Archive for the 'Miscelaneous' Category
The first five issues of the “Zetetic Scholar”, published by Marcello Truzzi, are available online for download on George Hansen’s website. As Luis Ruiz Noguez points out:
“The consulting editors are impressive. We see an incredible and unrepeatable mix of believers and skeptics of all camps of the paranormal world: Milbourne Christopher (magician and skeptic), Persi Diaconis (mathematician and skeptic), Martin Ebon (writer and editor of paranormal subjects), Christopher Evans (magician and skeptic), Martin Gardner (science writer and skeptic), Michel Gauquelin (astrologist), Bernard Heuvelmans (criptozoologist), Ray Hyman (psychologist and skeptic), J. Allen Hynek (ufologist), David M. Jacobs (ufologist), Edward J. Moody (parapsychologist), Charles T Tart (parapsychologist) y Ron Westrum (writer in paranormal subjects).”
Popularity: 2% [?]No comments
Astrona is an online collection of space and astronomical art, science fiction art, visions of future worlds, design and visualization of technologies for living in space, space exploration, spaceships, starships, space colonies and everything. Seen above, the work of Alexander Preuss. Of course, flying saucers and alien worlds and beings, as well as psychedelic art also feature proeminently. All fascinating.
Popularity: 3% [?]1 comment
Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.
– Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest (CBC)
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. And it turns out this is one bizarre incident where the Canadian police was caught red-handed with officers disguised among protesters.
Their official statement is that “at no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts”. But obviously holding a big rock in your hand while wearing a mask is a sort of instigation for violence.
Popularity: 1% [?]No comments
You can watch above the controlled implosion of the “Landmark Tower”, a 30 story building more than a 100 meters tall. The show happened in March 2006, and conspiracy websites all over the internet excitedly compare that to the colapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.
Though there are indeed some similarities, there are also notable differences. As you can check on other videos of the implosion of the Landmark Tower, here or over here, on a controlled demolition the building collapses from bottom up, and the whole structure crumbles easily while it falls — because the initial rounds of explosives already weakened it so much that it barely stands when the final rounds are detonated. They are controlled implosions.
In contrast, on the Twin Towers fall, the collapse started around the area hit by the planes, and one can see clearly that both the structure above and below the collapsing zone remains more or less intact, until it’s hit by the falling floor above or approaches the ground and join the rubbles.
As you can watch above, the collapse happened because of the weakening of the steel structure of the building, due to the prolonged heat of the uncontrolled fires.
This explanation, strongly refuted by conspiracy theorists, is clearly demonstrated by many incidents where fires weakened and caused the collapse of metallic structures like bridges, or the Oakland overpass. Those lessons are humorously approached on the 4/29truth.com website.
Though we can compare them to many known events and knowledge, it’s true that the attack and the subsequent fall of the Twin Towers was a unique event in many aspects, if only for their scale. It’s no wonder that seems so counter-intuitive, but one of the most counter-intuitive aspects — the fact they fell amost straight down — has one simple physics answer. And it’s related to their scale.
There was no chance of either tower tipping over, for a 500,000-ton building has too much inertia to fall any way except virtually straight down.
[Did you know?]
Each of the towers were four times higher than the Landmark Tower imploded at the begging of this post. Similarities, indeed, but also notable differences.
Popularity: 1% [?]No comments