WTC7
Ernie Primeau
WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged battery.
Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
Ernie
VFW
"Ernie Primeau" <Erni...@webtv.net> wrote:
check this out!
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people.
Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours
after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained
relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September
11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that
day
goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale
that's "beyond the pale"!
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and
the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred
to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane
crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate
everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence
was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel
core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they
didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to
do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that
incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a
simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to
perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of
gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a
large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight)
upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per
second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago,
heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be
falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is
falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged
16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has
fallen
16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in
any
high-school physics book:
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =
1/2
x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144
feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,
using
conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely
changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy
in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is
converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough
to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water
stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever
is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic
energy.
The equation for potential energy is:
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x
H)
The equation for kinetic energy is:
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object
has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x
144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =
1/2
x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.
Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an
independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of
energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact,
you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped
out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as
will
a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in
order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational
potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate
of
32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity
reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet
per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall
equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase
without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.
At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the
air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration
upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is
maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the
person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to
precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it
would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air
resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's
start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds,
the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just
over
200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able
to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach
the
ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the
government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they
could
not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the
air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance
thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central
steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30
years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air
would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the
upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more
than
10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could
not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to
be
physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better
word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total
amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in
close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and
glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to
have
done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So
WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
Conclusions:
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance
to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions
can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official
myth
of 9/11.
The Bottom Line:
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane
impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather
they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to
you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it
this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.
html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
BDK
geor...@toast.net says...
sane folks as "Fighter of Freedumb", and "Reality Fighter" has been
posting this same tired nonsense for a long time now. It's been shot
down so many times, it's amazing even a kooktard would take it up for a
spin again. Can't be fun to get shot down all the time, but for some
reason, you kooks seem to like doing it, again and again. Do you enjoy
embarrassment and humiliation?
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
harry k
> In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
> george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
8 years of throwing shit on the wall hoping _something_ will stick and
they don't have even a small smudge up there. They never give up
though. Once and idiot kook, always one.
Harry K
BDK
e6227c...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnk...@hotmail.com
says...
They do deserve one point, just one, for stubbornness. Not much help
when they are missing all the other ones. I always wonder what previous
kooktardic things they believe/believed in before becoming a 911
kooktard. Were they chemtrailers, shape shifting lizard men believers,
or some unknown variety of kooktard before joining the First Church of
911 Troof?
Seon Ferguson
"Ernie Primeau" <Erni...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:hhm8pt$h18$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Actually WTC7 was burning for hours which is the actual reason it collapsed.
The sprinklers weren't working which is another factor of it's collapse.
When Larry Silverstean decided to pull it he (well it was the fire chief
because he said he said we decided) he was pulling the firemen out. Isn't it
funny how no firemen died in WTC7?
BDK
Freedom Man
news:hhm8pt$h18$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>
> It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
> absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged
> battery.
That is totally absurd to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of
physics.
Freedom Man
news:VuednV2CeNxSuKLW...@westnet.com.au...
>
>
> "Ernie Primeau" <Erni...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:hhm8pt$h18$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Now, I want you all to be hip to something.
>>
>> WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>>
>> It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
>> absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged
>> battery.
>>
>> Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
>> Ernie
> Actually WTC7 was burning for hours which is the actual reason it
> collapsed.
No, it isn't. WTC7 was a steel-frame building, and the fires were far from
sufficient to cause damage to the supporting structural steel columns. Steel
framed buildings can be totally engulfed in flames, but do not collapse -
even if everything else burns, the steel frame remains standing. What we saw
was clearly the simultaneous destruction of all the steel supports with
demolition explosives, which had to be put in place BEFORE the so-called
attacks of 9/11.
> The sprinklers weren't working which is another factor of it's collapse.
> When Larry Silverstean decided to pull it he (well it was the fire chief
> because he said he said we decided) he was pulling the firemen out. Isn't
> it funny how no firemen died in WTC7?
And NOT so funny how hundreds of firefighters, and a total of around THREE
THOUSAND INNOCENT AMERICANS, died in the 9/11 conspiracy CRIME OF THE
CENTURY.
WHEN will the TRAITORS behind this HOLOCAUST be brought to justice?
artie morty
Would you care to cite ANY evidence that proves either?
artie morty
It would appear the proof you hang on to verify your belief about 911
is the NIST Official Report.
It is NOT proof.
This is directly from the NIST fact sheet 'NIST�s World Trade Center
Investigation'
'The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of
the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency
response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures.'
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm
' likely technical causes' does not mean fact - it means theory.
Your 'proof' (and I use the word loosely) has no more validity than
any other theory.
And using one theory to dispute another theory is bad science.
So your kook theory bashing is very hypocritical.
You want to see how inadequate the NIST testing was - check out this:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
It is like using a toy hornby train set to investigate a major rail
accident.
Point being - anything can be simulated to give the desired outcome -
it is all in the setup.
Seon Ferguson
"BDK" <TopS...@sanity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25a964318...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> In article <VuednV2CeNxSuKLW...@westnet.com.au>,
> seo...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>> "Ernie Primeau" <Erni...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:hhm8pt$h18$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Now, I want you all to be hip to something.
>> >
>> > WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>> >
>> > It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
>> > absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged
>> > battery.
>> >
>> > Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
>> > Ernie
>> >
>> Actually WTC7 was burning for hours which is the actual reason it
>> collapsed.
>> The sprinklers weren't working which is another factor of it's collapse.
>> When Larry Silverstean decided to pull it he (well it was the fire chief
>> because he said he said we decided) he was pulling the firemen out. Isn't
>> it
>> funny how no firemen died in WTC7?
>>
>>
>>
>
> You got it Seon!
> --
>
As I said I read the NIST report. I wish I hadn't conspiracy theories are
fun. But logic and facts are better.
Seon Ferguson
"Freedom Man" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:hho786$f0u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VuednV2CeNxSuKLW...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>>
>> "Ernie Primeau" <Erni...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:hhm8pt$h18$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Now, I want you all to be hip to something.
>>>
>>> WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>>>
>>> It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
>>> absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged
>>> battery.
>>>
>>> Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
>>> Ernie
>
>> Actually WTC7 was burning for hours which is the actual reason it
>> collapsed.
>
> No, it isn't. WTC7 was a steel-frame building, and the fires were far from
> sufficient to cause damage to the supporting structural steel columns.
> Steel framed buildings can be totally engulfed in flames, but do not
> collapse - even if everything else burns, the steel frame remains
> standing. What we saw was clearly the simultaneous destruction of all the
> steel supports with demolition explosives, which had to be put in place
> BEFORE the so-called attacks of 9/11.
>
Look at all the smoke coming out of WTC7
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm I don't expect you to read the website,
just look at the picture please.
>> The sprinklers weren't working which is another factor of it's collapse.
>> When Larry Silverstean decided to pull it he (well it was the fire chief
>> because he said he said we decided) he was pulling the firemen out. Isn't
>> it funny how no firemen died in WTC7?
>
> And NOT so funny how hundreds of firefighters, and a total of around THREE
> THOUSAND INNOCENT AMERICANS, died in the 9/11 conspiracy CRIME OF THE
> CENTURY.
>
> WHEN will the TRAITORS behind this HOLOCAUST be brought to justice?
>
But my point is no firemen died when WTC7 collapsed. Shouldn't that show
when the fire chief said "Pull it" he was pulling the firemen out? Can you
explain why they all survived? (WTC7 that is)
Iarnrod
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:50:49 -0600, "Ernie Primeau"
>
> >Now, I want you all to be hip to something.
>
> >WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>
> >It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
> >absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged battery.
>
> >Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
> >Ernie
>
> Would you care to cite ANY evidence that proves either?
Why should he? You don't.
artie morty
wrote:
No - that's your style Larnrod - you never post a cite.
If he says it's true - he must have proof, so let's see a cite.
That's simple enough - even for you.
Iarnrod
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:09:01 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 2, 2:26 pm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:50:49 -0600, "Ernie Primeau"
>
> >> <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >> >Now, I want you all to be hip to something.
>
> >> >WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>
> >> >It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
> >> >absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged battery.
>
> >> >Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
> >> >Ernie
>
> >> Would you care to cite ANY evidence that proves either?
>
> >Why should he? You don't.
>
> No - that's your style Larnrod
Who is "Larnrod?"
> - you never post a cite.
Correction: I *always* post cites. You never do because you can't,
since you're always lying. You can't post a cite to a lie since the
lie would be exposed.
> If he says it's true - he must have proof, so let's see a cite.
What he says is moronic, like everything you say. Why are you still so
stupid? I thought you'd have learned something since the last time I
kicked your stupid kooker ass. But no, you haven't. Why do you imagine
that if someone says something is true they must have proof? YOU say
that things are true that are not, so YOU never have proof. You make
no sense.
> That's simple enough - even for you.
BWAHAHAHAH!! But apparently not simple enough for you, brain stem!
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 4:16�pm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
How can you cite evidence to prove something is true if the evidence
does not physically exist.
The NIST report of the WTC7 collapse is speculation - a best guess -
the closest indication a bunch of people can give as to what they
THINK it happened.
It is a computer simulation, and that is NOT proof - it is a best
guess.
Why do you think so many doubt the NIST report?
It is because it is only a guess at what happened.
And computer simulations mean fuck all - they only process the data
given, and if that is a guess (as in the case of WTC7) then the output
is also base on ----- a guess.
Understand, Larnrod.
harry k
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:07:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> >In article <94d26a4c-942d-44ff-a879-
> >e6227ceff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com
> >says...
> >> On Jan 1, 8:44 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
> >> > george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > > "Ernie Primeau" <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>snip a bunch of kookish nonsense<
And when the sun comes up again tomorrow the physical FACTS will
still
show the NIST "theory" was correct.
harry k
> "Ernie Primeau" <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote in message
No more absurd than your asinine nonsense.
Harry K
harry k
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:50:49 -0600, "Ernie Primeau"
>
> >Now, I want you all to be hip to something.
>
> >WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>
> >It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
> >absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged battery.
