JOHN NOLTE 23 Jan 2013,
On Brietbart’s Big Journalism
Anti-science Salon
landed in hot water today for posting an article defending conspiracy
theorists, including 9/11 "Truthers." After much criticism, the
piece was yanked with an apology, but Ace
of Spades highlights the
best part.
Salon:
But unlike with Sandy Hook, 9/11 conspiracy theories
flow from a scientific fact: whatever the 9/11 Commission Report might claim,
fire generated by burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel.
Ace:
Ahem.
Look, I don't mean to sound like a smarty-pants
here, but here's a scientific fact these ignoramuses want to
check out:
Many solids change suddenly into liquids as they hit
their melting point. Water ice, for example.
But water ice is just one kind of solid. There is an
entire class of elements -- we call these "metals" (and no I'm not
trying to be silly-- they're really called "metals") which change
from solid to liquid gradually and gracefully,
rather than abruptly.
There is a sharp distinction between water ice and
water liquid -- the things have entirely different properties. But metals
transition slowly as heat as applied. Metals do not suddenly go from a perfect
crystalline solid to a perfect amorphous liquid as water does.
Rather, at high temperatures well short of
their actual melting point, they slowly begin losing some properties
of a solid and start gaining some properties of a liquid.
For example: You can't bend ice.
Ice does not bend. Ice breaks.
But you can bend metal. Metal is deformable, without
actually breaking.
This is what happens when you watch
Rosie instead of reading a book.
[ I Added to the comments stream on this
article. Here is the statement by MRBUNGLE, with my comment.
MRBUNGLE
LOL...i could see one tower collapsing but
not three...........google WTC 7 this building was not hit
by anything and collapsed in it's own footprint. a demo crew could not
have done it better........how come they found molten steel weeks after the
collapse??? ....and how hot does jet fuel burn and how hot is a smelting
furnace?
JimG33
You obviously don't live in NYC. WTC7 was
so close to the south tower that debris could not have missed it. It was closer
to the Tower than the Winter Garden across West Street that was pierced by
flying I-Beams that went through that building. Similar flying beams took out
the skin of the new American Express Building on the other side away from the
collapse site. The old ATT building is just north of WTC7 but its steel frame
was wrapped in masonry, it still stands, though it was holed up and
down its east and south side. WTC7 was a glass curtain containing a
steel frame. Also WTC7 contained tanks of diesel used for co-generation; these
tanks were low in the building and burned for hours. Just above them were
main structural members, a condition that has been covered above. [In a
situation when fuel tanker trucks burn under a highway overpass.] To the south
the hotel was buried and the Cass Gilbert building just south of that had its facade sheared off. I won't mention the Deutsche's Bank building that
stood as an empty burned out hulk for years.
Now I'm just a retired cabinetmaker, but I
do live in downtown Manhattan and have for years.
You are a moron without the slightest
understanding of structure and materials. And I would advise you to shut your
pie-hole at this time.
"It is better to stay quiet and have
people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
at Brietbart’s Big Hollywood
Actor and hardcore progressive Danny Glover should
add revisionist historian to his growing resume of left-wing activism after a
recent visit to Texas A&M University where he told students that the Second
Amendment was mainly meant to keep African Americans in slavery and to kill
Native American peoples.
During his January 17 appearance at the university,
Glover thought to teach the students attending about the real purpose
of the Second Amendment.
"I don't know if people know the genesis of the right
to bear arms. The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect, for
settlers to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native
Americans. So, a revolt from people who were stolen from their lands or revolts
from people whose land was stolen from. That was the genesis of the Second
Amendment."
This is simple historical revisionism. Slave revolts
had yet to become the constant, nagging fear it was later to become for
southern slaveholders. There was no such preoccupation in the late 1780s,
during the debate over the Constitution, or in the decades previous to that;
and it certainly wasn't a cause for northerners to worry. [Though runaways were a problem.]
Glover is completely wrong in every respect.
Slave revolts were a factor in the later decades
after the Constitution was enacted, of course. Fears of slave revolts took hold
in the south because of several major revolts that frightened whites here and
elsewhere. But previous to the debate and ratification of the U.S. Constitution,
there had been few such revolts, and none of them really served as the basis of
any pervasive fear.
One of the most famous slave revolts of the
founders' era was that in Haiti made famous by the leadership of a former slave
named Toussaint L'Ouverture. The revolt shocked the world, for sure. But this
revolt didn't start until 1791, four years after the U.S. Constitution was a
done deal. This revolt played no part in the creation of the Second Amendment.
There were slave revolts before 1787, though. One
slave revolt in the founder's recent memory was called the Battle of the Lord
Ligonier and occurred back in 1767. But that occurred on a ship in the
Atlantic, not on our own shores. Another revolt termed the New York Conspiracy
happened in 1741. The next one back, called the Stono Rebellion, occurred in
South Carolina in 1739. (And, remember, the famous Amistad incident wasn't
until 1839.)
None of these revolts that occurred before the
framing of the Constitution had much impact on the founders' thinking.
It should also be remembered that, when the founders
were debating the Second Amendment in 1787, slavery had yet to become the
economic powerhouse it was later to become. [Both
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were in constant debt and they were not
able to just sell off their slaves to make ready cash. In the case of
Washington he refused to break up families for sale. In the case of Jefferson the
Hemmings were closely related to his late wife’s family. During times of
inflation prices and the markets were slow and no money could be made in this
market. Especially when the Congress debased the currency.]
Previous to 1810, slavery was developing a bad
reputation throughout the country--even in the south--and by 1810 manumission
had been bestowed upon nearly 200,000 slaves. [Washington
granted it at his death.] Then came the growth of the South's plantation
economy and with it a growing refusal of southerners to consider the end of
their "Peculiar Institution." But that came a few decades after the
invention of the cotton gin in 1793.
For an economic barometer of the times, cotton
exports went from 500,000 pounds in 1793 to 93 million pounds by 1810. This
abrupt change made slavery an economic necessity if the south were to continue
growing as it had. But, again, all of this was years after the Constitution was
in place.
So, while it is true that southern plantation owners
would eventually develop a bone-shaking fear of slave rebellions and because of
that would begin a vicious routine of suppressing blacks, this fear didn't
manifest itself until the 1820's and 30's when slavery had become an important
and growing institution for the southern economy. [The saddest thing about this, that I have learned from the book "Bound of Iron", is that slaves who upgraded their skills were trapped in a maelstrom of inability to control their lives. But that's just it, isn't it.]
The truth is, the 2nd Amendment was a philosophical
ideal based on humanity's long history of using government force on a disarmed
public, force that resulted in oppression and in the subsequent loss of
religious freedom, and as a result of the fact that the founders wanted a
weaker, decentralized federal government that could not harm the rights of the
people.
It had nothing at all to do with slavery and Indian
attacks, Mr. Glover. Nothing at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment