so your rebuttal is that a 757 bounced off the ground?? lol and the wings fell off?? lmfao. I'm type certified in 5 different aircrafts. How many are you certified in??

you got potential squiggly but no..you have a long way to go and I mean a LONG WAY to go before you surpass me lol. But I hope you do. It is the younger generations responsibility to surpass the older generation. We add to the base of knowledge so you can add back to it.

Pharmaceutical companies haven't even come up with any cures dude. I hate to point out the obvious but there is NO PROFIT in cures. So if you actually want to use that brain of yours for good I suggest you not work for any pharmaceutical companies.

I am sorry to hear of the pain your family went through though. Cancer is a totally avoidable evil in this world. We just have to adjust our lifestyles and let the free flow of knowledge and information through. Not let the FDA and Cancer Institue hold American health hostage. Talk about terrorists.

sanvanalona said:

Not sure where in the world you guys are but I am going huge on my veggie garden......first time ever and it has turned quite the desire in me!!!! Going all organic, some of my veggies are even growing in fresh coco as I believe it is the best medium for cannabis as far as flavor is considered, so I figure it might do the same for my veggies. I plan on producing near 15% of my families total food intake for the year, I have full cali sun and taking straight advantage of it! Jalepenos, habaneros, cayenne, tomatoes, potatoes, carrots, onions, basil, marley mint, peppermint, tomatillos, and so much more. I am going to love to give some away as it looks like I will have far too much! And for those of you herb farmers that haven't grown veggies yet, give it a try! Nothing like filling your belly from your own hard work. Honestly, I feel like its giving Monsanto the big middle finger too, I grow all heirloom varieties no big bad monsanto shit, I am able to produce my own fruits and veggies and know exactly what they are fed.......liquid karma, and a little mother earth tea!!!!! Good stuff! I guess that is how I can make this world of ours better, I can at least start producing some of what I consume!!!!!!

Click to expand...

I started a mini garden this year as well lol. got some heirloom cherokee purple and black prince tomatos. I also got some Persian cucumbers! lol and some basil. It's just a small garden but i'll expand on it. That's really all we can do sanvanalona. Do what we can to influence Our sphere and hopefully we get enough people to do the same and all of a sudden We have a movement.

Enough of the negative let's focus on some positive!

Hell yeah I am with ya Dirk! Lets get this thing positive.

You know I used to meditate and I can't even remember the last time I did. Everyone should take some time out, especially you squiggly lol, and smoke a fatty and listen to the ocean and just clear your mind for a bit.

dirk d said:

Pharmaceutical companies haven't even come up with any cures dude.

Click to expand...

This is a totally untrue statement.

However, I do realize how economics work and do not plan to work for a pharmaceutical company for the reason you stated. They have most certainly provided many cures, though. Just not the cures people want (to very difficult-to cure diseases).

The real problem, which perhaps you aren't seeing, is that curing diseases is incredibly difficult.

The 3 big guys are:

Cancer
HIV
Diabetes

HIV is the only one which stays sort of constant--but HIV has developed a way to hi-jack our cells to make more of itself (without destroying the parent cell prematurely). It's an incredibly dickhead asshole virus. It even uses our own signal transduction pathway to fuse with cells and infect in the first place. It's not a normal virus--it's supremely well adapted to fucking humans over.

Cancer and Diabetes however, can seriously start from thousands of different processes in the body. Cancer isn't just cancer. There are many types and they certainly cannot all be treated the same way. As I've said most of what affects cancer, affects you too (and in the same way)--so this makes it very difficult to kill tumors without killing the person. Generally what we do is stop cell division--that's what chemotherapy is. Fucks with your microtubule assemply so that mitosis can't proceed.

This means that literally all cells in your body stop dividing.

That is really exceptionally bad for you--but it kills cancer pretty good. It's about as close as we've gotten to something that won't outright kill us which can effectively starve the cancer.

Diabetes is caused by a failure of cells to uptake glucose--this can happen for any of hundreds of reasons--all usually corresponding to their own mutations. This isn't something that I think will ever be cured without gene therapy (and there hasn't yet been found a vector for gene therapy that we can target sufficiently to use on humans).

I really do agree with you that pharmaceutical companies have no interest in curing all diseases--however a big part of the why when it comes to that is that the "big" diseases people want cured appear to be incurable. Why would a private company just throw money at a problem they're nearly certain they can't solve?

In reality, they are legally bound to NOT do that (at least not knowingly) else they'd have big trouble on their hands from shareholders.

If I could snap my fingers and make my dreams come true, I'd start a not-for-profit pharma company.

