Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

There was NO Russian hacking of the US elections.

September 2, 2017

There was NO Russian hacking of the US elections – PROVEN BY EXPERTS

Proven by experts, there was NO Russian hacking of the US elections.

Redacted Tonight
By Dark Politricks

Computer experts, ex hackers, ex National Security advisers and other people from the intelligence community have all come together to write a document that explains how the Russians DID NOT HACK THE US ELECTIONS!

To hack an election machine requires a USB stick, and has to be done manually, by sticking the USB drive into the machine.

I cannot even imagine tons of Russian sleeper agents on Putin’s orders sitting in polling stations ready to insert these sticks into the provable hackable voting machines.

If you look on a map Russia is quite a long way away from the USA so remote hacking was impossible.

The other tell sign was the download speed that the DNC data was dumped onto a drive. It was too fast for long overseas connections but fast enough for a DNC employee to download it and then leak.

Maybe another look into the unexplained death of DNC worker Seth Rich again.

Maybe he didn’t like what he saw happening at the DNC headquarters and wanted to tell the world how corrupt they were.

Maybe he had nothing to do with it at all, however Julian Assange got pretty upset on the Bill Maher show when talking about him and the risks whistleblowers take giving WikiLeaks information, and offered a reward for details on his death.

There is a reason people call Hillary Clinton, Killary Clinton.

List of bodies associated with the Clintons - Click to read more
Click the image above to read more about Clinton related deaths

Also the CIA’s new secret program, Vault 7 which was just revealed has the power to make any document look like it came from any country in the world i.e Russia.

They could have easily used this system to hack the DNC and make the documents look like they came from Russia.

I would not put it past the CIA to do something like this especially when “they otherthrow governments before breakfast” as Jimmy Dore constantly says.

I will let Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight explain more in the first half of his show.

Do you expect apologies from people like Rachel Maddow who bleated on about Russia for months?

Why were the journalists more concerned with where the data came from and not what it said.

Everyone now knows that the DNC is just another corrupt organisation who rigged the game so that Hillary would get her chance at a run and not Bernie, the most popular politician in the country.

They revealed the fact that the super delegates are there to prevent such an occurrence from happening and that the Democrats are not Democratic at all.

They are just sore losers who wanted someone to blame i.e Russia, rather than look at their lack of policies that didn’t inspire people to vote for the most hated politician in the USA.

Isn’t that funny, the Democrats had both the most popular and unpopular politicians to chose from and they chose the latter. I wonder why they lost……

Well I just hope we can hear some apologies on the US nightly news shows about their coverage of Russia – LOL!

To read the article on the original Dark Politrick site which is constantly under attack (3 blogs from Google, 2 from here, 1 G+ community, 3 Facebook pages and multiple bans) all for speaking out about the empire > Read this.

By Dark Politricks

© 2017 Dark Politricks

Advertisements

Antipsychotic drugs found in Nurofen painkillers

August 26, 2011

By Dark Politricks

Anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel XL 50mg, has been found within some Nurofen Plus packets

Anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel XL 50mg, has been found within some Nurofen Plus packets (Photograph: SPL)

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has advised people to be extra vigilant following reports that the anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel XL 50mg, has been found within some Nurofen Plus packets.

Three batches of the painkiller, which is available to purchase in pharmacies across the UK, have been affected.

The Seroquel XL 50mg tablets, manufactured by AstraZeneca, are prescription only and used to treat such illnesses as schizophrenia, mania and bipolar depression (or manic depression).

The effected batches of Nurofen and their product licence no’s are listed below.

EFFECTED BATCHES
Pack size Batch number Expirary date Product Licence No.
32 tablets 13JJ 03/2014 00327 / 0082
32 tablets 57JJ 05/2014 00063 / 0376
32 tablets 49JJ 05/2014 00063 / 0376

Seroquel XL 50mg tablets are large, capsule-shaped and can be identified by their gold and black packaging.

The smaller Nurofen Plus tablets can be identified by their silver and black packaging.

Patients have been advised to contact their GP if they suspect they have taken any affected tablets.

Ian Holloway, from the MHRA’s Defective Medicines Report Centre (DMRC), said:

“People should check to see if they have any affected packets of Nurofen Plus. If you do, return them to the pharmacy where you bought them from. You can also report this to the MHRA’s DMRC on 020 3080 6574.”

