World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:23:29
From:
Subject: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

"As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
columns."

Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's
carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the
corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core
columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a
substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial
impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the
south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at
a point when the fires had greatly diminished.

In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal
testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for
the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6
hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is
without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at
only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not
indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was
nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this
figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that
tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles
involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually
act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real
expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.

But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging
on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of
knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can
understand that.

And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to
anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little
problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it
lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE
beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left
standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors
pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this
collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely
the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.

Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the
scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds
with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe.
And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these
issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as
long as it can be videotaped for posterity.

I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd
explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and
publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical
evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale,
while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but
suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY
loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the
truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and
simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents
be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common
mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive
and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade
to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the
sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.

Physicist's Letter On 911 PHYSICS To Rocky Mountain News
10-3-6

More info: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

Date: 11 Oct 2006 18:10:43
From: Russ Rose
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
> columns."

Not that I have the blueprints or anything...

I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
columns.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:27:06
From: OG
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:-cadnVO1iIxs5LDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
>> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
>> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
>> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
>> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
>> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
>> columns."
>
> Not that I have the blueprints or anything...
>
> I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
> columns.

Not sure about that, but there is a much claimed ' no other steel framed
building has collaped after a fire', and the Madrid Windsor Tower fire of
2005 is cited as evidence.

What is not pointed out is that the Madrid tower had full reinforced
concrete construction up to floor 17 (of 32 floors) and a reinforced
concrete core above that height (with supporting perimeter columns for the
upper 15 floors).
In the Madrid fire, the reinforced concrete core withstood the 26 hours of
fire, but the higher level perimeter columned floors started collapsing
within a couple of hours of the fire taking hold.
The outer zones of the top 15 floors collapsed and were completely lost -
there's a picture here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorreWindsor1.JPG

Apologies for the 911 rebuttal, but there may be some people tempted to
believe the unsupported claims of the 911 conspiracists.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:16:04
From: Protagonist
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

OG wrote:
> "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:-cadnVO1iIxs5LDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
>>> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
>>> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
>>> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
>>> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
>>> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
>>> columns."
>> Not that I have the blueprints or anything...
>>
>> I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
>> columns.
>
> Not sure about that, but there is a much claimed ' no other steel framed
> building has collaped after a fire', and the Madrid Windsor Tower fire of
> 2005 is cited as evidence.
>
> What is not pointed out is that the Madrid tower had full reinforced
> concrete construction up to floor 17 (of 32 floors) and a reinforced
> concrete core above that height (with supporting perimeter columns for the
> upper 15 floors).
> In the Madrid fire, the reinforced concrete core withstood the 26 hours of
> fire, but the higher level perimeter columned floors started collapsing
> within a couple of hours of the fire taking hold.
> The outer zones of the top 15 floors collapsed and were completely lost -
> there's a picture here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorreWindsor1.JPG
>
> Apologies for the 911 rebuttal, but there may be some people tempted to
> believe the unsupported claims of the 911 conspiracists.
>
>

It still don't look like collapsed down to the basement, like the
twin-towers.
WTC collapse was done by implosion as building 7 was admitted to be,
were blown up.
These buildings were all ready set-up with explosives in case of
terrorist attack, so it can collapse into it's self and not falling on
the hole city.
JS

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:08:13
From:
Subject: cowardly scientists refuse reality check (because they are complicit?)

cowardly scientists refuse reality check (because they are complicit?)

Not my text... but shoulg get the brain muscle started ...

> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
> columns."
>
> Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's
> carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the
> corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core
> columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a
> substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial
> impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the
> south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at
> a point when the fires had greatly diminished.
>
> In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal
> testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for
> the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6
> hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is
> without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at
> only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not
> indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was
> nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this
> figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that
> tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles
> involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually
> act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real
> expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.
>
> But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
> failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
> collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
> unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
> roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
> the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
> at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
> to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
> undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
> pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
> fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging
> on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of
> knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can
> understand that.
>
> And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to
> anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little
> problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it
> lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE
> beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left
> standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors
> pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this
> collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely
> the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.
>
> Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the
> scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds
> with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe.
> And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these
> issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as
> long as it can be videotaped for posterity.
>
> I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd
> explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and
> publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical
> evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale,
> while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but
> suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY
> loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the
> truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and
> simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents
> be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common
> mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive
> and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade
> to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the
> sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.
>
> Physicist's Letter On 911 PHYSICS To Rocky Mountain News
> 10-3-6
>
> More info: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:29:27
From:
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

