Top Japanese Scientists: Warming Is Not Caused By Human Activity

[puckstr]

Just so I understand the conspiracy theorists correctly.

You believe that our Government murdered almost 3000 U.S. citizens so they could have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan, which was really a cover so they could go to war in Iraq to fill their pockets?

Yes I do

[McVaaahhh]

Yes I do

The terrorist also believe that when they blow themselves up and kill lots of people they are going to the highest level of heaven where 21 virgins will be waiting for them...

[dirkterrell]

From what I saw the building was demolished in a similar fashion as planned demolitions are played out.

I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to talk some basic physics and chemistry.

Any proof of Bush knowing about it. Well I tend to look at the surrounding evidence since I have no inside knowledge of secret societies...etc. A little common sense tells a wife that her husband is cheating without her actually seeing him put is penis in another woman. Staying out late without excuses, working late all the time, condems in the pocket when he's supposed to be going to the bar with his buddies; naked pics of other women performing felatio on him in his phone..lol, coming back from said bar with heavy amounts of perfume on his person; quickly jumping in the shower when coming home from a store run...etc. No she didn't acutally see him cheat, but if she can seperate herself from her love from him, and be objective, the evidence points to something being wrong. And it's enough to go with her gut and follow up on what the evidence is pointing to.

Those later items (photos, perfume, etc) are hard evidence. Where is any hard evidence implicating the federal government in anything with 9/11 (other than typical bureaucratic cluelessness)? Where is this objective evidence you implore us to look at?

I was taught to use this reasoning when I was an MP. If someone looks like they are doing something wrong...in many cases they are and it's worth keeping an eye on them. If it looks like a dog...smells like a dog...barks like a dog...walks on four legs...eats alpo... It JUST MAY be a dog.

Sure, but to arrest them you have to have some evidence.

The evidence surrounding Bush was that he cared more about pleasing the pockets of his friends than he did about doing what was best for our country and its' citizens. Just do a little research and you will find rooms of info on what we are talking about here.

Show them to me. Otherwise you are blowing smoke (amusing since you were the one that argued we shouldn't let our emotions get in the way of believing your claims about 9/11).

This is obvious and part of the reason we have had so much of our constitution ripped apart. Also...duh, we are in a financial crisis. The fire that he added to durring his term is the smoke we are breathing in right now. 911 was just part of the whole scam IMO. Wars are started for financial reasons...not b/c the gov. is so aware of injustices going on in other parts of the world.

So, no evidence just your opinion. Everyone here knows I'm no fan of big government or politicians in general but it is one thing to make a claim that you believe something and another altogether to claim that your opinion is backed up by "simple physics and chemistry."

But since we are on a public forum as someone mentioned when I admitted to severly breaking speed limit laws....I'll leave it at this.

How convenient.

Also, I'm just an average Joe who doesn't know too much...

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a ride yesterday: "Don't form strong opinions about things you know very little about."

so I go with my gut...and it tells me that he tore our country apart with little to no concern for the average citizen.

Maybe so but one's gut feelings have about zero weight in a scientific/engineering argument about the building collapses.

Dirk

[lightspeed]

And by the way...I think it is absolutely hilarious that they found a passport and a license to identify one of the "terrorist" in all of the rubble...while out of the same side of their mouths saying the fire from the plane was sooooooo hot , it was able to melt the columns in the building....

Guess it was one of those super laminated passports...

[puckstr]

The terrorist also believe that when they blow themselves up and kill lots of people they are going to the highest level of heaven where 21 virgins will be waiting for them...

as if there are 21 virgins ANYWHERE

[TFOGGuys]

... We'll just get to sit and watch while the planet does a global fuck-you and the next dominant species comes about.

I for one, welcome our Giant cockroach overlords....

[McVaaahhh]

as if there are 21 virgins ANYWHERE

[TFOGGuys]

Damned Illegal aliens....

[lightspeed]

I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to talk some basic physics and chemistry.



Those later items (photos, perfume, etc) are hard evidence. Where is any hard evidence implicating the federal government in anything with 9/11 (other than typical bureaucratic cluelessness)? Where is this objective evidence you implore us to look at?



Sure, but to arrest them you have to have some evidence.



Show them to me. Otherwise you are blowing smoke (amusing since you were the one that argued we shouldn't let our emotions get in the way of believing your claims about 9/11).



So, no evidence just your opinion. Everyone here knows I'm no fan of big government or politicians in general but it is one thing to make a claim that you believe something and another altogether to claim that your opinion is backed up by "simple physics and chemistry."



How convenient.



Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a ride yesterday: "Don't form strong opinions about things you know very little about."



Maybe so but one's gut feelings have about zero weight in a scientific/engineering argument about the building collapses.