A spokeswoman for the MHRA said that GPs should explain the possible side-effects to any patients who may have mistakenly taken the anti psychotic.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said that although a single dose of Seroquel shouldn’t be an issue for healthy patients, patients taking other medicines should consult their GP.

Neal Patel, a pharmacist from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said:

“For a healthy adult a single dose of Seroquel is unlikely to cause major problem, however, for patients taking other medicines or those with other medical conditions or if you suspect you may have accidentally taken Seroqel and feel unwell, seek advice from your pharmacist or doctor as soon as possible.”

From www.seroquelxr.com

SEROQUEL XR is a once-daily tablet approved in adults for

  1. add-on treatment to an antidepressant for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who did not have an adequate response to antidepressant therapy;
  2. acute depressive episodes in bipolar disorder;
  3. acute manic or mixed episodes in bipolar disorder alone or with lithium or divalproex;
  4. long-term treatment of bipolar disorder with lithium or divalproex; and
  5. schizophrenia.

SEROQUEL is approved for

  1. acute depressive episodes in bipolar disorder in adults;
  2. acute manic episodes in bipolar disorder in adults when used alone or with lithium or divalproex;
  3. acute manic episodes in bipolar disorder in children and adolescents ages 10 to 17 years;
  4. long-term treatment of bipolar disorder in adults with lithium or divalproex;
  5. schizophrenia in adults and
  6. schizophrenia in adolescents ages 13-17 years.

Important Notes

Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis (having lost touch with reality due to confusion and memory loss) treated with this type of medicine are at an increased risk of death, compared to placebo (sugar pill). SEROQUEL XR and SEROQUEL are not approved for treating these patients.

Antidepressants have increased the risk of suicidal thoughts and actions in some children, teenagers, and young adults. Patients of all ages starting treatment should be watched closely for worsening of depression, suicidal thoughts or actions, unusual changes in behavior, agitation, and irritability.

Patients, families, and caregivers should pay close attention to any changes, especially sudden changes in mood, behaviors, thoughts, or feelings. This is very important when an antidepressant medicine is started or when the dose is changed. Report any change in these symptoms immediately to the doctor. SEROQUEL XR is not approved for patients under the age of 18 years. SEROQUEL is not approved for patients under the age of 10 years.

The side effects of SEROQUEL can include:

High fever; stiff muscles; confusion; sweating; changes in pulse, heart rate, and blood pressure.

These may be symptoms of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), a rare and serious condition that can lead to death.

If you experience any of these side effects then stop taking SEROQUEL XR or SEROQUEL (or Nurofen) and call your doctor right away.

Other side effects can include:

Weight gain, the inability to control parts of your face, tongue, or any other body parts, feeling dizzy or lightheaded upon standing, decreases in white blood cells (which can be fatal), or trouble swallowing.

For SEROQUEL, the most common side effects in adults are drowsiness, dry mouth, dizziness, constipation, weakness, abdominal pain, a sudden drop in blood pressure upon standing, sore throat, weight gain, sluggishness, abnormal liver tests, and upset stomach.

The most common side effects in children and adolescents are drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue, increased appetite, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, rapid heartbeat, and weight gain.

I’m only speculating here (and wildly) but be careful people. This is probably just a mix up in the packing factory or some malevolent fool causing havoc but we already know what our societies are capable of.

They already drug our water against our wishes and it would be no surprise whatsoever if they started mixing in anti-pyschotics and anti-depressants into commonly taken over the counter drugs as well. Hard times are coming and a dumbed down drooling and ill population incapable of fighting back the authorities when the shit hits the fan would be just the ideal ticket to prevent the kind of riots in the UK and Greece we have just witnessed.

If you have recently bought Nurofen then check the pack and ensure you are safe.

Experiments that help prove the case for a controlled demolition of WTC-7

June 8, 2011

By Dark Politricks

I have been having an interesting debate over on an article I wrote some time back called 9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles.

History is full of examples that prove an event like 9.11 is well within the realms of possibility.  Sociopaths and psychopaths are attracted to power and our politicians and leaders would never top any poll for moral behaviour.