If you get right down to the nitty gritty of it, though, you shouldn't really be (again) assuming that you know how dirty these folks are if you don't have a reference frame for what they are able to do. If you don't know how cancer works (at the cellular and biochemical level) then you aren't really in a position to say one way or the other whether it's curable.

I can tell you as someone who is very interested in curing cancer (of any type) that doing so is a one in a gazillion shot. Cures will come from where they always have--individuals, or academia. There's been recent talk of an antibiotic which might be developed against cancer, some promising early results. From my understanding it's targeting a pathway associated with low oxygen metabolism which cancer generally uses.

Again its important to understand that this is likely to have huge side effects because we are essentially developing drugs against ourselves. That's what makes cancer so difficult to cure. You're literally trying to kill something which might only differ from your cell by 1 or 2 base pairs (in 3 billion) in the DNA. Its like trying to kill you without killing you.

Supremely difficult, and not really an intelligent business investment. Sure you might say "for the good of the people" but how much good does a pharma company do when it's run out of business?

I feel like you try to make everything so black and white. It's not, though. Everything is shades of grey.

As for surpassing you--well I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. You really haven't done much to back any of what you've said up.

I'm certified in zero planes, but I'll ask you again--what if any certification do you have in physics, ballistics, or anything which might be in any way shape or form compared to plane crashes and damage expected to result from them.

Let's assume for a second that the plane came in low and was pitched to one side. Tearing one wing off, and torquing the fuselage such that it turns and ripped off the other wing.

See we can sit here and conjecture all day--there are plenty of ways the plane may have lost it's wings, or the wings may have appeared to cause no damage. You literally have no information about the incident than what happened after it, and your information about that is severely lacking.

When I say I've surpassed you, I mean I appear to know better how to form and support an argument than you. It's not meant as a dig really--it's just that you seemed to have leaned on this idea that I'm younger than you in your previous posts. If you think it matters that I'm younger than you are, then I think it matters that my logical arguments are more sound--especially when considering that you are older (I'm assuming).

By the way I didn't mean to suggest that the thing would "bounce"--rather that perhaps it bottomed out, tore the wings off and then sent the fuselage sliding into the building. By all accounts the plan hit the ground first.

Here is an account from an eyewittness who seems to suggest that the plane did in fact hit the ground first:

I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

Click to expand...

squiggly you're supposed to be relaxing to the ocean right now...Clear your mind..breathe into your nose and exhale through your mouth....oooooohhhhhh

dirk d said:

squiggly you're supposed to be relaxing to the ocean right now...Clear your mind..breathe into your nose and exhale through your mouth....oooooohhhhhh

Click to expand...

Sure, but what about that eyewitness account--seems to lend a little credibility to my alternate theory. You said you'd have no problem saying you were wrong if I could make a contrary case. Seems to me that's been done here--and I didn't even have to dig for it. My conjecture is supported by eyewitness testimony which has been available since day one. Is there any testimony to support your version of events (whatever it is that may be)?

You see, I'm relaxed all the time--I enjoy this stuff. Plus I'm sick as balls and have been in bed for days--I'm not sure if I could be anymore relaxed at this point.

Who made that eyewitness account statement?

I would have to actually find some pictures squiggly. Some pictures that were clear. not all fuzzy looking. If you want to finish this logically and with scientific evidence lol i'm going to have to do some research. Look could i be wrong?? yes

There are several great articles on how it could be a plane and it very well could have been a plane. All the pentagon has to do is release a video or picture of the plane hitting the building. My main concern is why can't we have that picture? If you have nothing to hide then just show it. Remember I am not bound by absolutes, I don't need evidence for everything, sure helps though lol.

Most of the pictures show metal and debris but i never saw any chairs or pieces of chairs just some mashed up metal, possible wheels. lots of pictures that show possible pieces of a plane but with no background to confirm it's actual location, in comparison to the pentagon building. And as hard as I try i can not find any wing damage to the building. that is a major concern to me.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
here is a great article with lots of facts that i'm sure you would love squiggly. He has many valid points but i just find the quality of images questionable. He does make some great points though lol

baba G said:

Who made that eyewitness account statement?

Click to expand...

Timothy Timmerman--to CNN news, on 9/11

Here's another one saying pretty much exactly what I said with the wing being pitched:

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

Click to expand...

You see, when you actually DO know something about physics--you tend to be better at conjecturing what might've happened in a physical system. Just saying there is no wing damage doesn't cut it--we have to know something about the trajectory of the plane if we're going to guess "what should've happened".

If the a wing were to touch the ground at any point before hitting the building--at full throttle--the thing would've been torn off, and likely would've slammed the nose down and engulfed the whole thing in a twisted metal fireball. It wouldn't even need to hit very far from the wall to negate most of the damage.

