Twinbird24

Hey, I came back to this thread to read it over and I somehow missed your post last time, that link is awesome, thanks!

Thanks for the replies. I'm not going to spend money just to get a paper for a relatively small assignment in gr.12 Bio, so I will just search myself and find something interesting.

I would agree that almost all "proof" of ghosts is anecdotal and any pictures or recordings may seem unreliable. If ghosts were real however, we wouldn't be able to see them and their appearance/ presence, if any, would be so scarce that it would be very difficult to prove their existence anyways. Nevertheless, just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it's not possible that it can exist - and maybe one day there will be proof - just like there is no proof of another existence (besides that on earth) in this universe, but maybe someday in the future there will be. What do you guys think about Mary Ann Winkowski's ability to see and talk to ghosts - in the book I'm reading she has apparently turned non-believers into believers by demonstrating her ability to them. This could only really be proven by meeting with her personally, and even then, who would believe you when you tell them? It is very difficult to prove their existence - it's very easy for the scientific community to just say "prove it" and go no further. Even before reading Sylvia Browne's book I did some research about her and found she isn't very reliable, I've actually stopped reading her book. However, Mary Ann's book was much better, and her position is also different as she is not a medium, but she isn't as famous as Sylvia Browne. Finally I'd like to give you a quote from Winkowski: "The world would be awfully dull if we all believed the same thing."

Okay, so this question might have been asked before but I thought I'd start a new topic (and this seemed like the best place to post it). I've read a book by Mary Ann Winkowski (When Ghosts Speak) and I'm reading another one by Sylvia Browne (Visits from the Afterlife) and I'm starting to believe that ghosts are real, and they usually are not what they are depicted like by the media. I've never actually had any personal experience with ghosts (or maybe I have but just haven't taken notice of it and forgot) but the more I read about it the more interesting and believable it seems. What do guys have to say?

It's gr.12, I'm still in HS. I don't wan't to pay or create an account to view the papers. I just need a scholarly article or an article in general that isn't written by some no-name person.

I have to write an abstract for a recently publish paper in Biology. Can you guys give some good papers (scholarly articles) to have a look at? Thanks!

This is a homework questions I've spent a lot of time trying to solve and I am not sure if I am doing it right. Here is the question: A triangular prism has a base defined by the points (1,3,0), (3,-4,0) and (-2,1,0). The prism has a slant height given by the vector (2,3,7). Determine the volume of this prism. So far I've gotten three answers doing this questions three different ways (using dot product, cross product, cosine law, etc.): 98.43 units3 160 units3 92.14 units3 Can someone please explain to me how I can solve this problem? This is for a gr. 12 calculus and vectors course. Thank you!

edit.

Many people, including doctors, think the uvula is vestigial and can be removed with uvulectomy. However, this has side effects. From this website: "...side effect associated with uvula removal is nasal regurgitation, which is caused by the food entering the nasal cavity. Even the patient's voice may change permanently, once he/she undergoes this surgery. Some people experience drainage into the nasal cavity. Even sleep disturbances can be caused by uvula removal [...] In short, uvula removal is generally not done, if the condition of the patient can be treated with other methods." Apparently, uvulectomy can also mess up your sense of taste. BTW, it is possible to live without a uvula. And just wan't to add one more thing, the uvula itself doesn't cause the gag reflex, but the surrounding tissue, or so I've read (this can be tested by poking your uvula directly with something like a cotton swab, although I haven't actually tried this).

The uvula's sensitivity (*EDIT: actually, read my subsequent reply, I don't think it's the uvula itself that is sensitive and causes the reflex, but the surrounding tissue, so it seems the uvula is just pressed into the surrounding sensitive tissue and causes the gag reflex) and gag reflex are a defensive measure to help prevent choking or swallowing something we aren't supposed to (i.e. if something goes down your throat that you didn't voluntarily swallow, you will have this gag reflex, and may even end up throwing up or vomiting if you irritate the uvula too much). I guess it can be compared to sneezing and coughing (if your nose is irritated by some foreign particle, or there is something in your lungs/ airways, you would cough or sneeze to expel it). It is also called the pharyngeal reflex, for a more technical term. If you wan't to find out more you could always do a quick google search, there are hundreds of pages that describe this in more detail than I did. From what I know, there are only 3 main functions the uvula serves: gag reflex, speech formation, and to prevent food from entering your nasal cavity.

Thanks for all the info. I too think that sucralose is artificial (not exactly natural).

I was looking at the label for a bottle of SunnyD and it said it "Contains Sucralose" and then right underneath it is says "No Artificial Flavours Added." Isn't sucralose an artificial flavour? On a side-note: I think SunnyD tastes terrible and is nothing like real orange juice.