Our intelligence agencies engage in nefarious and underhand activities all the time and it would come as no surprise to me to find out that 9.11 could have been ordered or allowed for some misguided reason such as the PNAC call for a New Pearl Harbour to re-build America’s defences.

However like most people who have looked into the events surrounding 9.11 I have found the collapse of WTC-7 to be the biggest thorn in the side of the official story.

Like a lot of people I find it very hard to accept the official explanation for the collapse of WTC-7 especially when I watch it side by side with videos of controlled demolitions of similar sized buildings.

The official story is that a new phenomenon came into existence on 9.11 and the WTC-7 building suffered a fire induced progressive collapse.

Having not seen any other videos of high rise buildings that have collapsed due to fire alone I have nothing to compare and contrast the videos of WTC-7 with and like most people I have been brought up to believe that if it looks like a cat, walks like a cat and purrs like one it usually is a cat.

We can quibble over the odd split second or two when it comes to “freefall descent” but when it comes to watching a building collapse evenly and uniformly into it’s own footprint at speeds indistinguishable from freefall rather than slowly and unevenly towards the point of least resistance, which should have been the weakened corner of the building, we have a right to ask questions.

Most of the evidence has now been destroyed, shipped away or buried and anyone wanting to answer the question of WTC-7 is left with two choices. Make a computer model like NIST did and which they still haven’t released the source code for and prove your theory with flashy graphics, by excluding parts of the building and loading the parameters or carry out our own experiments to prove or rule out parts of the official story.

Whilst coming up with my latest reply to a comment which was in response to a request for proof that thermite can cut through steel I came across this wonderful video.

Made by an engineer, it uses physical experiments to test the theories put forward by NIST and 9.11 investigators including:

  • Can Thermite cut through Steel – Yes it can.
  • Can the sulphuric residue found in the dust and on the piece of debris that looked like Swiss cheese be from materials found within the building rather than Thermite or Nano Thermate – Seemingly no.
  • Would super large quantities of Thermite or Themate be required to bring down a building the size of WTC-7 – No.

As the video author says at the end himself:

“isn’t it time we use physical science rather than political science to investigate 9.11”.

This video is proof that the physical science backs up the theory.

Derren Brown proves how programmable the Human Being really is

January 9, 2011

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched Derren Browns “The Heist” in which through a process of conditioning over a couple of weeks which included subtle and not so subtle suggestion, mental triggers and staged scenarios he managed to get a number of middle management types to rob a security guard with a replica gun on TV.

If you haven’t seen it it’s well worth a watch and just goes to show how programmable the human being really is. The average joe wouldn’t be able to trigger these kinds of acts in their fellow man but those with the means and knowledge such as Derren Brown do.

Luckily for us Derren Brown only uses his “powers” for showmanship but I can just imagine the sorts of things he could get up to if he wanted to use them for money making or power gaining reasons.

Obviously Derren has trained himself in all these techniques over a number of years and for those people in the know the techniques he uses are well known and some are as old as civilisation itself. Whilst many people skilled in these arts try to pass them off as magic, physic abilities or even super natural powers Derren at least admits quite openly that that they are nothing of the sort. Over time anyone with the patience and will could learn how to cold read, implant suggestions and control those people who are more susceptible to persuasion or in highly motivated or emotional states to carry out certain acts.

Big business and marketing companies use various physiological stimuli in their advertising all the time and well trained politicians will use well known techniques to make themselves come over as trustworthy, honest and personable when in reality they are nothing of the sort. We can look at the dictators of the 1930’s to see how the power of the crowd combined with emotional speeches during huge rallies was utilised to enact feelings of belonging, power and destiny in a population that had been indebted and stripped of previous significance.

With modern technology we have the ability to be programmed on various levels in more and more scenarios and through new devices all the time. With more and more people abandoning the TV set as their primary means of passive entertainment and moving to the computer, playstation, 3D movies and coming soon virtual reality, we can expect all the various methods of persuasion and triggering to increase in strength.

It might be one thing to passively watch a TV advertisement in 2D that has certain music, words and imagery and consciously recognise it for what it is but once the use of virtual reality becomes a modern recreation activity and people use Virtual Reality sets in their houses like kids currently play on their Wii’s then I can just imagine how much more powerful and effective these forms of unconscious persuasion and maybe coercion will become.

