The Global Warming Theory versus the Official WTC Collapse Theory
The Human-induced Global Warming Theory
--supported by the work of thousands of scientists
--debated in an open manner, with scientists open to all explanations
--research on this theory has appeared in hundreds of peer-reviewed science articles
--highly plausible based on known principles
-- eschewed by conservatives/Republicans
-- presented generally as a strong theory by the media but contrary views are routinely presented in the news
-- conservatives deny that human-produced CO2 affects Global Warming
-- large energy corporations, oil companies clearly have an interest in down-playing CO2-induced global warming
The Official WTC Collapse Theory
--supported officially by the work of only a few named scientists
--research has not been done in an open or transparent manner, in particular this the case for the NIST study
--scientists supporting the official collapse theory (plane damage and fires for WTC1, 2; fire for WTC7) do not even consider the possibility of demolition, and thus are not open to all explanations
--research on this theory has appeared in only a handful of peer-reviewed science articles, most work has appeared in official government documents with only minimal data shown
--hampered by the inaccessibility of the WTC materials to outside scientists
--only marginally plausible in the case of WTC1 and 2, and not at all plausible for WTC7
-- favored by conservatives, particularly Bushevics
-- exclusively presented as the cause of the collapses by the mainstream media, contrary views never presented fairly in the news
-- conservatives/Bushevics deny that anything besides the airplanes could have caused the collapses
-- all who support the official 9/11 story have a strong incentive to downplay the idea that the WTC was blown up by demolition
P.S. the recent comparison between Bush administration analysis involving Iraq's putative WMD and human-induced global warming is a scary one.
Also, a good left versus right on global warming debate here.
Update 7/7: More comparisons added
--supported by the work of thousands of scientists
--debated in an open manner, with scientists open to all explanations
--research on this theory has appeared in hundreds of peer-reviewed science articles
--highly plausible based on known principles
-- eschewed by conservatives/Republicans
-- presented generally as a strong theory by the media but contrary views are routinely presented in the news
-- conservatives deny that human-produced CO2 affects Global Warming
-- large energy corporations, oil companies clearly have an interest in down-playing CO2-induced global warming
The Official WTC Collapse Theory
--supported officially by the work of only a few named scientists
--research has not been done in an open or transparent manner, in particular this the case for the NIST study
--scientists supporting the official collapse theory (plane damage and fires for WTC1, 2; fire for WTC7) do not even consider the possibility of demolition, and thus are not open to all explanations
--research on this theory has appeared in only a handful of peer-reviewed science articles, most work has appeared in official government documents with only minimal data shown
--hampered by the inaccessibility of the WTC materials to outside scientists
--only marginally plausible in the case of WTC1 and 2, and not at all plausible for WTC7
-- favored by conservatives, particularly Bushevics
-- exclusively presented as the cause of the collapses by the mainstream media, contrary views never presented fairly in the news
-- conservatives/Bushevics deny that anything besides the airplanes could have caused the collapses
-- all who support the official 9/11 story have a strong incentive to downplay the idea that the WTC was blown up by demolition
P.S. the recent comparison between Bush administration analysis involving Iraq's putative WMD and human-induced global warming is a scary one.
Also, a good left versus right on global warming debate here.
Update 7/7: More comparisons added
posted by spooked at 6:53 AM
10 Comments:
Oh bloody hell...
I just looked at your chicken coop experiment pics again. You're wearing a wedding ring!
Please tell me you're in a same-sex marriage? Tell me you haven't passed your stupid into the genes of an innocent child?
Look daddy! I wasn't hurt when I dropped my toy truck on my foot. That means I can safely play in traffi... SPLAT!!!
You know, it might shock you two to know that scientists actually take cells out of a mouse and culture them in dishes in vitro, in order to study human disease. Pretty freakin' hilarious isn't it? Not only that, but the outrage is many of these scientists get million dollar grants for doing this work! Shocking, isn't it?
And microbiology in your mind is the same as structural engineering?
Read this aloud ten times over, please:
I M SOFA KING WEE TODD DID
Wow... is this pathetic or what?
This is Spooks own blog but you and I scared him off, 'Smasher.
They certainly seem to know about things wich shy away from the light of day, don't they?
This is Spooks own blog but you and I scared him off, 'Smasher.
the two of you are truly morons - you should take lessons from pinch, he at least exhibits a functioning brain - the sword of truth? right. the cubscout knife of delusion would be more apt.
Two questions:
1) Why did the last ice age end? No humans were on earth then and significant warming occurred.
2) Why did the towers need to collapse? The aircraft strikes alone could have created the same terrorist threat effect. That is - watching two aircraft stike the towers with the resulting fires and death would be enough. Why go over the top wth a covert plan to collapse the buildings -- seems to add way too much risk.
Which is more plausable:
1) Convince Jihadi's to take flying lessons and fly aircraft into the towers, and by chance the towers fall -- this is what Osama was taped saying happened. - OR -
2) Convince jihadis to take flying lessons. Covertly plant explosives. Jihadis with limited flying experience then fly aircraft with precision just above where the covertly planted explosives have been located. After explosions from the impact of the aircraft (which somehow never impacted the newly placed explosive system), remotely detonate the explosives that collapse the buildings.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
Convince jihadis to take flying lessons. Covertly plant explosives. Jihadis with limited flying experience then fly aircraft with precision just above where the covertly planted explosives have been located. After explosions from the impact of the aircraft (which somehow never impacted the newly placed explosive system), remotely detonate the explosives that collapse the buildings.
I don't think anyone is pushing this idea in the blog threads here. You'd need to present opinion three... If you accept controlled demolition than you must see the conflict real hijackers would present (as stated you stated above.)
cubscout knife of delusion
Ha!
I suppose the 300+ experts interviewed by Popular Mechanics are "only a few named scientists."
What a fucktard. Keep your head in your ass though, you're funny.
In the 70's all the 'scientists' and other 'experts' were warning us about "Global Cooling". And, of course, it was all Man's fault and we all faced disaster...
-- Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.''
-- Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed'' that we must "prepare for the next ice age.''
-- The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,'' Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance,'' "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter'' and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.''
-- Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World,'' April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous'' that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age.''
-- The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable'' now that it is "well established'' that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950.''
Newsflash - Didn't happen. If you need proof - google it. :)
Global Warming is a treasure trove of dollars for scientists who are willing to understake studies to prove that Global Warming is real - and many of them do just that. Hey, it's a living. Conversely, there is no money for studies to disprove global warming.
Global Warming is yet another disaster scenario that predominately leftist's seem to need to scare people into following their idiotic anti-capitalist, anti-western advice. They always need something (global cooling, global warming, nuclear war with the USSR, whatever) to stir up their syncophants to wring their hands, protest, dream up conspiracies, and righteously worry.
And what's supremely ironic is that the left always bleats that Bush 'controls' his minions through fear of terrorism, yet, Al Gore and other Global Warming scare-mongers ensure that we all know the oh-so frightening consequences if we don't sign the Kyoto Protocol: Rising oceans, dying crops, death, death, death! A new Ice Age, global thermonuclear war - ooops sorry those were the lines from a few decades ago. But it's the same baseless fear-driven crap.
Gawd, what idiots.
Post a Comment
<< Home