kathryn Dupuis and Stephanie Goertz — work in the emergency room at Albany Medical Center, a regional trauma unit.
read more
Judge Halts Mandatory Flu Vaccines for Health Care Workers
By Sewell Chan AND Anemona Hartocollis
Daniel Barry for The New York Times Dr. Richard F. Daines, the state health commissioner, issued the vaccination requirement in August.
Updated, 4:21 p.m. | A judge on Friday morning halted enforcement of a New York State directive requiring that all health care workers be vaccinated for the seasonal flu and swine flu.
The temporary restraining order by the judge, Thomas J. McNamara, an acting justice of the State Supreme Court in Albany, comes amid a growing debate about the flu vaccine. On Friday afternoon, the State Department of Health vowed to fight the restraining order, saying that the authorities “have clear legal authority” to require vaccinations, and noted that state courts had upheld mandatory vaccinations of health care workers against rubella and tuberculosis. Justice McNamara scheduled a hearing for Oct. 30 on the three cases before him, involving the flu vaccine.
The state health commissioner, Dr. Richard F. Daines, through the State Hospital Review and Planning Council, issued a regulation on Aug. 13 ordering health care workers to be vaccinated by Nov. 30 or face fines.
Dr. Daines later explained the reasoning behind the vaccine, saying in a statement on Sept. 24:
Questions about safety and claims of personal preference are understandable. Given the outstanding efficacy and safety record of approved influenza vaccines, our overriding concern then, as health care workers, should be the interests of our patients, not our own sensibilities about mandates. On this, the facts are very clear: the welfare of patients is, without any doubt, best served by the very high rates of staff immunity that can only be achieved with mandatory influenza vaccination – not the 40-50 percent rates of staff immunization historically achieved with even the most vigorous of voluntary programs. Under voluntary standards, institutional outbreaks occur every flu season. Medical literature convincingly demonstrates that high levels of staff immunity confer protection on those patients who cannot be or have not been effectively vaccinated themselves, while also allowing the institution to remain more fully staffed.
Terence L. Kindlon, a lawyer for three nurses who sued the state, asserting that the order violated their civil rights, said the judge’s ruling was a victory. New York was the only state in the country to mandate vaccinations for health care workers, he said.
The nurses — Lorna Patterson, Kathryn Dupuis and Stephanie Goertz — work in the emergency room at Albany Medical Center, a regional trauma unit.
read more
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Doubtful conclusion
Henry Hansteen lives in Enfield. He is a technician in Cornell's Laboratory of Elementary Particle Physics.
Ming
_________________
http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20091003/VIEWPOINTS02/910030313/1129/Doubtful+conclusion
October 3, 2009
Doubtful conclusion
By Henry Hansteen
For many, perhaps even most of us, early September is a harsh reminder of the devastating terror attacks of 2001. And although one probably wouldn't know it through the popular news media, there are many glaring contradictions between the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory and what the actual evidence and expert research demonstrate.
Let's examine the unprecedented free-fall and symmetric drop of World Trade Center 7, which occurred about seven hours after the twin towers exploded and disintegrated, spewing tons of toxic dust for miles - toxic dust that the government insisted was safe, knowing that it was anything but safe.
WTC7 was a 47-story, steel-framed, hurricane- and earthquake-resistant high-rise. At 5:20 p.m. that day, all four walls and everything within accelerated toward the ground at free-fall speed with near-perfect symmetry as if nothing but air was resisting its drop. This is not mere opinion. It's a matter of easily verified fact. The video evidence proves it, and even the National Institute of Standards and Technology has finally acknowledged it.
At www.ae911truth.org., almost 900 architects and engineers and 5,000 other supporters prove convincingly why the government's theory is physically impossible. Also worth noting is the fact that although many steel-framed high-rises have suffered infernos of far greater size, intensity and duration than WTC7, there are no examples elsewhere of such buildings suffering a complete collapse. In fact, I am unable to find an example where even one major support column buckled.
There is, at minimum, one fundamental problem with NIST's explanation for WTC7's unprecedented drop: NIST attributes the instant, total and symmetric failure of WTC7's massive, resilient steel frame to gradual, partial and asymmetric weakening of the frame. However, not only is it physically impossible to cause a steel-framed high-rise to drop at anywhere near free-fall speed, even with a raging inferno that engulfs the entire structure, weakening every support column at the same rate, but video evidence shows that much of WTC7's steel frame was never even exposed to any fire.
Originally, government-hired researchers claimed that WTC7, although it wasn't struck by a plane, suffered significant structural damage in one corner due to tower debris impacts. NIST also speculated that fuel oil tanks in the building may have ruptured, causing a much hotter and larger than normal fire. With no evidence to support either claim, NIST abandoned them and now theorizes that structural damage played no significant role - that, instead, nothing but ordinary office fires caused WTC7's free-fall drop for the first and only time in history.
This is physically impossible. When steel is heated gradually, it loses its strength gradually. Furthermore, when steel does become hot enough that the forces exerted cause it to bend, it becomes stronger through a process known as "work hardening."