If you want to test this principle get on a car, have someone drive it (doesn't have to be fast)--then jump off, try to run. As soon as your feet hit the ground, you will slam face first into the ground. You will rotate almost perfectly about your center of gravity.

This effect is multiplied many times over at the speeds jetliners travel. Furthermore this same principle (inertia/momentum) can explain why the planes seemed to cut right into the twin towers. At that rate of speed just about anything will go through anything. See testing done in windtunnel proving that a two by four can move (unbroken) right through a house as though it were a bullet.

In fact, a bullet itself describes this concept perfectly. Try to push a bullet through your skin. You can do it all day and not get anywhere. Within a certain range, the lower the velocity on a bullet (above a certain velocity, based on bullet size) the more it will tend to knock you back. The higher the velocity, the more it will tend to go right through you without applying a force to your body.

Think shotgun vs. rifle.

Same thing works with a sword, a knife cutting through a frozen chicken--or just about anything in the physical world moving at high rates of speed with the correct shape.

I really love Jesse Ventura lol

I must have missed something, what do these two eyewitness accounts have do to with physics?

And, just curious squiggly, what level or semester of physics did you excel at?

Seems the only way to know for sure would be to see the video footage from the pentagon security cameras and then you could run some schematics and numbers...but until then, it's all hearsay, even if your great at physics.

dirk d said:

I would have to actually find some pictures squiggly. Some pictures that were clear. not all fuzzy looking. If you want to finish this logically and with scientific evidence lol i'm going to have to do some research. Look could i be wrong?? yes

There are several great articles on how it could be a plane and it very well could have been a plane. All the pentagon has to do is release a video or picture of the plane hitting the building. My main concern is why can't we have that picture? If you have nothing to hide then just show it. Remember I am not bound by absolutes, I don't need evidence for everything, sure helps though lol.

Most of the pictures show metal and debris but i never saw any chairs or pieces of chairs just some mashed up metal, possible wheels. lots of pictures that show possible pieces of a plane but with no background to confirm it's actual location, in comparison to the pentagon building. And as hard as I try i can not find any wing damage to the building. that is a major concern to me.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
here is a great article with lots of facts that i'm sure you would love squiggly. He has many valid points but i just find the quality of images questionable. He does make some great points though lol

Click to expand...

You can't have it because it doesn't exist. In this case you're right, images are worth about nothing--what you'd really need to do is analyze the debris field to figure out anything about the crash/explosion. That's the point I've been making the whole time. You can't do any type of analysis without that--and for that reason just about anything having to do with this from either side is nothing but advanced guessing. Better known as a huge waste of time.

Just saying that if you really look the ONLY solid evidence that there is points to this being planes flown into buildings, not some military strike. There is zero evidence for that, there is barely even any reasonable conjecture.

I'm not asking you to not have theories or anything like that--I'm asking you to say what you know, and be clear about what you don't. It's like I said, everyone doesn't have to be an expert to count--it's more the opposite. People who pretend to be experts DON'T count. When you do stuff like this it undermines everything you say.

Who knows, I could be wrong too--but all of what I've said comes from statements and what physics knowledge I do have. I've made sense based arguments with clearly defined supports. You needn't offer the same to offer something worthwhile to the debate--I think the problem is that everyone wants to be an expert, they want their opinion to be the right one.

Just think of it this way:

What if I asked you what the chemical shift is on a benzene ring if there are two chlorine atoms situated on the ring at the meta position from one another?

You'd probably be like, BWA?! WTF is that?

That is how you SHOULD react to a problem like this one which is physics based and every bit as convoluted and complex as the question I just asked about benzene. The difference is that this is something which is more tangible, and so people are more likely to try their hand at analyzing it.

What they don't know is hurting them in this case--they're attacking a problem without the prerequisite knowledge to do so. You could sit there with that benzene problem all day and never find the answer--you'd need to learn about it first.

The same exact thing is true here. If you don't know about the physical principles, you won't know how the system will react. This is literally a 1:1 analogy to the benzene problem. No difference whatsoever.

The physical knowledge just seems to be easier--because we observe the effects of physics every day. I promise you, though, that it's much more difficult than just looking at a hole in a building, noting that it doesn't fit a full 757 in it, and then bam theory proven. If that plane hit the ground before the building, that throws literally everything off.

Weren't you the guy who said it'd be almost impossible to fly that thing that low. Seems to me the guy may have missed his mark. If you flip a 757 on its side, blow up three quarters of it (which would likely happen in a crash where the wing was pitched and the nose dug into the ground @ 500mph), and you'll see that the remaining part of the plane fits almost perfectly into that hole.