For those people who fall for the common garden mind reading trick and believe they are really talking to their dead Mother or believe Jesus has really entered their body when hands are laid the technological tools of the future can only pose a certain kind of threat to their well being.

If there are any real life Lex Luthors out there or evil versions of Derren Brown trying to get a gig at the next Bilderberg conference then the future years will be a profitable and potential boom time. Remember we are just blood and bones and our brains are the most advanced computer known at the present time. As with all computers it can be programmed and re-programmed.

NIST Admits their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics

August 1, 2010

By Dark Politricks

This snippet of David Ray Griffins essay is specifically about the 2.4 second free fall decent of WTC-7 which if one believes the official 9/11 story means that a miracle occurred when this building collapsed as it ignored the laws of physics for over 2.4 seconds.

Even if some readers question whether the two previously discussed features of the collapse of WTC 7, when understood within the framework of NIST’s fire theory, imply miracles, there can be no doubt about a third feature: the now-accepted (albeit generally unpublicized) fact that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds.

Although members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that this building descended at the same rate as a free-falling object, or at least virtually so, NIST had long denied this. As late as August 2008, when NIST issued its report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment, it claimed that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”52

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”54 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”55 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.)

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”57 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle – meaning a violation of physical principles. Explaining one of the physical principles involved, Chandler said:

“Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.”58

That was what Sunder himself had explained, on NIST’s behalf, the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. But NIST then in November, while still under Sunder’s leadership and still defending its fire theory of WTC 7’s collapse, agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”59

Besides pointing out that the free fall descent of WTC 7 implied that the building had been professionally demolished, Chandler observed that this conclusion is reinforced by two features of the collapse mentioned above:

“[P]articularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. . . . The building went from full support to zero support, instantly. . . . One moment, the building is holding; the next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall. . . . The onset of free fall was not only sudden; it extended across the whole width of the building. . . . The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width. The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed . . . simultaneously, within a small fraction of a second.”60

For its part, NIST, knowing that it had affirmed a miracle by agreeing that WTC 7 had entered into free fall, no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. Back in its August draft, in which it was still claiming that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said – in a claim made three times – that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”61 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by affirming absolute free fall while continuing to deny that either incendiaries or explosives had been employed, is not consistent with basic principles of physics.

Accordingly, now that it is established that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds, one cannot accept the official theory, according to which this building was not professionally demolished, without implying that at least one miracle happened on 9/11.

George Monbiot, as we saw, described members of this movement as “morons” who “believe that [the Bush regime] is capable of magic.” Unless Monbiot, upon becoming aware of NIST’s admission of free fall, changes his stance, he will imply that al-Qaeda is capable of magic.

Matthew Rothschild said he was “amazed” at how many people hold the “profoundly irrational and unscientific” belief that “Building 7 . . . came down by planted explosives.” Given the fact that progressive members of the 9/11 Truth Movement “so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming,” Rothschild continued, it is “more than passing strange that [they] are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

NIST’s report on WTC 7, however, provided the final proof that the 9/11 Truth Movement had been right all along – that those progressives who credulously accept the Bush-Cheney administration’s explanation for WTC 7’s collapse are the ones who “abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

View the full essay at Dark Politricks

Question – Do you deny the laws of physics?

April 4, 2010

By Dark Politricks

This article and the videos contained within should be compulsory viewing for anyone who believes that any talk of controlled demolitions in relation to the World Trade Center is the crazy talk of tin foil hat wearing loons. Its a collection of clips, news stories, talks and links that cover the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11th. The aim of the article is not to accuse anyone behind the attacks but to show that logic and science backs the view that the buildings did not fall from the hijacked planes alone.

The first video is a 10 minute condensed overview of a much longer talk held by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth that detail the many flaws in the official story as well as the evidence that points towards controlled demolition in World Trade Center 7.

This is the building which many in the 9/11 truth movement treat as the smoking gun that proves complicity in the attacks and by the end of the article you will see why. Remember this is the 47 storey skyscraper that was not hit by any plane and was the third steel beamed tall building to collapse that day, supposedly from fire alone.

