Search results

  1. Lusikka

    Jessica Schab former 'crystal child' embraces the new atheists

    And here is still another case: Confessions of an Ex-Woo by Sharon Sifford May, 2005 http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=208
  2. Lusikka

    Jessica Schab former 'crystal child' embraces the new atheists

    Being ignorant it is possible to flip to the opposite, with a lot of suffering. And remain ignorant even further. Here is another case: Karla McLaren: Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures https://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_the_chasm_between_two_cultures
  3. Lusikka

    Poltergeists - different cases

    I have studied two cases in Finland. They were rather strong and also "solved"; it means they could be finished by certain methods. As unbelievable as it sounds so the first case was finished by removing the witch-bag and in the second case a psychic took the two spirits with her into her home...
  4. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Ok, you may be right. I remember somebody else has got the longer time. The real situation is naturally quite different. Much, perhaps most of the mass landed outside of the footprints. Much energy was wasted in pulverization of concrete and drywall plus forming the pyroclastic-like dust clouds.
  5. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    That is not quite true. You must take into account conservation of momentum in inelastic collisions. The falling mass must take the mass of the new floor with it and that brakes the falling. For twin towers the collapse time would have been in the order of 30 seconds if I remember right. I tried...
  6. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Thank you for your answer. It seems we cannot settle anything at all in this discussion because you don’t discuss details. Above is the only detail in your post and you are right in it. But you ignored two things: 1. The twin towers collapsed with acceleration, not in freefall but in near...
  7. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Thank you Linda for your answer but unfortunately you wrote only on the general level. In an advancing discussion there are also details required. Examples? Examples of those eyewitness accounts? What findings in the rubble? I have not seen you applying science – physics or metallurgy –...
  8. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    I agree – physical evidence is more reliable than eyewitness accounts. But what kind of evidence you are referring to? Well, you have not withheld your judgment. For example, you said Gross was not telling a lie. I think I have already answered that. It is very simple – applying science and...
  9. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Sorry, you have never commented videos, so I thought you don't watch them at all. It is a pity you don't watch the Truther videos and don't have a possibility to understand the scientific foundations of their investigations. It is a preposterous interpretation to say that Gross did not tell a...
  10. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    You have some problems here. You are not interested at all because you have not watched the videos in which you could have seen very accurately what has actually happened. You don't understand what science is able to do, this time the science called metallurgy. You use daily the fruits of...
  11. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    I think the following has happened: the blast pressure wave has come from behind and right and has thrown the plastic partly away. The cars have burned like houses in a medieval city, they have been so near each other. The fire has stopped before it has reached the nearest cars.
  12. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Fair and accurate presentation? You have not seen WTC7 collapsing and the NIST simulations of it? Better only read the NIST report? You have not seen the collapses of the twin towers? Better only read theoretical papers about them? Weird. They are telling official stories and for you they are...
  13. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Exactly! Debunkers never take the big picture into account. They always concentrate on one thing, without connections to other things logically supporting your claim. I tried to tell Linda about the connections of the molten steel and she called it "fallacious inference", without knowing...
  14. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    It is laudable that you have altered your habit to post only links! As I see it, your analysis is not complete. The stoichiometry is OK, but there is also the energetic side. The reaction produces a high temperature and that energy can smelt more steel, especially if there is also sulfur in the...
  15. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    If you had watched more videos so you would not be so ignorant about what really and certainly has happened and has been found there. You don't have expertise enough to understand metallurgy and therefore you are dependent on authority and official stories. You are unable to evaluate the facts...
  16. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    And you don't know how to break that circle? You must break your dependence on it. You must learn something yourself and know the basic properties of things and processes. I have understood that you don't watch 9/11 videos. That would be an unwise decision because now you don't know what...
  17. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Well, this is the first post I can remember when you have some details for discussion – fine. There are serious problems in your hypothesis: 1. The rubble consisted mainly of steel beams and aluminum. They are the most probable metals being melted, but for demolition it was necessary to melt...
  18. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    I have not called you a liar and I don't think so either. There are two possibilities why you have written so special posts concerning the molten steel: you have not understood the certainty and significance of the observations or you have been dishonest. I meant the possibility that you have an...
  19. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    Fine, you got that. Unfortunately this reveals that you have not understood the substance of many earlier posts. Molten steel claim? You are unable to understand the basics of metallurgy and therefore you think the molten steel is only a claim. You must have read in many earlier posts about...
  20. Lusikka

    9/11 Discussion Thread

    That the flowing substance would have been molten aluminum is a possibility only in the wishful imagination of debunkers. That white-orange color simply is not possible for molten aluminum in daylight. The color is not possible for burning or glowing organic matter either because the flow fell...
Back
Top