+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: Felipe_solarmining_chile
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7386
Total Topics: 217
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Modify Profile

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AGelbert

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 482
16
General Discussion / Re: How Long Ago Were We Created?
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:57:40 pm »

Agelbert NOTE:Though it doesn't specifically say it, this video provides more evidence for a young Titan (i.e. Maximum age of in the millions of years, not billions of years  see previous post on this thread) This entertaining video provides some hard scientific facts about Titan (Earth like atmospheric pressure despite low gravity, 98% nitrogen atmosphere, THICKER atmosphere than earth - that WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST if this moon was billions of years old, size comparisons, etc.):


Swimming in Titan's Lakes

Dreksler

Published on May 19, 2017

Titan, moon of Saturn, and is the second largest moon in the Solar System. It has an atmosphere, alive surface and seas and lakes made out of liquid methane and ethane. So then, what would swimming in these lakes be like? Watch the video to find out.

Music: Kevin MacLeod - Ritual

17
General Discussion / Re: How Long Ago Were We Created?
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:25:12 pm »
Titan's surface and atmosphere: Possible ONLY if our solar system is over 4 BILLION of years YOUNGER.

Published on Jan 14, 2015

For the probe landing’s 10th anniversary, a new sequence has been rendered from Huygens’ Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) data. The craft landed on Saturn’s largest moon on 14 Jan 2005. -- Landing Animation: http://goo.gl/6t6XuA

Credit: Erich Karkoschka, DISR team, University of Arizona


Agelbert NOTE:
Why is Titan's surface and atmosphere an embarrassment for the scientists who believe our solar system is 4.6 billion years old? 

SEE BELOW: ;D

How Do We Know Our Solar System Is Young?

SNIPPET:


Quote
Posted on February 6, 2012

One of the most accepted hypothesis or theories in evolutionary science claim our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Many theories have been built around this assumption in order to make predictions of what is out there in space. On the other hand, the Biblical account implies a much younger solar system. Is there evidence for a young solar system? The answer is, “yes!” Evolutionary scientists call it a mystery while creation scientists call it a confirmation.

The old age framework claims an accretion disk appeared which gravity used to flatten into a spinning disk.  From this disk over millions of years they claim, gravity caused planets to form and other objects. Once it reached a certain level or point, the excess gas and dust dissipated and cleared away, leaving the solar system as we observe it today.


Proto-solar solar system accretion disk according to evolutionary theory

The disk, also known as a nebula, then becomes the source from which everything in our solar system was formed. However as science advances, evidence for a young solar system has been causing problems with this hypothesis.  Chemical-change is a good indicator on how old an object is. The Cassini mission with its probe has been one of the amazing tools for discovering what is going on in our solar system!

For one thing, Scientists who have been modelling Titan’s atmosphere have made calculations using old-age assumptions concluded that no methane should be present on Titan rather it should have been used up in the first tens of millions of years of the moon’s history. There is some replenishment going on with the methane which is evaporating off Titan’s surface but not enough to account for the amount detected by the Cassini probe.  There is a lot of chemical-changing activity going on which is why evolutionary scientists were surprised to find so much methane on Titan. Also, methane escaping Titan’s thick atmosphere into space lowers the ten million year range as well.

Read about more embarrassments for the  true believers in the solar system accretion disk theory at link:   
 
https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/how-do-we-know-our-solar-system-is-young/
 


18
Renewables / Re: Wind Power
« on: July 21, 2017, 12:09:18 pm »

Video spotlight: How to build and maintain wind farms 

We’re right at summer’s midpoint, and news this time of year can be a little slow. But these warm weather months don’t mean a slow down for the men and women building and maintaining wind farms.

The long days and clear skies have them forging ahead with new construction and routine upkeep. Here’s a trio of videos providing some insight into what they’re up to:

Xcel Energy shows us the steps that go into building a wind farm:



E.ON takes a look at how you keep [/color]wind turbine blades in tip top shape once a project is up and running:


Finally, Acciona explains how these construction and maintenance procedures let us generate electricity out of thin air: 






19
Who CAN you trust? / Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« on: July 20, 2017, 01:49:32 pm »
Quote
Some of the hardest info to find on earth

This is not a short video, but it is very clear and very well presented. Please take the time to watch it.

This is some of the hardest info to find on earth...

What US food packagers actually put in their "food products."

If you are vulnerable - and many millions are - you may be being set up for serious neurological problems.

This especially effects small children, the elderly, and the chronically ill, but it's a danger to all.

Why haven't you heard this before?

The packaged food industry is bigger than the oil industry and they employ floors full of attorneys and public relations scammers to suppress this information.

Even Ralph Nader couldn't stand the heat when he approached this topic.

The author is a retired neurosurgeon, and author of the book "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills", Dr. Russell Blaylock.

Essential viewing for your health
The every day poisons in packaged food


http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/food-choices/essential-viewing-for-your-health.html

20
Climate Change / Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« on: July 20, 2017, 12:55:44 pm »
Grows FAST in almost all geographic areas, at nearly any altitude = SOLUTION to Global Warming!  
Agelbert NOTE: Although the following post is about duckweed as a bio-fuel source, it is just as important, if not more so, to understand that duckweed is the ONLY plant out there that could actually lower the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This, of course, would be contingent on the banning of the burning of fossil fuels. We know the corrupted powers that be don't want to do that.  >:( But even if they don't, they will soon be FORCED to seek out the plant that is most likely to "sequester Carbon" (what a ridiculous bit of jargon for absorption of CO2!) at a rate that could start us on the way back to 280PPM of CO2 (Pre-industrial levels).

The geo-engineering techno-fix fossil fuel industry SCAM simply will not work. But the fossil fuel industry corrupted governments all over the world will probably try it, which will certainly make some people rich while it makes things worse for the biosphere.

A massive Duckweed production campaign all over presently non-arable land areas would work IF if  banned the burning fossil fuels completely.

That would be the intelligent and prudent thing to do.
So, we can count on our fossil fuel industry corrupted governments to NOT do it. 

