Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Comments

  • Apply
    From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Mon, Aug 19, 2019 - 8:13am

    Reply to #

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4640

    7+

    Re: Re: I'm very confident

    Sorry Chris,

    My guess is that you have not physically inspected the building & probably don’t have access to all of the reports created by various inspectors insurance companies. I presume if there was foul play (ie building was deliberately destroyed) that the insurance companies would have presented this information in order to avoid paying out  hundred of millions to bullions, in insurance claims.

    I don’t have to inspect the buildings.  I can look at the concrete blob fused with metal and conclude, without any doubt whatsoever, that a temperature in excess of 1,300 C was achieved.  And not just for a second or minute, but long enough to cause these artifacts.

    Whether I personally witnessed them in the destroyed basements myself or see them in a display case doesn’t change anything.  So I’m really not sure why it’s important to you that I went and saw them first hand in the building?

    Also, you then go on to ascribe motivations and actions of insurance companies.  That’s outside of my wheelhouse, and I’ll leave it to others to figure out why large corporations and other governmental entities behave they way they do.

    You cannot possible provide connection unless you have access to all of the information available. I don’t believe you are applying a scientific analysis needed to come to valid conclusion.

    I am applying very scientific analysis.  1,300C or more.  It’s the most basic of materials science.  Various elements, alloys and minerals have very precise changes that happen only above certain temperatures.

    If you show me two matches, one burnt, the other not, I can tell you that the burnt match had experienced a temperature of at least X.  That’s a conclusion and a connection I can draw all day long and be very, very confident in it.

    I don’t have any data. I am just very skeptical that the gov’t would deliberately destroyed a building to cover up evidence when it could have done the same with much less destruction. ie there is no reason to blow up a safe, when you already have the combinati0n.

    Well, that’s our disconnect right there.  I have lots of data.  Tons of it.  And I am not limited by holding a belief system that says “the government wouldn’t…”

    For heaven’s sake, “the government”  lied about weapons of mass destruction and then killed a million people over that deception.  We put some child molesters in jail after a single incident and then brand them for the rest of their lives.  One and done.  Why do you provide “the government” with extra chances?  Shouldn’t the psychopathic result of killing a million innocent people be some sort of disqualifer?

    The whole affair of WTC 7 collapse is because a reporter mis-understood an emergency responder radio call “Pull Building 7” The radio call was “Pull out of Building 7 because its collapsing”: Warning Emergency responders to evacuate from the area near WTC 7 before it collapses on them. I am sure the radio call was difficult to hear as probably the responder issuing the warning, was on a handheld radio and likely in a noise location.

    Who cares about a possible misinterpretation of Silverstein’s “pull it” comment? It’s a(nother) diversion from the topic at hand, which is the materials science.

    Not only did I not raise that, but I was talking about building 6.  Six.  (VI).  We can discuss WTC 7 at some other point, but there again I’d be using physical data, such as free fall for 2.25 seconds, fused concrete melted blobs, eutectic steel, etc.

    But I get it.  This is a difficult topic because you have to entertain the idea that we were all lied to comprehensively and and completely.

    If you recall the scene during the aftermath, those building fires burned for about a month. I was working in New York at the time and could see the smoke pouring out from about 25 miles away from the Tappen Zee bridge (Near white plains, NY) for weeks.

    That’s not my interpretation. Ever been to a luau?  You dig a pit, line it with rocks, make a fire, put the fire out, then put a pig in there and cover it all up.  It looks like it’s burning for many hours afterwards, but it’s steam and smoke being liberated by the heat stored in the rocks driving off moisture and (poorly) combusting the grasses and leaves covering the pig.

    My interpretation is that something provided enough exothermic potential to really heat the living crap out of all that concrete and steel and it was the buried heat being worked off over many months.  Underground fires are 100% limited by the amount of oxygen that can penetrate.  Otherwise, there’s nothing to burn.

    Its possible if the temperatures were hot enough that steam could have supplied the oxygen needed for the fire.

    Really?  It’s possible if?  Could have?  Do you have any idea at what temperatures water dissociates into oxygen and hydrogen?

    You seem very comfortable tossing out plausible sounding theories without doing even the most basic of inquiry, and I’m mystified by that approach.

    At any rate, here’s the data:

    An appreciable fraction of water will be decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen at a temperature high enough so that the Gibbs free energy change for the decomposition reaction equals zero. At 1 atmosphere pressure this will occur at around 3000K to 4000K. At higher pressures the required temperature will be higher, and at lower pressures the required temperature will be lower, because one mole and hence one volume of water vapor decomposes into 1 1/2 moles and hence 1 1/2 volumes of (hydrogen plus oxygen). So decomposition is favored by high temperature and low pressure and is inhibited by low temperature and high pressure.

