(Part 2) Best products from r/Documentaries

He tightened it up slightly, and released "The Secret of Oz" in 2009. Same idea, but..90 minutes shorter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs1V333mE7A

Here's the Amazon description:
The Secret of Oz won best documentary of 2010 at the Beloit International Film Festival. It won the Silver Sierra Award for Excellence in Filmmaking at the Yosemite Film Festival. It won the Award of Merit at The Accolade Competition in La Jolla, California. It won the Silver Screen Award at the Nevada Film Festival. It's received an excellent review on Nathan's Economic Edge, one of the world's top economics blogs. It's British premier was at the prestigious Bromsgrove conference on Oct. 1. What's going on with the world's economy? Foreclosures are everywhere, unemployment is skyrocketing - and this may only be the beginning. Could it be that solutions to the world's economic problems could have been embedded in the most beloved children's story of all time, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"? The yellow brick, the emerald city of Oz, even Dorothy's silver slippers (changed to ruby slippers for the movie version) were powerful symbols of author L. Frank Baum's belief that the people - not the big banks -- should control the quantity of a nation's money. The bottom line: No More National Debt. All our money is created out of debt. But nations don't have to borrow money from banks. Sovereign nations can create their own money -- debt free -- just as Abraham Lincoln did.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Oz-James-Robertson/dp/B002WLS890

Really guys?

|Please upvote if it adds to intelligent discussion, downvote if it doesn't.

Even if I hold more respect for the genre than you do, you're adding to the discussion so I upvoted you.

As they explain in the doc, the music/movement was more about raw energy than technical skill. It was a counter-movement to the new wave/disco/pop that was flooding the clubs and venues. The focus is the passion/emotional content of the music, not the composition (although the tempos and note choices hold emotional content on their own, the live energy was more important.)

That isn't to say there aren't hardcore bands that require finesse. Sure some bands just picked up their instruments and wrote the songs within months, but bands like Bad Brains are masters of their craft as well as passion driven hardcore punk. Other bands from the hardcore scene like DRI, Minor Threat, TSOL, and others evolved their sound over time to become more complex. DRI went the crossover thrash route, Minor Threat front-man started Fugazi, and TSOL took a good dose of metal in the later releases. I'd at least recommend giving Fugazi a listen to hear what emotive hardcore punk sounds like with a more pre-indie/alt-rock/progressive twist.

If you're a music enthusiast, I'd recommend the book American Hardcore over the doc, as it is much more in depth, covers more subscenes across the US, and does a better job explaining the movement than the film. It will give you a much greater understanding of the evolution of punk rock in America, and why it was such a big part of many American youths lives. Not only was this scene important to the bands and fans involved, but it also changed the way a lot of bands that came after looked at, and played music. A great example (and maybe even the apex) of how hardcore has progressed comes from 90s Swedish punk rockers Refused. Check them out for an example of hardcore that takes a lot of skill to play, even if the vocalist is yelling into the mic for the most part.

Oh and I don't listen to much 80s hardcore on album anymore unless I'm feeling nostalgic for my middleschool/highschool years (when I discovered those bands), but when I did listen to them a lot, I fully digested the music, lyrics, and message like I would with a more textured, complex band. Most of it was a channel to express frustration, but sometimes I just wanted the high energy and high tempo of hardcore to get me pumped about whatever I was doing. Different strokes for different folks.

Flavor text to follow is an excellent summary from an amazon.com review made by user G. A. BRAVO-CASAS

>This film is a short introduction to Richard Wagner's "The Ring of the Nibelung." This monumental cycle of four operas is one of the major achievements in the annals of art. "In the Eye of the Ring" is a video guide that facilitates the understanding of a very complicated narrative. It appeared some years ago as a videotape (VHS in the US) and it has been recently transferred to a DVD format. The film is presented in 18 chapters and follows a logical and chronological order of events. The first chapter tells us everything important that has happened before the curtain rises in the first opera, "Das Rheingold." There is an introduction to the audience of the main characters, as they are associated to the four mythological elements: air, earth, water, and fire. The film also provides examples of the more than 50 leitmotivs that are part of the story. Customers have the option of selecting the narration in English, French, German, or Russian. The English version is narrated by John G. Deacon, the French by Didier Adès, the German by Jörg Bendrat, and the Russian by Uri Filipov; unfortunately, the Russian version has been shortened to 19 minutes and includes only the introduction to the film and to the Rheingold. The illustrations come from two famous artists, the English book illustrator Arthur Rackham and the German painter Franz Stassen; additional drawings were specially prepared for this film by Polina Zinoviev. The musical extracts are from the "Orchestre Nationale de France," conducted by Jeffrey Tate.

