Messages

Hey Arn,

Got any sources for the fiber optic cable running through where the crater was?

If there was one, I doubt it was to cut off any transactions or anything, as it wouldn't be hard to find another way around a downed cable, and data would probably just be re-routed around and get to where it was going anyway. If this fiber optic cable wasn't linked between any two public LANs or LANs with internet connections, I wouldn't be surprised.

Here are jet crashes.



The fireballs/resulting fires from jet crashes (for a while, anyway) are very fuel-rich, for obvious reasons. Remember the WTC and Pentagon impact photos? Those would be fuel-rich explosions, from so much jet fuel. Produces thick black smoke, flame, all that.

These, on the other hand, are clouds produced from ordinance blasts:



And here's a photo taken by a Pennsylvanian on Sept. 11:




Ordinance blasts are set on the ground, which is why your statement of there being fiber optic cables running through there is interesting to me. Any sources for it would be appreciated.

Nay, how does this compare with "religious scare tactics"? Speaking of tolerance, where's yours for others' opinions? You seem to be the only one here that can't contribute anything but "Oh geez you bunch of idiots need to stuff it". What are you moderating for? Making sure everyone else thinks along your lines? It would seriously be ridiculous for you to close this thread or anything similar just because you feel this stuff is depressing or whatever. That being said (realizing how little you care for what others think), I think taking action on this thread would probably make you the worst mod on any forum I have ever come across. But like I said, I doubt you care (above all of our opinions, right?), it's just my two cents. And now watch me get banned for saying that! LOL So ridiculous.


Is there anyone that wants to discuss any of the actual content from the video?  GANAMOHA managed it. And btw, GANAMOHA, not many groups that can issue a NORAD stand-down order, right? Or organize a series of wargames and terror exercises for that very morning, etc., all mirroring the actual attacks.

So instead of blindly following the government I should blindly follow you?

Why should you do either?

If you look at photos from that day, it is quite evident that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

I wouldn't be so sure. I used to think the crash scene there looked awfully funny too, but then I found videos online of government and NASA tests (but what's the difference? ), like one where they sent some jet into a concrete wall at hundreds of miles per hour.

The plane totally disintegrated.

Here's a video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5810017935113152604&q=jet+concrete+wall&hl=en

On 9/11, similar jet could have impacted the Pentagon, which had a facade constructed of reinforced concrete, truck-bomb resistant, at several hundred miles per hour. Again, watch the video I just linked to. Total destruction. The engines, the heaviest parts of the plane that should have made it the farthest, would have busted the facade if anything, and mostly likely did if there was a plane (notice the lowest damage extends only so far as the engines would have, approximately), but other than that, the rest of the body of a 757 is thin aluminum, titanium bars in the wings, etc. Nothing that wouldn't be totally messed up in an impact like that.

BadCookie, why do you have to be such a buttface to people? If you're trying to offer anything for others to consider, you're doing a tinkle-poor job of it. I don't even believe the "official story" and I think the way you're posting is absolutely ridiculous.

I half feel like arguing on behalf of the reports from FEMA and NIST with you, not because I think their reports were conclusive, but because I seriously doubt you could hold your own against them, despite constantly calling everyone else "ignorant" and etc.

internet karma o well i tryed

LOL @ "internet karma" in general. There's not even a standard, like for quality posts or anything. It's just, "I like you, +1 karma LOL" or else "I don't like you lol sadface -1 karma ;(".  One of the most useful features of this forum, I have to say, especially considering the size of AP.

WHY WORRY ABOUT HOW IT FALLS?  Why would they care if they were willing to spend the money and kill the people anyway?  Why?  Why rig it so that it falls straight down doing less damage rather than tipping over and spreading the devistation?

I don't think the objective was ever "let's kill as many people and do as much damage as we can!"

Compared to how many people actually worked at the Twin Towers (tens of thousands), not that many actually died in the collapses (not to downplay the number of casualties, just putting into perspective). The planes were also only 1/4 full each, whereas they would normally be full by many accounts. The section of the Pentagon hit was under construction and pretty much vacant. So I mean, as far as a military psy-op of this magnitude, they were pretty efficient, and didn't really kill as many people as they could have, or do as much damage as they could have. Only enough to get the job done, you could say.