I LOVE DUCKWEED!



http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg217/#msg217

Pond-dwelling powerhouse’s genome points to its biofuel potential


Duckweed is a tiny floating plant that’s been known to drive people daffy. It’s one of the smallest and fastest-growing flowering plants   ;D that often becomes a hard-to-control weed in ponds and small lakes. But it’s also been exploited to clean contaminated water and as a source to produce pharmaceuticals. Now, the genome of Greater Duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza) has given this miniscule plant’s potential as a biofuel source a big boost. In a paper published February 19, 2014 in the journal Nature Communications, researchers from Rutgers University, the Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute and several other facilities detailed the complete genome of S. polyrhiza and analyzed it in comparison to several other plants, including rice and tomatoes.

Duckweed, a small, common plant that grows in ponds and stagnant waters, is an ideal candidate as a biofuel raw material.  ;D Photo (at link) by Texx Smith, via flickr
 
Simple and primitive, a duckweed plant consists of a single small kidney-shaped leaf about the size of a pencil-top eraser that floats on the surface of the water with a few thin roots underwater. It grows in almost all geographic areas, at nearly any altitude. Although it’s a flowering plant, it only rarely forms small indistinct flowers on the underside of its floating leaves. Most of the time, it reproduces by budding off small leaves that are clones of the parent leaf. It often forms thick mats on the edges of ponds, quiet inlets of lakes and in marshes. It’s among the fastest growing plants, able to double its population in a couple of days under ideal conditions.

These and other properties make it an ideal candidate as a biofuel feedstock – a raw source for biofuel production. For example, unlike plants on land, duckweeds don’t need to hold themselves upright or transport water from distant roots to their leaves, so they’re a relatively soft and pliable plant, containing tiny amounts of woody material such as lignin and cellulose. Removing these woody materials from feedstock has been a major challenge in biofuel production. Also, although they are small enough to grow in many environments, unlike biofuel-producing microbes, duckweed plants are large enough to harvest easily. ;D

S. polyrhiza turns out to have one of the smallest known plant genomes, at about 158 million base pairs and fewer than 20,000 protein-encoding genes. That’s 27 percent fewer than Arabidopsis thaliana – which, until recently, was believed to be the smallest plant genome – and nearly half as many as rice plants.

Spirodela is one of the smallest plants in the world. Here (at the link)it is displayed with other comparable plants.

 
“The most surprising find was insight into the molecular basis for genes involved in maturation – a forever-young lifestyle,” said senior author Joachim Messing, director of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University.

S. polyrhiza leaves resemble cotyledons, embryonic leaves inside plant seeds that become the first leaves after germination. But where other plants develop other kinds of leaves as they mature, S. polyrhiza’s never progresses and continuously produces cotyledon leaves. This prolonging of juvenile traits is called “neoteny.” S. polyrhiza had fewer genes to promote and more genes to repress the switch from juvenile to mature growth.

“Because of the reduction in neoteny, there is an arrest in development and differentiation of organs. So this arrest allowed us to uncover regulatory networks that are required for differentiation and development,” Messing said.

Also intriguing to the research team were which genes were preserved over time and which were not. Many of the genes responsible for cellulose and lignin production in land dwelling plants were missing,   and there were fewer copies of those that were present. Genes for another compound related to cell walls called “expansins” which are involved with cell wall and root growth were also reduced.

Genes for starch production, on the other hand, were retained and are probably used for creating starch-filled turions, specialized buds produced by aquatic plants for overwintering, enabling them sink to the bottom of ponds and revive in warmer weather. Moreover, despite the reduced number of total genes, S. polyrhiza has more copies of genes for enzymes involved in nitrogen absorption and metabolism than in other plants. This is probably linked to the plant’s ability to utilize excess nitrogen in contaminated waters.


A thorough understanding of the genome and cellular mechanisms of S. polyrhiza could greatly enhance current efforts to recruit duckweed as a biofuel source. Messing estimates that duckweed will be a viable biofuel source within the next five years and points to Ceres Energy Group in New Jersey, which is already producing electricity from duckweed. Understanding which genes produce which traits will allow researchers to create new varieties of duckweed with enhanced biofuel traits, such as increased reduction of cellulose or increased starch or even higher lipid production. Starch can be directly used as a biofuel source and it can be converted to ethanol, the way corn is currently converted to ethanol fuel, but oils would have greater energy than ethanol.

Duckweed is a relatively simple plant with fronds that float on the surface of the water and roots that extend into the water. In the flask on the left, you can see the dormant phase, turions, that have dropped to the bottom. Photo (at link) by Wenquin Wang
 
“Classical breeding or genetics does not apply here because of its clonal propagation and rare flowering, but these organisms can be transformed with DNA,” Messing said. “Therefore, new variants can be created with modified pathways for industrial applications. These variants would be an enhancement over what can be done now.”

This genome was sequenced as part of a DOE Office of Science JGI Community Science Program (CSP) project (formerly the Community Sequencing Program). It exemplifies the collaborative approach and innovative projects that the CSP enables among researchers. Messing pointed to the study’s advances over previous research.

“The sequencing of this genome opens new frontiers in the molecular biology of aquatic plants,” said Messing. “This publication represents the single largest advance in this field and a new milestone in plant molecular biology and evolution, as previous studies were either classical botany or biochemistry of photosynthesis. The placement of the Spirodela genome as a basal monocot species will serve as a new reference for all flowering plants.”

A video interview with Messing on the promise of duckweed can be found here:

The authors on the publication also include researchers from MIPS/IBIS, Helmholtz Center Munich, Germany; University of California, Davis; Georgia Institute of Technology; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Donald Danforth Plant Science Center; University of Jena, Germany, HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology; and the Leibniz-Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Germany.

The DOE Joint Genome Institute has announced a new call for letters of intent for the 2015 Community Science Program, due April 10, 2014. Details of the 2015 CSP call can be found at: http://bit.ly/CSP-15.

The U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, supported by the DOE Office of Science, is committed to advancing genomics in support of DOE missions related to clean energy generation and environmental characterization and cleanup. DOE JGI, headquartered in Walnut Creek, Calif., provides integrated high-throughput sequencing and computational analysis that enable systems-based scientific approaches to these challenges. Follow @doe_jgi on Twitter.