Protagonist wrote:
> OG wrote:
> > "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:-cadnVO1iIxs5LDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
> >>> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
> >>> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
> >>> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
> >>> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
> >>> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
> >>> columns."
> >> Not that I have the blueprints or anything...
> >>
> >> I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
> >> columns.
> >
> > Not sure about that, but there is a much claimed ' no other steel framed
> > building has collaped after a fire', and the Madrid Windsor Tower fire of
> > 2005 is cited as evidence.
> >
> > What is not pointed out is that the Madrid tower had full reinforced
> > concrete construction up to floor 17 (of 32 floors) and a reinforced
> > concrete core above that height (with supporting perimeter columns for the
> > upper 15 floors).
> > In the Madrid fire, the reinforced concrete core withstood the 26 hours of
> > fire, but the higher level perimeter columned floors started collapsing
> > within a couple of hours of the fire taking hold.
> > The outer zones of the top 15 floors collapsed and were completely lost -
> > there's a picture here
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorreWindsor1.JPG
> >
> > Apologies for the 911 rebuttal, but there may be some people tempted to
> > believe the unsupported claims of the 911 conspiracists.
> >
> >
>
> It still don't look like collapsed down to the basement, like the
> twin-towers.
> WTC collapse was done by implosion as building 7 was admitted to be,
> were blown up.
> These buildings were all ready set-up with explosives in case of
> terrorist attack, so it can collapse into it's self and not falling on
> the hole city.
> JS

WTC conspiracists are part of a govt conspiracy too. The conspiracy is
to make the govt seem all powerful. I get all my politics from South
Park just like most conspiracy typesget theirs from the funny paper.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 01:04:29
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article <kjgek2pg3gk5b7j08sm14ht8o3gt9scmms@4ax.com>,
> mithril@iafrica.com mumbled
> > On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > Griessel) wrote:
> >
> > >u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > >
> > >>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > >>again:....
> > >
> > >I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > >them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > >
> > >Eugene L Griessel
> > >
> > > He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > > Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> >
> > 9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > about it.
>
> Sorry, it was a rouge Klingon Battlecruise

SNIP

Actually, I think it was mauve

Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:20:15
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1163235869.027386.25250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
renaborney@aol.com mumbled
>
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <kjgek2pg3gk5b7j08sm14ht8o3gt9scmms@4ax.com>,
> > mithril@iafrica.com mumbled
> > > On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > > Griessel) wrote:
> > >
> > > >u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > > >>again:....
> > > >
> > > >I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > > >them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > > >
> > > >Eugene L Griessel
> > > >
> > > > He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > > > Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> > >
> > > 9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > > about it.
> >
> > Sorry, it was a rouge Klingon Battlecruise
>
> SNIP
>
> Actually, I think it was mauve
>

At the very least somewhere close on the color wheel....

Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:01:25
From: AlanS
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

On 10 2006 22:23:29 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>"As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,

The moon landing studios were in the tower. When Elvis discovered them
by mistake, the government had no choice but to cover the whole thing
up.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:47:17
From:
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

> Somewhere in the impact area, the beams broke. The upper section (top third)
> of the building started falling at free-fall speed. When this section hit
> the intact floor below, it delivered an enormous force to this floor,
> breaking it's supports almost immediately and sending it moving down at a
> speed much greater than free-fall. The upper section of the building
> continued falling with negligible loss in speed.

But that is not what the footage shows. The upper part disintegrated
and the rate of descent did not decrease. Even the angular momentum of
the upper section was not maintained.

Furthermore, the central core should have withstood all that, it was
overengineered.
Even if it gave way, the fact that the outer-columns and the inner core
gave way
symmetrically .. ah uhm...strains credulity.