>
> >Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
> >Ernie
>
> Would you care to cite ANY evidence that proves either?
So when are _you_ going to post any proof of your BS?
artie morty
I haven't said any BS, in fact I haven't said anything much at all -
just asked him to prove his point with a cite.
Do you have a problem with that - or is it only those you call kooks
who are expected to cite evidence?
BDK
seo...@gmail.com says...
There's fun, and there's kooky.
--
BDK
seo...@gmail.com says...
Please don't say something that will make sense and give the poor kook a
headache. Besides, heresy isn't tolerated in his religion.
BDK
@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, turnk...@hotmail.com says...
> > Investigation'
> >
> > 'The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of
> > the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency
> > response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures.'
> >
> > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm
> >
> > ' likely technical causes' does not mean fact - it means theory.
> >
> > Your 'proof' (and I use the word loosely) has no more validity than
> > any other theory.
> >
> > And using one theory to dispute another theory is bad science.
> >
> > So your kook theory bashing is very hypocritical.
> >
> > You want to see how inadequate the NIST testing was - check out this:
> >
> > http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
> >
> > It is like using a toy hornby train set to investigate a major rail
> > accident.
> >
> > Point being - anything can be simulated to give the desired outcome -
> > it is all in the setup.
>
> And when the sun comes up again tomorrow the physical FACTS will
> still
> show the NIST "theory" was correct.
>
It's the only thing that fits what was seen, and especially heard that
day. It's that simple. Really, it is. I don't know what else to say
about it. Eight years of this nonsense? It's just too funny.
--
Rev. 11D Meow!
> In article <e2e072fa-a613-4c46-baa6-b1f60caad6a0
> @m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com says...
What do you know?
Were YOU THERE?
You can't refute anything, you're so stupid.
BDK
284240...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, rev.11...@gmail.com
says...
Quite a bit, actually.
> Were YOU THERE?
Nope, watched it on TV, like most people.
>
> You can't refute anything, you're so stupid.
Blah blah blah. Troll troll troll your boat...
--
artie morty
It won't show it is correct - it will simply simulate the same outcome
if no theoretical input data is changed.
You have to face the fact that the NIST Official Report is only a
theory showing the ' likely technical causes' only.
Even NIST admits this in their fact sheet (cite already posted).
artie morty
Many times in US government ( and most other's) history, reports have
been written after the fact which gave a particular scenario, and the
scientists etc were sent back to the drawing board by the controllers
of the commission and told to 'rewrite it to give a particular desired
result'.
It's easy to do when you control the money, facts, figures, calculator
and answer.
Surely you yanks realize by now that government requested reports are
not worth the paper they are written on.
Yet you continue to believe in them as if they are Gods word, and use
them as an indisputable tool to disprove others views.
Time to get your act together boys - once bitten twice shy.
BDK
artie...@yahoo.com.au says...
I'll be serious for a few minutes here..
But it's the only thing that fits what everyone saw and heard. Nothing
the 911 troofers has come up with in over 8 years has. Nothing. I don't
know what problems you have with the NIST report, you guys never seem to
really want to ask anything specific. Why is that?
>
> It's easy to do when you control the money, facts, figures, calculator
> and answer.
>
> Surely you yanks realize by now that government requested reports are
> not worth the paper they are written on.
Sometimes, but there's no indication that happened this time. I know a
very respected engineer, and even though he's a huge prick, he knows
what he's talking about. We've never liked each other, going back to
high school, but he knows his stuff. I've called him a lot of names over
the years, but stupid isn't one of them.
He's president of a couple different engineering groups and he has no
problems with the causes and sequences of the collapses in the NIST
report, so why should I? And no, I will not give you his name. He
already said something to the local press where he lives and works about
the collapses and got harassing email, snail mail, and phone calls for
weeks over it. I don't need any lawyer bills right now, and he's the
type that sues, and would probably love to sue me, just to mess with me.
I know another Architect and Engineer, and they have no problems with
the official report. So why should I?
Are you going to claim they're "scared", paid off, etc? Please.
>
> Yet you continue to believe in them as if they are Gods word, and use
> them as an indisputable tool to disprove others views.
It's the only thing that fits what was seen and heard by millions of
people. Both the people there, and the people who watched on TV, saw the
same things happen, in the same sequence with no demolition being
possible, unless you believe in stuff like DEW and silent explosives. I
know a couple people who were in the WTC area, and one near the Pentagon
who saw the plane hit. You can't just imagine something happened one way
or another, just because your politics make you want to! It has to make
sense, and the "questions" about the "official" findings never, ever
stand up, they go down in flames almost instantly at this point, since
they're just the same old claims, reposted, over and over again. If
someone claims they saw a tiny pink Rhino hiding under their bed, do you
take them seriously? A lot of the truther claims, like molten pools of
steel, for an easy example, aren't much more credible than seeing a tiny
pink Rhino. Actually they aren't any more credible at all.
>
> Time to get your act together boys - once bitten twice shy.
>
What act is that, believing in silent explosives and molten pools of
steel? Towers falling at "freefall speed"? Squibs? WTC being "pulled"?
You would have to pick one or more of the wacky claims to buy into to
believe in "911 truth". Believing Larry Silverstein ordered them to
"pull" WTC7, and "cleaned up" by collecting the insurance?
Is that cleaning up our act?
Sounds more like going back on the _______________________ (Fill in the
drug/inhalant of your choice), not getting clean.
Almost 6AM, time for bed...
--
artie morty
I had presumed you always were :)
>But it's the only thing that fits what everyone saw and heard. Nothing
>the 911 troofers has come up with in over 8 years has. Nothing. I don't
>know what problems you have with the NIST report, you guys never seem to
>really want to ask anything specific. Why is that?
>
It fits - but it is not the ONLY thing that could fit what people
heard and saw.
NIST gave you a result that fit the scenario, and it would seem you
guys have accepted it completely.
I will try to explain.
2 + 2 = 4, but 3 + 1 also = 4.
No matter what NIST has said, given the same resources, time and
money, I am sure many more results could be given to fit the scenario
- especially as the majority of that was derived from a computer
simulation.
>>
>> It's easy to do when you control the money, facts, figures, calculator
>> and answer.
>>
>> Surely you yanks realize by now that government requested reports are
>> not worth the paper they are written on.
>
>Sometimes, but there's no indication that happened this time. I know a
>very respected engineer, and even though he's a huge prick, he knows
>what he's talking about. We've never liked each other, going back to
>high school, but he knows his stuff. I've called him a lot of names over
>the years, but stupid isn't one of them.
>
>He's president of a couple different engineering groups and he has no
>problems with the causes and sequences of the collapses in the NIST
>report, so why should I? And no, I will not give you his name. He
>already said something to the local press where he lives and works about
>the collapses and got harassing email, snail mail, and phone calls for
>weeks over it. I don't need any lawyer bills right now, and he's the
>type that sues, and would probably love to sue me, just to mess with me.
>
>I know another Architect and Engineer, and they have no problems with
>the official report. So why should I?
>
Why should they - the results fit the scenario
>Are you going to claim they're "scared", paid off, etc? Please.
>
No - that would indicate you friends are involved in a conspiracy.
>>
>> Yet you continue to believe in them as if they are Gods word, and use
>> them as an indisputable tool to disprove others views.
>
>It's the only thing that fits what was seen and heard by millions of
>people. Both the people there, and the people who watched on TV, saw the
>same things happen, in the same sequence with no demolition being
>possible, unless you believe in stuff like DEW and silent explosives. I
>know a couple people who were in the WTC area, and one near the Pentagon
>who saw the plane hit. You can't just imagine something happened one way
>or another, just because your politics make you want to! It has to make
>sense, and the "questions" about the "official" findings never, ever
>stand up, they go down in flames almost instantly at this point, since
>they're just the same old claims, reposted, over and over again. If
>someone claims they saw a tiny pink Rhino hiding under their bed, do you
>take them seriously? A lot of the truther claims, like molten pools of
>steel, for an easy example, aren't much more credible than seeing a tiny
>pink Rhino. Actually they aren't any more credible at all.
>
The NIST report fits what was seen and heard on the day- but IS IT the
only scenario that could fit.
I think not.
My belief, after reading the NIST report on WTC and the report on
WTC7, is that they put together a program that ended up giving a known
result, using a computer simulation they designed.
If the simulation code was designed by a completely independent group
who had absolutely no idea that the program they were writing would be
used to simulate the 911 collapses - and the data entered was cold
hard fact - not an estimation, and was made again by an independent
body, then I would say the result would have a good chance of being
correct - given one crucial point.
The simulation program algorithm was correct to begin with.
Too many variables exist to definitively say the NIST report is 100%
correct.
It is merely a report that fits the know data.
Just because it is the only report available - that doesn't make it
more credible.
>>
>> Time to get your act together boys - once bitten twice shy.
>>
>
>What act is that, believing in silent explosives and molten pools of
>steel? Towers falling at "freefall speed"? Squibs? WTC being "pulled"?
>You would have to pick one or more of the wacky claims to buy into to
>believe in "911 truth". Believing Larry Silverstein ordered them to
>"pull" WTC7, and "cleaned up" by collecting the insurance?
>
>Is that cleaning up our act?
I have never said any of the above.
I feel I have a legitimate concern about the NIST findings, and given
a history shows that :
1. Your engineers and regulation bodies suck - they were, after all,
the ones who said these buildings were safe to build in the first
place. Man - did they make a mistake.
2. The US Government has blatantly lied to the American people on so
many occasion, it is natural to assume that whatever they say is a lie
until proven true.
3. Computer Simulation are NOT infallible - and the NIST finding were
based on a simulation.
>
>Sounds more like going back on the _______________________ (Fill in the
>drug/inhalant of your choice), not getting clean.
>
>Almost 6AM, time for bed...
I don't know what you mean by this comment - I hope you are not
becoming another Larnrod and using this forum purely for kook bashing.
To follow suite - I'll be serious for a few minutes here as well...
You have to ask - why do people doubt the NIST result?
If you can answer that honestly - then you have found out why there
are so called kooks.