>The author of the film is Bruno Lussato (1932-2009), a dedicated Wagnerian who was financially successful in the field of informatics and system analysis. He coined the term "micro informatics" and was a professor at the prestigious Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. During his life he collected many Wagnerian original manuscripts and created the "Centre Culturel des Capucins" in Paris. It is considered the second largest collection of Wagner documents in the world, and it is part of the "Bibliothèque Nationale de France." Two years before he died, he was made "Commandeur de la Légion d'honneur" in France. He wrote a monumental masterpiece, "Voyage au Caeur du Ring. Wagner - L'Anneau du Nibelung. Encyclopédie" (Paris: Fayard, 2005, 832 pages), which has a preface by Pierre Boulez. This massive work has a companion book with the same title, but subtitled "Poème commenté" (829 pages), that has the original texts and a French translation of the Ring.

>Through the presentation of the storyline of the Ring, Lussato presents some of his own views and interpretations. Almost at the end of the film, he brings some of the lessons that he believes the Ring provides to us. He says that the music speaks for Brünhilde in her denunciation of false values, the frantic pursuit of power and wealth, the search for honors and status. At the end, Brünhilde learns that "the ambivalence of human nature must be recognized; the same man can be at once pure and correct, faithful and treacherous..." and that "it is love which should inspire our actions" as the ultimate value. On the last point, Lussato observes that the notion of love is constantly evolving and being refined in the Ring and acquires its pinnacle at the immolation scene, where love is transformed into total compassion.

All but the most conservative, openly apologetic scholars are happy to admit mythical elements of the Jesus story. But few are willing to take the higher criticism to its logical conclusion. That's fine, but I want to make it clear: believing the gospels mythical is not some crackpot position. For example, most secular bible scholars reject the gospel miracles, including the resurrection. How do they classify these events?

Myth.

They might still argue that Jesus was an actual person upon which all the mythical characteristics were placed. And much ink has been spilled searching for this Jesus of history. Who was he? A Zealot? A social justice warrior? A capitalist? A Cynic? A Stoic? A teacher? A revolutionary? An apocalyptic prophet? The messiah? The son of God? All these things and more?

Take your pick.

The best minds of New Testament studies certainly can't agree. I mean, if Jesus can be all these things, a cipher to stand for whatever the reader wants, what does that tell you about the veracity of the evidence describing this supposed historical character? If someone is everything at once, that person is actually nothing, i.e., fictional.

Anyway, maybe there was a historical Jesus. The fact of the matter is that person is forever lost to us, all we have left are legends, tall tales, midrash, revelation, myth.

>For example, the mythicist arguments involving the notion of "dying/rising gods" in the ancient world. Try to find legit sources on that and see if you don't end up with just an old "pre-modern mythicist" book that states it as if fact without citing any ancient sources.

I'm sorry but you are misinformed, there are plenty of primary sources supporting the existence of dying and rising gods in the ancient world. These were actually quite common and often developed independent of one another. Such gods (sometimes heros or sons of god) usually represented cycles of the seasons, particularly harvest, a central aspect of ancient existence.

Furthermore, you are also incorrect in portraying these theories as little more than uncritical, "pre-modern mythicist" nonsense. In fact, James Frazer was the first to put forward the theory that Christianity shares certain characteristics with other ancient dying and rising god cults at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, far from "pre-modern." While it's an area of debate, contemporary scholars still argue in favor of the theory, though in a revised form.

Now, the main critique (spearheaded by conservative bible scholars) is that the category isn't sufficient. They claim there are just too many differences to make any useful comparisons. I wonder why scholars in THIS field might be so insistent on such exactness? Why such a strict need for all or nothing? They demand the dying-and-rising-gods theory must meet very strict standards of categorization. They make extreme requirements for the category, requirements far beyond most critical comparative mythology. Scholars in other fields of the humanities would never take such an absurd position. In short, conservative biblical scholars are moving the goalposts.

Look, simply because the details don't match exactly doesn't make comparison invalid. There's an entire field of Comparative Religion we would have to do away with if we demanded such a standard of evidence.