DOE’s Office of Science is the largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov.

Filed Under: News Releases
http://jgi.doe.gov/pond-dwelling-powerhouses-genome-points-biofuel-potential/

21
Renewables / Re: Plant Based Products for a Sustainable civilization
« on: July 20, 2017, 12:54:38 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Although the following post is about duckweed as a bio-fuel source, it is just as important, if not more so, to understand that duckweed is the ONLY plant out there that could actually lower the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This, of course, would be contingent on the banning of the burning of fossil fuels. We know the corrupted powers that be don't want to do that.  >:( But even if they don't, they will soon be FORCED to seek out the plant that is most likely to "sequester Carbon" (what a ridiculous bit of jargon for absorption of CO2!) at a rate that could start us on the way back to 280PPM of CO2 (Pre-industrial levels).

The geo-engineering techno-fix fossil fuel industry SCAM simply will not work. But the fossil fuel industry corrupted governments all over the world will probably try it, which will certainly make some people rich while it makes things worse for the biosphere.

A massive Duckweed production campaign all over presently non-arable land areas would work IF if  banned the burning fossil fuels completely.

That would be the intelligent and prudent thing to do.
So, we can count on our fossil fuel industry corrupted governments to NOT do it. 

I LOVE DUCKWEED!



http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg217/#msg217

Pond-dwelling powerhouse’s genome points to its biofuel potential


Duckweed is a tiny floating plant that’s been known to drive people daffy. It’s one of the smallest and fastest-growing flowering plants   ;D that often becomes a hard-to-control weed in ponds and small lakes. But it’s also been exploited to clean contaminated water and as a source to produce pharmaceuticals. Now, the genome of Greater Duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza) has given this miniscule plant’s potential as a biofuel source a big boost. In a paper published February 19, 2014 in the journal Nature Communications, researchers from Rutgers University, the Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute and several other facilities detailed the complete genome of S. polyrhiza and analyzed it in comparison to several other plants, including rice and tomatoes.

Duckweed, a small, common plant that grows in ponds and stagnant waters, is an ideal candidate as a biofuel raw material.  ;D Photo (at link) by Texx Smith, via flickr
 
Simple and primitive, a duckweed plant consists of a single small kidney-shaped leaf about the size of a pencil-top eraser that floats on the surface of the water with a few thin roots underwater. It grows in almost all geographic areas, at nearly any altitude. Although it’s a flowering plant, it only rarely forms small indistinct flowers on the underside of its floating leaves. Most of the time, it reproduces by budding off small leaves that are clones of the parent leaf. It often forms thick mats on the edges of ponds, quiet inlets of lakes and in marshes. It’s among the fastest growing plants, able to double its population in a couple of days under ideal conditions.

These and other properties make it an ideal candidate as a biofuel feedstock – a raw source for biofuel production. For example, unlike plants on land, duckweeds don’t need to hold themselves upright or transport water from distant roots to their leaves, so they’re a relatively soft and pliable plant, containing tiny amounts of woody material such as lignin and cellulose. Removing these woody materials from feedstock has been a major challenge in biofuel production. Also, although they are small enough to grow in many environments, unlike biofuel-producing microbes, duckweed plants are large enough to harvest easily. ;D

S. polyrhiza turns out to have one of the smallest known plant genomes, at about 158 million base pairs and fewer than 20,000 protein-encoding genes. That’s 27 percent fewer than Arabidopsis thaliana – which, until recently, was believed to be the smallest plant genome – and nearly half as many as rice plants.

Spirodela is one of the smallest plants in the world. Here (at the link)it is displayed with other comparable plants.

 
“The most surprising find was insight into the molecular basis for genes involved in maturation – a forever-young lifestyle,” said senior author Joachim Messing, director of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University.

S. polyrhiza leaves resemble cotyledons, embryonic leaves inside plant seeds that become the first leaves after germination. But where other plants develop other kinds of leaves as they mature, S. polyrhiza’s never progresses and continuously produces cotyledon leaves. This prolonging of juvenile traits is called “neoteny.” S. polyrhiza had fewer genes to promote and more genes to repress the switch from juvenile to mature growth.

“Because of the reduction in neoteny, there is an arrest in development and differentiation of organs. So this arrest allowed us to uncover regulatory networks that are required for differentiation and development,” Messing said.

Also intriguing to the research team were which genes were preserved over time and which were not. Many of the genes responsible for cellulose and lignin production in land dwelling plants were missing,   and there were fewer copies of those that were present. Genes for another compound related to cell walls called “expansins” which are involved with cell wall and root growth were also reduced.

Genes for starch production, on the other hand, were retained and are probably used for creating starch-filled turions, specialized buds produced by aquatic plants for overwintering, enabling them sink to the bottom of ponds and revive in warmer weather. Moreover, despite the reduced number of total genes, S. polyrhiza has more copies of genes for enzymes involved in nitrogen absorption and metabolism than in other plants. This is probably linked to the plant’s ability to utilize excess nitrogen in contaminated waters.


A thorough understanding of the genome and cellular mechanisms of S. polyrhiza could greatly enhance current efforts to recruit duckweed as a biofuel source.Messing estimates that duckweed will be a viable biofuel source within the next five years and points to Ceres Energy Group in New Jersey, which is already producing electricity from duckweed. Understanding which genes produce which traits will allow researchers to create new varieties of duckweed with enhanced biofuel traits, such as increased reduction of cellulose or increased starch or even higher lipid production. Starch can be directly used as a biofuel source and it can be converted to ethanol, the way corn is currently converted to ethanol fuel, but oils would have greater energy than ethanol.

Duckweed is a relatively simple plant with fronds that float on the surface of the water and roots that extend into the water. In the flask on the left, you can see the dormant phase, turions, that have dropped to the bottom. Photo (at link) by Wenquin Wang
 
“Classical breeding or genetics does not apply here because of its clonal propagation and rare flowering, but these organisms can be transformed with DNA,” Messing said. “Therefore, new variants can be created with modified pathways for industrial applications. These variants would be an enhancement over what can be done now.”