In other words: Anyone who actually looked at the footage ... goes
quiet.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+mysteries

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:30:30
From: Michael J. Strickland
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...

> But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
> failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
> collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
> unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
> roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
> the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
> at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
> to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
> undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
> pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
> fall) WHATSOEVER.

Somewhere in the impact area, the beams broke. The upper section (top third)
of the building started falling at free-fall speed. When this section hit
the intact floor below, it delivered an enormous force to this floor,
breaking it's supports almost immediately and sending it moving down at a
speed much greater than free-fall. The upper section of the building
continued falling with negligible loss in speed.

I believe the energy required to break the support beams in the floor
immediately below is negligible compared to the kinetic energy acquired by
the upper 1/3 of the building after it has fallen through the height of one
floor.

The collapse continued with the process repeating itself on succeeding
floors all the way to the ground, again, with negligible loss in speed.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services qualityser@att.net
703-560-7380
---------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 2006 01:16:49
From:
Subject: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

I know I know...

you had enough of 911 conspiracies.

You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)

But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
were not destroyed?

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
has all you need to know.

But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
fantasies.

Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.

Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
steel,
like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.

So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html

You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
what
must be avoided....

Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
Q.E.D.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 19:34:40
From: LiRM
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 01:16:49 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>were not destroyed?
>
>http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>has all you need to know.
>
>But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>fantasies.
>
>Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.

I won't bother adding to what you so eloquently express about yourself
and those you count as your peers...

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:10:13
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

LiRM wrote:
> On 18 2006 01:16:49 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>were not destroyed?
>>
>>http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>has all you need to know.
>>
>>But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>>and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>>fantasies.
>>
>>Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>>that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>>it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
>
> I won't bother adding to what you so eloquently express about yourself
> and those you count as your peers...
>
>
Oh, you dont have any facts to rebut with either?

Date: 18 Oct 2006 00:52:53
From:
Subject: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Date: 18 Oct 2006 14:10:38
From: JAH
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

The best was a recent South Park episode that spoofed all those 9/11
conspiracies.

It was hilarious.

Here's a clip from it:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565

JAH

Net Crimes & Misdemeanors
netcrimes.net
2nd edition NOW OUT!!
haltabuse.org

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:18:38
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

JAH wrote:
> The best was a recent South Park episode that spoofed all those 9/11
> conspiracies.
>
> It was hilarious.
>
> Here's a clip from it:
>
> http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565
Sorry, I run Linux, not windoze.
But now, yours is the sixth that fails to provide any *facts* that can
be reasonably used to refute the 911 links.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 07:07:26
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> JAH wrote:
>> The best was a recent South Park episode that spoofed all those 9/11
>> conspiracies.
>>
>> It was hilarious.
>>
>> Here's a clip from it:
>>
>> http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565
>>
> Sorry, I run Linux, not windoze.
> But now, yours is the sixth that fails to provide any *facts* that can
> be reasonably used to refute the 911 links.

Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:54:08
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
"hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.

Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:57:00
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <8Gw_g.128$kX6.103526@news.sisna.com >,
Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
> > errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
> > cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
> > cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
> > subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
> > within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
> > is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
> > on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
> it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
> "hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>
> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

Day,

Now you are starting to make sense! Can't you just make the transition
from Jello at 500 kt to something a little harder -- say, a B757 at 500
kt, and loaded with fuel to start some massive primary and secondary
fires? Or is that a stretch of your abilities?

Date: 22 Oct 2006 18:53:26
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> Day,
>
> Now you are starting to make sense! Can't you just make the transition
> from Jello at 500 kt to something a little harder -- say, a B757 at 500
> kt, and loaded with fuel to start some massive primary and secondary
> fires? Or is that a stretch of your abilities?
I didnt start the thread Orval. I just quibbled with a particular point.

I am content to wait for the new congress to convene, and see what the
NIST report is on the collapse of WTC 7, before going into the
credibility of the 911 commission report, or the criticisms of it on the
various 911 websites.