Leave aside co-incidences that all 3 buildings were heavily insured and owned by the same person who “admitted” that building seven was pulled.

Also leave aside the damage to the American psyche that was obtained through the collapse of the huge potent symbols that the WTC represented to the world and leave aside all talk of NORAD stand downs, US training for the terrorists and ignored warnings as well as a desire to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq that required a pretext for doing so. Lets just look at the buildings:

Now I am not an engineer or architect but I would take their educated opinion on matters relating to how buildings are built and how they are destroyed over most other groups of people. These are all well educated people at the height of their chosen profession who have chosen to make a public stand against the official story. Given a choice between following the evidence and keeping quiet to avoid being labelled a conspiracy nut or “truther” they have bravely chosen the former and gone on the road to convince others.

Having looked at the flaws in the NIST report into the collapse of WTC-7 myself I know that the official explanation by NIST does seem to be a blatant attempt to coverup some form of collusion in the collapse of the buildings.

Questions of who and how doesn’t matter right now as it only allows for far fetched theories to propogate and detract new people from investigating the main issues revolving around the evidence that proves demolition. Remember just because there is evidence of controlled demolition it does not logically equate to George Bush being in on it or a huge conspiracy involving lots of people sworn to secrecy. To see why please read the following article of mine on the type of conspiracy involved.

The NIST report into WTC-7 came out not long back and although proponents of the offical story tried to claim it was the final nail in the coffin regarding the smoking gun it did not take long for people to see the various lies, omissions and bad science that the report was based on.

Leaving aside all the lies about their being no witnesses to the explosions at any of the towers when there were many:

Rich Banaciski — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
… and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Greg Brady — E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard — I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Ed Cachia — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Campagna — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.

Kevin Darnowski — Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

Dominick Derubbio — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion …

Karin Deshore — Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.

Brian Dixon — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
… the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

and leaving aside the lie that there were no witnesses or evidence of molten steel:

and leaving aside the peer reviewed scientific study by 25 phsycists that provides evidence that explosives, namely Thermite, was used in the collapse of the World Trade Center:

“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

and leaving aside the dodgy computer model used by NIST to explain the collapse of WTC-7 in which they loaded the input parameters to create a model that didn’t fit the events on the day.

A model for which they still haven’t released the data so that it can be analysed independently.

A model in which the different parts of the building were heated differently causing unnatural thermal expansion and a model in which parts of the building that were in early NIST reports disappeared from the final report.

In all it was a model in which all computer programmers can attest proves that if you put shit data in you get shit data back out. As the non peer reviewed report didn’t even consider controlled demolition or the use of accelerants then it does seem to be an attempt to push a preconceived outcome on the public.

Leaving aside all those inconsistencies and problems I have still not been told by anyone who believes in the official story how a building as large as WTC-7 can collapse at almost free fall speed without having some form of demolition to remove the path of least resistance.

Even the NIST admit that the building falls at free fall speed for a couple of seconds! Saying in their final report that they had found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a “freefall drop for approximately 8 stories.”

This obviously defies all logic unless something had caused the resistance to magically disappear. However without controlled demolitions as the cause of this free fall path it leaves proponents of the official story in a very sticky place having to defend an event that defies all the known laws of physics .

As this famous YouTube video created by a high school physics teacher shows, the building fell at a speed indistinguishable from gravity for over 2 seconds.

Unless the laws of physics are updated soon to give an alternative explanation we are left with the fact that only a controlled demolition can explain this event.

And if we accept that fact then we also have to accept that 3rd parties colluded with the terrorists on that day to ensure these buildings fell.

Obviously this leaves believers in the official conspiracy with an awkward decision.

Either to accept the laws of physics or to deny them because they cannot face the alternative.

Which choice do you make?

New study: a common flame retardant causes infertility

February 2, 2010

S. L. Baker
Natural News
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

So many US women have difficulty becoming pregnant that the fertility industry has become a huge business, raking in between three and five billion dollars a year. Now a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives raises the possibility that a lot of women who can’t have babies could have flame retardant chemicals to blame — specifically, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are commonly found in an alarming number of household consumer products.