And think about it: our military top brass orders to have people killed all the time, in military strikes here and there and what-have-you. It's only the American citizen aspect that seems so unbelievable to us, though we understand and have no problem with them killing so many foreign civilians. "Collateral damage." It's what they do, when it comes down to it. Doesn't mean their whole objective is to only kill people.

Empty of people. Because if it was, then they could have exploded that one building since everything was lost already, it would be harmless and profitable (if it's right that you said that they had a 9 billion dollars insurance). Easier to believe than a government planning genocide against it's own people, though it's just as unlikely.

Yeah, it was evacuated, and only one person died. But how many innocents have we killed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to push military campaigns and agendas? Look at the whole Vietnam war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked (as recently detailed in an NSA release), and as a result, millions of people died. In Afghanistan alone, more innocents have died, several-fold, than died on 9/11. What's the difference, do you think? Are Americans too sacred to be killed, just as we're too sacred to send to war? Are we worth more? Less fun to kill? Our military carpet bombs cities in the Mid-East.

It takes time to rig buildings, too. That's the thing with Building 7: if any explosives were placed, they would have to be placed before 9/11. Before the placing, planning has to be done, on paper, as to where everything will have to go to ensure complete destruction, and prevent the building from falling in a wrong direction onto other buildings.

Also, many are forgetting that for the towers to crumble the weight and impact of the plane would just have to destroy a single floor, after one is down then the mass will increase and take one after another, just like seen on the video. Domino effect, not thermite.

Take into account the fact that around 80% to 90% of the building fell outwards, and out of the footprints, and the above won't work. If the floors simply fell one onto another, you wouldn't have seen so much crap flying out with such great force the whole way down, without the collapse wave so much as slowing down as it descended on heavier and heavier columns.

[conservation of angular momentum]

But is there conclusive evidence this substance isn't either ignited jet fuel, or other liquefied substances raining out of the building? Is there anything which proves it has to be molten metal?

If jet fuel were on fire it wouldn't just be glowing. It would be on fire. Same goes for any other hydrocarbons when they burn. Embers glow, but don't glow yellow, or in broad daylight, or slop around like a liquid. Molten steel will do all three.

Has there been any estimation on how much thermite would be needed, where it would be located, and projected estimates of how long it would take from detonation to collapse? I'd be interested to see anything like that.

Basic thermite would take a few seconds to cut through something, depending on how big it is. Special thermites with chemical additives, like sulfur, barium, etc., are different. Thermites with very small particles of aluminum and iron oxide, called "nano-thermites" or "superthermites", react much more quickly. Added sulfur also makes the reaction take place more quickly. Both of those would also require less thermite, to eat through the same amount of material. Professor Jones offers more information on these substances in his paper (just do a Google search and it should come up quickly).

It doesn't seem like uniform collapse, looking at the angle of the falling upper part of the tower.

Here's a picture from later in that collapse:



The top began tilting, then the tilting stopped when the building began falling straight down. This would be when the cutter charges kicked in to allow a very straight collapse. Otherwise, the law of conservation of angular momentum would have held up, and the cap would have continued tilting as it just had been.

Has there been any kind of estimates on how much of the steel support would have to fail or be weakend to cause collapse – taking into account the sheer tonnage of the upper floors?

I can do some real quick based on the safety factor ratings, if you want. NIST never did them, because doing so would indicate inadequacies in their report. With a safety factor of 5 (the perimeter columns), one column could support five times its max expected live load. With ideal redistribution of weight (ie, via the hat trusses at the tops of the buildings, etc.), you could take out as many as 4 out of every 5 perimeter columns on a single floor before that floor would fail. For the core it was less, with a rating of 2.25 for its columns, averaged I suppose. So that's how you would go about doing it.

Was the other tower empty? That one that wasn't hit by the planes. If it was then you solved your dilemma.

"Empty" how? Structurally empty, or empty of people and floor loads?

It was supposed to have been one of the most reinforced buildings in the world. Instead of all steel like the Towers (allegedly) were (depends on who you source -- designers called the Towers' cores "reinforced" from time to time; makes you wonder), WTC7 was undeniably constructed with a reinforced concrete structure, like most high-rises.