Abusing these people will not get rid of then.
Forcing your views on them will not get rid of them either
Why not try this - open every locked and secured video, file, report,
interview etc that exists about 911 for public scrutiny.
Stop hiding and suppressing data, and let people make their own
determination on what happened.
If there is nothing to hide, release the data, because while it is
suppressed by your government, a government with a bad and proven
history of lying, there will always be concerns of a conspiracy.
And there will always be 'kooks'.
VFW
artie morty <artie...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> If there is nothing to hide, release the data, because while it is
> suppressed by your government, a government with a bad and proven
> history of lying, there will always be concerns of a conspiracy.
yeah, those that seek "documentation" are the ones who want an
"investigation" suppressed.
I wonder why.
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
Rev. 11D Meow!
> In article <1c3b34ef-bde0-450d-b7d3-
> 284240c3a...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, rev.11d.m...@gmail.com
Photo of Iarnrod: http://tinyurl.com/LARNRAWGHD
Photo of BDK: http://tinyurl.com/BDKphoto
Iarnrod
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:09:01 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 2, 2:26 pm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:50:49 -0600, "Ernie Primeau"
>
> >> <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >> >Now, I want you all to be hip to something.
>
> >> >WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
>
> >> >It was downed because it exploded from the two bigguns from which it
> >> >absorbed sympathectic energy and then exploded like an overcharged battery.
>
> >> >Word to the mutha fucka. And S on my D, to anyone who disagrees! WORD!
> >> >Ernie
>
> >> Would you care to cite ANY evidence that proves either?
>
> >Why should he? You don't.
>
> No - that's your style Larnrod - you never post a cite.
How easily you lie when the facts are obvious. I always post cites.
You NEVER do.
> If he says it's true - he must have proof, so let's see a cite.
That's a stupid conclusion, befitting your lack of any logical skills.
You "think" if someone says something is true, that means they must
have a cite? How stupid! YOU say that what you say is true but you
NEVER have a cite. You are proven wrong by your own example!
> That's simple enough - even for you.
Yet apparently not yet simple enough for a brain stem like you.
Iarnrod
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:18:31 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
What does that have to do with this case, when evidence does exist in
huge abundance?
> The NIST report of the WTC7 collapse is speculation - a best guess -
> the closest indication a bunch of people can give as to what they
> THINK it happened.
Nope.
> It is a computer simulation, and that is NOT proof - it is a best
> guess.
Wrong. It includes a computer simulation. It is not a computer
simulation. It is a collection of evidence upon which the computer sim
is based.
> Why do you think so many doubt the NIST report?
Because they are politically driven nutbags like you who need to
reject the simple proven facts in order to maintain their polemics.
No one which a discernible brain and minimal education can doubt the
findings.
> It is because it is only a guess at what happened.
Nope. It is the only explanation that is fully and completely
consistent with all evidence. All of the kooker theories are
contradicted by the evidence.
> And computer simulations mean fuck all - they only process the data
> given, and if that is a guess (as in the case of WTC7) then the output
> is also base on ----- a guess.
Nope.
> Understand, Larnrod.
Who is "Larnrod?"
I understand oh so much better than you!
BDK
c7c102...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, rev.11...@gmail.com
says...
Yawn.
--
Iarnrod
BDK
Really? Talk about being out of touch.
>
> >But it's the only thing that fits what everyone saw and heard. Nothing
> >the 911 troofers has come up with in over 8 years has. Nothing. I don't
> >know what problems you have with the NIST report, you guys never seem to
> >really want to ask anything specific. Why is that?
> >
>
> It fits - but it is not the ONLY thing that could fit what people
> heard and saw.
>
> NIST gave you a result that fit the scenario, and it would seem you
> guys have accepted it completely.
>
> I will try to explain.
>
> 2 + 2 = 4, but 3 + 1 also = 4.
>
> No matter what NIST has said, given the same resources, time and
> money, I am sure many more results could be given to fit the scenario
> - especially as the majority of that was derived from a computer
> simulation.
BWHAHAHAHAHA! Are you really serious? You don't think that the thousands
of engineers out there didn't know why they collapsed?
Please. You can't be serious. Shit, it's no mystery to me, and I have no
engineering background.
>
> >>
> >> It's easy to do when you control the money, facts, figures, calculator
> >> and answer.
> >>
> >> Surely you yanks realize by now that government requested reports are
> >> not worth the paper they are written on.
> >
> >Sometimes, but there's no indication that happened this time. I know a
> >very respected engineer, and even though he's a huge prick, he knows
> >what he's talking about. We've never liked each other, going back to
> >high school, but he knows his stuff. I've called him a lot of names over
> >the years, but stupid isn't one of them.
> >
> >He's president of a couple different engineering groups and he has no
> >problems with the causes and sequences of the collapses in the NIST
> >report, so why should I? And no, I will not give you his name. He
> >already said something to the local press where he lives and works about
> >the collapses and got harassing email, snail mail, and phone calls for
> >weeks over it. I don't need any lawyer bills right now, and he's the
> >type that sues, and would probably love to sue me, just to mess with me.
> >
> >I know another Architect and Engineer, and they have no problems with
> >the official report. So why should I?
> >
> Why should they - the results fit the scenario
Yeah! Correct. Do you have anything that indicates anything else?
>
> >Are you going to claim they're "scared", paid off, etc? Please.
> >
>
> No - that would indicate you friends are involved in a conspiracy.
BWHAHAHAHA! None of them are really friends, not even the architect.
> >>
> >> Yet you continue to believe in them as if they are Gods word, and use
> >> them as an indisputable tool to disprove others views.
> >
> >It's the only thing that fits what was seen and heard by millions of
> >people. Both the people there, and the people who watched on TV, saw the
> >same things happen, in the same sequence with no demolition being
> >possible, unless you believe in stuff like DEW and silent explosives. I
> >know a couple people who were in the WTC area, and one near the Pentagon
> >who saw the plane hit. You can't just imagine something happened one way
> >or another, just because your politics make you want to! It has to make
> >sense, and the "questions" about the "official" findings never, ever
> >stand up, they go down in flames almost instantly at this point, since
> >they're just the same old claims, reposted, over and over again. If
> >someone claims they saw a tiny pink Rhino hiding under their bed, do you
> >take them seriously? A lot of the truther claims, like molten pools of
> >steel, for an easy example, aren't much more credible than seeing a tiny
> >pink Rhino. Actually they aren't any more credible at all.
> >
>
> The NIST report fits what was seen and heard on the day- but IS IT the
> only scenario that could fit.
So there's another one that does? Anything?
>
> I think not.
So let's hear one.
>
> My belief, after reading the NIST report on WTC and the report on
> WTC7, is that they put together a program that ended up giving a known
> result, using a computer simulation they designed.
The simulation was made to show people without much or any technical
knowledge how the building most likely collapsed.
As the prick engineer said, when asked about the conspirokook claims,
"What the hell do these people think the buildings were going to do?" In
real life, buildings don't collapse like in Godzilla movies.
>
> If the simulation code was designed by a completely independent group
> who had absolutely no idea that the program they were writing would be
> used to simulate the 911 collapses - and the data entered was cold
> hard fact - not an estimation, and was made again by an independent
> body, then I would say the result would have a good chance of being
> correct - given one crucial point.
>
> The simulation program algorithm was correct to begin with.
>
> Too many variables exist to definitively say the NIST report is 100%
> correct.
>
> It is merely a report that fits the know data.
>
> Just because it is the only report available - that doesn't make it
> more credible.
In your opinion.
>
> >>
> >> Time to get your act together boys - once bitten twice shy.
> >>
> >
> >What act is that, believing in silent explosives and molten pools of
> >steel? Towers falling at "freefall speed"? Squibs? WTC being "pulled"?
> >You would have to pick one or more of the wacky claims to buy into to
> >believe in "911 truth". Believing Larry Silverstein ordered them to
> >"pull" WTC7, and "cleaned up" by collecting the insurance?
> >
> >Is that cleaning up our act?
>
> I have never said any of the above.
>
> I feel I have a legitimate concern about the NIST findings, and given
> a history shows that :
>
> 1. Your engineers and regulation bodies suck - they were, after all,
> the ones who said these buildings were safe to build in the first
> place. Man - did they make a mistake.
LOL, there was nothing wrong with the buildings! WTF is wrong with you?
If there had been water, they wouldn't have collapsed. Actually, they
did very well.
>
> 2. The US Government has blatantly lied to the American people on so
> many occasion, it is natural to assume that whatever they say is a lie
> until proven true.
Again, you're letting politics cloud your thinking.
>
> 3. Computer Simulation are NOT infallible - and the NIST finding were
> based on a simulation.
As the prick engineer said, "What the hell do these people think the
buildings were going to do?" The sim wasn't to prove to engineers and
people who know what an uncontrolled fire does, it was mainly for the
people without any knowledge of building engineering, and what a fire
would do.
>
> >
> >Sounds more like going back on the _______________________ (Fill in the
> >drug/inhalant of your choice), not getting clean.
> >
> >Almost 6AM, time for bed...
>
> I don't know what you mean by this comment - I hope you are not
> becoming another Larnrod and using this forum purely for kook bashing.
You really are out of touch, aren't you?
>
> To follow suite - I'll be serious for a few minutes here as well...
>
> You have to ask - why do people doubt the NIST result?
I have absolutely no idea. Slept through science class? A mental illness
that causes people to imagine all kinds of kooky conspiracies? Some sort
of political fixation that causes them to insist on making up all kinds
of stuff, or seeing it and totally buying into it?
>
> If you can answer that honestly - then you have found out why there
> are so called kooks.
There have always been kooks, always will be. Most are harmless, some
actually discover new things, but some are evil.
>
> Abusing these people will not get rid of then.
Rid of them? Why the hell would I want to do that?
>
> Forcing your views on them will not get rid of them either
Wow. talk about being in a daze. I hope it's drug induced, and not a
natural thing, that would be...sad..
>
> Why not try this - open every locked and secured video, file, report,
> interview etc that exists about 911 for public scrutiny.
Why? What's the point? What more do you need? Holy shit!