You put all this together, and you mix it with the fact that I'm pretty sure my friend isn't some super secret government spy, and yeah I'm gonna be inclined to just believe him that a plane hit it. Hundreds of people saw this, almost everyone said it happened in an instant--and that explains why there is no video. The guy didn't circle the pentagon waiting for people to get out their cellphones--he was barreling at it @ 500mph.

baba G said:

Seems the only way to know for sure would be to see the video footage from the pentagon security cameras and then you could run some schematics and numbers...but until then, it's all hearsay, even if your great at physics.

Click to expand...

I had to do the physics w/ calculus courses I-III. So pretty much full bore on that note--following that I've had two semesters of physical chemistry (which is why this stuff was required in the first place).

My best friend is an engineering major, so I tend to lean on him for the physics analysis--he's an absolute pro at this kind of stuff. Most of the more advanced topics I know of come from discussions with him--but as it goes to this plane business, most of the relevant concepts are actually in physics I. Just about any college freshman in a science major could come up with the same conjecture that I did earlier.

It's just an added treat that it happened to be backed up by several eyewitness accounts.

I don't claim to be a physics expert, but I have been doing kinematics for like 2 years straight now without taking a break. Not saying I know the deal, I could certainly be wrong--but to my scientific mind I'm saying this makes sense. It is only an opinion, that's all we have available to us here.

I feel as though I've made a more clear and better supported case for the version of events that I support than anyone else on this thread. I fully admit that I don't know the truth--but it seems clear to me that if we weigh the evidence, one should be leaning towards the plane crash side vs. the government shot a bunker buster at the pentagon. You really think a soldier would've done that in the first place?

I find it hard to believe the Pentagon doesn't have a view of every side and angle of the building. That technology is old school and they prob have high speed cameras as it is the pentagon, but of course I don't know any of this for fact.
I agree squiggly, this is a pointless debate as no one as ample evidence of either viewpoint...but the way you mention that, "Who knows, I could be wrong too--...." Comes off as very arrogant and assumes the other person is wrong and you have no proof that shows them wrong or you right. I think that is what gets people fired up sometimes is just the way you come off holier than thou.

baba G said:

I must have missed something, what do these two eyewitness accounts have do to with physics?

Click to expand...

They support literally the exact chain of events that I conjectured when dirk asked me how it could be possible for there to be "no wing damage".

I came up with something feasible off the top of my head, and it turns out that's exactly what at least these people said happened.

It doesn't prove anything, but if the conjecture were possible true--one would expect that to line up with eyewitness statements. In this case it did--and that is strong circumstantial evidence.

All I'm saying is that you see what you want to see when you don't have full evidence. If you wanted it to be a conspiracy, you can make it fit that notion. If I want to to be a plane, I can come up with plenty of ways to make that seem like its the case. Neither of us can prove it, but it should be obvious that the plane crash side has insurmountably more evidence to the positive than does the conspiracy theory.

Dirk saw literally no way that there could be no wing damage, and he flies planes! I'm positive now that I've suggested the plane nose diving in front of the building--he's playing that possible sequence in his head and realizing that it's totally plausible--else he'd have some snarky remark for me that debunked the theory :) Instead what he said is that he could possibly be wrong.

That's all I mean, sometimes when you're asking these questions your perspective matters a huge amount--and that is precisely why we do science to answer such questions, we try to remove human perspective and bias as much as possible.

Honestly squiggly, I think a soldier does what they are told.

I've got a best friend from childhood and still a best friend these days, he works for the govt, doing hydrology based engineering, he designs computer programs from scratch to solve problems that have no known answers yet...it's cool stuff.
Do you ever hang on chemistry boards and chat chemistry with people of your calibur? Seems you rarely talk of cannabis, just my observation, I know you don't have to grow herb to be on here but I'd love to see your work if you grow? As you seem to have an acute attention to detail and a passion for learning; I'm imagining you could grow some super!

baba G said:

I agree squiggly, this is a pointless debate as no one as ample evidence of either viewpoint...but the way you mention that, "Who knows, I could be wrong too--...." Comes off as very arrogant and assumes the other person is wrong and you have no proof that shows them wrong or you right. I think that is what gets people fired up sometimes is just the way you come off holier than thou.

Click to expand...

Dirk said: I could be wrong.

I said: I could be wrong, too.

You're reading too far into that one.

From where I sit it doesn't seem that the pentagon would really need cameras in the areas where the plane hit. The thing is a fucking fortress. If they DID have cameras, it is very likely they'd be pointed at the grounds to intercept people approaching the walls. You're not going to get a good shot of the trajectory, even if they did have cameras.

Plus there is always their operational security--they may not want the bad guys to know where the cameras outside the pentagon are situated. That might help someone with a subversion plot.