WTC 7, if you recall, was *NOT* hit by a plane, but collapsed anyway. On
the face of it, that looks fishy. If the NIST report can explain that,
then the 911 commission report gains credibility. If not, then not.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:42:59
From: David G. Nagel
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
>> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
>> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
>
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
> it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
> "hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>
> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

The Military Channel has a show called GI Factory. A recent program
showed a bomb disposal technique where a slug of water is shot out of a
gun barrel using a 20 gage shot gun shell. The slug put a 4 inch entry
hole and a 10 exit hole in a cooler basket. The demonstrator pointed out
that at 20 feet all you got was wet but at 2 feet you got the
aforementioned holes. It's called "INERTIA". At and above a certain
velocity matter stops flowing and starts acting like a solid block.

Dave N

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:32:29
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Just as the water saw that GE has, they use it to cut steel pattens and it's
a WATER saw, shoots a stream of water over a 2inch gap and it'll cut just
about anything they want.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"David G. Nagel" <nagel@core.com > wrote in message
news:12jlfkj3l7d0qa5@corp.supernews.com...
> Day Brown wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
>>> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
>>> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
>>
>> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and it
>> would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated, "hard
>> and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>>
>> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.
>
> The Military Channel has a show called GI Factory. A recent program showed
> a bomb disposal technique where a slug of water is shot out of a gun
> barrel using a 20 gage shot gun shell. The slug put a 4 inch entry hole
> and a 10 exit hole in a cooler basket. The demonstrator pointed out that
> at 20 feet all you got was wet but at 2 feet you got the aforementioned
> holes. It's called "INERTIA". At and above a certain velocity matter stops
> flowing and starts acting like a solid block.
>
> Dave N

Date: 22 Oct 2006 03:41:11
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 18:32:29 -0700, "Starlord"
<starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote:

>Just as the water saw that GE has, they use it to cut steel pattens and it's
>a WATER saw, shoots a stream of water over a 2inch gap and it'll cut just
>about anything they want.

Indeed. Waterjet cutting (correct name) is one of the most common high
tech cutting techniques in common use today. Depending on material..fine
garnett powder may be added to the jet stream to increase the cutting
action.

Its used where heat cutting would have deletorious effects on the
materials. Plastics, some woods, titaniums, etc etc. Its capable of
very fine definition, though not as tight as lazer cutting.

Omax is one of the better manufactures.

http://www.omax.com/

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:40:49
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
>> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
>> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
> it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
> "hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>
> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

The cite said "hard and brittle" it didn't specify under what
conditions. At 500 mph the spars would still bend before failing, that's
hardly brittle. I have seen the aftermath of aircraft collisions, have you?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:05:51
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote in message
news:8Gw_g.128$kX6.103526@news.sisna.com...
> Dan wrote:
>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see is
>> empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research on
>> the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and it
> would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated, "hard
> and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>

So you are now claiming that jello would be devatasting but a 767
should bounce off.

Hardly a credible position now is it ?

Keith

Date: 18 Oct 2006 06:32:09
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.
>
> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
>
> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.
>

I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.

The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.

I needed the laugh this morning.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:14:35
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
Well that's better, at least one fact. Which however, is not relevant.
the flexing you refer to is so slow that you can see the bending with
the naked eye. Trying to bend a wing at the speed at which it flew into
the building... If you are so smart, its kinda funny you did not think
of that effect.
>
> The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
> buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.

> I needed the laugh this morning.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
So far its been 3 ad hominums, your irrelevant point, then another ad
hominum. Shall we go for four?

Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:59:55
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
>> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
>> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
> Well that's better, at least one fact. Which however, is not relevant.
> the flexing you refer to is so slow that you can see the bending with
> the naked eye. Trying to bend a wing at the speed at which it flew into
> the building... If you are so smart, its kinda funny you did not think
> of that effect.

The cite said the wing spar were "hard and brittle" which I proved
they weren't. Instead of trying to insult me please accept that fact.

>>
>> The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
>> buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.
>
>> I needed the laugh this morning.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> So far its been 3 ad hominums, your irrelevant point, then another ad
> hominum. Shall we go for four?

My first point was perfectly relevant to the cite given. The comment
about the WTC being built to be pulverized to protect the foundations
was just that; a comment about a point made in the cite that was laughable.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 18 Oct 2006 06:26:08
From: AM
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>

No, I just had enough of you.