The main mythicist argument here isn't that Christians simply copied other religions whole-cloth, but rather that stories within the gospels share traits with stories told in other ancient religious myths, stories we all agree are fictional. The dying-and-rising-gods argument is best used mainly for context, pointing out the utter unoriginality of the resurrection for example. The theory doesn't require exact analogy to maintain its forcefulness. Also, to be sure the dying and rising gods theory is not necessary for the mythicist position. Just as easily a non-mythicist might accept it.

In fact, while critical of the theory, even Ehrman is forced to admit that early Christians shaped their image of Jesus based on other ancient figures. (Did Jesus Exist?, 208)

>It's almost certainly true that the earliest Christology (that is, what people believed about the nature of Jesus) was not that he was God or even that he was divine. Just that he was the messiah, and the messiah was never said to be God, divine, or anything like that.

I'm sorry but you are absolutely wrong here. You seem to be overlooking the earliest Christian writings we have available, writings which are not rare, heretical, or lost but can be found in every New Testament ever published. The Pauline epistles predate the gospels, yet Jesus as depicted there is the opposite of what you are saying. To Paul Jesus is not merely the messiah, he is the Son of God, the Christ, a divine being who sacrificed himself at the beginnings of time. Paul's Christology, representing the earliest of Christian thought we have available, is rooted in spiritual metaphysics and mysticism. For Paul, Christ comes in visions, his hidden message revealed through esoteric readings of scripture (Old Testament). Christ in the epistles is a heavenly figure, not a person of history.

> It seems to be the earliest Christians believed Jesus was elevated by God at his crucifixion (for a hint of the evidence of this, see Romans 1:1 where Paul cites an old creed he must've heard, also look at the long speeches in Acts where Peter and Paul speak to see hints of this Christology).

Romans 1:3-4 is almost certainly anachronistic. Creeds in the epistles are likely later interpolations. Creedal statements are a sure sign of mature theological developments, something coming during the institutionalization of religious doctrine, which was unlikely to be happening during Paul's time. But I'll grant you your creeds for argument's sake. Nothing about the introduction to Romans points definitively to a human Jesus.

First of all, Paul's Christ has been revealed through "holy scriptures" (Old Testament) not through historical events. Also, the language he uses is bizarre. Why say "sprung from the line of David according to the flesh?" According to the flesh? Strange stuff. Besides, I can still grant you this ever-so-brief, fleeting, out-of-place creedal statement because it becomes next to meaningless when compared to the rest of the letter, which over-and-over invokes a heavenly Christ of revelation, not an earthly individual of history.

>Those are two if the biggest problems for me when it comes to accepting the mythicist theories I've read.

I'm sorry, but as I felt about Ehrmans book (which I've read) I feel the same about your arguments: thoroughly underwhelmed. If this is the best secular biblical studies can do against mythicism, I've no doubt the theory is here to stay.

Anyway, I've no interest in dogmatically defending the Christ myth theory. I would have no problem accepting the historicity of Jesus if sufficient evidence was made available proving some guy from ancient Roman Palestine (or somewhere else) to be the original source of Christianity. However, as I've pointed out, most secular-minded bible scholars (Ehrman included) readily admit all manner of mythologizing surrounding the gospel character of Jesus. My guess is many would have no problem with mythicist conclusions taken at a case-by-case level. They just have an irrational aversion to taking their own critical insights to their logical conclusion.

Mythicism is here to stay so long as weak-sauce arguments like Ehrmans' are the best critiques put forward.

>Great point but maybe you can give an explanation on how almost every religious belief in the world references some time of "god" coming from the sky? Even though they would have never had any contact together what so ever.

I'm not an expert on religions (let alone every religion), but I would actually think that many religions don't have gods coming from the sky, but actually spirits/gods living in and on the land. I think the fact that many cultures have gods at all speaks to the nature of humans just being apes with big brains and needing to explain the world around us. The development of the scientific method has gotten rid of the need for supernatural explanations.

>Assuming that intelligent life wouldn't be willing/able to get here is also grossly presumptive on your part, since I am sure you are an expert on other worldly technology. Oh maybe you are also an expert on the value of galactic resources?

No need to get snarky/sarcastic; people are allowed to disagree with you. No one said that they're not willing to coming here, it's the ability to do so. Please read that link in my original comment - physics are universal, whether you live on Earth or Omicron Persei 8.

