Xooxer's Lair

Fetzer on 9/11

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:53:02 GMT

A presentation given by Dr. James H. Fetzer on November 16th, 2005 at the University of Minnesota-Duluth about the events of 9/11.

We Won't Go Quietly

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:18:08 GMT

9/11, an event that never should have happened in a nation with the greatest defense network in the history of humanity, is still considered by some to be an attack by a handful of cave-dwelling Arabic terrorists, even though there's no evidence to support this claim. What evidence does exists suggest the attack was a false-flag event perpetrated by a rouge faction within our own government.

Deniers would have you believe that the official story is the only rational explanation, but these sheeple have never done their homework. They get their information from the mainstream media, the same media that knew these buildings were going to collapse, the "official" cause of the collapse and the evil terrorist "mastermind" who was behind it while the events were still unfolding. They don't bother to ask the hard questions, and attack anyone who does.

Police officers, firefighters, rescue personnel, news anchors and others on the ground and around the event not only claim to have witnessed explosions, but also predicted the collapse of the buildings themselves. Think about this for a minute. Emergency personnel and the media knew before it happened, that a collapse was going to take place. Never in the history of the world has any steel framed building collapsed due to fire. There is no precedent to make these people believe that fire could cause collapse. That's like predicting the collapse of the stock market based on information that isn't available until after the collapse.

These buildings fell in record time. This is enough to disprove the official story. If you believe a 110 story building can fall in 10 seconds without explosives, you should go back to your physics books. The official story claims that the floors failed one after another, crashing down on top of each other, even though the architecture of the towers makes this impossible. They claim that this "progressive collapse" explains the collapse, even though if such a collapse occurred, it would have taken much longer than 10 seconds to complete. Why? Because floors crashing down onto steel and concrete are acted on by an equal and opposing force. This means as the floors collapse, they are being opposed by the floors below. This resistance would add more time to the collapse, though as we have all seen, no resistance was ever met. The floors below the collapse acted as if they didn't exist, allowing the towers to fall at free-fall speed.

Watch. Listen. Question. Demand answers before it's too late. Your future is at risk, and your duty as a citizen of the free world requires you to be diligent. If you fail to hold your government accountable for this tragedy, you're no better than the Nazi appeasers from WWII.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815

Ignorant posts, personal attacks and disinformation will be removed without further warning, and the posters will be banned. Either discuss the facts calmly, or don't bother commenting.

911 Whisltblower

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:42:12 GMT

http://www.guba.com/watch/ 3000008046?duration_step=0&fields= 23&filter_tiny=0&pp=40&query=911%20whistleblower&sb=10&set=- 1&sf=0&size_step=0&o=0&sample=1214692872:c0b4d3578dd24234a113ad15555ccfadb37046a1

ADHD? Maybe try green tea.

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:43:39 GMT

I usually don't bother listening to more than a second or two of this windbag, but this piece has some merit. I've suspected that ADD and ADHD were being attributed to more people than they should, and according to this report, only a fraction of those diagnosed are genetically disposed to them. If you're being told you have ADD or ADHD, you might want to see if a change in diet and exercise will help.

Oh Jp. How little you know....

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:34:44 GMT

JP worte in Hazman's blog:
> His approach to quantum physics is just as irritatingly asinine. No, you can't extract energy from 'zero-point energy'. It's the zero. It's by definition worth nothing!

The zero does not stand for "nothing". Look at the equations. It's 1/2 a quanta of energy. There are ways of extracting energy from this quantum flux, as the Casimir effect has already proven. It has many effects that we can take advantage of, pressure being one form.

You see zero and you think it means nothing, but what it really means is a vacuum. If you call it the quantum vaccum, or quantum flux, it's harder to write off with a simple trite logical fallacy.

People must love being proven wrong....

What do you see?

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:53:16 GMT

This is one of the hardest pieces of evidence against the official story to date. This clearly shows a controlled demolition. No other theory fits the observation. Fire does not do this, and the only report to indicate fire as a cause of collapse stated that it had a very low probability of being the cause. The official report from NIST did not explain the collapse, and no real investigation has been conducted to discover the true cause.