>
> Stop hiding and suppressing data, and let people make their own
> determination on what happened.
What's being hidden?
>
> If there is nothing to hide, release the data, because while it is
> suppressed by your government, a government with a bad and proven
> history of lying, there will always be concerns of a conspiracy.
BWHAHAHAHA! What data about what? What do you want, what the passengers
in the planes had to eat the day before? What color underwear did the
pilots and the rest of the crew have on?
>
> And there will always be 'kooks'.
Yes! And they give the world the gift of laughter.
--
BDK
geor...@toast.net says...
As Mr. Mackey says, "Drugs are bad, m'kay?".
You should have listened to them when they told you that.
--
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 11:30�am, "Rev. 11D Meow!" <rev.11d.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
You've used that one before.
You have very little imagination, Larnrod.
Rev. 11D Meow!
> In article <1da09b4f-ef81-4852-b45c-
> c7c102853...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, rev.11d.m...@gmail.com
Open Wide For More Dick Cheney Kool-Aid, Chum.
Iarnrod
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:42:51 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
Yes, for you, since it fits you.
It also fits him.
Why is it you "think" I shouldn't use it to describe both of you?
Maybe your head is up HIS ass?
> You have very little imagination, Larnrod.
Who is "Larnrod?"
Very little imagination is called up to defeat your kooker klaims. Why
should I put out more once you've been bested?
Iarnrod
Pussy Boy has many homoerotic fantasies, BDK. Like most rightards.
Seon Ferguson
"BDK" <TopS...@sanity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25aa00b0f...@news.buckeye-express.com...
That's odd I thought I posted. Maybe I should get agent after all. Anyway
yeah I like conspiracy theories but some are too much even for me. The
reptilian one is a good example. I really tried to be open to it...
BDK
399dc9...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, rev.11...@gmail.com
says...
WTF does Cheney have to do with anything that happened on 9/11, pinhead?
You can make all the claims you want to about what was done afterwards,
but claiming he had anything to do with the attacks is just wishful
thinking on your part.
Politics is clouding your thinking, if you want to call it thinking.
--
BDK
@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, iar...@yahoo.com says...
I doubt seriously he's a rightard.
--
BDK
Really? How could you even consider the reptilian thing? I mean, it's so
insanely ridiculous..
--
Seon Ferguson
"BDK" <TopS...@sanity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25ab0e86f...@news.buckeye-express.com...
Yeah I know it's just I was reading one of David Icke's books and went "Oh
come on" I guess I just got sick of it. I'm not sure why I considered it I
guess I'm a truth seeker and will look at the evidence for anything anyone
says. But some things are too much even for me.
george
> In article <41b1ed80-f0f4-4187-8be0-21b83a832644
> @k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, iarn...@yahoo.com says...
A retard then ?
Rev. 11D Meow!
wrote:
I must commend your new-found closet exiting skills.
BDK
13eba4...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, gbl...@hnpl.net says...
--
BDK
I don't know what to say. The first time I saw the reptilian thing was
at work, and a bunch of us laughed all night about it. We thought it was
just one guy who believed it, then we found out there was quite a number
of believers and we laughed even harder.
--
Seon Ferguson
"BDK" <TopS...@sanity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25ab3a23b...@news.buckeye-express.com...
It is kind of funny that David Icke has a lot of fans who believe him. I
should have laughed at first but I wanted to see what he was on about. But
there's only so much a guy can take...
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 2:08�pm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
So, in your opinion - I've been 'bested' by you because you post a
link to the same picture twice.
Sure, Larnrod.
About all you've 'bested' is your own limited imagination.
artie morty
that doesn't make sense.
Are you dyslexic?
artie morty
Buildings get hit by planes (and some don't), fires happen and
building fall down.
Available data:
1. Videos and photos.
2. Cold steel and scrap
3. Eye witnesses.
4. 100's of engineers who all have their own theory.
NIST says - lets build a computer program that puts all this together
and gives the one and only true and 100% accurate explanation as to
why the buildings fell down.
Report released.
BDK believes it 100%, and says there could be no other explanation
that fits the scenario - NIST have nailed it totally and correctly.
What a joke.
PS The Computer Simulation for the Pentagon left out the two 9 ton jet
motors.
Did you believe that one as well?
Rev. 11D Meow!
no, artie, *they* are correct.
The Real Truth is what was seen on TV.
Do Not Be Concerned NOTHING ON TV
shows any 757 actually HITTING the Pentagon, though...
WOO WOO WOO
Who's The Crazy Now!
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 9:34�pm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
You have absolutely no idea how the algorithm for a computer
simulation works, do you?
Rev. 11D Meow!
BDK
And thousands who agree with planes hitting buildings + fire + time =
collapse. The details only matter to a few nitpicking loons, who are
desperately trying to keep their religion alive.
>
> NIST says - lets build a computer program that puts all this together
> and gives the one and only true and 100% accurate explanation as to
> why the buildings fell down.
BWHAHAHAHAHA! What exactly do you think is "wrong" with it? Were you
shocked when they collapsed? Why would you have been? It was only a
matter of time before they did anyway.
>
> Report released.
>
> BDK believes it 100%, and says there could be no other explanation
> that fits the scenario - NIST have nailed it totally and correctly.
So when will you kooks come up with another one that makes any kind of
sense? It's eight years and counting, and nothing that makes any kind of
sense comes from you folks, just claims ranging from thermite to squibs,
to DEW, molten pools of steel, to aliens, and on and on. Some are just a
little kooky, some are amazingly out there.
Why is a plane hitting the towers and fires causing the collapses of WTC
1 and 2 some sort of mystery to you? Why is a hunk of WTC 1 hitting
WTC7, causing major damage, and then fires causing it to collapse a
mystery to you?
I don't get it. Seriously, I don't. You seem to have a need to make it
really complicated, when it's obviously not.
>
> What a joke.
Yes, you are, as are all 911 truthers.
>
> PS The Computer Simulation for the Pentagon left out the two 9 ton jet
> motors.
>
> Did you believe that one as well?
>
I know someone who saw the plane hit, taking her kid to the doctor. The
bodies were there, the parts of the plane, including those pesky
engines, were there. Do you have "questions" about that too? I hope so,
cause they are always funny.
The simulation is basically unimportant, engines or not. The plane hit,
a lot of people saw it, and all the claims otherwise, like a missile,
are just ridiculous.
How ridiculous are you going to get?
--
BDK
Ji...@Crack.corn says...
You are, without any doubt. I know someone who saw the plane hit. Lots
of people saw it.
The CAPS are a nice touch.
--
Rev. 11D Meow!
THE PLANES
THE PLANES
yeah?
so?
Who said anything about THE PLANES not hitting WTC 1 & 2, DUMB ASS?
Nothing to do with WTC 1 & 2 caused WTC 7 from hitting the ground in
seconds FLAT!
Doi Yoi Yoi Yoi Yoi ...
Rev. 11D Meow!
> Why is a plane hitting the towers and fires causing the collapses of WTC
> 1 and 2 some sort of mystery to you? Why is a hunk of WTC 1 hitting
> WTC7, causing major damage, and then fires causing it to collapse a
> mystery to you?
>
Uh, er, like the part THAT NEVER HAPPENED!!!
Iarnrod
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:53:24 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
No, you've been bested by me because I proved your kooker klaims to be
wrong.
> Sure, Larnrod.
Who is "Larnrod?" <chuckle>
> About all you've 'bested' is your own limited imagination.
Nope, I checked again and it was you.
Iarnrod
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:44:29 +1030, artie morty
>
> >On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 15:11:49 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>In article <nju0k59ht19il6nd6cv5uotmsrrf332...@4ax.com>,
> >>artiemo...@yahoo.com.au says...
> >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 06:01:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >In article <8om0k5dsvk3g4g4gnqno7pqni2juul8...@4ax.com>,
> >>> >artiemo...@yahoo.com.au says...
> >>> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 01:24:48 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> >In article <e2e072fa-a613-4c46-baa6-b1f60caad6a0
You.
Did you "think" teevee cameras were aimed live at the Pentagon that
day, you rightarded kook? BWAHAAAHAHAAA!!
Hey artie, jet engines aren't nine tons. Try again.
Iarnrod
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:35:13 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
You have absolutely no idea what the computer simulation is meant to
show.
Iarnrod
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 03:27:58 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> > Why is a plane hitting the towers and fires causing the collapses of WTC
> > 1 and 2 some sort of mystery to you? Why is a hunk of WTC 1 hitting
> > WTC7, causing major damage, and then fires causing it to collapse a
> > mystery to you?
>
> Uh, er, like the part THAT NEVER HAPPENED!!!
Were you asleep or on drugs when what you say never happened happened,
Pussy Boy?
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>It is kind of funny that David Icke has a lot of fans who believe him. I
>should have laughed at first but I wanted to see what he was on about. But
>there's only so much a guy can take...
I'm glad I kept a cop of this:
Seon, 12/04/09, alt.conspiracy:
"I went to see David Icke in Melbourne yesterday. While I had a cold and
was tired I am still glad I went. I find I agreed with everything he said."
Whatta Maroon!
--
Shill #2
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
BDK
Ji...@Crack.corn says...
Calm down, ask mom for your magic pills.
BDK
How long do you "think" it should have taken? And most importantly, how
long are you claiming it did take? Are you another kook who can't tell
time?
Shame on your parents and teachers.
--
Rev. 11D Meow!
Woo Woo Wooooooooooooooo
"it was all tilty and warped"
yep, tha's what shows on the video record all right.
Rev. 11D Meow!
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 12:18嚙窮m, Rev. 11D Meow! <Ji...@Crack.corn> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:44:29 +1030, artie morty
>>
>> <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 15:11:49 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>In article <nju0k59ht19il6nd6cv5uotmsrrf332...@4ax.com>,
>> >>artiemo...@yahoo.com.au says...
>> >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 06:01:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >In article <8om0k5dsvk3g4g4gnqno7pqni2juul8...@4ax.com>,
>> >>> >artiemo...@yahoo.com.au says...
>> >>> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 01:24:48 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >In article <e2e072fa-a613-4c46-baa6-b1f60caad6a0
>> >>> >> >@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com says...