>In all honestly the most valuable thing in the entire universe would most likely be genetics. Pretty good reason to explore planets that could support life don't you think? Dismissing something because we wouldn't be capable of it ourselves in the next 50 years is the kind of shit I'm talking about.

I'm assuming here that you're talking about spreading a species across planets, and not just about "genetics" (which we most certainly can do now). For this I'm going to quote from a book called The Eerie Silence by Paul Davies, a man who has been involved with SETI for several decades: "The chances of alien biology matching the terrestrial variety are very low indeed. Even if DNA is the only viable genetic molecule, there is no reason why the same amino acids in similar combinations would be used as enzymes by all life. Alien and terrestrial life forms simply wouldn't mesh, so the aliens couldn't eat our plants and animals... Rather than offering an incentive...the biosphere would actually be an inconvenience to the aliens, apart perhaps from the oxygen it has released into the atmosphere. Successful colonization of Earth would probably entail building huge and expensive artificial habitats, or eliminating the indigenous biosphere altogether and replacing it with an alien one - terraforming Earth itself in fact. So contrary to popular lore, our planet's rich and entrenched biology could explain why E.T. is not here."
Again, no one is saying their isn't other civilizations out there exploring, it's that they've reached Earth specifically. This page gives a great example of just how huge even our solar system is. There's a lot of space our there, and a lot of planets in it, and we are definitely not the centre of that.

If you are going to reply again please 1) read the sources given to you, and 2) be polite! Thanks :)

The fact that I'm seeing this today is crazy; Amazon had recommended me a book a month and a half ago called: "What Doesn't Kill Us," really great read from another journalist named Scott Carney, he had followed Wim Wof and trained with him. I just finished it last night, a great read if you think this type of stuff is interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Doesnt-Kill-Environmental-Conditioning/dp/1623366909/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500402291&sr=8-1&keywords=what+doesnt+kill+us

According to the account of the trip that he wrote in "Becoming the Iceman" He made it to 27,230 feet shirtless and in shorts, a hat and boots. Everest is 29,029 feet. I'm not sure where you got the 22,000 number.

I climbed to Gilman's point Kilimanjaro with Wim also shirtless most of the way. My account of my six year journey with Wim and other people practicing environmental exposure is in my book What Doesn't Kill Us.

As I've said before, there is certainly some overstatement that surrounds the Wim Hof Method. There is also a tendency for the organization InnerFire to be more focused on money than is healthy, but there is definitely something to the method. It does make you much more resilient to the elements and it absolutely has an effect on the immune system (here's a link to a journal article in PNAS). Here's another about the WHM effect on altitude sickness.

I agree that people should be skeptical of claims like these, but they also should look at the evidence before they just start discounting it.

Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard

There is no one person short of Henry Kissinger who has been more of a political insider through last 4 decades than Brzezinski. He was a key figure in supporting the Mujahideen and he almost single handedly created Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda means "the base", which referred to Brzezinski's database of useful Mujahideen fighters).

Brzezinski has advised on foreign policy from Carter to Obama and everyone in between. His book and his own words document the reasons for and the consequences of the US' role in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Any video claiming to give information on the beginnings of Al Qaeda/ISIS is horribly incomplete without THAT story....especially when the words come from the horse's mouth and the man is still alive today (his daughter is the co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC).

After doing some research I'm pretty sure it's this: http://www.amazon.com/Egypt-Uncovered-Complete-Ancient-Epic/dp/B003L16F68/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404748613&sr=8-1&keywords=Egypt+uncovered

One of the video parts in his channel actually had the credits and it said that the Documentary was Based on the Book Egypt by Vivian Davies & Renee Friedman

>There's a ton of issues with the choice of sources in the documentary and there's decent critique of them all over the place, as an example check out this Quora post.

If we're going to do that, then let's look at James's post (i.e., the first post) as well.

>Looking at the big picture meat isn't a big deal for greenhouse gas emissions. In the US currently all agriculture, including the plants we eat, only represent about 8% of our total emissions (so meat might be 5-6% of that):

Here, IMO, you’re failing to take into account that you need to include pasture degradation and land usage when calculating this figure; please correct me if I’m mistaken. When you do, Livestock’s contribution to climate change, in CO2 equivalent, accounts for approximately 18% of total emissions. That said, I would consider this compelling considering that the transportation industry, which we primarily focus on when discussing how to ameliorate global warming, is responsible for 13% of all GG emissions. Moreover, when taking into account Livestock and all aspects of their byproducts, it appears as though they account for 51% of worldwide GG emissions, which is astounding.