Dirk

Yup all of this is my opinion. And since none of us has the inside story we can only base our opinions on surrounding evidence. I hardley think blowing smoke can be connected to basing opinions off of emotions. Two different things there. I'm doing neither. I'll say again...wars are started for financial reasons. I could give you volumes of information...but I really don't feel like digging up all of that info and putting it up on here. But..if you look for it, you will find it.

However, since you are the expert...give me some facts that you have...or maybe even an opinion of what you think the truth is...

As far as the towers falling....I count what my eyes saw as fact enough for me. And the reality is that those buildings did not fall b/c of a plane...and or heat from jet fuel. We were lied to...

And I think opinions are great to have whether you have strong knowledge of what you are talking about or not.... That's why I love this country...we can all say what we want within reason.... Bush blew up the towers...

[rforsythe]

I for one, welcome our Giant cockroach overlords....

Rememmmberrrr your traiiininnnnng... and you will make it out alive!

[Kanabiis]

Just so I understand the conspiracy theorists correctly.

You believe that our Government murdered almost 3000 U.S. citizens so they could have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan, which was really a cover so they could go to war in Iraq to fill their pockets?

History shows that the government cares nothing for its citizens....

Tuskegee syphilis experiements -
Small Pox blankets
Dr. Cornelius Rhodes radiation experiments on US soldiers
Chicago Maleria experiments
Mustard gas experiments on 4,000 7th day adventists who refused to join military service.
Project Paperclip- flouride experiments on US citizens
Kilpatrick LSD experiments
Release of Yellow fever infected Mosquitos over Savannah GA in 1956

This is just a small list of unclassified experiments the US governemnt performed on US citizens without their knowledge or consent. No conspiricy theories here, these are confirmed. This is just a small list of the hundreds of either dangerous or deadly medical experiments performed on American Citizens without knowledge or consent. The Mustard gas experiments are particularly troubling because they were performed on citizens who, expressing their rights to religious freedom and not joining military service to go to war, instead were subjected to horible experiments with Mustard gas, a now outlawed chemical weapons.

And those are just the medical atrocities perfromed just this century by the US government.

Lets not even begin to discuss the Gulf of Tonkin incident, you know, the entire 'cause' of the Vietnam war.

On 30 November 2005, the NSA released the first installment of previously classified information regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident, including Mr. Hanyok's article, "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2–4 August 1964" Cryptologic Quarterly, Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition, Vol. 19, No. 4 / Vol. 20, No. 1. The Hanyok article stated that intelligence information was presented to the Johnson administration "in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events." Instead, "only information that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to Johnson administration officials."

You want to talk about 3000 American citizens, lets talk about 58,913 American citizens dead over a little 'misinformation'. To suggest that the US government is not capable of lying or falsifying information to lead to war is just plain silly.

None of these examples are 'conspiricy theories', they are facts. To believe that the US government always has her citizens best interests in mind is naieve, or just plain lying to yourself.

Now, I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I do believe that very little effort was made to prevent it.

August memo, Bin laden determined to attack the US, the fact that then National Security Advisor C. Rice was unable to directly recall the memo until presented to her during congressional hearings is your proof.

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR who not only did not pay attention to a dire threat, but aparently barely read it according to her testimony, and yet nobody found this quite interesting, if reading memos regarding the security of the nation was not a priority of hers then what the fuck was, it was her godddamn job.

But thats what you get when you appoint an Oil company board member to the position of National Security Advisor, again something nobody seemed to have a problem with. Talk about lack of qualifications.

But yes, keep believing everything the Governement does is in your interest...

[rforsythe]

We were lied to...

Bush blew up the towers...

So (1) prove it, and (2) what are you planning to do about it?

I love watching people get all heated up about this, that, and the other thing on Internet forums. It's like this gigantic expulsion of emotional energy with no actual outcome (the tantric sex of the debate world, if you will).

Do I think we were told all of the facts about what happened? Shit no. I don't think anyone really believes we were, that is a free thinking individual. But it's one thing to suspect you weren't told the truth; it's entirely another to claim your suspicions ARE truth. The fact is that hard evidence one way or the other doesn't exist where you or I will ever find it, so the conspiracy theorists and pro-government hippies will go back and forth forever.

Anyway, I just find a lot of humor in that.

[Devaclis]

Here is what I don't understand:

Why is it that a bunch of tards are arguing government conspiricy vs. "They are all out to get us" instead of riding or searhing for porn?

I have a theory - you are all gay hate motorcycles

[McVaaahhh]

But yes, keep believing everything the Governement does is in your interest...

Never said that, nor do I believe that. I believe that for the most part the Gov't does what it believes is in the best interest of the people (some day I may be proven wrong, but I hope for all of our sake it doesn't happen), but there is definitely underhanded and shady things going on in the government behind closed doors.