This genome was sequenced as part of a DOE Office of Science JGI Community Science Program (CSP) project (formerly the Community Sequencing Program). It exemplifies the collaborative approach and innovative projects that the CSP enables among researchers. Messing pointed to the study’s advances over previous research.

“The sequencing of this genome opens new frontiers in the molecular biology of aquatic plants,” said Messing. “This publication represents the single largest advance in this field and a new milestone in plant molecular biology and evolution, as previous studies were either classical botany or biochemistry of photosynthesis. The placement of the Spirodela genome as a basal monocot species will serve as a new reference for all flowering plants.”

A video interview with Messing on the promise of duckweed can be found here:

The authors on the publication also include researchers from MIPS/IBIS, Helmholtz Center Munich, Germany; University of California, Davis; Georgia Institute of Technology; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Donald Danforth Plant Science Center; University of Jena, Germany, HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology; and the Leibniz-Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Germany.

The DOE Joint Genome Institute has announced a new call for letters of intent for the 2015 Community Science Program, due April 10, 2014. Details of the 2015 CSP call can be found at: http://bit.ly/CSP-15.

The U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, supported by the DOE Office of Science, is committed to advancing genomics in support of DOE missions related to clean energy generation and environmental characterization and cleanup. DOE JGI, headquartered in Walnut Creek, Calif., provides integrated high-throughput sequencing and computational analysis that enable systems-based scientific approaches to these challenges. Follow @doe_jgi on Twitter.

DOE’s Office of Science is the largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov.

Filed Under: News Releases
http://jgi.doe.gov/pond-dwelling-powerhouses-genome-points-biofuel-potential/

22
Renewables / Re: Electric Vehicles
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:05:37 pm »

4 Passenger Street Legal Golf Cart
PLENTY of room for groceries without passengers  ;D


See many affordable Electric vehicles at their web site:   

http://www.motoelectricvehicles.com/low-speed-vehicles

23
Renewables / Re: Electric Vehicles
« on: July 19, 2017, 02:37:39 pm »
BYD e5

BYD Turns On Warp Speed (China Electric Car Sales Report)

July 17th, 2017 by Jose Pontes

SNIPPET:

The Chinese market had more than 43,000 new EVs zooming the streets last month. With the market growing below expectations, at 16% YoY, this performance from China feels like when LeBron James scores 28 points in an NBA Finals game — it would be a great score for anyone else, but people expect more from the star of the team.

Anyway, the EV market share grew to 1.5% in China, already beating last year’s record (1.45%). Expect that as the year progresses and sales expand, the Chinese PEV market will surpass the 2% share by year end.

This is still a highly protected market, where 93% of sales belong to domestic brands. Of the 7% left for foreign brands, 6% belong to Tesla, with the remaining 1% divided by all other automakers.


Read more:
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/17/byd-turns-warp-speed-china-electric-car-sales-report/

24
Renewables / Re: Photvoltaics (PV)
« on: July 19, 2017, 02:16:34 pm »
Panda-Shaped Solar Power Farm Providing Clean Energy To China
July 18th, 2017 by Steve Hanley


SNIPPET:

China Merchants New Energy Group is one of the largest clean energy companies in China. It is deep into a solar power project that will eventually cover more than 1,500 acres with solar panels. The first phase of construction was completed on June 30 — a 248 acre solar farm that looks like a a giant panda from the air. When complete, several panda-shaped areas will populate the Chinese countryside.
               


https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/18/panda-shaped-solar-power-farm-providing-clean-energy-china/




25
Climate Change / Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« on: July 19, 2017, 12:55:22 pm »
Schroders Launches Climate Progress Dashboard, Tracks Current Course Of 4°C Warming

Global asset manager Schroders has launched its own Climate Progress Dashboard which it has designed to provide investors “a unique insight” into the global progress towards limiting global warming to the 2°C target and the overall progress of the transition to a low-carbon global economy.
July 19th, 2017 by Joshua S Hill

SNIPPET:

Quote
Currently, and somewhat disturbingly, the Dashboard predicts — based on all 12 of the indicators — that Earth is on course to see a temperature rise of 4°C above pre-industrial levels, and double the Paris Climate Agreement. Specifically, according to Schroders, while “global political action points to a 3.6°C temperature rise, current oil and gas production is running at a level consistent with temperature rises twice that level, highlighting the risks that remain inherent in energy companies.”

Unsurprisingly, Schroders also points to the recent decision by US President Donald Trump to withdraw his country from the Paris Climate Agreement.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/19/schroders-launches-climate-progress-dashboard-tracks-current-course-4c-warming/


COMMENTS:  8)

Quote
Steve_S
2C is what they are calling as an "average" but that is not reality. Some areas are already seeing increases far beyond that, as yet, I have not seen a single report that indicates any temperature drops occurring anywhere on this planet.

Considering the vastness of our Oceans and the fact that they are warming every year which requires an extreme amount of energy to do so AND while there is billions of litres of Glacier / Ice Melt dumping in which is a cooler simultaneously, what are we "Bargaining" here ?

Simple enough... Take a pot, put 1 litre of cold water in it and set it on the stove to boil. Takes only a minute or two and voila.... Triple the amount of water & the longer it takes... Start tossing in ice cubes while attempting to boil it, it will take much longer to gain temp... A LOT of heat has to be applied to keep a Temp Increase WHILE adding cold to it !!! Come on, basic grade school science covers this (well used to anyways).

IF you stopped everything that increases global temps TODAY, the momentum / inertia that we have put into affecting the climate, will continue to carry the rising temps forward unabated for decades.

If a 50 Tonne freight car on a rail track is pushed manually to a speed of 15kmh by two men, it takes a while but will get there, now take those two men and set them in front and try to stop it, what happens ? splat ! Will it take 20 ? 30 ? 100? to stop that 50 tonne railcar ? Our Planet, the "Gold Fish bowl" we live in is far more than 50 Tonnes and it took far more than 2 burly lads pushing it to this point.... It will take many many more to stop it.

agelbert > Steve_S
Excellent and accurate analysis of the sad situation we are in. Thank you.
 
