spacefrog

Politics 101, suppress truth in times of crisis to maintain public order. Unfortunately this situation is nowhere near under control and the alarming rate at which Japanese scientists are being dumped by the Govt for not adhering to "there is nothing to worry about"line is indicative in itself. They are being replaced by so called scientist who are willing to adhere to the Govt propaganda. I mean green tea bushes being contaminated and the local shizuoka govt trying to suppress this information to avoid economic repercussions again is indicative. The cover up has been going on for ages and the

Originally Posted By: Go Native Busby may well have some qualifications but his views on low level radiation effects on health puts him at odds with most of the accepted science. There's plenty of peer reviewed science that contradicts or does not support his assertions. As his own work has become more and more out there he is no longer able to get published in credible scientific journals and so publishes his own books. I'm not saying that everything he's ever done is without merit but he seems to have gone out on a pretty fragile limb scientifically to push his own agenda. So ask yourself wh

Busby interview 1 Busby interview 2 Busby interview 3 Before we try to slam Chris Busby, have a look at his resume and then ask yourself why you are still in denial about the real danger. Or shall we take the Dr Yamashita approach. Dr. Shunichi Yamashita, who’s at the Atomic Bomb Research Institute. He’s the radiological health safety risk management adviser for the prefecture. He’s widely shown on national TV. He speaks widely in the prefecture, always saying there’s absolutely no concern with the levels of radiation in Fukushima. He says that mothers, even mothers

Japocalypse Now!!!!

I prefer it to having the quake hit without me knowing. I mean at least I know it's coming and can brace for it and know what magnitude it is. pretty cool stuff

It's not what are they supposed to say, it is how it is structured and put forward, the spin on it. Anyway if you had seen the piece, it might have made more sense. It was like someone has been reading the discussions on these forums. And the only person with their knickers in a twist is Minako Komakai it seems, today's real news story.

The Bad Gaijins and Nihonjins, to some extent, ignoring the rules (wonder if there are any featured SJers). They are filming for some tbs news propaganda piece at Nozawa onsen, how the diligent brave ski patrol have to put up with bad mannered skiers/boarders. Highly insightful into the everyday neurosis in this country. Of course the Ozzies are getting roped into the blame Anyone else watching?? I suppose back to the real news of today how Minako Komakai will or won't leave the Phillipines

Namagaki and Shirako(maguro, fugu or tara)

I wonder which organ/s was an exact match for which high ranking chinese official/s or family.

sony battery or mac battery?? should last longer than a week before it discharges but all batteries discharge slowly.

Sounds like you don`t switch it off but have it hibernate/suspend and then it does use battery slowly to maintain system state for when you power it on again. If you power down and it still drains your battery has an issue but unlikely.

Originally Posted By: Mantas A bunch of mighty pissed off Arabs that despised America and all that it stands for, crashed a few planes into some buildings to try and kill as many people as possible, create general havoc, take out the two symbols that most represent the evil, greedy capitalist infidel and collect your their 99 virgins at the gates of paradise, thank you very much. Why is that so hard to swallow Frog? Fark the science! All you prove here is how well programmed you are with your pavlovian response. As said before schematics blue prints steel core ------> prov

Originally Posted By: Rag-Doll Did you see on one of the website Frog linked us to where they have run a model of what would happen if a 747 hit the buildings? Some model they couldn't even get the specs of the building right! kind of makes you wonder at the rest of the parameters! A bunch of know nothing clowns. Eye witnesses - at the pentagon eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a passenger plane, which is something instantly recognisable to pretty much everyone in the world. Not a lot of scope for error there. Eye witnesses at the WTC were seeing something pretty well unprecedented. A

I did offer something in return, I offered the schematics for the building.Start with the core of the building as this is the key point that gets brushed under the carpet. How can you accept an MIT professor`s zipper theory when the schematics prove his theory is based on selectively choosing which part to show. I really don`t think you can refute the schematics. And Les Robertson says they WERE designed to withstand a 707 so you are saying we blindly accept the designers statement as gospel. So then you believe that we can`t take the designer seriously? I don`t have to offer an

um really how can you debate blue prints that clearly show FEMA`s diagrams are ultra simplistic and amateur at best. But I am sure you will all find some way to ridicule and rubbish it as it doesn`t fit with what you want to believe. So all you see is data about how kerosene combusts, and it is only data? Um underpinned by scientific principles but apparently in this case they don`t count. These are not my opinions but unfortunately these principles and laws that govern science are held as truth. It is a calculation about how kerosene behaves and has nothing to do with the building and ho