[weakened]

The steel wouldn't have to melt, theoretically, but at the same time, even weakened steel won't just up and fail instantly, across a whole floor. Even if a whole floor of columns were heated to 600 C, it probably would not collapse. This is because steel structures are typically over-engineered with safety factors of more than 200%  (for example, the perimeter columns of the WTC had ratings of 500%, and the core columns had ratings of 225% -- could hold 5x and 2.25x their max expected loads without failing, respectively), and yet steel only loses half its strength at even 600 C. So even if all the columns lost half their strength, they were still over-engineered massively enough to hold all of their loads, or at least should have been.

600 degrees Celsius is a very high temperature for structural steel to reach from hydrocarbon fires. Both NIST and British Steel have done tests in the past where steel members (smaller than the WTC columns if I'm not mistaken) were covered in so much hydrocarbon material that insane amounts of heat were put out, something like approaching half a million watts or something ridiculous like that, and in a very short amount of time. The steel heated to over 600 C, but would go no further. It appears furnace-like circumstances must be produced (ie, extremely confined space, pre-heated air being pumped in, etc.) for steel to be heated much above 600 C.

It's also useful to remember that open-atmosphere hydrocarbon fires will burn at a maximum of around 825 C depending on altitude, with perfect fuel-to-air ratio. The WTC fires were producing very sooty smoke most of time, giving good indication that this temperature was not sustained. Let's say the fires burned at around 700 C. Temperature is one thing, heat is another. For example, you can melt part of a beam with extreme temperatures, but unless you have similarly extreme gross heat output, the rest of the beam is going to be fine because the total energy available is not enough to take out the whole column. It's like a candle versus a campfire: candle will probably burn hotter, but the campfire will put out MUCH more heat. Not because it's hotter (temperature), but because the total energy being radiated (heat) is much greater.

At 700 C, the heat being radiated would not only be absorbed by steel (which is itself an excellent heat sink), but also carried away in the smoke and absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere, the concrete slabs, even office materials, and laws of thermodynamics state that energy is always lost in transfer. In this case it probably would have been considerable when we're only looking at the steel, because the steel columns were far from the only masses around to absorb heat from a 700 C or so, sooty fire.


NIST, in its report, states that no samples of steel from the WTC were found that were heated to more than 250 C. The steel that did reach 250 C consisted of two sections of core columns, out of couple hundred samples or so. This seems pretty in line with the above, but NIST also goes on to assume that most all of the steel on a given floor was heated to 600 C or above nonetheless. This is despite the fact that 600 C steel glows dull red in broad daylight, not to mention that they hadn't found a single sample indicating such heating the first place.

So, just some commentary on heating steel. Again, it wouldn't have to melt, but steel structures are still very resilient against fires anyway.

What floor the collapse started from, what floor these 'sparks' came from,

The molten metal in question is from WTC2. WTC2's collapse initiated on the same floor the metal was pouring from.

how long after they appeared did the building collapse,

It first showed up just a few minutes prior, and at some point a pretty steady stream began. Then the building began collapsing.

You can see the molten metal is still pouring from the same place as WTC2 collapses in the image below:



It's dropping from the corner most facing the camera.

where there any explosive noises prior to them appearing?

Yes, and no.

Thermite does not make explosive sounds, and its initiation is silent.

However, explosions were reported constantly throughout the fires, during the collapses, and even just seconds prior to impact in a basement explosion, shattering concrete, reported by several janitors working there at the time. A thread in the news media section links to a video clip of two explosions recording at least after the collapse of WTC2.

Also, I'd have to question where the explosives were placed (surely at the core structure?) and how that led the incendiaries to leak out of a window at the side of the building instead of filling any number of internal cavities, or falling down internal voids etc.

A structural engineer I know and speak to regularly thinks that incendiaries would only have to be placed in the core structure on the mechanical floors, which were reinforced, and provided the above floors with more stability. You may come across engineers describing the WTC Towers as three buildings stacked one on top of another. When you see the light, windowless bands on the WTC Towers, those were the reinforced mechanical floors where each new set of floors would be "stacked" (more like solidly welded across multiple floors; very rigid cores, and very flexible perimeter/truss systems).

I just find the prospect of certain American figures blowing up these towers, and only fringe elements challenging them with dubious evidence as unlikely as the prospect of terrorists planting bombs.