In a study involving over 200 women, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) discovered that women with higher blood concentrations of PBDEs took far longer to become pregnant than those with low amounts of the chemicals in their blood. In fact, for every ten-fold increase in blood levels of four PBDE chemicals tested, there was a 30 percent decrease in the odds a woman would conceive a child during a month.

“There have been numerous animal studies that have found a range of health effects from exposure to PBDEs, but very little research has been done in humans. This latest paper is the first to address the impact on human fertility, and the results are surprisingly strong. These findings need to be replicated, but they have important implications for regulators,” the study’s lead author, Kim Harley, said in a statement to the media. Harley is an adjunct assistant professor of maternal and child health and associate director of the Center for Children’s Environmental Health Research at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

PBDEs are a class of organobromine compounds found in foam furniture, electronics, fabrics, carpets, plastics and other common household items. They were commonly added to these and other products as flame retardants after the 1970s when new fire safety standards were implemented in the US.

So how big is the problem of homes contaminated by PBDEs? Unfortunately, it appears to be huge. The chemicals are known to leach out into the environment and accumulate in human fat cells. Previous studies have suggested that 97 percent of U.S. residents have detectable levels of PBDEs in their blood and that the levels in Americans are 20 times higher than in their counterparts in Europe.

The most prevalent form of PBDEs found in the blood of women participating in the UC Berkeley study were from a specific formulation known as a pentaBDE mixture. Both this kind of PBDE and another type, octaBDE, have been banned for use in several states — but they are still widely found in products manufactured before 2004.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally got around to addressing the danger of PBDEs at the end of 2009. Did the agency issue an urgent alarm about products containing the chemicals — even ban them outright to protect consumers? No. Instead, the EPA quietly announced an agreement with three major manufacturers of some forms of PBDEs to phase out production by 2013. Unfortunately, this is clearly too little too late to protect countless Americans from the potential danger of these contaminants.

“Although several types of PBDEs are being phased out in the United States, our exposure to the flame retardants is likely to continue for many years,” said the study’s principal investigator, Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health at the School of Public Health. “PBDEs are present in many consumer products, and we know they leach out into our homes. In our research, we have found that low-income children in California are exposed to very high levels of PBDEs, and this has us concerned about the next generation of Californians.”

What’s more, the scientists pointed out in the press statement that there’s reason to be concerned about additional chemical contaminants in the immediate future. True, PBDEs are being phased out from consumer products — but they are being replaced with other potentially toxic compounds. “We know even less about the newer flame retardant chemicals that are coming out,” said Dr. Harley. “We just don’t have the human studies yet to show that they are safe.”

Water vapour a ‘major cause of global warming and cooling’

January 29, 2010

David Derbyshire
UK Daily Mail
Friday, January 29th, 2010

Climate scientists have overlooked a major cause of global warming and cooling, a new study reveals today.

American researchers have discovered that the amount of water high in the atmosphere is far more influential on world temperatures than previously thought.

Although the findings do not challenge the theory of man-made global warming, they help explain why temperatures can rise and fall so dramatically from decade to decade.

The study, published in the journal Science, says a 10 per cent drop in humidity 10 miles above the Earth’s surface explains why global temperatures have been stable since the start of the century, despite the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And a rise in water vapour in the 1980s and 90s may also explain why temperatures shot up so quickly in the previous two decades, they say.

Full article here

TuneUp Utilities 2010

Temperature and CO2 feedback loop ‘weaker than thought’

January 28, 2010

Roger Harrabin
BBC
Thursday, January 28th, 2010

The most alarming forecasts of natural systems amplifying the human-induced greenhouse effect may be too high, according to a new report.

The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2.

It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming – but much less than recent research has suggested.

The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.

Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high.

The research, from a team of scientists in Switzerland and Germany, attempts to settle one of the great debates in climate science about exactly how the Earth’s natural carbon cycle will exacerbate any man-made warming.

Full article here

Scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

January 24, 2010

Watts Up With That?

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

The IPCC is now damaged goods. Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up.

The Daily Mail’s David Rose in the UK broke this story, it is mind boggling fraud to prod “government action” and grants. Emphasis in red mine.

Scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

From the Daily Mail

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

View the original article at Watts Up With That?