Originally Posted By: grungy-gonads So do you want SJ to stop people posting 'bollox'? But who defines that though? Would that not cause an uproar? Just put spacefrog on ignore, that will do the trick! I find spacefrog quite amusing in an annoying way. So you are implying that I am bagging soubriquet over PM. Your assumption as soubriquet puts it is bollox. I don`t PM people nor will respond to PM other than the admins. I don`t need to hide and will defend my beliefs in public thanks. And really if soubriquet looked my provided links , calculation of kerosene combustion a

Being called a conspiracist would imply that I have personally conspired to hide the truth or distort it. Then really what you meant was conspiracy theorist which would imply that I support a theory that distorts or hides the truth. When all I am saying is REVISE. OK GN contradicting yourself by telling me that I need to tell you what degrees to ascertain authority then telling me that just degrees in sociology and philosophy don`t give such authority. So which is it? And then practical life experience has more authority?plus the fact if you had read properly you would have noticed I stat

Originally Posted By: JA OK more kindergarten logic how the hell do you conclude I support the official theory even if I am not convinced. That`s hysterical. So we need to give an alternative otherwise the original theory stands. No you are just so deluded, the original theory is so flawed it can never be true. So because I don`t give an alternative it automatically validates the theory I refute. Going to have to remember that one

And so SJ`s intelligentsia speaks, and again if you can`t win the argument resort to name calling and ridiculing. Just can`t understand why you all are so desperate to defend this. It`s so obvious you never read any of the evidence nor saw the blue prints and schematics which I presented. So next best thing make it personal and ridicule someone or are we going to claim trolling again because my view doesn`t fit in with your own beliefs. Obviously we need to have an English lesson again, Conspiracy means 2 or more people concocting a story to distort the truth. So please point o

Ok sheeple here we go. It was fun to let it ferment while I did a bit more digging. Now soub, I studied your so called scientific analysis of the truss theory. Now you are basing it on some very weak premisses, namely not knowing how the WTC was constructed and using a simplistic and vague analogy of the structure based on a FEMA report. I have read them and the nist report last night and conclude that their findings are so vague that it proves nothing. You all start with the idea that the first jet was fully fueled when on a Boston -LA flight. Well really out of the 24.000 gallon capacit

Originally Posted By: Go Native Posted by Spacefrog in another thread where he got all excited over conspiracy theories around global warming. Quote: As for my academic credentials being relevant I have now idea why but I can assure that I hold multiple degrees in social science from an ancient University. I really don`t see why it is relevant anyway but if you think social science has nothing to do with this you are sadly mistaken.You can`t teach someone who doesn`t want to learn And I bet you got very excited when you saw another opportunity to sprout your ridiculous ideas once agai

Originally Posted By: Journey Man Originally Posted By: spacefrog Funny that, Les Robertson the WTC structural engineer says in a TV interview that the towers were designed to withstand a crash of a FULLY laden 707. He then goes on to say they didn`t consider the fuel load. Seriously, a man who designs 2 modern towers overlooks this fact. He didn't, he considered a fully laden 707 at the end of it's flight flying slowly. So light on fuel. Actually the videos I just watched didn't mention fuel at all. Originally Posted By: spacefrog The core of the building in his words was a ste

Originally Posted By: JA Unfortunately, all the conspiracy theorists are convinced by their wacky logic, and there ain't a damned thing you can do to change their mind. Couldn`t agree more, just curious on why they defend the party line to the death. Now that is down to wacky logic.

Originally Posted By: Journey Man Hehehe, the response to my post will be very telling then! I must not feed trolls 100 times. Funny coming from the man that thinks CNN is a valid news source.

Originally Posted By: soubriquet The air strike thing is another red herring. The claim that the twin towers were "designed to be resistant" is false. This is addressed in the FEMA report. The buildings were designed in the 1960s, before the outbreak of hijackings, and well before suicide bombings became commonplace. Terrorist activity wasn't on the radar. What was considered was the impact of a lost 707 flying slowly and pretty much empty of fuel at the end of its flight. Not loaded with fuel and at cruising speed. This consideration was obviously rejected, because there is nothing in the