Since this building was obviously destroyed intentionally from within, we must assume the others were as well. Police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel and even the mainstream media all predicted this collapse well before it happened. Considering there has never been any structure of this nature collapsing due to fire, their predictions can only indicate prior knowledge, and some level of involvement with the conspiracy. Whether that involvement was conscious or not makes no difference, fore-knowledge of the event means only one thing: an inside job.

It's blatantly clear now that 9/11 was perpetrated by us. It's the basis for all policies and wars since, and is the key defining moment of this millennium. If you continue to ignore the evidence, to remain complacent in your ignorance and denial of the facts, you are enabling the terrorists who attacked us and, as far as I am concerned, are a traitor to this nation and everything it stands for and should be put to death for your crimes against humanity.

So, do the right thing. Call your representatives, protest. Research and do the math. The government's story is a pack of lies, and anyone with half a brain cell can see this for themselves. There is no excuse. You are the bane of the future of mankind, and this moment in history is your epic folly. The crime has been committed by your owners, and your complacent attitude enables them to continue to unfurl injustice and violence on the world.

Stop the genocide of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stop the torture we're inflicting on innocent people, prisoners of war, and anyone Bush declares an enemy combatant. Stop the slow and steady decline of the nation and it's economy by bloodthirsty corporate robber barons, and for the love of all that's just and good, stop the neo-con agenda that's hurtling us towards world war and totalitarian global rule.

You have the duty to make things right. It's up to everyone to demand the truth for once. Demand an impartial, independent and thorough investigation before this criminal fascist regime strikes again. The life you save may be your own.

Observe This

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:33:18 GMT

One thing that's fascinated me about quantum theory is the discovery of the observer effect, which has been demonstrated with the famous two-slit experiment.

Basically in this experiment, a single particle of matter, say an electron, is fired at a screen with an electron gun that can shoot single particles. Between the screen and the gun is a board with two tiny slits parallel to each other. The electron can go through either slit and strike the screen on the other side, leaving a tiny mark we can measure, or it will hit the board and stop. It could also miss the board and the screen, or never even make it out of the gun in the first place.

These many different paths each electron can take has a certain probability associated with it. The electron going through the left slit, for example, could be orders of magnitude more likely to occur than the electron missing the board and screen completely. You can change these probabilities by changing the arrangement of the gun, board and screen, or by defining a determined path for the electron in some manner, perhaps with an electric field.

Now, the experiment sounds pretty simple at this point. You can easily imagine the electron as a tiny ball flying through one of the slits in the board and leaving a mark on the screen. You can see how it might bounce off the board instead and never hit the screen. You can see, if not easily, that the electron could miss everything, or never leave the gun, however unlikely that is to occur.

So, what would you expect to find when you actually run this experiment? You'd be in fine company if you say the electron will leave a single mark on the screen where it hits, and that running this experiment many times will result in two solid lines on the screen where the balls went through the slits and hit the screen. Most people would assume this is what is most likely to happen, given the setup described. What really happens, however, is far stranger than anything you could imagine.

The electron does go through one slit, yes, but it also goes through the other, and bounces off the board, and misses the board, and never leaves the gun, all at the same time.

Instead of a two lines marking the screen, showing where the particles went through the slits, we get bands of interference when we carry this experiment out over and over. This can only mean that something is interfering with the electron as it travels through the experiment, and since we're only sending one electron through at a time, it must be the electron itself that's the source of this interference.

The electrons are interfering with themselves in some way to cause a wave pattern to occur, even when we fire only one electron through the experiment at a time. Instead of matter behaving like a solid ball, it's behaving like a wave. Light can do the same thing, but but light's just weird anyways. That this happens with solid matter is proving even weirder.

"Blasphemy!" you cry. How can a single particle do all that at the same time? The secret lies in the way the quantum world works. It all has to do with probability. Since each of these outcomes is likely to a certain degree, they're all present in the actual outcome to that degree. A particle can be described as a packet of probability, with all of it's various wave states present to some degree relative to it's current environment. By combining the possible wave states together in proportion with their probability, we get what we now recognize as a particle. A fuzzy little bundle of energy with a certain likelihood of being in many places or states at the same time.