Freddy D
Project Drawdown lays out a comprehensive plan to reverse global warming (not just slow emissions). 80 feasible and economical solutions to restore greenhouse gases to a sustainable state.

Well worth a look. EVs are part of the overall solution for sure, but only 6%.

Kurt Lowder > Freddy D
do you agree though that EVs will make batteries much cheaper so they are vital to make battery storage affordable enough for 100% renewable power.

Freddy D  > Kurt Lowder
Absolutely and Project Drawdown shows how 100% renewable energy is 24% of the overall solution. And that cheaper batteries enables that. Oh, it also lays out how much cheaper that will be than today's approach.

It's a great analysis and well worth a look.

agelbert > Freddy D
Excellent! Now THAT is what I call responsible behavior!


What it Means to be Responsible
Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future

Kurt Lowder
i do not think we will get anywhere near 4 degrees celcius. I have seen prices of renewables, batteries, and EVs fall so fast. we are just getting to the point where all these technologies start to take off. we have barely started up the S-curve.
 

agelbert  > Kurt Lowder
I wish I could agree with you, because you are certainly right about the acceleration of the transition to renewables. The problem is that, as Steve_S points out in another comment, in order to stop the climate change inertia at 2C, you have to have stopped emitting GHG pollutants DECADES AGO!

The only way we can keep the lid at 2C, which incredibly dangerous in itself, by the way, is to have some sort of massive international program to reduce our CO2 PPM back to 350 PPM within about 50 years.


There is absolutely no evidence that major world governments have the will to stop polluting (i.e. ADDING CO2 towards 4C PLUS!), never mind financing the reduction of CO2 (e.g. massive duckweed ponding on deserts to jack up CO2 absorption and eventually reduce it to 350 PPM) and other GHG pollutants.

If the governments of the world acted responsibly, this is what they would do:



Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future
What it Means to be Responsible


André Balsa
I think it's important to note that the Schroders "Climate Progress Dashboard" is NOT a scientific tool or model to predict global warming.
The IPCC does provide us with reports which are based on the best current climate science which provide different global warming scenarios according to possible future emissions, usually "low", "medium", "business as usual" and "high" emissions.
4C warming is consistent with the "business as usual" scenario.
It is the responsibility of our generation and of financial institutions such as Schroders to make sure we implement as soon as possible public policies to reduce emissions to levels compatible with the "low" scenario.
 
agelbert  > André Balsa
No, 4C is NOT consistent with the "business as usual" scenario. IPCC modelling is ridiculously low balling the RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways). WHY? Because they exclude several positive feedback loops that are now being observed. The amount of ice melt we NOW have was predicted for 2050! And that is in RCP 8.5 ("business as usual"). And they admit the ice melt from Greenland hasn't even been included in any of the models!

Furthermore, the temperature rise, as well as the RATE of temperature and the RATE of increased ocean acidification predicted in RCP 8.5 are much lower than our present reality. The other "less severe" RCPs are simply wishful thinking happy talk BECAUSE "economic" considerations (Lawyers from various countries, including the USA, MODIFIED all the RCPs AFTER the IPCC scientists submitted them and BEFORE they were published to "protect" GDP among various polluter nations).




The line with the number "1" is the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario. The temperature increases in lines 2 and 3 ARE NOT in the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario.

Business as usual is a death sentence for over 75% (or more) of life on Earth.

CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC AND THEIR CLIMATE FEEDBACK IMPLICATIONS: Interview with Scott Goetz



The people that defend business as usual are deluded. There is evidence, which I presented in an article (see below), that even the RCP-8.5 scenario is too conservative.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART 1 of 3

26
People are Dying in ERs of Preventable Diseases Because of Lack of Care (w/guest Dr. Bill Honigman)


Jul. 17, 2017

Thom sits down with guest Dr. Bill Honigman (ER Physician, Organizer - Progressive Democrats for America) to talk about the serious healthcare crisis in America.

27
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN CALIFORNIA FILE COMMON LAW CLAIMS AGAINST  LARGEST FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES

Posted on July 18th, 2017 by Romany Webb
     
By Michael Burger

Yesterday, three local governments in California (San Mateo County, Marin County and the City of Imperial Beach) filed potentially groundbreaking climate change lawsuits in California state courts, each one charging a group of 20 fossil fuel companies with liability for public nuisance, failure to warn, design defect, private nuisance, negligence, and trespass. (The complaints will be available in an updated version of this post as soon as we have them available.) This type of state common law climate litigation has been a long time coming, and these cases may well represent the first of a slew of similar cases nationwide. Here, I summarize several interesting aspects of the complaints, and offer some first blush thoughts on both the legal hurdles they might face and the potential outcomes they might produce.


The Lawsuits

Each of the complaints presents the same simple, compelling storyline: These fossil fuel companies knew. They knew that climate change was happening, that fossil fuel production and use was causing it, and that continued fossil fuel production and use would only make it worse. They knew this, but they hid it. And then they lied about it, and paid other people to lie about it for them. All the while they profited from it, and plotted to profit more. Ultimately, their actions caused sea levels to rise, and thereby caused harm, are continuing to cause harm, and are contributing to future harm to the plaintiff governments and their residents. Accordingly, the complaints claim that the defendant companies should be held liable and forced to pay, both for the costs the local governments are incurring to adapt to sea level rise and for the companies’ own willful, deceptive, and malicious behavior.

The named defendants include Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Citgo, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Peabody Energy, Total, Eni, Arch Coal, Rio Tinto, Statoil, Anadarko, Occidental, Repsol, Marathon, Hess, Devon, Encana, Apache, and unspecified “Company Does.” According to the plaintiffs, these companies are responsible for about 20% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that were emitted during the period from 1965 to 2015, an amount which the complaints argue is a “substantial portion” of the climate change problem. The “substantial portion” claim is legally significant.

