|
What if we figured out anti-aging and you could live forever? Does that change your views on marriage? Considering that scale, a wedding doesn't really cost that much.
|
|
|
|
I mean... I don't want to be rude or anything... but who cares ?
It doesn't matter. At all. It doesn't matter if there is life in one of those planets, even an advanced lifeforms or something good like that. We can't go, they can't come...
 Well. Believe whatever you want. But even if it was possible to travel at speed of light (and it is physically not possible ) it would still take hundreds of years to reach any of those planets. And the energy necessary would represent several actual stars.... Maybe in your dimensions  |
|
|
|
I mean... I don't want to be rude or anything... but who cares ?
It doesn't matter. At all. It doesn't matter if there is life in one of those planets, even an advanced lifeforms or something good like that. We can't go, they can't come...
|
|
|
|
Why would you want to do this anyways unless you are trying to import something that is illegal or trying to hide something from that house that receives it  Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to  |
|
|
|
“Never marry at all, Dorian. Men marry because they are tired, women, because they are curious: both are disappointed.”  http://www.unmarried.org/marriage-quotes/This was a good one: “I am” is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that “I do” is the longest sentence? Good luck bro! |
|
|
|
The "Goldilocks" zone. Heh. Question for you guys: do you think if we observed one of those planets where life is just starting, that life would proceed in approximately the same way it theoretically did on Earth? Or would the life be fundamentally different perhaps? Would there be mammals, bacteria, viruses, amphibians, or something else completely? Given the environment is relatively the same.
many factors is on the line if life is ever to start on a planet that is in a Goldilocks zone. even if the environment is the same to the in the planet in question. The rate of living on other planets might also drastically be slower[/faster] than we can detect, implying that what we think is the Goldilocks zone is relative. |
|
|
|
Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
..... Consider a Machiavellian group with political power embroiled in a military-industrial complex, who needs a reason to go to war for the control of oil somewhere that is not a part of the Empire. Is it not plausible that such a group would figure some sort of means to an end to control such a resource that allows for more power?Got to hand it to you. That sure sounds like Al Queda and ISIS, doesn't it? Sure. And why did we (the West) depose Iran's prime minister for the Shah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27étatSome follow up googling reveals this collection of false flag ops: http://investmentwatchblog.com/updated-list-of-admitted-false-flag-attacks/Here's one of them... As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. That sure sounds familiar, doesn't it? Citations in link above. |
|
|
|
TRUMP
LIBERTY
UNIVERSITY  |
|
|
|
Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
I mean, false flags are a diversionary tactic used in this world. If foul play is involved, magicians' tricks of "look here while I do this there" could be expected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversionary_foreign_policyConsider a Machiavellian group with political power embroiled in a military-industrial complex, who needs a reason to go to war for the control of oil somewhere that is not a part of the Empire. Is it not plausible that such a group would figure some sort of means to an end to control such a resource that allows for more power? |
|
|
|
It seems like Trump is the (un)natural evolution for the States Administration. That man scares me as well and I am afraid he will get a lot of votes.
I really don't like his reasonings.
There is really only one reason why people like Trump. And it is NOT because he necessarily has any good ideas. Here is what it is and how it works. For a long time, now, people have seen and felt that there is something wrong in government. But nobody in government has come out and clearly expressed the major things that are wrong... at least not as a candidate for the presidency. Trump is simply showing the people that they were and are right in many of the ways that they have thought government is wrong. This confirms that they have been right, and people like to have somebody telling them that they are right. Now that people are all happy with Trump telling and showing them how they are right, it makes them feel that he honest, and in honesty will clean up the mess. No president can clean up the mess. It will take the people, themselves, to clean up the mess. Here is the danger that Trump poses for the "system." The people just might follow Trump's example and clean up the mess, while attributing (in their ignorance) the cleaning up that they did to Trump. I don't think it is as you say but I understand what you mean. The man is crazy: people believe him because he's a show man, he knows what to say, what most of the people want to hear and when things need to be said. I don't see any difference between Trump and Clinton: I don't like them both. Whoever will win there are going to be troubles |
|
|
|
Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away?
Maybe you can clarify exactly what you are asking for. Frankly, physics proves it regardless of how you interpret the video. As in, if 9/11 was a demolition and explosives were used that caused the bone fragments to be thrown far away, are there videos showcasing said explosions? Or would kinetic energy from the plane colliding with the building be enough to do so? |
|
|
|
That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).
But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,
E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.
40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of PE, potential energy
So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?
As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse. A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways. Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap. Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy.