But what's this have to do with observers? Ah, someone is paying attention. If you thought quantum theory was strange, you're about to meet the most bizarre discovery ever.

It has been observed (heh) that an observer can alter the probability of an outcome in such a way as to make it most likely. The act of observation changes reality at a fundamental level, so much so that a world with an observer is very different than one without. Let's introduce an observer into our experiment to see if we can find out exactly where these electrons go.

Ok, so let's put a little camera next to the board so we can see the slits. We'll run the experiment a bunch of times, and this time when it creates our interference patter on the screen, like it did last time, we can watch as all these electrons go by and find out what's really going on. Sounds logical enough, so let's do it.

Wait! There's a problem. There's no interference patter now! The electrons make two solid lines on the screen where they went through the slits, but that's it. What? That's exactly what we were expecting to happen the first time we ran this experiment, but we got an interference pattern instead. But when we look at the electrons the pattern doesn't appear, and we're left with two simple lines to represent the slits. How odd. Perhaps the camera is messing with the electrons somehow. Let's take it out and see.

Yep. The presence of the camera seems to cause the two lines to appear, while taking it away shows the interference pattern again. Let's try leaving the camera there, but turning it so it can't see the electrons, just to see if it's the physical presence of the camera's matter, or if it's the camera's observation that's affecting our experiment.

Well, what do you know. Leaving the camera in place, but observing something other than the experiment causes an interference pattern, but turning it to see the experiment causes the two simple lines to appear instead. It's finally clear, the act of observation is somehow affecting the electrons probability in some way.

What's the deal with observers and observation? What qualifies as observation, and is there a way to measure anything without direct observation? How can science remedy this unintuitive anomaly in objective reality? Is there even an objective reality, or could our entire understanding of matter and energy be seriously flawed?

I've wondered if somehow this ability of an observer to alter reality is showing us something about time, and free will. If Michio Kaku is correct in describing time like a flowing river that can fork or whirlpool, are these observer anomalies the mechanism for forking this river of time?

Is consciousness somehow part of this? What does it mean when we make a conscious decision to act? Have we chosen a new time stream apart from the one our spouse has chosen, so that the spouse in the days following after that choice is not really the same person we married? Where does this leave God?

I think I hear baby Jebus crying....

Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:13:53 GMT

Yep. They're making another Terminator. I know this because I just drove through one of the sets. Twice. Looks like there's going to be some sort of action scene set on the Gorge Bridge outside of Taos, NM, the same bridge featured in Natural Born Killers. I can't say for sure what the stunt is going to be, but it almost looks like they might jump the gorge. Maybe not. Hard to tell from the junked cars and piles of dirt they spread around. According to the license plates on the cars they were using, the shot is supposed to be in California. That makes sense since the previous films took place in Cali, for the most part. The crew from the filming are going to be taking over my local pub for their own jolly amusement. Those bastards. It's locals night too. Maybe I should crash it and get some more info....

His name is Robert Paulsen

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:09:00 GMT

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ibvwUyeKe8c

Your Debut Album

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:21:59 GMT

Here's a fun little way to waste some time, come up with your own debut album using nothing but random content from the web. Details and my own results included! Thanks to spittingoutteeth from aethereverywhere.com for the technique.

http://aethereverywhere.com/discuss/showthread.php?tid=71

----------------------------------------------

1 - Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The first random Wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.

2 - Go to Random quotations: http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3
The last four words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album.

If you want to do this again, you'll hit refresh to generate new quotes, because clicking the quotes link again will just give you the same quotes over and over again.

3 - Go to flickr's "explore the last seven days" http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
Third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.

Put it all together, that's your debut album.

----------------------------------------------

Here's what I got on my first try:

Sources:

wiki page for band name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The_Survivors_%28Simon_Raven_novel%29

quote used for album title: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27146.html

image used as album cover: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmariani/2551207856/

While these results could have benefited from a better picture, it's still not too shabby for random picks. What do you come up with?