To show that the defendants are liable, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they caused the alleged harms. Climate change, of course, is caused by many different actors; sea level rise and resulting impacts are attributable to climate change and, in some instances, other factors. Thus, it may be argued that the defendants are not the only parties who can or should bear responsibility, or blame. However, as a matter of law, causation can be shown by proving that the defendants are a “substantial factor,” or that they contributed significantly to the harm. Relying on a cumulative carbon analysis, plaintiffs make a strong case that that standard is met.

The timeframe plaintiffs employ for the cumulative carbon analysis is an important one, for both its legal and narrative impact. In rough terms, it corresponds with what Will Steffen calls the “Great Acceleration,” the years since the 1960s in which approximately 75% of all historic industrial emissions have occurred, and in which the rate of fossil fuel production and consumption has significantly increased. The specific years also mark notable bookends in climate change history. In 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Scientific Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution reported that unabated CO2 emissions would, by 2000, alter the climate, and Johnson charged Congress to address the problem. In 2015 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had just issued its Fifth Assessment Report, relaying the state of the art in climate science and understanding, and the global community signed the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The plaintiffs recite an increasingly well-documented, and familiar, timeline regarding what the fossil fuel companies knew and understood about climate change, and what they said and did (or did not do) about it. Several aspects of the story jumped out to me:

In 1980, Imperial Oil (a Canadian company in which Exxon owns a super-majority stake), reported to Exxon and Esso that power plant carbon capture technology was technologically feasible, but that it would “double the cost of power generation.” (Carbon capture is not yet deployed at scale in the power sector.)
Some fossil fuel exploration and production companies started climate proofing their own infrastructure around 20 years ago. They started investing in Arctic development capacity even further back, likely in anticipation of new exploration and production opportunities in a melting region.

In 1988, industry fundamentally shifted its stance towards climate change, turning away from independent research and outward statements favoring action, and turning towards the strategies and tactics documented in Erik Conway and Naomi Oreskes’ Merchants of Doubt, further revealed through reporting by the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University, and the ongoing subject of investigations by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and others. That year, according to the complaint, the political will to take on the climate change challenge was becoming increasingly evident. The insinuation one draws is that once industry sensed the real possibility of a commitment to international cooperation and domestic regulation it began to mount its overt and covert defenses.

Current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was an active participant in fossil fuel companies’ coordinated effort to resist climate change regulations.

According to the plaintiffs, the consequence of the cumulative emissions put into the market by defendants, and of the disinformation campaign waged by certain industry leaders and the think tanks, communications shops, and lobbying operations they funded and hired, are rising sea levels that have already impacted local governments and residents, and that will continue to do so, in ever more extreme ways, in the years to come. These impacts include inundation of public beaches and coastal property, and more frequent and extreme flooding and storm surge, resulting in some permanent property losses and requiring expenditure of funds for impact assessment, as well as adaptation and emergency response planning and implementation.

And so they have sued, seeking damages, both compensatory and punitive, under a range of common law theories that place blame on and assign responsibility to these defendants    because of their knowledge, their resistance to mitigation, and their various roles in fossil fuel exploration, production, marketing, and consumption.

The Legal Obstacles 

Scholars and practitioners have theorized this type of climate action for years. For example, in 2011, my colleague Michael Gerrard wrote this piece, surveying a host of issues such cases will inevitably encounter, and Doug Kysar of Yale early on wrote this piece on how climate change may itself influence the future shape of tort law. Tracy Hester at the University of Houston has written this analysis of the different elements of state common law climate cases. Thinking on this goes further back, to the state common law public nuisance claims included – but never decided – in Connecticut v. American Electric Power.

Importantly, these cases have been filed at a particular moment in time, when scientific consensus on and understanding of climate change is at an all-time high but the federal government’s commitment to addressing the problem is at an all-time low. In fact, it’s in negative territory, with a president, an EPA administrator and an Interior secretary determined to ramp up fossil fuel production and consumption while doing nothing to mitigate emissions or adapt to impacts. And the fossil fuel industry’s active role in fighting against climate action continues to come to light, making comparisons to the tobacco litigation (like this one) increasingly accurate.


Without detracting from the many other legal issues likely to arise in the lawsuits, here are three that come immediately to mind.

Standing: The first issue that tends to come up in thinking about climate change litigation is standing. Standing is a threshold issue in any challenge to government action, or inaction, in the climate change arena. But these are common law tort claims. The elements of standing – injury, causation, redressability – constitute the merits of the case. Were plaintiffs harmed in a tortious manner? Did defendants cause that harm? Are plaintiffs entitled to damages? That’s the whole case, not a preliminary matter to determine jurisdiction. Accordingly, it seems that a standing challenge should not, in theory, succeed; at least, not before the merits of the case are determined. Nonetheless, standing was an issue in Connecticut v. AEP, where the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether a federal common law public nuisance claim could proceed. In her opinion finding the federal nuisance claim displaced by the federal Clean Air Act, Justice Ginsburg noted that “[f]our members of the Court would hold that at least some plaintiffs have Article III standing.” Justice Sotomayor did not participate in that decision, meaning that Justice Kennedy voted to uphold his own opinion from Massachusetts v. EPA, which found states had standing to sue due to injuries they suffered from climate change. Thus, at the moment, there are likely at least five votes for the broad proposition that states have standing to sue for climate change. The opinion in Mass. v. EPA, however, relied on the “special solicitude” owed states due to their quasi-sovereign status. Here, plaintiffs are local governments, which may or may not be given a similar weighting by Justice Kennedy and others.

Political Question: In Connecticut v. AEP, the federal district court originally found that there were no judicially manageable standards by which to adjudicate a public nuisance claim brought by states, cities, national environmental organizations, and three private land trusts against five power companies, and that the cases raised a political question necessarily left for the political branches. The Second Circuit reversed this judgment, finding that courts have long adjudicated complex environmental nuisance cases, and that the political question doctrine did not pose a bar. The Supreme Court’s view of the matter is a little obscure. Justice Ginsburg noted that “at least four judges” found that neither standing nor any other “threshold obstacle bars review.” The infamous footnote 6 in that opinion refers to the political question doctrine, but neither it nor the text offers an explanation of exactly how the justices voted on the matter. All of which leaves the political question issue unresolved.