The amount of scholars coming out against the official report is actually pretty staggering, in my opinion. Some 75 professors alone are on board with Scholars for 9/11 Truth alone, and that organization is even lacking the membership of a lot of other relevant people that agree with them, like the structural engineer above that I know personally (he isn't a member of S9/11T for reasons of not wanting to put his job at risk for his opinions -- understandable I suppose), a mechanical engineer that I know (that also isn't a member), researcher Jim Hoffman, LP SE Charles Pegelow, etc.   S9/11T lists its members and their expertises here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

Suggesting this is a government conspiracy kind of suggests a relatively trivial political conspiracy. I don't think this was the case at all. I don't think Bush was an important figure in any of this. I don't think Rumsfeld or Condi were important figures, or any democrats or any other politicians for that matter. The only people that have gained, and gained enormously, are those that head off the corporations that produce for our military complex, and relate to resources located within the countries we are currently occupying as a direct result of the kicking-off of this so-called "War on Terror". These kinds of people have so much money and power in the world that they're effectively a collective monarchy. Fascism is when these groups gain significant influence over a governmental body. I think this is happening now. I don't think government is so much the problem, but military politics as guided by the corporations that make so many billions/trillions off these wars, and have infiltrated/lobbied their ways into influential positions in this country and abroad.

The alternative is that Muslim extremists infiltrated these buildings, and not only planted explosives, but also planted them in a very sophisticated way, and detonated them in an even more sophisticated fashion, which appears to me to have intentionally designed to make the collapses look natural (ie, the explosives are detonating in a progressive wave, and they even appear to have been initiated by silent incendiaries). Adding WTC7 to the equation, not only being relatively insignificant from a terrorists' perspective, but also housing several federal agencies, including CIA offices, seems to make this idea a little more improbable, to me at least. Not to mention the lack of claims of explosives-planting by terrorists if they were really to blame, and the federal reports that seem to intentionally ignore most all of the most key evidences in reaching their conclusions.

My 2 cents.

[incendiary]

A building blew up with thermate would see liquid metal pour from the building in the time from detonation to the time of full collapse (seconds)? Please provide sources.

Thermate is a derivative of thermite (basically fine aluminum particles + fine iron oxide particles ignited at very high temperatures). It's an incendiary, and does not explode, but results in very hot, brightly-glowing molten iron/steel.

Here is a picture of a thermite reaction:



Here is a video showing thermite dumped onto dry ice, a car engine, and used to eat into a gas tank and cause an explosion: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585

And here is an image of bright orange/yellow/white molten metal pouring out of the corner of WTC2, right where an important box column would have been, if not severed by a jet impact:




Research physicist Dr. Steven Jones has shown in papers (such as one that's been peer-reviewed two or three separate times now just because people like to complain about the reviewing instead of addressing any of the actual information contained within the report) that the above could not be (a) steel melted by fire, because hydrocarbon fires do not produce temperatures high enough to melt steel, or (b) molten aluminum, because molten aluminum always appears silvery in broad daylight, and never bright yellowish. As you can see from the photo/video of thermite, however, it does appear as the material flowing from WTC2.

[MisterJingo,There are several criticisms of NIST's related release on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, here: http://www.st911.org/Included are a critique by a licensed professional structural engineer of 30 years experience, also with a degree in mathematics (Charles Pegelow), as well as the results of an actual experiment by Dr. Steven Jones showing that at least one of the latest NIST claims is patently flase, and demonstrably so. Researcher Jim Hoffman, chemist Kevin Ryan, formerly of UL labs that certified the WTC steel, Dr. Jim Fetzer, and Sean Glazier have also posted rebuttals there.]

MisterJingo,


There are several criticisms of NIST's related release on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, here: http://www.st911.org/

Included are a critique by a licensed professional structural engineer of 30 years experience, also with a degree in mathematics (Charles Pegelow), as well as the results of an actual experiment by Dr. Steven Jones showing that at least one of the latest NIST claims is patently flase, and demonstrably so. Researcher Jim Hoffman, chemist Kevin Ryan, formerly of UL labs that certified the WTC steel, Dr. Jim Fetzer, and Sean Glazier have also posted rebuttals there.

[no official explanation]

Anyone see where NIST has recently, and very explicitly, backed away from "pancake collapse" theory?

This government agency is the only one that had some access to the construction drawings, which are under lock and key, and is also keeping 1000's of photos and videos confiscated by FEMA at Ground Zero.