You still didn't comment on the eyewitnesses (and dragonstar57, I posted videos and links in one of my previous posts about this). The "everyone believed the world was flat" thing doesn't apply to this, I'm talking about hundreds of architects, engineers, etc. (more than what was involved in the NIST investigation), 90% of population of an entire country, surely these numbers mean something. I still find it hard to believe that 2 airliners can fly for hours off course, even with their transponders turned off, and not be intercepted. NORAD has practiced this hundreds of times, this event wasn't a surprise to them, they train for this kind of stuff. Provide some links about WTC building 7. From what I know, not much hit it (noting hit it from what I know), and a few blocks falling on it (if they did fall on it) will not cause it to implode and fall into a mere pile of rubble. And dragonstar57, that video shows an object being ejected from the WTC tower, if it wasn't an explosion, then what ejected the smoke/ object? On a side note, I have exams coming up, so I won't have anymore time this week, well have to continue the debate later

Not all the points have been previously addressed, let me make them clear: 1) The collapse of building 7, no planes hit it, nothing fell on it, it just randomly caught fire and collapsed into a small pile of rubble (controlled demolition style) within a few hours, and fire alone cannot cause this. Even this person wants an explanation for this (although he is unwilling to accept that it was obviously a controlled demolition that brought it down), but his theories that a seismic shock wave caused by the collapse of the first two WTC towers is ridiculous. I've never even heard that before (building 7 was designed to handle more than what would be caused by this relatively small shock wave, if it was even produced). The theory about the computer monitors bringing down building 7 is also silly. You don't even have any evidence or sources to back up these claims! 2) The eye witnesses that heard several explosions, even before the first planes hit, and why several eyewitness accounts weren't included in the "official" (flawed) commission report. 3) The visible explosion at the WTC (video) before the building started to collapse. 4) Why do 90% of Germans not believe the "official" 9/11 theory. Why are there so many architects and engineers that don't believe this theory either (more than the 200 or so that where involved in this NIST report)? Also, why do you only pick out a small part of the NORAD story, about the F-16s and their speed? Why don't you address all of it? Like how so many things failed on that day, when NORAD has practiced intercepting airliners before, with 100% accuracy in the past, but not in this specific day. No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. I don't see any problems with videos (I don't find them dramatic), the ones I've posted (and hour long ones I've watch in the past) provide lots of information. Also, the videos that support the "official" 9/11 theory are just as equally "dramatic." This "conspiracy" theory has been written down as well (not just videos), there are articles on it everywhere, even books, and scholarly articles as well!

Why do you just ignore almost everything I posted? The NORAD complains aren't silly, read the rest of the "complaints" and watch the videos, read my entire post, then respond.

(I must split up my post into two) Yet more people who do not believe this "official" 9/11 story: http://world911truth.org/90-percent-of-germans-do-not-believe-official-9-11-story/ Here is another website, more scholars who "supporters endeavoring to address the unanswered questions of the September 11, 2001 attack through scientific research and public education." http://stj911.org/members/index.html "Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. " http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ "There has been a high-level governmental lying about what happened, and what didn't happen, on that day." There are a number of things that remain unanswered about 9/11: http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2010/09/911-questions-remain-unanswered How did building 7 fall? It was not hit by a plane, the other buildings did not fall on it, how did this 47 story steel building crumble into such a tiny pile of rubble? Here is some interesting footage: Something being ejected from the tower. And what about the links I posted early about eye witness reporting explosions before any planes even hit? "A NIST fact sheet at http://wtc.nist.gov? , states: “Some 200 technical experts — including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia — reviewed tens of thousands documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.” The conclusion of the NIST investigation was: • The impact of the aircraft into the towers severed and damaged support beams, dislodged fireproofed installation and widely dispersed jet fuel over several floors. • The jet fuel ignited, reached temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, and weakened floors and columns to the point where floors sagged and pulled perimeter columns inward. • The bowing inward of the perimeter columns led to the failure of the two towers. According to NIST investigators, the towers experienced no “pancaking” or other evidence of demolition. And according to NIST, “WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse.” But according to Cole, NIST and other existing reports fall short of investigating and detailing what he said were the “three of the largest structural failures” of buildings." More can be found here: http://stj911.org/blog/ And what about NORAD? "The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth." http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kwl7hC3hq8 And here is a list of other anomalies that happened on 9/11: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/topanomalies.html It includes: NIST disingenuously evaded calls to test for explosive residues. and: NIST avoided the core issue of the 'collapses'

LOL yes it's very obvious, here is the link: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html I've read through some of the NIST report information, I remain skeptical. I've watched hour long movies that explain this "conspiracy" theory, and am still watching more, it just makes sense like this.

The fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types. For virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C. This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. It is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. So how is it that the WTC fell with such high speed in under 3 hours, straight in it's own footprint? It just seems hard to believe that fire alone could have caused this. And what about all the eye witnesses that reported hearing multiple explosions, even before the first plane hit? And why did the 9/11 commission completely ignore the hundreds of survivors, professionals, first responders, firefighters and police who reported numerous secondary explosions at all levels of the twin towers?

My "hackles aren't up" ... It's just that some people on here seem to think I'm uneducated and blind to the truth because I have a reasonable opinion on this subject that I can back up with sources. No one on here has given me an explanation of why the steel and debris (evidence) from the WTC collapse was shipped out so fast to other countries, to me, this is suspicious. And why am I being accused of having a "stand" on this matter, everyone who replied here has a stand on this matter. I also read through the Nuclear Demolition Wikipedia page discussion, and Dimitri A. Khalezov seems to defend his claims quite reasonably in the discussion. What about the molten steel found weeks after the collapse? What about eyewitness reports specifically referring to massive underground explosions? You accuse me of having a stand, and to not "state facts" because "they could be incorrect", not having "fully learned" this subject, saying I could be "incorrect", to "go in with an open mind and asking questions rather than drawing conclusions." You also have a stand, you obviously have also drawn conclusions, and from your condescending reply, it seems you think you already know everything about this subject, and don't wan't to respond to some of the things I've posted, like the things I've mentioned above (the steel being shipped out, etc.) I've done reading and I've watched movies on this subject, I didn't just start reading about this yesterday. And I do have an open mind, I used to think that the WTC wasn't brought down with explosions, but then as I did more reading and watching, I started to become suspicious, and this is what make sense to me (and thousands of other people as well).

Research can simply be defined as a search for knowledge, which is exactly what I did, I did not use scientific method or any advanced university style research techniques, and I doubt anyone posting here did either, in fact, some people did not even post any sources whatsoever. I used to believe the towers where solely brought down by the planes, and that there was nothing suspicious, but then I started reading and looking more into it, it just makes sense that these towers where brought down by more than just the planes. I watched a several-hours long video (not the Zeitgeist video, which I also watched) where a Russian (nuclear physicist, demolition expert, not sure what his title was because it's been awhile since I saw the videos) thoroughly explains how the twin towers where brought down by a nuclear demolition, and also provided a theory as to why there where destroyed (although the bulk of it explained how they where destroyed, not why). Okay, I found 3 web pages regarding this Russian I was speaking about and nuclear demolition, links are below: http://www.dkhalezov.com/ http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/ http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com/ The Russian (Dimitri A. Khalezov) made a Wikipedia article about nuclear demolition (not making reference to the 9/11 event) and this article was removed (Just like the bulk of the steel and debris (evidence) was removed form the WTC area and shipped overseas, but there was a link about this in my last post), but it can still be found in the above links I provided. I will have to do more reading about Al Qaeda, as I mostly focus on how the WTC was destroyed, although that article I posted about Al Qaeda (previous post) basically explains my stand on that as well. I sometimes read articles from here, although I havn't visited that site in awhile, it provides a lot of support for my claims.

Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks. Zeitgeist Movies Contains some interesting points regarding the 9/11 attack. I agree with the OP, 9/11 did seem really suspicious. I've done some research on the internet (and not just what I've heard from the media/ TV, which seems to be the only source some of you are getting your information from). Just like the OP, I am not a conspiracy theorist "nut job," but I still find the 9/11 event suspicious. Rigney, I'll try to be as gentle as I can, with no disrespect (wink, wink), but you provided no facts, no sources, and your overall response was rude, it seems to me like you are the one who is uneducated. There is actually a 9/11 petition, which contains names of engineers, doctors, teachers, ordinary people and scholars, who voluntarily signed it (unlike the paid professionals who where named in the "official" 9/11 report, which is flawed, here is another link), which support this "conspiracy" theory, did all these people waste their money on education as well, rigney? (here is another link, 1,417 verified architectual and engineering prosfessionals have signed it, as well as 11,042 other people). And what about building 7? Also, why was the most important evidence shipped away? The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero.

Thanks. The derivation is correct, just needed to get the equation into the quadratic form.

Thanks. I have now: 0 = kh² + h(-2kA-2mg) + kA² Is this good?

Thanks for your help! so the final equation would look like this, correct? 0 = kh² - 4mgkAh + kA²

Thanks for the reply. I asked a student in my class about this question, and the l and L can be combined into one variable (which I will call A), so the original equations looks like this: mgh = k(h-A)²/2 (I can use FOIL now). Here is what I did so far, I'm still stuck though (can't get the 0 = ax2 +bx +c format). 1) mgh = k(h-A)²/2 2) 2mgh = k(h-A)² 3) 2mgh = k(h² - hA - hA + A²) 4) 2mgh = k(h² - 2hA + A²) 5) 2mgh = kh² - k2Ah + kA² If I ignore the 2mgh on the left side then I would have the 0 = ax2 +bx +c format, but now what do I do with the 2mgh on the left side? Thanks!