There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder.... Let me restate more clearly. Energy required to set 4 ton steel section moving at 21meters per second 8 pounds of TNT, 40,000 joules from your link Potential energy of that 4 ton steel section at 1000 feet 24,000,000 joules That is JUST THE POTENTIAL ENERGY IN THAT BEAM FRAGMENT. Now, given the distribution of debris from the towers' fall, the position of the beam fragment is within the normal distribution. It is "within the conical mound of debris," although more or less the outer part of it. Unfortunately for your argument there was no "conical mound of debris". As I explained earlier one of the shocking facts noted by cleanup crews was the LACK of a taller debris pile. The debris field was wide but not tall consistent with explosives. FFS bone fragments of victims were still being found years later on distant rooftops. Collapses don't pulverize human bone and send it flying either. Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away? |
|
|
|
Well I don't know if you guys have heard but it should soon be possible to reach Alpha Centauri in around 20 years. Right now it would take our fastest spacecraft over 30,000 years to get there. Ok I admit it's not actually as awesome as I make it sound, it's only a 'nanocraft' that would be able to achieve this feat, not a regular spacecraft carrying people. Still, I think it's a massive breakthrough jumping from 30,000 years to only 20. The nanocraft would be travelling at 20% of the speed of light. But there's more good news, it would cost only about as much as an iPhone to mass produce  Here's the video presentation: http://www.space.com/32548-20-percent-light-speed-to-alpha-centauri-nanocraft-concept-unveiled-video.html30000 years is nothing from the galactic gardener's perspective. It is much more economically feasible to send "ships" of biological seeds to exoplanets than it is to send a big ship that would contain and support biological organisms that are already adapted to a home planet. |
|
|
|
Well....all I'll say at this point is, for most of the primary Ted Cruz looked an awful lot like he was running for the slot of Trump's running mate. To be frank, I wonder if that really was his intention - until some of his supporters (donors?) held his own feet to the fire.
Neither Cruz, nor Kasich will be Trump's running mate. I am sure about that. They were involved in too much mudslinging, to be considered for the VP pick. Also, right now Trump needs to attract the centrist voters. Most of the conservative voters are going to vote for him anyway (they don't have much of a choice). So IMO, someone like Rand Paul would be a good option. I must have seen Rand Paul talk thirty times and like him but will disagree. He's in the shadow of Ron Paul, and is to a degree viewed the same way. But there is a truly massive number of high caliber men and women out there at this time who would work. While we're at it, who are our favorites? Imagine Trump and Ron Paul! Ron Paul does not endorse Trump, additionally I think Trump could do better. Ron Paul served his purpose at the time, but is now largely irrelevant. As far as Rand Paul, the apple fell far from the tree. He is just a establishment toolbag hiding behind his father's Libertarian shadow. Do you think he'll pick an existing legislator? I'm not sure I know what qualifications are important to be VPOTUS. As a Hoosier, I like Mitch Daniels. Imagine Christie as VP was a prosecuting attorney—first order of action: sends Hillary to prison. |
|
|
|
Well....all I'll say at this point is, for most of the primary Ted Cruz looked an awful lot like he was running for the slot of Trump's running mate. To be frank, I wonder if that really was his intention - until some of his supporters (donors?) held his own feet to the fire.
Neither Cruz, nor Kasich will be Trump's running mate. I am sure about that. They were involved in too much mudslinging, to be considered for the VP pick. Also, right now Trump needs to attract the centrist voters. Most of the conservative voters are going to vote for him anyway (they don't have much of a choice). So IMO, someone like Rand Paul would be a good option. I must have seen Rand Paul talk thirty times and like him but will disagree. He's in the shadow of Ron Paul, and is to a degree viewed the same way. But there is a truly massive number of high caliber men and women out there at this time who would work. While we're at it, who are our favorites? Imagine Trump and Ron Paul! |
|
|
|
Well....all I'll say at this point is, for most of the primary Ted Cruz looked an awful lot like he was running for the slot of Trump's running mate. To be frank, I wonder if that really was his intention - until some of his supporters (donors?) held his own feet to the fire.
Neither Cruz, nor Kasich will be Trump's running mate. I am sure about that. They were involved in too much mudslinging, to be considered for the VP pick. Also, right now Trump needs to attract the centrist voters. Most of the conservative voters are going to vote for him anyway (they don't have much of a choice). So IMO, someone like Rand Paul would be a good option. Dream come true |
|
|
|
^^^^ Lol... a Trump victory against Hitlery would be earth-shattering. Mainstream media would be forced to eat crow and apologize to the American public.
BTW... I am still confused about whom Trump will pick as his VP nominee. The GOP establishment is trying hard to get someone close to them as the VP pick. But I believe it will be best for Trump to pick someone who is not with the establishment. For example, someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Thing is, running against the establishment is a standard establishment politician gambit. I think he should pick someone with a business background as VP. Not a Washington government tit sucking zombie. Satoshi Nakamoto... He said on Morning Joe today that he'll likely pick someone political that's friends with all the senators to help him pass legislature, so he doesn't have to executive order everything like Obama |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