You are a cross posting loon, and idiot, and generally
a useless human being. Unfortunately, your parents are
probably proud of you.

BTW, your entertainment value has gone to zero, and you
know what that means............

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3

Date: 18 Oct 2006 10:18:44
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>

I know how that happened

> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>

The Cortland St station and 1800 ft of tunnel were destroyed.
Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
cost in excess of $200 million

What planet do you live on ?

Keith

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:11:10
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>
>
> I know how that happened
>
>
>>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>were not destroyed?
>>
>
>
> The Cortland St station and 1800 ft of tunnel were destroyed.
> Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
> cost in excess of $200 million
>
>
> What planet do you live on ?
>
>
> Keith
You are three so far that have no facts to rebut with, only ad hominum.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:52:55
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I know I know...
>>>
>>> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>>
>>> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I know how that happened
>>
>>
>>> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>> were not destroyed?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Cortland St station and 1800 ft of tunnel were destroyed.
>> Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
>> cost in excess of $200 million
>>
>>
>> What planet do you live on ?
>>
>>
>> Keith
> You are three so far that have no facts to rebut with, only ad hominum.

He did rebut with a fact.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 18 Oct 2006 08:06:17
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.

No, no - conspiracies I can handle. Ignoramuses like yourself is what
pisses me off big time.

Eugene L Griessel

Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:09:12
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Eugene Griessel wrote:
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>
> No, no - conspiracies I can handle. Ignoramuses like yourself is what
> pisses me off big time.
>
>
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Its becoming kinda obvious that there is no rebuttal, only ad hominum.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:05:59
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <gQi_g.86$zd7.169119@news.sisna.com >, daybrown@wildblue.net
mumbled
> Eugene Griessel wrote:
> > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I know I know...
> >>
> >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> >
> >
> > No, no - conspiracies I can handle. Ignoramuses like yourself is what
> > pisses me off big time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eugene L Griessel
> >
> > Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.

> Its becoming kinda obvious that there is no rebuttal, only ad hominum.

There was nothing to rebutt...

Date: 18 Oct 2006 20:29:08
From: T. Bloompaster Weatherford
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 00:52:53 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
---
You just may be the dumbest man/woman/thing on Earth.

T. Bloompaster Weatherford

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Oct 2006 17:42:41
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)

It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.

Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?

> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?

See above.

> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.

See above.

> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.

Of course -- it was the Klingons and Romulans!

> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.

I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?

> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.

It is all a massive alien conspiracy!

Date: 18 Oct 2006 13:13:54
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>> I know I know...
>>
>> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>
> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
>
>
>
>> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>> were not destroyed?
>
> See above.
>
>
>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>> has all you need to know.
>>
>> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>> fantasies.
>
> See above.
>
>
>> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
> Of course -- it was the Klingons and Romulans!
>
>
>> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
>> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
>> steel,
>> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
>
> I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>
>
>
>
>> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>
>> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
>> what
>> must be avoided....
>>
>> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
>> Q.E.D.
>
> It is all a massive alien conspiracy!

See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:50:39
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

D > Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue
D > From: Dan <B2431@aol.com>
D > Date: Wed, 18 2006 13:13:54 -0500
D > >>
D > >> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
D > >> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
D > >
D > > It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
D > > The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
D > > with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
D > >
D > > Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
D > >
D > >> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
D > >> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
D > >> were not destroyed?
D > > . . .
D > > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
D >
D > See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
D >
D > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