I just don't believe that the Gov't flew commercial airliners into the sides of buildings to start a war. If somebody presents me with evidence that proves that it was an inside job then ya, I may believe it. In this case though, nobody has anything other than feelings/beliefs/opinions that the US gov't is responsible for the attacks.

Did they ignore warnings? Probably, or they just didn't think they were as credible as they were. I'm sure there are hundreds of warnings coming in daily, it's easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback when they miss something. No different than all the warning signs that the police or others missed before Columbine or Virginia Tech.

[dirkterrell]

However, since you are the expert...give me some facts that you have...or maybe even an opinion of what you think the truth is...

Where did I claim to be "the expert"? I merely asked you to back up your claim that "simple physics and chemistry" could prove that the planes didn't cause the buildings to collapse. Being a physicist, I was interested in hearing your arguments.

As far as the towers falling....I count what my eyes saw as fact enough for me. And the reality is that those buildings did not fall b/c of a plane...and or heat from jet fuel. We were lied to...

And why should someone trust your opinion? How much physics do you know? Do you have a mechanical engineering background? What is it that makes you think you know enough about these topics to have an informed opinion about how a building collapse works? I'm just curious why you feel so strongly that you understand enough about metallurgy, statics, etc to publicly state such a forceful opinion. Honestly, I'd rather talk about facts than qualifications but you've stated that this is just your opinion so we need to know a little about your background to know whether it's even worth the time to listen to you.

And I think opinions are great to have whether you have strong knowledge of what you are talking about or not....

Yep, we all have the right to make fools of ourselves.

Dirk

[lightspeed]

So (1) prove it, and (2) what are you planning to do about it?

I love watching people get all heated up about this, that, and the other thing on Internet forums. It's like this gigantic expulsion of emotional energy with no actual outcome (the tantric sex of the debate world, if you will).

Do I think we were told all of the facts about what happened? Shit no. I don't think anyone really believes we were, that is a free thinking individual. But it's one thing to suspect you weren't told the truth; it's entirely another to claim your suspicions ARE truth. The fact is that hard evidence one way or the other doesn't exist where you or I will ever find it, so the conspiracy theorists and pro-government hippies will go back and forth forever.

Anyway, I just find a lot of humor in that.

I'm not heated at all... Myself and a few others saw all of this coming years ago when BUSH BLEW UP THE TOWERS...so what I DID about it was to prepare myself financially so that I could sit here comfortably munchin on a vegan pizza, getting ready to ride my bike with some other bikers and enjoy my day...lol.

I'm sure the proffessor will back me in this. There are very few things that even in the world of science that we can prove. Most things we take for granted are theories not laws. Much of chemistry and physics is based off of theories. Electron theory for example is a theory....not a law. No one has actually seen an electron. Yet....physics and chemistry is based off of it. So...to prove something is not as simple as it may seem. This is precisely why no one offered any proof that Bush DID NOT blow up the towers...

[puckstr]

So (1) prove it, and (2) what are you planning to do about it?

.

1 Yes Bush is a big fat stupid poo poo headed LIAR
2 Not a goddamn thing

Here is what I don't understand:

Why is it that a bunch of tards are arguing government conspiricy vs. "They are all out to get us" instead of riding or searhing for porn?

I have a theory - you are all gay hate motorcycles

I do not have to search for porn.

[Kanabiis]

Never said that, nor do I believe that. I believe that for the most part the Gov't does what it believes is in the best interest of the people (some day I may be proven wrong, but I hope for all of our sake it doesn't happen), but there is definitely underhanded and shady things going on in the government behind closed doors.

I just don't believe that the Gov't flew commercial airliners into the sides of buildings to start a war. If somebody presents me with evidence that proves that it was an inside job then ya, I may believe it. In this case though, nobody has anything other than feelings/beliefs/opinions that the US gov't is responsible for the attacks.

Did they ignore warnings? Probably, or they just didn't think they were as credible as they were. I'm sure there are hundreds of warnings coming in daily, it's easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback when they miss something. No different than all the warning signs that the police or others missed before Columbine or Virginia Tech.

So basically it will take armed thugs busting down your door and shooting your family because some 'tipster' claimed you were manufacturing meth in your basement before you realize something is wrong in Denmark?

WOW... talk about blinded by patriotisim.

There once was a man, just like you, who looked all around him and refused to see what was really going on in the world around him. We remember him now becuse his apathy and cognative disodence got the best of him when the world around him came crashing down, his name: Pastor Martin Niemöller and here are his words:

they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

[Snowman]

The terrorist also believe that when they blow themselves up and kill lots of people they are going to the highest level of heaven where 21 virgins will be waiting for them...

