The Walls of WTC Came a'Tumblin' Down

Have you SEEN the way WTC7 fell to the ground? A steel and concrete building, crumbling to nothing but dust in its own footprint. Quite a sight. And really rather frightening.

See the planes didn't HIT that building. There WAS no jet fuel leaking into the elevator shafts. There was a fire (and HOW did it start?) and that is all. Yet that incredibly strong, relatively newly built (1985) building just collapsed?

Check this out: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

So here's the thing.

If WTC7 just fell like THAT.

when no plane hit

when no jet fuel leaked

to crumble to dust from nothing but fire

(and supposedly no explosives)

how can people POSSIBLY feel safe in ANY building?

THINK, people.

Think

Question

Participate

Somewhat Radical Theories about Kids - Part 2

For tens of thousands of years, babies were carried at their mother's breast, in arms or in slings, until the children were old enough to be ambulatory. This created a deeply rooted attachment to a warm and loving body, both literally and figuratively.

In the last generation, mothers in our part of the world have bought into the "baby bucket" mentality. Those ever-convenient baby car-seat/bed contraptions are, I am convinced, at the very least a contributing factor to some of the childhood issues our society faces today. Once again, I do not have a medical degree, but I can not see the good in physically, and psychologically, separating a baby from his or her mother for most of the day.

There are documented cases of children being LEFT in the baby bucket all day, removed only for diaper changes. I think this is criminal! I am not saying that these infant car seats are bad, just that overuse can be detrimental to a child's well-being. Such lack of affection and human contact MUST affect a child later in life.

Somewhat Radical Theories about Kids - Part 1

I have a couple of radical theories about the state of our children. I don't have a medical degree, but I consider myself to be a reasonably good observer. Who knows if any of my ideas make sense? Someday, research will show something concrete about all of this. In the meantime, here is the first of my theories:

Sometime ago, probably about six years or so, I read an article which stated that if an infant consumed an entire diet soda (rich in sugar-replacement chemical compounds), the child would be severely brain damaged. This led me through an interesting thought process.

If sugar substitutes were indeed that harmful to a baby, could they not also be harmful to a fetus? Personally, I avoided all sugar substitutes while pregnant (along with avoiding being near running microwaves and anyone who was inhaling carcinogenic smoke). But I knew of lots of women who LIVED on diet soda.

Then I thought about the dramatic rise in ADD diagnoses in the late 80's. Was there a correlation between that and diet soda?

Prior to 1982, there were few diet sodas on the market: tab and fresca were the most popular. In 1982, diet coke was introduced, followed quickly by a diet version of pretty much every soda on the market. Is it a coincidence that six years later (when all the previously unborn children of diet-soda-drinking-mothers-to-be were hitting school age), we saw a dramatic increase in the number of ADD diagnoses?

Hmmm.