The 9th Circuit, in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., another federal common law nuisance case, did not directly address the political question doctrine, relying instead on the displacement analysis from Connecticut v. AEP. In Comer v. Murphy Oil, a Fifth Circuit panel found that the political question doctrine did not bar state tort claims brought against several companies for their contributions to climate change. However, that decision was later vacated in a uniquely bizarre procedural sequence.

The facts of this case, however, are different. Plaintiffs have framed their case not about climate change policy in the abstract, and not only about a specific quantity of emissions contributing to climate change, but also about these private actors’ individual and collective conduct, which includes not only producing GHG emissions but interacting with the market and with regulators in a sustained disinformation campaign. Plaintiffs are not seeking to establish a specific policy in regards to GHG emissions, public lands management, or other matters of federal agency discretion. Rather, they are seeking damages for harms caused by market behavior they claim was, among other things, knowing, negligent, and intentionally misleading.

Preemption: In Connecticut v. AEP, the Supreme Court found that a public nuisance case brought in federal court under federal common law had been displaced by the Clean Air Act. Because the Court had previously held in Mass v. EPA that EPA was authorized to regulate GHGs by the federal legislation, there was no longer room for federal common law. However, the court did not reach the state common law claims also plead in that case. It remains an open question whether state claims such as those plead here are preempted by federal legislation, including the Clean Air Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other statutes setting federal GHG emissions and fossil fuel extraction, transportation, and consumption policy. In Comer, the original Fifth Circuit panel concluded that federal preemption was inapplicable to plaintiffs state common law claims; but, as noted, that decision was vacated and has no precedential value. Its reasoning, of course, nonetheless bears consideration.

One preemption case that defendants may seek to invoke is the Fourth Circuit decision in North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). There, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a common law nuisance action brought by the state of North Carolina against TVA. The action focused on emissions from TVA-operated power plants in Alabama and Tennessee, which were alleged to cause air pollution and associated health problems in North Carolina. Even if this were the case, however, TVA would not be liable for public nuisance according to the Fourth Circuit. In reaching this decision, the Fourth Circuit noted that “[c]ourts have traditionally been reluctant to enjoin as a public nuisance activities which have been considered and specifically authorized by the government,” such as under the Clean Air Act. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that “TVA’s plants cannot logically be public nuisances where TVA is in compliance” with the Clean Air Act, and its plants have been permitted by the states in which they operate. Defendants will likely cite to this case to argue that federally permitted activities cannot be the subject of nuisance suits.

Assuming arguendo that North Carolina v. TVA was rightly decided (and there are arguments to be made that it was not  ), there is at least one key distinction between it and these newly filed cases – the facilities in that case were specifically permitted to pollute under the standards set through the Clean Air Act, and the permits in question authorized the pollution in question. Here, by contrast, none of the federal programs through which defendants have operated, and none of the foreign governments that have permitted them to operate in other jurisdictions, have thoroughly considered, far less sought to regulate, the downstream GHG emissions associated with their activities. What’s more, given the Trump Administration’s outright resistance to using the federal statutes to regulate GHGs at any stage there can be no conflict between state law and federal law, and state law cannot be said to be an obstacle to achieving any particular federal goals. Defendants might argue that state common law liability would conflict with the Trump Administration’s decision to not protect public health and welfare, or to pursue “energy dominance,” or some other such thing, but we have to hope that that line of reasoning will not find sympathetic audiences in court.

Possible Outcomes

As with the case of Juliana v. United States, currently winding its way towards a trial date next year, these cases face significant legal hurdles. Success on the merits is far from assured. But it could happen. The facts are there, making the case for causation and culpability, and the law can accommodate these claims. What’s more, if other cases in other jurisdictions are brought, we may ultimately see a large-scale settlement similar to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, or perhaps establishment of a fund through federal legislation, along the lines of the Superfund program established under CERCLA.

However, and again as with Juliana, there are also potential outcomes short of success on the merits that could still advance the ball on climate change. For one thing, these cases represent a new pressure point on the fossil fuel industry, and a new spotlight on that industry’s engagement with climate law and policy. They make the case that these companies are bad actors, who have lied for years to continue to generate profits at the expense of the local governments and individual citizens and residents who bear the costs of climate impacts. The drama of the courtroom setting could mobilize the public’s interest and give life to local activism on these issues, much as Juliana has captured the youth climate movement and given it voice. Moreover, the prospect of judicial judgment affirming plaintiffs’ case might nudge these companies to accelerate their own transition away from past practices, towards new approaches to providing energy to consumers.

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/07/18/local-governments-in-california-file-common-law-claims-against-largest-fossil-fuel-companies/

Agelbert NOTE: This WILL go all the way to the supremely Supine Supreme Court BECAUSE Big Oil OWNS them.

BUT, Big Oil will LOSE the war, even as they "win" this battle with the help of their fascist judge pals.

WHY? Because every day that Big Oil doesn't bite the bullet and accept their responsibility for all this pollution is another day that Catastrophic  Climate Change paints them as a bad actor. They can't PR their way around the floods, droughts, storms, heat waves, melting ice, etc., though that is the way they have ALWAYS danced around this, even while they planned, ALL ALONG, to pass the buck of the Catastrophic climate change costs to we-the-people, as they did in (on a much smaller scale, but it is still horrendous Stare decisis - Case Law precedent - that favors the polluters - See: Damages for "Important" corporations like Exxon "cannot be punitive" because that would "hurt" the economy...) the Exxon Valdez damages reduction by the Supreme Court to ONE TENTH the original amount that was ruled.

SNIPPET:

Quote

"Crime pays, and environmental crime pays really well," said William Rodgers, a professor of law at the University of Washington and an expert on the Exxon Valdez case. "I am sure they [Exxon] are sitting down and having a toast of the town.     
The other lesson they have taught is scorched-earth litigation pays. Just keep litigating, making up issues."

Full article:





28
General Discussion / Re: Non-routine News
« on: July 18, 2017, 07:10:22 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Trisomy 21 is an inherited condition (Down syndrome) that is not limited to lack of normal vocabulary skills. People with this used to be called "Mongoloids". Thankfully, that abusive term has been eliminated from civilized discourse.
Quote
The term Mongolian idiocy and similar terms have been used to refer to a specific type of mental deficiency associated with the genetic disorder now more commonly referred to as Down syndrome. The use of these terms has largely been abandoned because of their offensive and misleading implications about those with the disorder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_idiocy



BUT, this excellent anecdote sheds some light on a particularly offensive and arrogant man we have all been forced to read about and listen to. ENJOY!    :D
 
How good an orator is Donald Trump?   

Quote
Nikki Primrose, Donald Trump? God help us all. 

Updated July 13, 2017

I have a sweet and beautiful aunt who just so happens to have Trisomy 21. Her name is Karen and she is in her forties, but her intellectual capabilities are more like those of a seven year-old. Her vocabulary is very simple and I'd estimate that 95% of her speech consists of fewer than 200 words.

My 6 year-old nephew Sam loves Karen, and they consider themselves BFFs (best of friends). Yesterday we were in the kitchen and a clip of Trump giving a rambling speech in the Rose Garden was playing on TV. I made a comment about how ridiculous he sounded, and Sam wagged his Cheeto covered finger at me and sternly told me not to say things like that. I had no idea the little dude had become a Trumpkin, so I asked him why. He put on his big boy voice and explained that “we don't make fun of people like Karen”.

When we asked why he thought the orange man on TV was like Karen, he said it was because he looked and spoke like her. We asked him to elaborate, and he said he looked like an old grown-up, but he sounded like “a little kid”. So according to Sam, Trump is not a great orator.

https://www.quora.com/

29
Wonders of Nature / Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« on: July 18, 2017, 01:18:58 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Here is another example of a successful scam by the Big Oil.   They marketed this polluting and poisonous product as something "useful", but it actually MAKES THINGS WORSE.

You probably still think that petroleum based tree wound dressings are a good idea. That is because the propaganda LIES by the fossil fuel industry continue to dominate the media of the petro-state called the USA. They are quite skilled at hiding the truth about the fossil fuel industry biosphere harming 'business model'.


Tree wound

What Is Tree Wound Dressing?  Is It Ok To Put Wound Dressing On Trees?


By Jackie Carroll

When trees are wounded, either intentionally through pruning or accidentally, it sets off a natural process of protection within the tree. Externally, the tree grows new wood and bark around the wounded area to form a callus. Internally, the tree initiates processes to prevent decay. Some gardeners try to help along the natural processes by applying a tree wound dressing. But are there any real benefits of wound dressing on trees?

What is Wound Dressing? Wound dressings are petroleum-based products used to cover freshly cut or damaged wood. The intent is to prevent disease and decay organisms and insects from infesting the wound. Studies (as far back as the 1970s) show that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits of wound dressing. Wound dressings prevent the tree from forming calluses, which are its natural method of dealing with injury.

In addition, moisture often gets beneath the dressing, and sealed in moisture leads to decay.

As a result, using dressing on tree wounds often does more harm than good.

Is it OK to Put Wound Dressing on Trees? In most cases, the answer is no. Wound dressings such as tar, asphalt, paint or any other petroleum solvents should not be used on trees. If you want to apply a wound dressing for aesthetic purposes, spray on a very thin coating of an aerosol wound dressing. Keep in mind that this is only for appearances.

Good pruning practices are a much better plan to help trees heal. Make clean cuts flush with the trunk of the tree when removing large branches. Straight cuts leave smaller wounds than angled cuts, and smaller wounds are more likely to callus over promptly. Cut broken limbs with ragged ends below the point of injury. Tree trunks often sustain damage during lawn maintenance. Direct the discharge from lawn mowers away from tree trunks and keep a little distance between string trimmers and trees.One circumstance where a wound dressing may help is in regions where oak wilt is a serious problem. Avoid pruning during spring and summer. If you must cut during this time, apply a wound dressing that contains fungicide and insecticide.

https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/tgen/wound-dressing-on-trees.htm

30
Geopolitics / Re: Money
« on: July 17, 2017, 09:12:02 pm »
WTC 1 and 2 I will always contend were also brought down.  The video footage that day showed clear puffs of smoke going out twenty feet at ninety degree angles at the corners of the towers a second before they began to fall.  The ninety degree puffs were simultaneous but each floor went off in succession from the top down.  I recall one newscaster even making a comment about it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson announced what would happen on late night T.V. two weeks before the towers went down and she was on one of the planes.  I believe she knew too much.  I know what I saw and that won't change until I like these two truths which I will always remember while I breath blow in the wind.

We live in a photo-shopped future and are lied to every day.


I agree 100%.  It has always boggled my mind that America could believe 9/11 was perpetrated by some terrorist with box cutters.  The official story is obnoxiously obscene.  There are more holes in the official story than your average colander.  You don't have to be an expert of anything to look at the facts about 9/11 and know that the official story is a bunch of lies.  But WTC-7 was always the smoking gun.  They didn't even cover it's collapse in the government 9/11 report...not a word about it...they just officially ignored it.  But watch the footage.  It is obviously a planned demolition.  It literally disappears in a matter of seconds.  You've got to be smoking some strong **** to believe the official 9/11 story. 

Mike Ruppert tore that **** apart with Crossing the Rubicon


Agreed. There is going to be hell to pay when the public finally realize how this 9/11 mega-grand larceny disguised as a "terrorist attack" asset stripped trillions of dollars from we-the-people.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 482

+-Recent Topics

Metabolic Therapy Threatens the Drug Pushing Medical Establishment by AGelbert
July 22, 2017, 07:56:19 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
July 22, 2017, 07:03:22 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
July 22, 2017, 06:35:46 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
July 22, 2017, 05:21:27 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
July 22, 2017, 04:10:34 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
July 22, 2017, 02:16:36 pm

How Long Ago Were We Created? by AGelbert
July 21, 2017, 01:57:40 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
July 21, 2017, 12:09:18 pm

Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity by AGelbert
July 20, 2017, 01:49:32 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
July 20, 2017, 12:55:44 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial