Black Dog

Uh? What? What's that got to do with anything here?

I think Stannis will take Winterfell but one or both of the Boltons will get away. I think Brienne is going to end up at the Wall and will either head North next year to link up with Bran and company or will be tasked with retrieving Rickon (remember him?)

It didn't "refute" the NIST claim. It disputed it. Without an actual analysis of the metal (which, once again, no one has done and for obvious reasons), it's impossible to know for certain. Pure molten aluminum is silver at it's melting point, it changes colour as it cools, which it would as it started coming into contact with, oh I don't know, the open air. Also, it's worth mentioning the (seemingly obvious) fact that 767s are not constructed of pure aluminum, but aluminum alloys which would in all likelihood appear differently than pure aluminum in a commercial smelter or lab. Again: It is not possible to identify the type of material that is flowing simply by looking at a photo, at least not scientifically and with any degree of certainty. Without that certainty, your entire theory crumbles faster than the towers did. The simple fact that you continue to cling to the claim that material seen coming out of Tower 2 was steel/iron based solely on a photograph and not any actual scientific analysis completely undermines your entire "but...but...but....the science!" schtick. Again: this is a misrepresentation that completely neglects the role the impact two 400,000 pound jets smashing into the towers at 600 miles per hour played in the events of the day. I look forward to your non-response/personal attack.

Way better than something dumb like the Freedom Bridge or some dead veteran. Plus, the traffic reports will be "traffic is pretty backed up along the Gordie from the Canadian side all the way to the spot where you get cheap booze and smokes"

Yes because everyone knows racial discrimination ceased to exist with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Actually I provided such an article earlier that detailed just such an interaction More than 50 of them, in fact. Of course, those interactions highlight exactly what the issue with carding is, so it probably doesn't suit your agenda, whatever the heck it is. Yes they need reasonable grounds to believe you have committed a criminal offense. I have already acknowledged this. It changes nothing. The fact that you think the problem with cops reacting violently to people who get upset with their rights being abrogated is the reaction and not the violation speaks volumes about you. I believe one has the right to assert one's rights when they are being violated and can do so in any manner that does not interfere with the public’s normal activities or with the ordinary and customary use by the public of the place in question. In other words: you certainly have the right to swear at the police. Who cares? None of this white saviour stuff is relevant to the discussion of carding, the subject of this thread and one you continue to avoid addressing.

And even if all 2000 members of AE911 blah blah blah did review the evidence..... BTW Jones isn't a structural engineer or a chemist or metallurgist: he's a physicist. Here's another scientific take down of Jones and his methodology (a controlled demolition, if you will). Not that you need it. Anyone with 10 minutes and half a brain to look at YouTube videos of controlled demolitions can see that the twin towers and WTC7 collapses don't look anything like a CD.

In this case, the offensiveness is the entire point of the joke.

Wut

It wouldn't be very Game of Thrones for the Boltons to actually get their just desserts.

Why can't you answer the question (or nay other one for that matter)?

Sheeple is the free space on the Kook Bingo card.

This is pretty darn funny.

Chemical substances are any materials (in any state - solid, liquid or gas) that have a definite chemical composition. I don't understand why that word is objectionable, but then I'm not as up on Science as you, Dr. Science McSciencerson (PhD in Science) What pray tell am I being ignorant about?

Perhaps you could answer a simple question for once instead of ducking and dodging.

I was having these exact same arguments on this board 7 years ago, so...yeah.

What do those columms have to do with the substance seen in the photos/videos coming out of the side of the WTC? To coin a phrase: think!

For anyone actually interested in real science here's a Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions So the evidence that the substance coming out of the towers wasn't aluminum are studies done on materials that are not the substance coming out of the towers. Again: not an analysis of the material itself, but other materials found on the site where two 100+ story buildings collapsed. I see a teeny flaw there.

Again: there is no scientific evidence of the bolded claim. Stop repeating bald-faced lies.

That's why you need to have a discussion about the concept. Instead, you plug your ears. I'm talking about discussing the definition. You and others can't even be bothered.

For someone who likes to boast about how advanced his scientific knowledge is, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the process, of which falsifiability and peer review are essential elements. Blogs and YouTube videos don't meet that standard.

Science is rigorous process of developing and testing hypothesis.

DP

So do you have a science degree or nah?

What's your background? Where's your degree from and in what discipline?