So now there apparently is no official explanation for how the Twin Towers collapsed to the ground. NIST has attemped to explain how each collapse started, but even structural engineers (ie Charles Pegelow and three other SE's with Scholars for 9/11 Truth) have been risking credibility to come out and demonstrate how NIST's conclusions on the initiations are based upon unsupported data. And as I've said, they've just recently stated that they do not support pancake collapse theory. They also have not defined any other global, meta-floor collapse mechanisms that can demonstrate the observed collapse features.

So how they collapsed to the ground as they did, from the standpoint of the only organization with the hard evidence, is just a big question mark at this point in time, some five years after the fact. They even had to outsource for WTC7. The 9/11 Commission Report wouldn't even mention that building.

I don't know if any body here has ever been near an electrical transformer when it has blown.  Even a small transformer like one in your computer can sound like a book hitting a desk when it blows.  Building like that have ones that have 100,000 times the load on them.

They do explode, but I fail to see how such a transformer would blow in such a manner from fire, let alone fire on floors much higher up in the buildings. These things would have been located in the core structures of the buildings, on lower floors (if I'm not mistaken, it's a fire hazard to have these sorts of things above certain floors in skyscrapers, and thus illegal). I also doubt that you can hear them blowing for miles.

From safety videos I've had to watch on electricity (I'm studying computer electronics engineering), these kinds of failures occur from strictly electrical problems, like fuses will explode when they are installed despite being rated below the amount of current actually designed to flow through the given system, and then exploding when the system becomes live again. For fire to cause a failure, a component would at least have to be directly exposed to the fire, because a break in the circuit higher up would not result in an explosion at a transformer lower down, just as it wouldn't result in a sudden, massive spike in current. And a sudden spike in current would be cut off by breakers, for sure.

[hear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Oral testimonies and first-responder transcripts have provided evidence of "secondary" explosions throughout both buildings between impacts and collapses. For some examples see this page (includes videos of firefighter testimonies): http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

However, in the above video clip, after WTC2 fell but before WTC1, you can actually hear two such explosions, and watch the firefighters' reactions, rather than just having it related by the firefighters.

This is what I would add to the above: being strong means knowing when to give way. Nothing has to ever be forced, either out or in; it isn't natural.

What others say, you never have to take personally, so why would you? Is there a reason for it? I laugh when others insult me, if they do a good enough job. When others get angry at me, I act and feel just as I would if they were calm, because the anger is neither necessary, nor anyone's problem but those who bother to care and let it affect them. And I have nothing that I feel the need to have faith in.

Once, when I was constantly depressed, I decided to focus on the feeling as much as I possibly could, bringing it to the forefront of my consciousness, instead of trying to avoid it, or ignore it, inspired by some buddhist literature I'd read. This was about the only time I've found meditation useful, thus far anyway (doesn't mean no one else could). First I noticed how it felt so localized to my gut, kind of like this reeling feeling. At some points I didn't really notice any other nerve information from other parts of my body, but only felt that reeling feeling in my gut, and it felt a lot larger and more intense, if those are the right words. I never thought "Jeez I hate this", or "Man I wish this would stop".

I don't know what happened after that, but depression has never been that much of a problem for me since then. Just some minor forebodings of some kind of half-there feeling from time to time. Maybe acceptance of the feeling, or maybe just wondering, "why the hell do I feel this in the first place?", and realizing how ridiculous any reason would be, short of it just being there, and of there being no other legitimate reason. And just being there is hardly a legitimate reason for me to be depressed, when I don't want to be. So I'm just not depressed. It's never really been any more complicated than that for me, since then. My two cents anyway.

Someone with chemical experience has actually posted somewhere online, showing that the alleged explosives would not have worked. For someone to attempt them, they would have to be clueless as to what they were doing. For example, the ingredients would have to be mixed on the plane, and are extremely unstable, boil and quickly heat to extremely high temperatures, and could not be spilled without causing serious injury, etc.

An additional issue that has been raised, is the question of why liquid substances are being combined for security when the combination of the involved chemicals was allegedly the whole mechanism for explosive initiation in the first place.


It really does amount to fearmongering, and pointless security. The said chemicals could, in all likelihood, not be used to create an on board explosive. You would have more of a chance of someone smuggling in thermite (which you COULD NOT DETECT), and eating a hole through the frame of the aircraft. Or setting the plane on fire from the inside, with the in-flight magazines and etc. It's ridiculous.