Now back to this virgin thing…

I thought the number was 72, but then again in this economy I’m sure there have been some layoffs in that department as well. Get it “Layoffs” Ha I kill myself…

Just a sidenote... Anyway... Flame on!!!

[lightspeed]

Where did I claim to be "the expert"? I merely asked you to back up your claim that "simple physics and chemistry" could prove that the planes didn't cause the buildings to collapse. Being a physicist, I was interested in hearing your arguments.



And why should someone trust your opinion? How much physics do you know? Do you have a mechanical engineering background? What is it that makes you think you know enough about these topics to have an informed opinion about how a building collapse works? I'm just curious why you feel so strongly that you understand enough about metallurgy, statics, etc to publicly state such a forceful opinion. Honestly, I'd rather talk about facts than qualifications but you've stated that this is just your opinion so we need to know a little about your background to know whether it's even worth the time to listen to you.



Yep, we all have the right to make fools of ourselves.

Dirk

Thats not very nice. R we getting angry enought to call names and throw a tempertantrum. I'm not emotionally attached to either point of view, so I will continue to voice my opinions until some compelling argument comes along to show me that I'm wrong. I don't want or need anyone 2 listen to my opinions. As far as my qualifications....as with all things, I know nothing.

So...since you know about physics...and the way metal behaves...break it down to me what actually happened. I'm all ears...

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yup all of this is my opinion. And since none of us has the inside story we can only base our opinions on surrounding evidence. I hardley think blowing smoke can be connected to basing opinions off of emotions. Two different things there. I'm doing neither. I'll say again...wars are started for financial reasons. I could give you volumes of information...but I really don't feel like digging up all of that info and putting it up on here. But..if you look for it, you will find it.

However, since you are the expert...give me some facts that you have...or maybe even an opinion of what you think the truth is...

As far as the towers falling....I count what my eyes saw as fact enough for me. And the reality is that those buildings did not fall b/c of a plane...and or heat from jet fuel. We were lied to...

And I think opinions are great to have whether you have strong knowledge of what you are talking about or not.... That's why I love this country...we can all say what we want within reason.... Bush blew up the towers...

Well, then your opinion is totally ignorant and your argument without merit. Listen to Dirk, who actually does have a clue and a physics background. Or you can listen to me as well. Can't believe I'm having to repeat this to you conspiracy dipshits, er, theorists (emphasis on THEORISTS) with ZERO evidence other than what you completely UNTRAINED eyes tell you.

The unique structure of the towers was an element in the collapse. in a normal buliding, there are large beams located on a grid pattern. In the towers, there was a unique open floor design where the outer walls were structural members, tied to a central beam grid that the elevators were inside of. The inner and outer walls were connected by lightweight trusses to support the vertical load from the floor above and to keep the outer structural walls of the building from buckling. When the outer walls were pierced and weakened, the buildings still stood for a long time. The uncontrolled fire then weakened the trusses, allowing the outer walls to buckle, and then the mass of the floors above came down like a hammer, like they do in controlled demolition. Physics dictated how the building came down, not a conspiracy. Ever tried standing on an empty pop can? Notice how it will support your weight easily despite being paper thin? Then you fractionally dimple the side by touching it and it crushes instantly? That's called buckling, and is EXACTLY why the towers came down. Beside the nutjobs in the planes, the root cause is still the fire. Period.

You probably still believe we never made it to the moon too......

[Kanabiis]

Lightspeed... I think you need a refresher course in high school science.... I don't mean this as an insult, but if you are going to start talking facts and science, making statments such as 'theory is not law' does not help your cause, as it is not only incorrect, but shows proof that you lack or have forgotten the fundementals of what science is, and the language being used. This is important, because if you are going to participate in a debate, there must be an agreement that the language used to convey ideas is agreed upon. Your confusion over the terms theory and law in the context of science is the first indicator.

The definition of the word "theory" in the context of science is sometimes hotly argued by non-scientists, but there is no debate in the world of scientists.

The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.

The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.

My point being, the fact that you believe there is a difference between 'law' and 'theory' in the world of science shows that you may not a have as complete understanding that you think you do. It is a common mistake made by laymen, or non-scientists but it is an unforgivable mistake to be made by anyone who claims to have any sort of formal scientific education.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yep, we all have the right to make fools of ourselves.

Dirk

Awww, C'mon Dirk, let's not attempt to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.....

That'd be kinda like beating up on a kid from the short bus.

[dirkterrell]

I'm sure the proffessor will back me in this.

Who's the professor?

There are very few things that even in the world of science that we can prove. Most things we take for granted are theories not laws.

Define what you mean by "theory" and "law". The colloquial meanings of those words are very different from what scientists mean when using them.

Much of chemistry and physics is based off of theories.

As is all of science. But I'm betting you and I are using the word theory in different ways.

Dirk