    The high temperature of steam boilers almost certainly cannot exceed 2000 degrees F which is about 1400K even for short intervals, and probably not 1000K on a sustained basis, as these are typical metallurgical limits. At these temperatures there is not much dissociation of water vapor. See, for example, Thermodynamics by Kenneth Wark, Jr. and Donald E. Richards, 6th edition, Table A-24 on p. 1066. (The material in Sects. 14-5 through14-7 on pp. 762-773 and Tables A-12 through A-15 on pp. 1047-1055 may also be helpful.)

    (Source)

    The Kelvin to Centigrade conversion is 3000 K/2727 C and 4000 K/3727 C.  So the “basement fires” would have to be burning at somewhere north of 2700 C to decompose water (or steam) into oxygen and hydrogen.  Yeah.  No.  Never, not once. In this gentle universe blast-furnace temperatures do not spontaneously happen (thank god).

    Maybe a parallel one. But not the one you and I inhabit. Here you have to work really hard to create temperature deltas, and the more extreme the delta, the harder you have to work. A thermodynamic law about the transfer of heat seems to have been written into the source code of our simulation.

    Obviously if these fire were burning for weeks it had to be getting an external source of oxygen to burn for that long. No way would any chemical oxidizer (ie thermite) would have burned for weeks. It would have been spent in a matter of minutes to seconds.

    Again, your interpretation requires basement fires to somehow burn intensely for weeks at temperatures that are literally impossible (even if fully & perfectly oxygenated), and my interpretation simply allows for an exothermic potential to have been applied, possibly within seconds, that heated everything up to the witnessed temperatures, where they then lay in the basement, covered like a luau pig, smoldering away for weeks as the excessive temperatures slowly radiated away.

    Your views require me to believe impossible things.  My views simply say “a lot of excess heat was supplied.”  I can find a path to understanding the excessive heat conundrum.  Your path requires me to unlearn decades of science that has yet to fail me (or anyone else).  Things like the exothermic potential of carbon-hydrogen bonds.  Conservation of momentum.  The heat of dissociation for water. The importance of oxygen for combustion.

    You know, really basic, thoroughly proven stuff.

    However, if you or anyone can provide me with even one other example, from all of history, showing a basement fire achieving these sorts of artifacts while using only oxygen as the oxidizing agent (not a warehouse holding magnesium, or powdered aluminum, for example), I will have to reconsider my case.  That’s how science works.  An hypothesis stands until contradictory data comes in.

    I’ve yet to see any.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Mon, Aug 19, 2019 - 7:09am

    Reply to #

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4640

    1+

    Best video on Leadership!

    The discussion on common knowledge and private knowledge reminded me of this classic human behaviour video, which graphically shows the exact same process. The key here is to acknowledge the importance of being the second followers, or to relate to this article being the second round of people vocalising to make the private knowledge, common knowledge.

    I love this video.  Classic!

    Thanks for posting.  🙂

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Mon, Aug 19, 2019 - 5:41am

    Reply to #
    Mark Boland

    Mark Boland

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 17 2015

    Posts: 3

    2+

    I agree.  Additionally, the Russians are a strong people with tribal knowledge for transitioning to a more simple, family, economy. Juxtaposed to the US where an iteration of cable TV could put us in a tailspin!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Mon, Aug 19, 2019 - 12:13am

    Reply to #

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3147

    4+

    perception creates reality

    Eric-

    Here’s an additional point that goes along with your thesis.  Within your body, your perception actually creates your reality.

    If you perceive that a tiger is about to attack you, your belief will cause your body to release an avalanche of chemicals that shuts down your immune, regenerative, and digestion systems in order to provide more energy to your muscles.

    After all, if a tiger attacks, whatever immune system issues you might have can wait – if you fail to beat off the tiger, any infection you might have will be the tiger’s problem, not yours.

    So the body has evolved to respond – and change – according to your perception of reality.

    After understanding all of this, I stopped playing video games.  The games these days do a very good job of simulating attacks, and I could tell that my body responded appropriately – by shutting down half the systems of my body in order to prepare me to fight.  The games weren’t as stressful as (say) a martial arts competition, or a real life confrontation, but they made up for it by presenting simulated life & death threats for a very large number of hours.

    You want to have good skin, digestion, and immune system?  Probably best not to play video games.

    All those Presidents get white hair during their time in office.  That’s because they perceive that they are constantly in a threatening situation.