Unless people fly butt-naked, and are cavity searched, there are always going to be ways to cleverly compromise an aircraft's flight. The real question is, why? How many times does this happen? Many more people die in automobile accidents every year than have died as the result of terrorist attacks in the past 50 years combined in the US, or some figures to that effect. So then why is everyone being disallowed from bringing on trivial items that are much less harmful than things they could never detect, and would be much easier to implement? It's all the hype is just to enfore stricter security.

In 5 five years, everyone may have forgotten this incident, but who's willing to bet that these extra "security" measures will still be in effect? These things are gradual. They wouldn't try to pull a police state on you overnight, as rational citizens would immediately reject it. It has to be built up over time, and this has been going on for decades already. Little events like this, under contexts of bigger threats, like the USSR,or communism, or drugs, or terrorism.

Regardless of who fired the shot, the Zapruder film shows it came from the front. His head jars as if he's just been shot in the face. It's a very intuitive thing to see, something you wouldn't even think twice about until someone tells you it actually came from behind, and that's when all the b.s. and doublethink comes into play.  Just watch the video and see where you think the shot has come from.

[IS]

I'm just curious on peoples thoughts on what separates good from evil. What are their main differences. are they opposites or enemies? things like that.

I'll respond without reading the other replies, mainly because I'm tired and lazy.

I've been wondering the same thing for a while, and I really don't know, but you could describe them (maybe a little more objectively) as selfish/unselfish, aware/ignorant, and things like that, but then I wonder if there even IS a way you can objectively describe the two with any accuracy. Maybe it's a little more intuitive and counter-intuitive to the way we've been raised to think.

In Taoism, good and evil allow each other to exist. There is only good when there is something comparatively "worse", and vice-versa. Taoism encourages us to not make these distinctions.

In criticism of e. e. cummings that I've read, I came across an even more profound way of viewing good and evil: they encourage each other dynamically and proportionately.

For example, when everyone in the world is either suffering and dying of horrible diseases and famines, etc., or else ignorant, then mankind's desire for "good" skyrockets.

On the other hand, when everyone is living in a little paradise, in some 1950's perfect-world suburbia or wherever, mankind's desire for "good" greatly diminishes, we become non-vigilant, are less motivated to solve major problems, and "evil" can (and historically does) much more easily take hold, leading to the above example.

That was some powerful stuff for me. e.e. cummings is amazing.

Just my 2 cents.

what would you call that. Persistance of expectation?

I would guess it's messing with actual parts of your eyes. There are neurons or groups of them or etc. in your eyes whose only job is detecting vertical edges, horizontal edges, and things like that.

When you stare at a colorful image for long enough, and look away, you see an afterimage "opposite" in color (in relation to your eyes' cones, not actual opposite colors) of what you were just looking at because the cones of the colors you were staring at became "tired".

My guess would be this is doing the same thing, except it's targeting the parts of your eyes dealing with edges rather than with colors. This is just my guess, though.

If I'm right, then when you look away, you should actually be seeing a reverse of the pattern over everything you look at.

You heard wrong, because Randi has said if not in all interviews that he is very eager to give away the million if someone can turn his world upside down.

I'm sure he would say that. But that's comparable to a murderer saying he didn't do it, and I'm more likely to believe the witnesses.

I've heard Randi's pretty selective about who he pays attention to. As in, he's not really looking to give that money away any time soon, even when a few credible individuals have come forward for him.

Sounds more like Zen than gibberish, but they're the same thing.

I think logic and un-logic can co-exist nicely, especially when one knows how to use logic as a tool, for very specific purposes, like a spoon or fork. Trying to find truth with logic would be like trying to operate the fingers with the spoon. But without making any use of logic whatsoever, we wouldn't be communicating right now, would we? It'd just be nice if we could better remember the ultimate "context" of things as we experience them. Suddenly, things are harder to take for granted. But those states of mind come and go for me.

You know what I like doing sometimes? I like to listen to someone speaking English, and try to "abort" the aspects of my mind that make me understand the words. I like to try to hear English as a foreign language. I see it as analogous to the above. Or looking at something, and getting yourself to not see it, to not recognize it as anything in particular or analyze what exactly you're seeing. It doesn't look any different, but the it aspect isn't there.

I smell some food, and think I'll investigate. Thanks Inguma for your post, lol. No idea what it was about it but its seriously ended up catalyzing a great mood in me. XD