For we do not live in a culture of science... we have found ourselves living in a world of anti-science, The Ivory Tower of Science.

As children these last many decades, we are instructed away from childhood honesty discoverable and repeatable on the playground, through half-books and truncated (incomplete) formula in the classroom. Through higher school, we are dazzled by the imperative that only through Collage will we be granted the Diploma of Authoritative Knowing. Continuing this ill-fated course, we prove our Authoritative Knowing by submission (guaranteed by great financial debt) to the faith in Letters, rather than the proof in weights and measures.

NIST has crafted it's own proof in undermining common needs of ALL in uniform weights and measures, by abusing false words and Letters as if positives. This is truly a sick moment for Science.

The hitch is that for a revolution in science, we are asking Scientists to reevaluate the vast majority of that which they have imbibed as Truth (and often still owe The Bank)... to see it merely as Faith... Belief, unknown, quite possibly false... shattering. Something so unwanted as to generate the strongest of cognitive dissonance... to be resisted... to be fought... to be denied... at great cost to all if need be.

A revolt in Science... at a networked time like this... would sweep the globe faster than light. That is, unless you still believe nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Or that tangentially asymmetric force can produce a perpendicular reply into an absurd string of symmetrical reactions. Hummmmm?

I think you'd need some mathematical TNT to get a formula like that to produce a tidy little pile.

Anyone else think it ironic Al Gore is warring Nobel Gold to bolster his loose calculus? It's the only thing that can so far.

uh that top clip is complete bullshit - where did the oceans of water come from ? Just materialize from nothingness? Seriously.

Read up on current theories of planet formation, you know the ones that don't leave out important details like explanation of the oceans.
--
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

uhhh ... what's the primary constituent of solar wind?

What makes metallic rocks rust?

What's the predominant state of all known matter? (Hint: Not a solid, liquid, or gas.)

What do you have between an anode and a cathode?

Can a "positive" be measured between the differential of two "negatives"?

What's the best conductor in a near perfect vacuum?

As one location erodes, another location must _____?

Tell me this is all tongue in cheek. Please. Decades of geologic and astronomic knowledge are screaming in rebellion inside my head..

Continents DO NOT float whillie-nilly, any more than ocean currents are willy nilly.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/part1.html

"The lithosphere (from the Greek, lithos, stone) is the rigid outermost layer made of crust and uppermost mantle. The lithosphere is the "plate" of the plate tectonic theory. The asthenosphere (from the Greek, asthenos, devoid of force) is part of the mantle that flows, a characteristic called plastic behavior. It might seem strange that a solid material can flow. A good example of a solid that flows, or of plastic behavior, is the movement of toothpaste in a tube. The flow of the asthenosphere is part of mantle convection, which plays an important role in moving lithospheric plates."

GRRRR! ARRGH!!(more inarticulate outraged noises)
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

Good clip on the John Gross evasion and outright lies.

I find it odd that you would consider the clip on fringe geology to be relevant to the discussion, and that you would consider it to have enough substance to warrant posting. Even if there is a case to be made (and I remain extraordinarily skeptical), it is at best tangential to the thread, and at worst gives yet another opportunity for the world at large to dismiss us as loons.

... we claim some advantage in understanding political science, because we lay claim to understanding in better depth that which our sElected Officials should know but for whatever possible reasons prove or pretend, they don't. They don't discuss false flag terror. They pretend that a discussion of physics makes a "Conspiracy Theory". They call questions "unpatriotic".

They tell us how bombs can deliver peace and prosperity. If we say that doesn't make sense, an Opposition Party tells us how they could use bombs better for even better peace. Economic Science tell us how 2 minus 3 equals 5. Medical Science through the FDA approves dangerous symptom suppression, while blocking near-harmless cures found in nutrients and natural compound. Ecological Science tells us how carbon dioxide will be the end of us. And a National Institute of Standards and Technology tried for all its might to tell us how symmetrical collapse can be produced from asymmetrical force, damage and fire.

Sure as hell if not... a revolution in science will come, or an outright revolt be imperative, if we don't want such "Science" to kill us.

But let's say we survive, I'm an optimist.... a rough road ahead I still wonder if one does not want to become familiar with the death throws of Red Shift's Expanding Universe theory, the bust up of Big Bang cosmology, the need of radically sliding scales for radiological decay dating, and dare I say it... dare I... gravity flux, z-pinch galaxy and celestial formations, perturbation-tolerant orbital tracks along flattened concentric planes (for gravity alone is not supposed to do this!!!).

... the implications of periodic 8 kilovolt per meter atmosphere spanning hundreds of square kilometers here in earth

... deep inside cold dark sunspots, WTF?!?

... multi million degree temperature inversions defying thermonuclear "understanding".

... where deceleration of coronal mass ejections "is known to be the only way possible", we empirically enjoy the thrill of witnessing continued acceleration as it passes all the planets ... and beyond. (again, gravity is not supposed to do that)

... THE 49 MOONS OF SATURN, damn it!!! (one of my favorites) I mean, now there are 52 GORGEOUS MOONS!!!!... and those are just the ones even NASA acknowledges as Officially named "to date".