>> >>> >> >> On Jan 2, 2:04嚙緘m, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:07:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > >In article <94d26a4c-942d-44ff-a879-
>> >>> >> >> > >e6227ceff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com
>> >>> >> >> > >says...
>> >>> >> >> > >> On Jan 1, 8:44嚙緘m, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > >> > In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
>> >>> >> >> > >> > george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>> >> >> > >> > > 嚙�Ernie Primeau" <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >> >snip a bunch of kookish nonsense<
>>
>> >>> >> >> > >> > BDK..
>> >>> >> >> > >> > Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
>> >>> >> >> > >> > Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
>> >>> >> >> > >> > Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>>
>> >>> >> >> > >> 8 years of throwing shit on the wall hoping _something_ will stick and
>> >>> >> >> > >> they don't have even a small smudge up there. 嚙確hey never give up
>> >>> >> >> > >> though. 嚙瞌nce and idiot kook, always one.
>> >>> >> them as an indisputable 嚙緣ool to disprove others views.
>> >1. Videos 嚙窮nd photos.
>>
>> >2. Cold steel and scrap
>>
>> >3. Eye witnesses.
>>
>> >4. 100's of engineers who all have their own theory.
>>
>> >NIST says - lets build a computer program that puts all this together
>> >and gives the one and only true and 100% accurate explanation as to
>> >why the buildings fell down.
>>
>> >Report released.
>>
>> >BDK believes it 100%, and says there could be no other explanation
>> >that fits the scenario - NIST have nailed it totally and correctly.
>>
>> >What a 嚙篌oke.
>>
>> >PS The Computer Simulation for the Pentagon left out the two 9 ton jet
>> >motors.
>>
>> >Did you believe that one as well?
>>
>> no, artie, *they* are correct.
>> The Real Truth is what was seen on TV.
>>
>> Do Not Be Concerned NOTHING ON TV
>> shows any 757 actually HITTING the Pentagon, though...
>>
>> WOO WOO WOO
>>
>> Who's The Crazy Now!
>
>You.
>
>Did you "think" teevee cameras were aimed live at the Pentagon that
>day, you rightarded kook? BWAHAAAHAHAAA!!
>
uh, yeah, and where did those video recordings go?
who has them?
neener neener neener, LARDASS!
BDK
Seems like you've been taking some of the same stuff Brad "Guthball"
Guth takes that makes him so whacked. Good job.
Or, you might just be a paint huffer or computer duster abuser.
Not that I really care.
--
Rev. 11D Meow!
'BDK' cares enough to trot out tired old worn-out lies nearly ten
years after The Facts made themselves obviously Not What Really
Happened.
Methinks the Kool-Aid you've been drinking is laced with bathtub meth.
BDK
So when will you come up with something that refutes those "tired old
worn-out lies"? SO what do you believe happened?
>
> Methinks the Kool-Aid you've been drinking is laced with bathtub meth.
You probably like the "orange flavor" Kook-Aid.
--
Rev. 11D Meow!
SLURP SLURP SLURP
Keep on Gobblin' Dick Cheney's knob, job.
BDK
Sorry, I'm not even a conservative, I'm a lefty.
And I'm straight, too.
What does Cheney have to do with the 911 attacks anyway?
--
Rev. 11D Meow!
Wouldn't you like to know, COCK GOBBLER!
BDK
Yawn. Last thing in the loser's arsenal, gay stuff. And I hoped you
might be better. Oh well, there's always another kook coming along to
goof on..
--
Rev. 11D Meow!
Open Wide For CHUNKY!
Iarnrod
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:54:32 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> >In article <ndg5k5pe8o790h5g7d8kbcsrkn5gnr6...@4ax.com>,
> >Ji...@Crack.corn says...
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <3l95k51k6lbabe1rsuire1rqc7b1sak...@4ax.com>,
> >> >Ji...@Crack.corn says...
> >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:25:09 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >In article <6b45k5tei2j9a594ercqmqfn8t1h9it...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >Ji...@Crack.corn says...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:09:02 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >In article <6mq4k5tkrckg3tp1drbs3tvbjpcolsv...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >Ji...@Crack.corn says...
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:25:09 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <00c3k51vbn61ghuou4sv1brvlcth7jg...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >Ji...@Crack.corn says...
> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 03:29:29 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <6g53k5hiovhdvjou67asjlgpssj9bmu...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >Ji...@Crack.corn says...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:44:29 +1030, artie morty
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 15:11:49 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>In article <nju0k59ht19il6nd6cv5uotmsrrf332...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>artiemo...@yahoo.com.au says...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 06:01:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >In article <8om0k5dsvk3g4g4gnqno7pqni2juul8...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 01:24:48 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >In article <e2e072fa-a613-4c46-baa6-b1f60caad6a0
Projection at its finest!
Rev. 11D Meow!
wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Jan 2, 2:04嚙緘m, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:07:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >In article <94d26a4c-942d-44ff-a879-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >e6227ceff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >says...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> On Jan 1, 8:44嚙緘m, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > > 嚙�Ernie Primeau" <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >snip a bunch of kookish nonsense<
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > BDK..
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> 8 years of throwing shit on the wall hoping _something_ will stick and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> they don't have even a small smudge up there. 嚙確hey never give up
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> though. 嚙瞌nce and idiot kook, always one.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> them as an indisputable 嚙緣ool to disprove others views.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >1. Videos 嚙窮nd photos.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >2. Cold steel and scrap
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >3. Eye witnesses.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >4. 100's of engineers who all have their own theory.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >NIST says - lets build a computer program that puts all this together
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >and gives the one and only true and 100% accurate explanation as to
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >why the buildings fell down.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Report released.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >BDK believes it 100%, and says there could be no other explanation
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >that fits the scenario - NIST have nailed it totally and correctly.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >What a 嚙篌oke.
Directing your Transference issues to the department
of Nobody Gives A Shit What You Think, LARD-ASS.
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 12:19�am, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
That comment really shows what a putz you are, Larnrod.
The outcome can be seen on the video, photo and eye witness data.
How hard is it invent input data that will give a result that is
known?
Not very hard at all.
3 + x = 4
I'm pretty sure even a dunce like you could work out x.
heat + fire + impact = buildings fall down.
That is even easier because you can make up any variable for heat,
fire and impact you want.
Even easier when there is no way to verify your input data as correct.
heat + fire + impact = ?????? is fucking difficult, in fact
impossible to answer, because every point is a variable.
NIST answered number 2 - a six year old could answer number 2.
Iarnrod
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:43:30 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:07:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >In article <94d26a4c-942d-44ff-a879-
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >e6227ceff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >says...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >snip a bunch of kookish nonsense<
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > BDK..
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> 8 years of throwing shit on the wall hoping _something_ will stick and
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >2. Cold steel and scrap
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >3. Eye witnesses.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >4. 100's of engineers who all have their own theory.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >NIST says - lets build a computer program that puts all this together
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >and gives the one and only true and 100% accurate explanation as to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >why the buildings fell down.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Report released.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >BDK believes it 100%, and says there could be no other explanation
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >that fits the scenario - NIST have nailed it totally and correctly.
>
Oh but you do, projectionist extraordinaire!! You DO!! You await my
every word of wisdom from on high to edumacate your stupid kooker
ass!! You do you do you do!!
Iarnrod
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:26:53 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
No, it shows what a moron you are.
> The outcome can be seen on the video, photo and eye witness data.
>
> How hard is it invent input data that will give a result that is
> known?
Input data was not invented, hence your illogical claim, kooker.
Ka-CHING!!! You are cashiered out!
> Not very hard at all.
For me. Apparently it is for you, moron.
> 3 + x = 4
>
> I'm pretty sure even a dunce like you could work out x.
But you can't.
> heat + fire + impact = buildings fall down.
Not all the time, bubula.
> That is even easier because you can make up any variable for heat,
> fire and impact you want.
That is not what was done, however. You are wrestling with a straw
man.
> Even easier when there is no way to verify your input data as correct.
There is way.
> heat + fire + impact = ?????? is fucking difficult, in fact
> impossible to answer, because every point is a variable.
No one said heat plus fire plus impact equals building fall down.
Sometimes that will happen and building DON'T fall down.
Here, lemme try a real simple one that your brain stem might be able
to absorb:
Coroner gets a corpse of a person shot in the head. She examines the
path of the bullet and finds the part of the brain the bullet entered
and the part it exited, and makes a very sound rational and valid
conclusion as to the cause of death.
Now a person comes into the ER with a gunshot wound to the head, and
it treated and survives.
Arthur here would say "How can this be?!?" Shot in head=dead, doesn't
it? Why, no, young moron.
Some people survive.
> NIST answered number 2 - a six year old could answer number 2.
A six-year-old could look at the WTC collapsed and realize what
happened, dope.
It was not 3+1=4 because there is no three and no one in evidence. It
was 2+2=4, all based on observed evidence.
No other claims pass the evidence test. Case closed.
artie morty
wrote:
I don't make kooker claims, Larnrod.
I have already said I don't believe 911 was an inside job.
Why - because a history of the US Government shows they excel in only
one thing - failure.
They simply did not have the intellect or ability to plan 911, an
operation that actually worked.
My other point is that you Yanks would believe anything your
Government sticks in your face (the NISTC report for example) in your
overwhelming desire to be exonerated from national blame, and your
even greater desire to (in your opinion) remain the world's best.
You are a bunch of jingoistic fools.
I'll tell you one thing you are the best at - you are the world's
joke.
And finally - you label anyone you doesn't believe what YOU think is
correct a kook.
That is egotistical, given your history a continual massive world
failure, and simply proves you are a prick.
Failure apart from one thing - you are very good at stealing other
countries oil.
>> Sure, Larnrod.
>
>Who is "Larnrod?" <chuckle>
>
>> About all you've 'bested' is your own limited imagination.
>
>Nope, I checked again and it was you.
Check again, Larnrod - the world is laughing at your country, not
mine.
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 12:40�am, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
That is a crock of crap, Larnrod.
Every bit of data used in the simulation was an estimate - read the
NIST report, they admit the data was 'likely' and would result in
giving the ' likely technical cause' .