NIST's theory does not hold up. Please join heroic first responders, victims, family members, scientists and others in demanding a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Visit www.nyccan.org and www.911research.com for more information.
Ming
_________________
http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20091003/VIEWPOINTS02/910030313/1129/Doubtful+conclusion
October 3, 2009
Doubtful conclusion
By Henry Hansteen
For many, perhaps even most of us, early September is a harsh reminder of the devastating terror attacks of 2001. And although one probably wouldn't know it through the popular news media, there are many glaring contradictions between the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory and what the actual evidence and expert research demonstrate.
Let's examine the unprecedented free-fall and symmetric drop of World Trade Center 7, which occurred about seven hours after the twin towers exploded and disintegrated, spewing tons of toxic dust for miles - toxic dust that the government insisted was safe, knowing that it was anything but safe.
WTC7 was a 47-story, steel-framed, hurricane- and earthquake-resistant high-rise. At 5:20 p.m. that day, all four walls and everything within accelerated toward the ground at free-fall speed with near-perfect symmetry as if nothing but air was resisting its drop. This is not mere opinion. It's a matter of easily verified fact. The video evidence proves it, and even the National Institute of Standards and Technology has finally acknowledged it.
At www.ae911truth.org., almost 900 architects and engineers and 5,000 other supporters prove convincingly why the government's theory is physically impossible. Also worth noting is the fact that although many steel-framed high-rises have suffered infernos of far greater size, intensity and duration than WTC7, there are no examples elsewhere of such buildings suffering a complete collapse. In fact, I am unable to find an example where even one major support column buckled.
There is, at minimum, one fundamental problem with NIST's explanation for WTC7's unprecedented drop: NIST attributes the instant, total and symmetric failure of WTC7's massive, resilient steel frame to gradual, partial and asymmetric weakening of the frame. However, not only is it physically impossible to cause a steel-framed high-rise to drop at anywhere near free-fall speed, even with a raging inferno that engulfs the entire structure, weakening every support column at the same rate, but video evidence shows that much of WTC7's steel frame was never even exposed to any fire.
Originally, government-hired researchers claimed that WTC7, although it wasn't struck by a plane, suffered significant structural damage in one corner due to tower debris impacts. NIST also speculated that fuel oil tanks in the building may have ruptured, causing a much hotter and larger than normal fire. With no evidence to support either claim, NIST abandoned them and now theorizes that structural damage played no significant role - that, instead, nothing but ordinary office fires caused WTC7's free-fall drop for the first and only time in history.
This is physically impossible. When steel is heated gradually, it loses its strength gradually. Furthermore, when steel does become hot enough that the forces exerted cause it to bend, it becomes stronger through a process known as "work hardening."
NIST's theory does not hold up. Please join heroic first responders, victims, family members, scientists and others in demanding a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Visit www.nyccan.org and www.911research.com for more information.
Building Seven
Still in a state of denial?
Ming
__________________
Listen: http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2009/10/building_seven.html
The 9/11 truth movement keeps getting stronger. And the movement's assault on the establishment's preferred narrative, after eight years, has reduced it to a risible absurdity. An abundance of irrefutable scientific evidence exists. The problem remains, however, of getting people to turn their attention from special effects to reality. Many people, for many reasons, really want to believe that the wrong things are true. To help reawaken their critical faculties we have David Ray Griffin's latest book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, which rips out the foundation, so to speak, of official dogma. I'm always delighted to talk with David and I always learn a lot. Total runtime an hour and eight minutes. Imprimisque hominis est propria veri inquisitio atque investigatio.
Ming
__________________
Listen: http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2009/10/building_seven.html
The 9/11 truth movement keeps getting stronger. And the movement's assault on the establishment's preferred narrative, after eight years, has reduced it to a risible absurdity. An abundance of irrefutable scientific evidence exists. The problem remains, however, of getting people to turn their attention from special effects to reality. Many people, for many reasons, really want to believe that the wrong things are true. To help reawaken their critical faculties we have David Ray Griffin's latest book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, which rips out the foundation, so to speak, of official dogma. I'm always delighted to talk with David and I always learn a lot. Total runtime an hour and eight minutes. Imprimisque hominis est propria veri inquisitio atque investigatio.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Democracy.
Ming
_____________
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21583
Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied
Submitted by pachamama on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:59pm.
Richard Gage ae911truth NYCCAN controlled demolition referendum
Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied
October 9, 2009
Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd.
After showing interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’ memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York callously dismissed as “irrelevant”.
On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.
Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”
The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle. This fight is only the beginning.
Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.
www.NYCCAN.org
Ming
_____________
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21583
Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied
Submitted by pachamama on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:59pm.
Richard Gage ae911truth NYCCAN controlled demolition referendum
Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied
October 9, 2009
Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd.
After showing interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’ memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York callously dismissed as “irrelevant”.
On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.
Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”
The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle. This fight is only the beginning.
Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.
www.NYCCAN.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
