100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Nope. 
Other countries should stop whining about the U.S. and get up off their lazy butts and fix their own problems. America's got enough to deal with right now. I think America should sort out America and leave the world alone. Fair enough. The rest of the world should sort themselves out and leave America alone first.
Burn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fail
Budget- Fail Fast and Furious - Fail NSA leaks- Fail Boston Bombers- Fail (Russia warned them) IRS targeting conservatives- Fail Benghazi-Fail Lybia- Fail should we go on? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who says this came from no where? We are expecting lots of solar activity this year. Its the peak year in the solar cycle for this kind of thing. I actually work on our governments Space Weather program that monitors this kind of thing. By work on it I mean we develop its new capabilities and maintain it. My company has owned the contract since its inception. they didn't say "from nowhere", they said: "A G2-class (Kp=6) geomagnetic storm is in progress following the arrival of an interplanetary shock wave on May 31st. The source of the shock is not known; it might have been a minor CME that left the sun without drawing attention to itself."... they are not sure where the interplanetary shock wave came from... Some people DID SEE IT. And reported its arrival two days in advance. So Naza is not on the ball. Also AFWA does way more space weather stuff for the government than they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who says this came from no where? We are expecting lots of solar activity this year. Its the peak year in the solar cycle for this kind of thing. I actually work on our governments Space Weather program that monitors this kind of thing. By work on it I mean we develop its new capabilities and maintain it. My company has owned the contract since its inception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should be more like Canada, you cant live there unless you can prove that you will be an asset to the country. By who's opinion? My proposal would take all the guess work out of the equation; you have a clean record, come on in. Completely agree with the other guy, completely disagree with you. I just finished immigration with my wife. congratulations! and thank you for not cutting in line of all the others who are doing it the right way,,, Yea I don't care much for line cutting. We got a lawyer and everything. Its not the cheapest thing and she could have stayed as undocumented but that isn't right and we wanted to do things right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should be more like Canada, you cant live there unless you can prove that you will be an asset to the country. By who's opinion? My proposal would take all the guess work out of the equation; you have a clean record, come on in. Completely agree with the other guy, completely disagree with you. I just finished immigration with my wife. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seems like apples to oranges to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hope it goes viral nationwide. The Texas Senate passed a bill today that would drug test some welfare applicants and cut off drug users from receiving money. It now goes to the House. The bill passed Wednesday temporarily cuts off benefits to drug users, with a permanent ban after three failed drug tests. Money would still go to an applicant's minor children through a third party. This is awesomeness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well as much as you and others think you know, I am still not convinced that a fire can take down a building like that. And your conclusions still do not explain why all testimony about any explosions being heard were ignored and left out of the 9-11 commission report, either. Neither am I convinced that airplanes could take down the twin towers. Well its not hard to grasp that people that don't understand things are not convinced by them. Go back in time and try to explain to a Viking that lightning isn't Thor and his hammer and he will feel the same way. It doesn't make it less true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility...
Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings. This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire. Actually yes, no cascading explosions no explosives period. None are heard on any recordings. We have had this discussion a million times. The amount of explosives to take down a build would be audible for miles. Millions upon millions of NYers would have heard it and it would be on every recording of it. It is on none. There is a reason none of the theories you support are in any scientific journals. Even the foremost expert on fire and combustion is against you. But I guess you know better than him.. Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis. Research Areas Flame theory, combustion in turbulent flows, asymptotic methods in combustion, fire research, reactions in boundary layers, other areas of combustion and fluid dynamics. Current Research Topics Prediction of NOx Emissions from Large Diesels. Theory of Flames with Real Chemistry. High-Pressure Combustion of Binary Fuel Sprays. Droplet Burning Experiments in the Space Shuttle. Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Fuel Droplets and Flames Subject to Straining Flows. Stretched Diffusion Flames in von Karman Swirling Flows. Compressible Turbulent Reactive Flows. Catalytic Combustion Fundamentals. Fundamentals of Acoustic Instability in Liquid-Propellant Rockets. http://maeresearch.ucsd.edu/williams/ All that blah blah blah so called "scientific" double talk does not answer the question as to why, if the collapse of building 7 was so unusual, and so rare, and so extraordinary, why did certain people seem to know that Building #7 was coming down in advance and why did the media report that building 7 had fallen before it had actually fallen? Are we living in the twilight zone? Was it a Time travel vortex? As for the loud sounds supposedly that should have been "audible for miles...." how do I know they were not using a different kind of explosive material that did not make so much noise? Also, I've seen building demolished in Las Vegas, and the explosions were not "audible for miles." I've heard truck tires blow out that were louder. Why don't you study what sound is and how and why it travels. Then maybe you can figure this one out. Why don't I study? That's your answer for everything. You think you are so much smarter than everyone else because you have a degree in something. Please.
I know what sound is. 
I have seen and heard, buildings being demolished in person in Las Vegas. They are not all that loud that the actual explosions can be "heard for miles." I have heard truck tires blow out on the highway five blocks from my house that shook the whole town that were louder. Of course the noise level in my town is low compared to what the combined noise level in a big city like New York would be. Your argument that detonations taking out some columns would be heard for miles is just not true. The noise level in New York at that time was very high. Some people did claim to have heard explosions but all those testimonies were ignored or rationalized away by NIST investigators. They simply omitted all testimony about people who heard explosions. And you have no idea what kind of explosive charges might have been used. They don't necessarily have to be your garden variety professional demolition explosives. They could have been something altogether different. Now if and when I see another towering inferno or 40 to 50 story building collapse because of a fire, then I might start to believe its possible. No one claimed to hear cascading explosions consistent with a demolition. Yes the sound would have been caught on all thw videos where the collapse itself is audible. Yes I have a degree in engineering and know more about science then u |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility...
Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings. This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire. Actually yes, no cascading explosions no explosives period. None are heard on any recordings. We have had this discussion a million times. The amount of explosives to take down a build would be audible for miles. Millions upon millions of NYers would have heard it and it would be on every recording of it. It is on none. There is a reason none of the theories you support are in any scientific journals. Even the foremost expert on fire and combustion is against you. But I guess you know better than him.. Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis. Research Areas Flame theory, combustion in turbulent flows, asymptotic methods in combustion, fire research, reactions in boundary layers, other areas of combustion and fluid dynamics. Current Research Topics Prediction of NOx Emissions from Large Diesels. Theory of Flames with Real Chemistry. High-Pressure Combustion of Binary Fuel Sprays. Droplet Burning Experiments in the Space Shuttle. Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Fuel Droplets and Flames Subject to Straining Flows. Stretched Diffusion Flames in von Karman Swirling Flows. Compressible Turbulent Reactive Flows. Catalytic Combustion Fundamentals. Fundamentals of Acoustic Instability in Liquid-Propellant Rockets. http://maeresearch.ucsd.edu/williams/ All that blah blah blah so called "scientific" double talk does not answer the question as to why, if the collapse of building 7 was so unusual, and so rare, and so extraordinary, why did certain people seem to know that Building #7 was coming down in advance and why did the media report that building 7 had fallen before it had actually fallen? Are we living in the twilight zone? Was it a Time travel vortex? As for the loud sounds supposedly that should have been "audible for miles...." how do I know they were not using a different kind of explosive material that did not make so much noise? Also, I've seen building demolished in Las Vegas, and the explosions were not "audible for miles." I've heard truck tires blow out that were louder. Why don't you study what sound is and how and why it travels. Then maybe you can figure this one out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility...
Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings. This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire. Actually yes, no cascading explosions no explosives period. None Tell me something hot shot........if there was NO explosives in Building 7, why didn't they test for em in the official story before coming to the conclusion there weren't any? What were they afraid of? If there was none, surely the test would have shown that right? The fact that they didn't says to me the cat was watching the hen house. For the same reason I mentioned. It was a scientific impossibility. For the exact things I stated in my post. Yet you also seem to think you know more than the scientist I mentioned. Please give your credentials so we can compare them to his. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
can anyone help lil ole me?
|
|
http://www.top-password.com/blog/tag/forgot-windows-password/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude parents try to mold their kids into theor own image. Vegans do it athiests do it athletes do it. Its not only religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So yeah I'd keep the church and religious stuff for the adults and those who can grasp it, let the kids be kids for a while is how I see it. They can decide on what path they choose when they are old enough.
Parents have every right to teach their kids about what is moral and what isn't, even if the standard of morality embraced by parents is expressed in religious teachings. I tend to disagree, I don't think a parent has the right to mold a child's mind one way or the other in the religious sense or even some others, but moreso in that way. I think it's borderline child abuse to some degree actually, and I know that is controversial to say but I just don't think a child should be subjected to religious brainwashing by a parent like that. You can teach them morals WITHOUT teaching them absolutes in terms of how to think or what to believe. They should be allowed to decide that on their own when they are capable of doing so. You would be wrong. The state or federal government can't control what parents teach their children. When children become adults they can choose what they want. Children are not machines. You can not mold them into something you want. They have free will and make their own decisions. You can only guide them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Mon 04/08/13 09:08 PM
|
|
Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility...
Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings. This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire. Actually yes, no cascading explosions no explosives period. None are heard on any recordings. We have had this discussion a million times. The amount of explosives to take down a build would be audible for miles. Millions upon millions of NYers would have heard it and it would be on every recording of it. It is on none. There is a reason none of the theories you support are in any scientific journals. Even the foremost expert on fire and combustion is against you. But I guess you know better than him.. Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis. Research Areas Flame theory, combustion in turbulent flows, asymptotic methods in combustion, fire research, reactions in boundary layers, other areas of combustion and fluid dynamics. Current Research Topics Prediction of NOx Emissions from Large Diesels. Theory of Flames with Real Chemistry. High-Pressure Combustion of Binary Fuel Sprays. Droplet Burning Experiments in the Space Shuttle. Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Fuel Droplets and Flames Subject to Straining Flows. Stretched Diffusion Flames in von Karman Swirling Flows. Compressible Turbulent Reactive Flows. Catalytic Combustion Fundamentals. Fundamentals of Acoustic Instability in Liquid-Propellant Rockets. http://maeresearch.ucsd.edu/williams/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
can anyone help lil ole me?
|
|
By this do you mean you don't know the password and can't log in? My grandparents did this and I made a crack disk to hack the password. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically roms are illegal unless you own the system and the game.. that said I have a few emulayors including one where I can actually put my ps2 games into my disk drive on my pc and play them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Looking to build a computer.
|
|
I have built and upgraded my own pc since 08. New Egg is the place to shop. You should learn what components determine characteristics. You mention a case for harddrives and ram. Well ram depends on your motherboard. Also what is the point of that many hard drives when you can partition multiple virtual drives? Anyway most gaming ccases have room for about that many drives. You can get sound and video cards for all functionalities. Just make sure to get a good processor. Anything else is easy to replace but processors are a ***** to change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's a fire. And yet it did not collapse. 
was it hit by a plane weighing more than 300,000 pounds traveling at 400 mph? damn that Newton.. No, and neither WAS BUILDING NUMBER 7. Which didn't have nearly as big a fire. But you see what it did. It collapsed. how did bldg 7 catch on fire? does it matter how? the fact is it wasn't hit by a damn thing and it collapsed into it's own footprint anyway in seconds......no damn way that was ANYTHING except a controlled demolition. Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility.... but lets just forget that. Who needs science anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