It was all a guess, put together to result in a know outcome.
Not that hard, Larnron - and how much did it cost?
Tax dollars well spent - not!
Iarnrod
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:19:56 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
You do, of course,not in dispute.
> I have already said I don't believe 911 was an inside job.
You don't really believe that.
> Why - because a history of the US Government shows they excel in only
> one thing - failure.
Well, that's sure wrong!
> They simply did not have the intellect or ability to plan 911, an
> operation that actually worked.
Actually, "they" simply didn't have any part in it.
> My other point is that you Yanks would believe anything your
> Government sticks in your face (the NISTC report for example)
Wrong. You can find nothing questionable in the NIST report. You are
merely using fallacious ad hominem arguments completely lacking in any
actual substance. That's really all you have is your irrational
hatred.
> You are a bunch of jingoistic fools.
You are.
> I'll tell you one thing you are the best at - you are the world's
> joke.
That's why everyone wants to be here?
> And finally - you label anyone you doesn't believe what YOU think is
> correct a kook.
Nope, I label people with kooker klaims kooks. Like you. You earn it,
you wear it. EOS.
> >> Sure, Larnrod.
>
> >Who is "Larnrod?" <chuckle>
>
> >> About all you've 'bested' is your own limited imagination.
>
> >Nope, I checked again and it was you.
>
> Check again, Larnrod - the world is laughing at your country, not
> mine.
Nope. They're laughing at yours and wishing they could move to mine.
Iarnrod
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:57:21 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
Your complete inability to address my factual presentation is so
noted.
> Every bit of data used in the simulation was an estimate - read the
> NIST report, they admit the data was 'likely' and would result in
> giving the ' likely technical cause' .
>
> It was all a guess, put together to result in a know outcome.
Nope. But thanks for playing!
> Not that hard, Larnron - and how much did it cost?
>
> Tax dollars well spent - not!
It found the cause of the collapse and no other explanation even
begins to fit all the evidence. FACT. You cannot deal with it because
it doesn't feed your hatred of America. Too fuckin' bad.
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 1:02�ｿｽam, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:19:56 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 3, 11:54�ｿｽpm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:53:24 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jan 3, 2:08�ｿｽpm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:42:51 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Jan 3, 11:30�ｿｽam, "Rev. 11D Meow!" <rev.11d.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Jan 2, 11:31�ｿｽpm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > In article <1c3b34ef-bde0-450d-b7d3-
>> >> >> >> > 284240c3a...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, rev.11d.m...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> > says...
>>
>> >> >> >> > > On Jan 2, 10:24�ｿｽpm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > In article <e2e072fa-a613-4c46-baa6-b1f60caad6a0
>> >> >> >> > > > @m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > On Jan 2, 2:04�ｿｽpm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:07:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >In article <94d26a4c-942d-44ff-a879-
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >e6227ceff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >says...
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> On Jan 1, 8:44�ｿｽpm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > �ｿｽ"Ernie Primeau" <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > >snip a bunch of kookish nonsense<
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > BDK..
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> 8 years of throwing shit on the wall hoping _something_ will stick and
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> they don't have even a small smudge up there. �ｿｽThey never give up
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> though. �ｿｽOnce and idiot kook, always one.
Problem is, Larnrod - you need kooker claims to survive. Without them
you simply make them up.
You are a sad slob who whittles your life away (how many years is it
now) arguing on Usenet, because it is the only way you can voice your
pathetic opinions, and safely abuse others without fear of getting a
punch on the nose.
You're a real fucking hero, Larnrod - NOT!
>
>> I have already said I don't believe 911 was an inside job.
>
>You don't really believe that.
>
See what I mean - even when told point blank, you have to make up your
own kooks.
What a sad thing you are.
>
>> Why - because a history of the US Government shows they excel in only
>> one thing - failure.
>
>Well, that's sure wrong!
>
Want me to make a list?
>> They simply did not have the intellect or ability to plan 911, an
>> operation that actually worked.
>
>Actually, "they" simply didn't have any part in it.
>
Nope - it worked - that proves the US had no part in its planning and
operation.
If they had - it would have failed.
History repeating itself, putz.
>> My other point is that you Yanks would believe anything your
>> Government sticks in your face (the NISTC report for example)
>
>Wrong. You can find nothing questionable in the NIST report. You are
>merely using fallacious ad hominem arguments completely lacking in any
>actual substance. That's really all you have is your irrational
>hatred.�ｿｽ
>
>
>> You are a bunch of jingoistic fools.
>
>You are.
>
Jingoism is particular to the US.
What do you always yell at every event.
USA USA USA USA = Ad nauseam
Who gives a fuck about the USA.
>
>> I'll tell you one thing you are the best at - you are the world's
>> joke.
>
>That's why everyone wants to be here?
>
From what I can see, you're getting a real quality intake, Larnrod.
What are your grandkids going to be called - Juan-Carlos or Mostafa.
How about Farrukh - these's a cute American name for you.
>> And finally - you label anyone you doesn't believe what YOU think is
>> correct a kook.
>
>Nope, I label people with kooker klaims kooks. Like you. You earn it,
>you wear it. EOS.
>
>> >> Sure, Larnrod.
>>
>> >Who is "Larnrod?" <chuckle>
>>
>> >> About all you've 'bested' is your own limited imagination.
>>
>> >Nope, I checked again and it was you.
>>
>> Check again, Larnrod - the world is laughing at your country, not
>> mine.
>
>Nope. They're laughing at yours and wishing they could move to mine.
There is only one reason why anyone want to move to the US.
It is the only place (and this is only at the moment) in the world
that is safe from your military attacks, wars, police actions and CIA
false flags.
Live the good life, eh!
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 1:11�am, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Your example is not worthy of comment.
Simulation of bullet in head relates to falling building.
Gimme a break
>
>> Every bit of data used in the simulation was an estimate - read the
>> NIST report, they admit the data was 'likely' and would result in
>> giving the ' likely technical cause' .
>>
>> It was all a guess, put together to result in a know outcome.
>
>Nope. But thanks for playing!
>
You can say it wasn't as much as you want, but-
The outcome of 911 was know before NIST put together its simulation
and report.
Sorry fuckweed - they knew the answer they had to get because it had
already happened.
Not that hard to do.
>> Not that hard, Larnron - and how much did it cost?
>>
>> Tax dollars well spent - not!
>
>It found the cause of the collapse and no other explanation even
>begins to fit all the evidence. FACT. You cannot deal with it because
>it doesn't feed your hatred of America. Too fuckin' bad.
It found a likely cause that you idiots believe, because the answer
was already knows.
Keep believing it Larnrod - and I don't hate America, just the
egotistical way you bastards try to run the world for your own
personal benefit.
USA is 4% of the worlds population and uses 87% of the worlds energy.
And you have the audacity to lecture other countries in Copenhagen.
Pretty well shows what a greedy bunch of egotistical slobs you are,
doesn't it?
Did you know that at one time the USA had over 30,000 nuclear weapons.
How many time do you want to blow up the world, you ducking idiot.
Isn't once enough?
artie morty
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 2:04�pm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:07:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >In article <94d26a4c-942d-44ff-a879-
>> >e6227ceff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com
>> >says...
>> >> On Jan 1, 8:44�pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> >> > In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
>> >> > george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> > > �"Ernie Primeau" <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>
>>snip a bunch of kookish nonsense<
>
>>
>> >> > BDK..
>> >> > Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
>> >> > Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
>> >> > Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>>
>> >> 8 years of throwing shit on the wall hoping _something_ will stick and
>> >> they don't have even a small smudge up there. �They never give up
>> >> though. �Once and idiot kook, always one.
>>
>> >> Harry K
>>
>> >They do deserve one point, just one, for stubbornness. Not much help
>> >when they are missing all the other ones. I always wonder what previous
>> >kooktardic things they believe/believed in before becoming a 911
>> >kooktard. Were they chemtrailers, shape shifting lizard men believers,
>> >or some unknown variety of kooktard before joining the First Church of
>> >911 Troof?
>>
>> It would appear the proof you hang on to verify your belief about 911
>> is the NIST Official Report.
>>
>> It is NOT proof.
>>
>> This is directly from the NIST fact sheet 'NIST�s World Trade Center
>> Investigation'
>>
>> 'The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of
>> the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency
>> response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures.'
>>
>> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm
>>
>> ' likely technical causes' does not mean fact - it means theory.
>>
>> Your 'proof' (and I use the word loosely) has no more validity than
>> any other theory.
>>
>> And using one theory to dispute another theory is bad science.
>>
>> So your kook theory bashing is very hypocritical.
>>
>> You want to see how inadequate the NIST testing was - check out this:
>>
>> http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
>>
>> It is like using a toy hornby train set to investigate a major rail
>> accident.
>>
>> Point being - anything can be simulated to give the desired outcome -
>> it is all in the setup.
>
>And when the sun comes up again tomorrow the physical FACTS will
>still
>show the NIST "theory" was correct.
Keep believing that Harry.
Even the NIST report says it is simply a 'likely technical cause' .
Likely means there can be others.
But why would they look for others, when you have taken the first hook
line and sinker.
Give you an example, Harry.
NIST used estimates of temperature variables they expect to have
occurred in WTC7.
Estimates are not physical facts - they are a guess.
And when you can use as many guesses as you want to make a computer
simulation give an answer you already know - well, that is not
physical facts - it is - a series of guesses.
Iarnrod
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:02:39 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 5, 1:02 am, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:19:56 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:53:24 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:42:51 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> On Jan 2, 11:31 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > In article <1c3b34ef-bde0-450d-b7d3-
> >> >> >> >> > 284240c3a...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, rev.11d.m...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> > says...
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > In article <e2e072fa-a613-4c46-baa6-b1f60caad6a0
> >> >> >> >> > > > @m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:07:00 -0500, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >In article <94d26a4c-942d-44ff-a879-
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >e6227ceff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4...@hotmail.com
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >says...
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > In article <georgeswk-4734DA.20171101012...@news.toast.net>,
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > george...@toast.net says...> In article <hhm8pt$h1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >snip a bunch of kookish nonsense<
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > BDK..