... Godzilla-like monster lighting that can attain altitudes of at least 85 kilometers (dear Columbia was only 63 kilometers up when she burst into saddening flames)

"Was late Permian really 260 million years ago? Geologists consider this figure accurate, along with the "known" age of the Earth. And it's all backed by absolute radiometric dating techniques. Fifty years ago, they were equally confident of a different age, and another age fifty years before that. But this time they're sure they've got it right."

I may not be a real fan of the swelling earth model, but I'm not about to let fossil dating or erosion calculus stand in my way of looking at it.

"Two of the basic assumptions on which radiometric dating is based are that the Earth is an isolated body in space unaffected by interactions with other bodies and that the decay constant is a constant. No matter what, no matter where, the half-life of a particular radioactive isotope remains the same."

Like the first quote from an unmentionable source, the others here must also go unnamed... for distraction, delay, disruption of hard workers... is the "Order" of the day. I'm satisfied that enough clues and reminders have been presented here, that industrious and truth-seeking investigators will get a boost, as detractors will struggle as they should.

For example: "Plasma geology is a virgin field for curious and enterprising investigators. In this age of scientific conformity and consensus truth, are there any geologists left who have a sense of adventure?"

Seeking the truth behind 9/11, is NOT for the conformist, faint of heart, nor especially for Science as Science is today. "Loons" of the highest human character we are. If raising doubts across the board because 9/11 proves exception to the Rule... then our revolution in a great many things is well underway.

explanation you have listed above is utter BS.
If it were true which it isn't then how could we have Marine Fossils from an excess of 565 Million years ago?

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/08/16/nf_fossils040816.html

In 24 years as a Marine biologist I have never heard such a thing which BTW my main subject of research is cyanobacteria (basically Algae) & Microcystins (toxins) which has been positively dated to have origins around 3.5 Billion years ago coming from the Archaean period coastline which means the alleged "hypothesis" above can not possibly be correct.
and what does this have to do with the original post anyway?

... my reply above, http://911blogger.com/node/12027#comment-165283 was also written to address your comment as well. (like you, I too have experience in live and dead cellular research.)

Sorry TN for echoing your excellent statement, after I read your post earlier went off line and was thinking about what to post, absently forgot how impressed I was with the creation of your phrase, thereby plagiarizing you ... my bad, your good, please accept apologies : )

NIST admitted nothing about demolition. They just said they stopped trying to explain it, because that's all they were either allowed, required, or asked to do.

Putting words in people's mouths is an obvious low grade ploy to drum up support. Many people will see right through this headline and say that we are untrustworthy spinmeisters who take advantage of every opportunity to be sensationalistic.

I would agree with them.

I don't see how this NIST letter has said anything new, that we didn't already know. They have no intention of investigating further, and are simply blowing off the people writing to them. They are "unable" and unwilling to investigate the causes of the total collapse, and don't feel they have to answer to the American public. It is the Bush regime that pays the bills over at NIST.

This may have limited value to highlight their unwillingness to explain their theories. It certainly is not an admission of controlled demolition.

That's why I voted it low.

NIST is required under the law to explain the collapse of the WTC. Given that there are 2 explanations floating around in the public discourse; fire or controlled demolition, the statement by NIST is an implicit endorsement of controlled demolition.

When you say 'implicit' you are NOT putting words in someone's mouth, and in fact are explicitly saying you are not doing that.

im·plic·it /ɪmˈplɪsɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-plis-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. implied, rather than expressly stated: implicit agreement.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implicit

You would have to deny that the controlled demolition theory exists to argue that Kevin has put words in anyone's mouth.

If you know a NIST scientist, I would send this article to them pronto.

I'm kidding, of course. Hey, if we can't laugh at ourselves and each other, who can we laugh at?

It's more than a bit of a stretch to take what NIST stated in their letter and morph it into an "implicit admission" of any kind, whether "of controlled demolition", or "that their report is a fraud".

And, Kevin's comments of "Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse..." is also incorrect.

Haven't they pretty much, if not exactly, always made the claim that they don't know what happened after "initiation of collapse" and that they never even looked into what happened after that and don't know what actually caused the full collapse?

So I think Kevin is going to have to retract this blog.

Hey, we all make mistakes. (not as many as johndoraemi, of course, but we all know that....... ---------- I'm kidding! — ;o) )

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

The one where you were going to prove that, although you admit the WTC collapses LOOK like Controlled Demolitions, you were going to take a couple of weeks to write a blog showing how they WEREN't Controlled Demolitions. LeftRight was giving you some pointers, remember? Wasn't that in the spring? What happened? Was looking forward to it, I was:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6758#comment-124602

Since Barrett is a close associate of Tarpley and Fezter, you probably won't get voted down JUST for critizing him. No, any down votes you get will be because of your PAST here, sunbeam.

Long memories, we have...."fellow truther".

4:Know your History
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2433

______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

LMAO!!!

SInce March? LMAO again!

And even though you think CD is "counter productive" and "divisive"--you're going ahead with an article that "proves" there was no CD at WTC 1 and 2? And you expect that WON'T be "counter productive"?

At least you're good for a laugh, "fellow truther"! ;-)
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/