>And when we compare the amount of water needed to produce a kilo of meat compared to producing a kilo of a plant-based protein, like tofu, we see that the numbers aren't that different. It's about 1.5-6 liters per kilo for meat and ~2 liters per kilo for tofu. Tofu also contains less protein, about 10% compared to 20-30% for meat, so you'd have to eat 2-3 times as much of it.

Here, you’re failing to take into account other plant-based protein sources beyond soy, which there are a plethora, that may require less water to grow.

>The biggest problem in the US is likely that the method used [we] choose to produce meat, especially beef, is more water intensive. Here's a comparison of water use between the US and the Netherlands for different meats.

Taken directly from the Abstract of the paper which you cited: “The study shows that from a freshwater perspective, animal products from grazing systems have a smaller blue and grey water footprint than products from industrial systems, and that it is more water-efficient to obtain calories, protein and fat through crop products than animal products. Ergo, IMO, your argument here is moot.

>And you're not going to live longer just because you cut out meat. Vegetarians doesn't have lower overall mortality than meat eaters (6% higher relative risk in vegetarians, but not statistically significant):

There is plenty of great research out there which elucidates how incorporating more plants into a diet has statistically significant health benefits. Further, there have been studies done on “blue zone” populations (i.e., a demographic and/or geographic area of the world where people live measurably longer lives) and one of the common traits among these groups is that the majority of their diet is plant-based.

I believe they were on Google Video at one point, I think that's where I saw them originally. They seem to be pretty difficult to find, but you can buy them on Amazon UK here for £35 (in the US they are a lot more expensive.)

It really is an amazing series of films (there's a book as well actually) it's too bad they are so difficult to find. More people should see them.

Everything you need to know about a plant based diet (there is also a cook book)

https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115

If you you want to make absolutely sure your body is getting everything it needs, use https://cronometer.com/, free for pc & phone.

This is an awesome delve into Sega's history including the Dreamcast. Highly recommended.

​

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1494288354/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_iMnjDb0RWWK22

The Mole People is a great book on people who live in the vast networks of tunnels and abandoned areas under NYC. I first read it in my anthropology class about 10 years ago and I've kept it since. It's a very fascinating read about life and culture right under the feet of the people on the surface.

Unfortunately not and I wish I would have search for that one. Still the one I got is nice, though I've read there are some typos. Just got tired of reading them from PDFs on my tablet and wanted something I could bookmark my favorites so I could get my boys to start reading them. Here's the link if anyone is interested for the one I got, nice price of $11.55, even cheaper then when I bought it two weeks ago: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785834206/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

You should check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Mind-Consciousness-Transcendence/dp/1594204225

Experienced people more or less tend to agree with my statement.

We don't use the word god in a biblical sense though.

God is the universe and the universe is consciousness.

Watch Alpha Class for free with an Amazon Prime subscription --\> https://www.amazon.com/Alpha-Class-Joe-Forte/dp/B079VX7LZ3

I strongly recommend this

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480093598&sr=1-1&keywords=the+grand+chessboard

if you want to dig deeper into what Russia has to deal with on a geopolitical level.

Hopefully you have Amazon Prime!

https://smile.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Chaos-Nic-Stacey/dp/B01N1YZLOF

I watched this about 10 years ago now. For those interested, the author wrote a book about it, called Don't Get High on Your Own Supply.

I've got a paperback of it and I remember at the time (around 2007-2008) it was really hard to get ahold of (I actually had to bid for a copy on ebay as it was out of print - cost about £30 at the time if I recall)

Edit: Looks like it never got a digital release, and used copies run for around £50

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Charlie-Says-Dont-High-Supply/dp/0684860120

Yes, read that if you want to be fooled and lulled back to sleep. Maybe follow it up with something from popular mechanics to really knock you out.

Or read a book and see how these "skeptics" pull the wool over your eyes: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

I think you guys might enjoy this good read: The Mole People About 50,000-80,000 people living beneath Manhattan.

Read the book, it's very good. https://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Wars-Battlefield-Jeremy-Scahill/dp/156858671X

Once Upon a Time in Russia also is a good story on the matter.