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> 8 years of throwing shit on the wall hoping _something_ will stick and
YOUR kooker klaims, that is, to survive on my laughter at your stupid
kooker ass!!!
> Without them you simply make them up.
Hmmmm, yet you can never seem to name even just one widdle bitty thing
wrong with anything I have said, Arthur. Why is that? All you can do
is foam and rant and arm-wave away the massive proof of what I have
told you. You can never seem to actually pose a legitimate question
against any of it.
All you have is your hate-America polemic, as though that is evidence
that AWOL and Cheeeeeney brought down the towers.
> You are a sad slob who whittles your life away (how many years is it
> now) arguing on Usenet,
BWAHAHAHHAAH!!!!! The only thing that would make me sad is if you and
the other kooks went away!!! Who would I laugh at then? I would have
to turn to Maury for amusement, and his guests are not nearly as
stupid and goofy as you and your cohorts!
> because it is the only way you can voice your
> pathetic opinions,
Truth is pathetic to you? Seems fitting for someone living on the
upside down part of the world.
> and safely abuse others without fear of getting a
> punch on the nose.
I’d knock you flat in a New York second, coward. I would beat you both
intellectually and pugilistically.
> You're a real fucking hero, Larnrod - NOT!
Who is “Larnrod?”
> >> I have already said I don't believe 911 was an inside job.
>
> >You don't really believe that.
>
> See what I mean - even when told point blank, you have to make up your
> own kooks.
Because, as I said, your own words prove you are lying when you say
that. You clearly do not believe what you wrote above. Even in this
very post you make kooker klaims of a false flag attack. You are
hereby through your own words proven to be a self-admitted LIAR.
But we already knew that.
> What a sad thing you are.
Actually quite happy and thrilled to see you still posting your
cookery because it amuses me so much. Most smarter kooks would have
abandoned their losing battle by now, but you are particularly dumb.
> >> Why - because a history of the US Government shows they excel in only
> >> one thing - failure.
>
> >Well, that's sure wrong!
>
> Want me to make a list?
Not enough bandwidth to list. However, we have built a nation that is
the envy of the world, that’s why everyone wants to be like us. That
doesn’t happen through failure.
> >> They simply did not have the intellect or ability to plan 911, an
> >> operation that actually worked.
>
> >Actually, "they" simply didn't have any part in it.
>
> Nope - it worked - that proves the US had no part in its planning and
> operation.
It does not of course. You argue from a false premise. You “think”
your hatred is a premise in the argument. It is not. It is merely a
personal problem you will have to work out with your therapist.
> If they had - it would have failed.
False premise.
“They” simply had no part in it. UBL has admitted he did it. Case is
close, dearie.
> History repeating itself, putz.
Also not a premise. But thanks for playing.
> >> My other point is that you Yanks would believe anything your
> >> Government sticks in your face (the NISTC report for example)
>
> >Wrong. You can find nothing questionable in the NIST report. You are
> >merely using fallacious ad hominem arguments completely lacking in any
> >actual substance. That's really all you have is your irrational
> >hatred.
>
> >> You are a bunch of jingoistic fools.
>
> >You are.
>
> Jingoism is particular to the US.
It is not, of course. You must not have ever traveled to any other
nation!! How preciously naïve you are!
> What do you always yell at every event.
>
> USA USA USA USA = Ad nauseam
Why do citizens of other nations also yell their own slogans, shit-for-
brains? Holy crap, you actually “think” that is evidence of anything?
You are pretty pathetic.
> Who gives a fuck about the USA.
Everyone in the world apparently, including very obviously YOU!!
BWAAHAAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
If you’re nice, I’ll vouch for you when you apply for a work visa! We
have some of the world’s best skiing about 60 minutes from my front
door, and you can scrub toilets up there over the winter.
> >> I'll tell you one thing you are the best at - you are the world's
> >> joke.
>
> >That's why everyone wants to be here?
>
> From what I can see, you're getting a real quality intake, Larnrod.
Who is “Larnrod?”
> What are your grandkids going to be called - Juan-Carlos or Mostafa.
So you are racist? OK. Glad to clear that up.
America’s strength is that her population is diverse.
> How about Farrukh - these's a cute American name for you.
In my family I have European, Arabic and Caribbean heritages. Nice to
know you’re so jingoistic and racist, Arthur!! Nice to have you come
out of the closet. Only a racist would even imagine that we should be
ashamed of our African, Arabic or Latino citizens.
> >> And finally - you label anyone you doesn't believe what YOU think is
> >> correct a kook.
>
> >Nope, I label people with kooker klaims kooks. Like you. You earn it,
> >you wear it. EOS.
>
> >> >> Sure, Larnrod.
>
> >> >Who is "Larnrod?" <chuckle>
>
> >> >> About all you've 'bested' is your own limited imagination.
>
> >> >Nope, I checked again and it was you.
>
> >> Check again, Larnrod - the world is laughing at your country, not
> >> mine.
>
> >Nope. They're laughing at yours and wishing they could move to mine.
>
> There is only one reason why anyone want to move to the US.
To live a life of freedom, achievement and liberty.
We are a beacon to the world, giving rebirth to democracy and self-
determination.
Iarnrod
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:04:27 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
Translation: I have completely obliterated your example by showing how
it was asinine.
> Simulation of bullet in head relates to falling building.
>
> Gimme a break
Nope. I do not give morons a “break” when they “think” they have a
point that is actually not valid.
It would seem you believe that no one can die of a gunshot wound to
the head since some people do not. THAT is the logical implication of
your stupid kooker klaim.
> >> Every bit of data used in the simulation was an estimate - read the
> >> NIST report, they admit the data was 'likely' and would result in
> >> giving the ' likely technical cause' .
>
> >> It was all a guess, put together to result in a know outcome.
>
> >Nope. But thanks for playing!
>
> You can say it wasn't as much as you want, but-
>
> The outcome of 911 was know before NIST put together its simulation
> and report.
Duh. It was all over the TV.
> Sorry fuckweed - they knew the answer they had to get because it had
> already happened.
That does not mean they knew precisely what had initiated the
collapse, spunkbreath.
> Not that hard to do.
Of course not, it is simple physics.
Could you explain that to your fellow nutbags? They seem to deny
physics and gravity and all, and they believe in physically impossible
controlled demolition and secret ninja thermite.
> >> Not that hard, Larnron - and how much did it cost?
>
> >> Tax dollars well spent - not!
>
> >It found the cause of the collapse and no other explanation even
> >begins to fit all the evidence. FACT. You cannot deal with it because
> >it doesn't feed your hatred of America. Too fuckin' bad.
>
> It found a likely cause that you idiots believe, because the answer
> was already knows.
Is there something you question about it? So far you’ve come up empty.
It found the cause. There is no other scenario that even begins to fit
the evidence.
> Keep believing it Larnrod
Well, naturally, since it is true and it is you, not I, who is the
delusional nutbag here.
> - and I don't hate America,
You do, of course, this is merely a lying lie of yours.
> just the
> egotistical way you bastards try to run the world for your own
> personal benefit.
So when are you abandoning Australia to return it to its native
people, you imperialist usurper?
> USA is 4% of the worlds population and uses 87% of the worlds energy.
Did I forget to say “thank you?” It’s not like you’re using it.
> Pretty well shows what a greedy bunch of egotistical slobs you are,
> doesn't it?
Actually it does no such thing, logically or in reality. It merely is
the status of things right now. As other nations develop – China,
India – their percentage of energy consumption will rise relative to
ours and ours will become less of the total. We use most just because
that’s how it is right now. We’re not denying usage to anyone. Plug in
your stuff, you’ll be using more too.
You really advanced a pretty stupid argument there, nutter.
> Did you know that at one time the USA had over 30,000 nuclear weapons.
>
> How many time do you want to blow up the world, you ducking idiot.
None.
> Isn't once enough?
We didn’t do it once.
It was so neither we nor anyone else would do it at all.
You’re stupid so I don’t expect you to understand.
artie morty
wrote:
Sort of like how you slaughtered the native Americans when you arrived
- the biggest terrorist slaughter in the history of mankind.
Good one, Larnrod.
>
>> USA is 4% of the worlds population and uses 87% of the worlds energy.
>
>Did I forget to say �thank you?� It�s not like you�re using it.
>
>> Pretty well shows what a greedy bunch of egotistical slobs you are,
>> doesn't it?
>
>Actually it does no such thing, logically or in reality. It merely is
>the status of things right now. As other nations develop � China,
>India � their percentage of energy consumption will rise relative to
>ours and ours will become less of the total. We use most just because
>that�s how it is right now. We�re not denying usage to anyone. Plug in
>your stuff, you�ll be using more too.
>
Bullshit.
You use energy leaving the lights on in Vegas.
Fuckwad.
>You really advanced a pretty stupid argument there, nutter.
>
>> Did you know that at one time the USA had over 30,000 nuclear weapons.
>>
>> How many time do you want to blow up the world, you ducking idiot.
>
>None.
>
>> Isn't once enough?
>
>We didn�t do it once.
>
>It was so neither we nor anyone else would do it at all.
>
>You�re stupid so I don�t expect you to understand.
You really believe that, don't you.
The theory of mutual annihilation.
Of course - that only works now if you limit who else has the bomb.
Iran scares the shit out of you, doesn't it - and your actions
regarding them prove your theory on retaining peace is wrong.
You just want to be the only bully on the block with the big guns.
Jerk.
artie morty
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 12:35 pm, artie morty <artiemo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Here's a widdy bitty thing for you to lie about, Larnrod
The computer simulation used to prove (and I use the world loosely)
the pentagon collapse had the following errors:
1. It said the plane caused a 75 foot hole (a fabricated lie,
supported by video and photographic evidence)
2. It left out the jet motors.
3. It left out the 18inch thick reinforced concrete walls of the
Pentagon
4. It completely disregarded the tail section of the plane.
5. It showed that over 50 support columns were destroyed by the plane
strike - when video and photographic evidence shows the columns were
not damaged.
All wrong in the report and all provable WITH evidence.