    What you perceive externally ends up creating your internal reality.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Sun, Aug 18, 2019 - 10:37pm

    Reply to #
    Eric

    Eric

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 10 2019

    Posts: 14

    4+

    Perception=Reality

    I think the most critical foundation of society today is that Perception is Reality… 

    …and your reality is constructed from what you perceive…

    If you can become the master of perception, you can become the master of reality. It is the ability to hide in plain sight. Think about how anything is truly genuine nowadays. Especially with social media outlets.. if you have thousands of followers you must be important, smart, talented, etc. But in reality you could be really an average joe.

    Our whole monetary system’s foundation is perception. The entire system.

    Our whole political system, again all on perception.

    They don’t really have to have control on actually anything physical, they just need control of your perception. The entire subject of reality is really fascinating in itself. What truly is our reality?

    We’re far beyond “1984” than we ever imagined. Critical thinking is a conspiracy itself. We were always told to think outside the box in school, but they have control over that “box.”

    “There is a policeman inside all our heads. He must be destroyed.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Sun, Aug 18, 2019 - 5:33pm

    #
    Charles Showers

    Charles Showers

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2017

    Posts: 1

    7+

    Behaviour change happens fast once a tipping point is reached - classic video example

    The discussion on common knowledge and private knowledge reminded me of this classic human behaviour video, which graphically shows the exact same process. The key here is to achnowledge the importance of being the second followers, or to relate to this article being the second round of people vocalising to make the private knowledge, common knowledge.

     

    When change comes, it comes fast, and it is a comin’!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Sun, Aug 18, 2019 - 4:42pm

    Reply to #

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 325

    11+

    Case Closed Then

    Tech guy,

    Your explanation is completely sufficient for me.  Clearly, insurance company investigators would have proven foul play in order to prevent a large claim payout.  Also, because no one has all the data on the incident, no one could ever know anything conclusive about the matter.  Except of course the official story – which can be believed fully without “access to all the information available”.  Especially if one were to personally witness smoke from 25 miles away – for weeks.  Thank you for putting the whole matter to bed for me and showing me how limited my thinking has been all this time.

     

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Sun, Aug 18, 2019 - 3:11pm

    #
    skipr

    skipr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 09 2016

    Posts: 127

    8+

    physical inspection

    I did not physically inspect the WTC after 911, but I did inspect the damage in several Northridge CA steel frame buildings after the city’s 7.0 earthquake in 1994.  There were weld failures everywhere, but not one building collapsed, much less collapsed symmetrically at free fall, due to the large factor of safety used in their design, which the WTC also used.  I got involved with several civil engineers (I’m more diversified) that were analyzing these failures since I had access to the state-of-the-art finite element program ANSYS.  They came up with a novel non-intuitive design modification described here:

    https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/modern-steel/archives/1997/03/1997v03_proprietary_designs.pdf

    The smoking gun for the WTC 7 demolition was it’s symmetric collapse at free fall acceleration.  The only way that could happen is for the entire solid steel structure to be converted to the structural equivalent of air in a millisecond.  That has never happened during real office fires (NIST concluded that it did during 911) but always happens during controlled demolitions.

    As far as the fires go, thermite can burn underwater and in a vacuum since it has its own oxidizer, just like solid fuel rockets.  There is a peer reviewed scientific paper of the analysis of the unburned nano-thermite found in the dust.  That thermite was actually more energetic than known military grade ones.  Tons of molten steel was pulled out of the basement for months.  Its thermal inertia is what produced all of that steam.

    The government would never blow up the WTC?  Get real.  Look up Operation Northwoods on the web.  The PDF of that declassified top secret document shows how the Pentagon brass planned to blow up a passenger aircraft over Cuba in order to justify the invasion back in the 60s.  They even described how they would switch an actual passenger plane with a dummy.  Sound familiar?  Luckily JFK killed that plan.  I could go on and on and on…….

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Sun, Aug 18, 2019 - 1:28pm

    Reply to #

    Pipyman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 24 2011

    Posts: 56

    2+

    Funny

    i didn’t read any speculation from Chris pertaining to motives or “who done it”; just, his interpretation of the physical evidence we’re not supposed to know about in relation to the official conspiracy theory.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • From: Why Common Knowledge Changes The World
  • Sun, Aug 18, 2019 - 1:14pm

    Reply to #

    Pipyman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 24 2011

    Posts: 56

    3+

    Thanks Chris

    excellent and spot on. I had a personal “aha” moment yesterday along these lines. A doctor was trying to convince me to permit them to vaccinate my daughter to the schedule. Having done my own research and being privy to info that just doesn’t seem to be readily available I declined. My comment to the doctor was “look, trust has been lost, I didn’t do that, you didn’t do that, but here we stand”. That really does sum it up for me, I have to question everything because I just don’t know how to trust an overtly corrupt and, in many ways, insane system and narrative. Dangerous times…..

    Login or Register to post comments