It was written by Ben Mezrich, the guy who wrote the books the movies 'The Social Network' and '21' were based off. He did an AMA a couple times.

> Then can you explain why the overall time it took the building to descend was calculated to be 40% greater than freefall?

I must debunk you. The "40% longer" story is obsolete for years now. It was NIST line of defence BEFORE they admit, there was free fall. So update your info, because you are not telling truth.
QUOTE:
"In response [to NIST early claims that collapse "was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall"], high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question to this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity. Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds… , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”53 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.) In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST—rather amazingly—admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”54 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case—except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics."

>Once that column buckled, it caused more of the floors to collapse, leaving adjacent columns unstable, and also impacted adjacent columns, damaging them. This triggered a chain reaction in which

What chain reaction? What a nonsense!
It was not house of cards, it was steel!
You are saying that failure of one column collapsed whole 82 coulumns and whole building. Sorry, that makes no sense.
Can you give any other example from history, where fire collapsed building in few seconds with free fall? Of course you cant...


> As for your question 2.
> Unfortunately for you, I managed to find the actual paper that you quoted.
> The authors clearly state that:
> "The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the.....

You presented nothing new. What's more presence of sulfur is another red flag that explosives (Thermate) were used:

"...Second, the WPI professors reported not merely that there was sulfur in the debris, but that the steel had been sulfidized. This means that sulfur had entered into the intergranular structure of the steel (which the New York Times article had indicated by saying that sulfur had “combined with atoms in the steel”). As chemist Kevin Ryan has said, the question NIST would need to answer is: “[H]ow did sulfates, from wallboard, tunnel into the intergranular microstructure of the steel and then form sulfides within?”118 Physicist Steven Jones added: [I]f NIST claims that sulfur is present in the steel from gypsum, they should do an (easy) experiment to heat steel to about 1000°C in the presence of gypsum and then test whether sulfur has entered the steel… . [T]hey will find that sulfur does not enter steel under such circumstances.119 Chemistry professor Niels Harrit has explained why it would not: Although gypsum contains sulfur, this is not elemental sulfur, which can react with iron, but sulfur in the form of calcium sulfate, which cannot.120 The official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, therefore,implies that the sulfidized steel had been produced by a twofold miracle: Besides the fact that the fires, as we saw earlier, could have melted steel only if they had possessed miraculous powers, the sulfur in the wallboard could have entered into this melted steel only by virtue of supernatural powers. Once again, a non-miraculous explanation is available: We need only suppose that thermate, a well-known incendiary, had been employed. As Steven Jones has written: The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is in general faster than basic thermite in cutting through steel due to the presence of sulfur. (Elemental sulfur forms a low-melting-temperature eutectic with iron.)121 Besides providing an explanation for the eutectic reaction, thermate could also, Jones pointed out, explain the melting, oxidation, and sulfidation of the steel: When you put sulfur into thermite it makes the steel melt at a much lower temperature, so instead of melting at about 1,538°C [2,800°F] it melts at approximately 988°C [1,820°F], and you get sulfidation and oxidation in the attacked steel."

...and that's why you have melted steel in 1000C temp and signs of sulfur.

PS. Please do read any book by David Griffin, I recommend "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory "
I dont have all day to copy-paste and correct all misinformation that you provide.
Read it and you will find plenty information and answer to your "debunking" there.

It was published in 2000.
http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/0684860120/ref=x_gr_mw_bb_sout_a?ie=UTF8&tag=x_gr_w_bb_fr-21&linkCode=ur2&camp=1642&creative=6746

http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Says-Dont-High-Supply/dp/0684860120

> Every person is capable of resisting altitude sickness. It's called "acclimating". All Hof's method is is acclimation training through auto-asphyxiation before you hit the mountain. Not exactly magic or rocket science.

That may be a part of it. But the thing he teaches on these climbs is to consciously breathe more and deeper in order to oxygenate the blood. He has climbed Mt Kilimanjaro with a group of people in like 48h using this method without any of the normal medication climbers use. He has been up Mt Kilimanjaro with several groups of people, all using that breathing tecnique.

I suggest anyone interested to read Scott Carney's book What Doesn’t Kill Us: How Freezing Water, Extreme Altitude and Environmental Conditioning Will Renew Our Lost Evolutionary Strength. Scott is a lot more articulate on these things than Wim. Scott was also part of the group that climbed Mt Kilimanjaro in record time with Wim.