>All you have is your hate-America polemic, as though that is evidence
>that AWOL and Cheeeeeney brought down the towers.
>
>> You are a sad slob who whittles your life away (how many years is it
>> now) arguing on Usenet,
>
>BWAHAHAHHAAH!!!!! The only thing that would make me sad is if you and
>the other kooks went away!!! Who would I laugh at then? I would have
>to turn to Maury for amusement, and his guests are not nearly as
>stupid and goofy as you and your cohorts!
>
If you want someone to laugh at - look in the mirror.
>> because it is the only way you can voice your
>> pathetic opinions,
>
>Truth is pathetic to you? Seems fitting for someone living on the
>upside down part of the world.
>
>> and safely abuse others without fear of getting a
>> punch on the nose.
>
>I�d knock you flat in a New York second, coward. I would beat you both
>intellectually and pugilistically.
>
>
>> You're a real fucking hero, Larnrod - NOT!
>
>Who is �Larnrod?�
>
>> >> I have already said I don't believe 911 was an inside job.
>>
>> >You don't really believe that.
>>
>> See what I mean - even when told point blank, you have to make up your
>> own kooks.
>
>Because, as I said, your own words prove you are lying when you say
>that. You clearly do not believe what you wrote above. Even in this
>very post you make kooker klaims of a false flag attack. You are
>hereby through your own words proven to be a self-admitted LIAR.
>
Gulf of Tonkin incident - a false flag by your government.
Bay of Pigs - a false flag operation by your government.
Iran Contras - a false flag by your government.
Iraq - weapons of mass destruction (a fabricated lie by your
government)
Do you want me to continue?
By the way - the above 4 - all lies to the American people by YOUR
government.
>But we already knew that.
>
>> What a sad thing you are.
>
>Actually quite happy and thrilled to see you still posting your
>cookery because it amuses me so much. Most smarter kooks would have
>abandoned their losing battle by now, but you are particularly dumb.
>
>> >> Why - because a history of the US Government shows they excel in only
>> >> one thing - failure.
>>
>> >Well, that's sure wrong!
>>
>> Want me to make a list?
>
>Not enough bandwidth to list. However, we have built a nation that is
>the envy of the world, that�s why everyone wants to be like us. That
>doesn�t happen through failure.
>
You should ask someone who is NOT American, what they actually think
of America and its people.
You would be quite surprised to find out what they actually think of
you.
>> >> They simply did not have the intellect or ability to plan 911, an
>> >> operation that actually worked.
>>
>> >Actually, "they" simply didn't have any part in it.
>>
>> Nope - it worked - that proves the US had no part in its planning and
>> operation.
>
>It does not of course. You argue from a false premise. You �think�
>your hatred is a premise in the argument. It is not. It is merely a
>personal problem you will have to work out with your therapist.
>
No hatred - just experience talking from your past history.
2 recent examples.
Afghanistan - a complete failure.
Iraq - a complete failure.
>> If they had - it would have failed.
>
>False premise.
>
>�They� simply had no part in it. UBL has admitted he did it. Case is
>close, dearie.
>
Ah - the infamous video.
Do you mean the one with the Usama look alike.
How fucking stupid are you, to believe that obvious fake.
But then, that doesn't surprise me - seeing as you ARE fucking stupid.
>> History repeating itself, putz.
>
>Also not a premise. But thanks for playing.
>
>> >> My other point is that you Yanks would believe anything your
>> >> Government sticks in your face (the NISTC report for example)
>>
>> >Wrong. You can find nothing questionable in the NIST report. You are
>> >merely using fallacious ad hominem arguments completely lacking in any
>> >actual substance. That's really all you have is your irrational
>> >hatred.
>>
>> >> You are a bunch of jingoistic fools.
>>
>> >You are.
>>
>> Jingoism is particular to the US.
>
>It is not, of course. You must not have ever traveled to any other
>nation!! How preciously na�ve you are!
>
I have traveled a lot - and one thing that always stands out is the
loud brash Yank tourist.
Definitely someone to avoid.
>> What do you always yell at every event.
>>
>> USA USA USA USA = Ad nauseam
>
>Why do citizens of other nations also yell their own slogans, shit-for-
>brains? Holy crap, you actually �think� that is evidence of anything?
>You are pretty pathetic.
>
Other countries yell support for their team members.
Americans yell to drown out the rest and prove (to themselves) they
are the best.
Bit of a laugh really.
It's always interesting watching the faces of other competitors, when
your countrymen start up with their USA USA USA USA.
What a drag.
>
>> Who gives a fuck about the USA.
>
>Everyone in the world apparently, including very obviously YOU!!
>BWAAHAAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
>
If only you new - but that's the jingoism coming out - something
taught from birth, I suppose.
>If you�re nice, I�ll vouch for you when you apply for a work visa! We
>have some of the world�s best skiing about 60 minutes from my front
>door, and you can scrub toilets up there over the winter.
>
Listen to yourself - your own words prove what a bunch a fucking dogs
you yanks are.
And you do not have the best skiing on the world (that's just in your
mind as always - UAS is the best).
Go to Europe and you will see real slopes - not the crap you call
snow.
>> >> I'll tell you one thing you are the best at - you are the world's
>> >> joke.
>>
>> >That's why everyone wants to be here?
>>
>> From what I can see, you're getting a real quality intake, Larnrod.
>
>Who is �Larnrod?�
>
>> What are your grandkids going to be called - Juan-Carlos or Mostafa.
>
>So you are racist? OK. Glad to clear that up.
>
>America�s strength is that her population is diverse.
>
Yeah - keep believing that when you medical benefits scheme bankrupts
your already bankrupt society.
>> How about Farrukh - these's a cute American name for you.
>
>In my family I have European, Arabic and Caribbean heritages. Nice to
>know you�re so jingoistic and racist, Arthur!! Nice to have you come
>out of the closet. Only a racist would even imagine that we should be
>ashamed of our African, Arabic or Latino citizens.
>
It was an indication of who is immigrating to your country, shithead -
no racism involved at all.
Of course, your first instinct would be to racism - you have had very
good practice at it over many years, and you still have the most
racist society on earth.
>
>> >> And finally - you label anyone you doesn't believe what YOU think is
>> >> correct a kook.
>>
>> >Nope, I label people with kooker klaims kooks. Like you. You earn it,
>> >you wear it. EOS.
>>
>> >> >> Sure, Larnrod.
>>
>> >> >Who is "Larnrod?" <chuckle>
>>
>> >> >> About all you've 'bested' is your own limited imagination.
>>
>> >> >Nope, I checked again and it was you.
>>
>> >> Check again, Larnrod - the world is laughing at your country, not
>> >> mine.
>>
>> >Nope. They're laughing at yours and wishing they could move to mine.
>>
>> There is only one reason why anyone want to move to the US.
>
>To live a life of freedom, achievement and liberty.
>
>We are a beacon to the world, giving rebirth to democracy and self-
>determination.
Tell that to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
How many have you killed now - over a million at last count.
But you have control of their oil now, haven't you.
Fucking hypocrite.
george
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:24:49 -0800 (PST), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
I think your imagination is leading you astray here.
> 2. It left out the jet motors.
No. Wrong. Photos are available of the turbines.
Another lie
> 3. It left out the 18inch thick reinforced concrete walls of the
> Pentagon
Riiight.
The 120 ton aircraft flying at or near 500 knots couldn't punch
through an 18 inch concrete wall.
> 4. It completely disregarded the tail section of the plane.
Nonsense
The tail of an aeroplane is an empty space used as a fuel tank in
some.
Look at the shredded aluminium on the lawn outside
>
> 5. It showed that over 50 support columns were destroyed by the plane
> strike - when video and photographic evidence shows the columns were
> not damaged.
Utter and complete BS. Which kook site did you visit for that load of
rubbish
> All wrong in the report and all provable WITH evidence.
>
I see. You're now in the camp of those who claim that the FDR proves
that it didn't hit the Pentagon..
No matter. You are just so wrong
george
Pentagon suicide flight is at
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
artie morty
wrote:
The 75 foot frontage fell 20 minutes after the hit. Video and
photographic evidence available.
>> 2. It left out the jet motors.
>
Check out the simulation George - there are no motors.
>No. Wrong. Photos are available of the turbines.
>Another lie
>
>> 3. It left out the 18inch thick reinforced concrete walls of the
>> Pentagon
>
Check out the simulation George - there are walls, only support beams.
>Riiight.
>The 120 ton aircraft flying at or near 500 knots couldn't punch
>through an 18 inch concrete wall.
>
The computer simulation will never prove it - there were no walls.
>> 4. It completely disregarded the tail section of the plane.
>
>Nonsense
>The tail of an aeroplane is an empty space used as a fuel tank in
>some.
>Look at the shredded aluminium on the lawn outside
Good point George - so why did the computer simulation show the tail
section intake and still attached to the plane even when it came to
rest?
>>
>> 5. It showed that over 50 support columns were destroyed by the plane
>> strike - when video and photographic evidence shows the columns were
>> not damaged.
>
>Utter and complete BS. Which kook site did you visit for that load of
>rubbish
>
I didn't look at a kook site - it is shown on the official
investigation computer simulation.
Obviously something you haven't seen.
>
>
>> All wrong in the report and all provable WITH evidence.
>>
>
>I see. You're now in the camp of those who claim that the FDR proves
>that it didn't hit the Pentagon..
>No matter. You are just so wrong
Firstly George - try reading the thread before you mouth off about
something you don't know. This thread was about the simulation - not
the actual hit. It is showing the inadequacy of the simulation when
trying to 100% prove what happened.
I should thank you - you have actually proved the point for me, and
have verified that the simulation did in fact falsify certain sections
to get the desired result.
Secondly - you don't have to get abusive to prove your point.
Who the fuck do you think you are - you post incorrect data and you
obviously do not even know what the thread was about.
You are a bad poster George, but you are very good at being a
dipstick.
So THANKS - for proving my point.
artie morty
wrote:
> The best site I have seen that explains the physical evidence of the
>Pentagon suicide flight is at
>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Another opinion - big deal.
george
Okay. Where is your point by point refutation of his research ?