For the curious folk out there, you can walk around INSIDE Ground
Zero in certain public areas and take your own pictures and notes. The
temporary Tube station has a open-walled arena one floor down from the
street. You can look out, within the Ground Zero perimeter, thru
fences. Story boards are spotted around the fence to explain what's
going on.
If you go farther down to the Tube platforms, six floors down, you
can look around and UP into Ground Zero. It'll cost you $1.50, the
one-way fare on the train to get to the platform. Once there, you can
ride the first train that leaves and look out thru its large picture
windows.
Be quick! The train scoots around the lopy track and plunges into
the tunnel under Hudson River in a few seconds.
Now, get of at the very next stop,Ehange Place and board a
trainfor the return ride to WTC. Again, be ready as the train pops out
of the river tunnel and snakes around thru Ground Zero to the station.
When you are on the platforms at Ground Zero, you are standing
below the river bed of the Udson and can see the tunnel, like gigantic
vent holes, in the perimeter wall of the latee WTC.
If you are favored to know someone who now works at the ETC, visit
him and look out his window on the south side of the office tower.
This overlooks Ground Zero.
I did say that people now work in the WTC; I mean regular office
workers, not constrcution or utility crews. Yes, the WTC is back in
operation, partially, with new corporate tenants moving in.
The part open for business is 7WTC, on the north side, just
outside the main campus. It replaces, with several changes, the late
7WTC that burned to the ground and collapsed on the afternooon of 11
September 2001. It was then,and the replacement is now, called 'the
Pup' for being only a short skyscraper of 50ish floors height.

---
� RoseReader 2.52� P005004

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:20:27
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>
> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>
> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 07:17:20
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know I know...
>>>
>>> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>>
>>> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>
>> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
>> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
>> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>>
>> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
> rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

The "facts" given by the OP were NOT facts, just opinions base on a
blog that was utter manure on the face of it.

Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
of insulting him.

It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
that is exactly what you have been doing.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:50:39
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy F 2/ 2

Continued from previous message.

boards and fences. The iste is open 24/7 and, believe or not, is
tamely lighted with star-friendly lamps.
The 'Crossed beanms' artifact was removed on ober 6th to a
temorary site on Church St near Barclay St, next to St Peter's church.
It's much closer to the sidewalk for better inspection. You can see
the softness of the torn ends of the beams from the heat.
Sroop, too, in St Paul's chapel, across the street from Ground
Zero, for a emotional exhibit. It, 'Out of the dust' tells of the
chapel's part in the rescue/recovery work. In spite of the immense
chaos of the collapse and the hundreds of thousands of tones of
material heaved into the air just acorss the street, the chapel
suffered ABSOLUTELY NO dmaage at all. Oh, ther was dust and small
rubble piled on top of it, to a meter depth, and the trees in the
churchyard had bits and pieces stuck in them for monhts afterwards.
Stop, also, at the fiegouse on Duane St about six blocks north,
the first to respond to the alarm. It has artifacts and relics in an
exhibit. There's an other firehouse with a memorial exhibit but it's
on the Brooklyn side of Brooklyn Bridge. However, you can get the feel
for what its crew felt as they speeded over the Bridge to the WTC.
Ealk to and onto the Bridge from City Hall Park. the rise from the
street to the main deck is quite gentle because the Bridge was built
for horse and mule traffic in the 1880s. Walk about a full kilometer
to the first, Manhattan, tower. The walk turns from concrete slab to
wood, in keeping with the historical soul of this structure.
The walk wraps around the tower and has metal relief maps of Lower
Manhattan which you can match with the scene around you. They still
have the WTRC embedded in them, so you can visualize where they were
in the present skyline.
Below you traffic zooms by at highway speed in lanes only 3
meters wide, not comoforting to those of you sriving on modern roads.
Imagine now fietrucks 00 you may actually see one or two during your
walk -- racing toward Manhattan. Its crew sees the faming towers thru
the cablework of the Bridge.
There's a newspaper photo, curely one of the most meotional ones
of the 20th century, of the WTC on fire with Brooklyn Bridge in the
foreground. The caption spoke only of the WTC but IN THIS PICTURE was
one of the fir enginers from the Brooklyn depot on its way to the
site.
It was not seen again until it was hauled from four floors under
rubble, all flatened to no higher than a tabletop.

---
� RoseReader 2.52� P005004

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:50:39
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy F 1/ 2

D > Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue
D > From: Dan <B2431@aol.com>
D > Date: Sat, 21 2006 07:17:20 -0500
D >
D > The "facts" given by the OP were NOT facts, just opinions base on a
D > blog that was utter manure on the face of it.
D >
D > Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
D > actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
D > pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
D > foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
D > biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
D > are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
D > instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
D > undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
D > of insulting him.
D >
D > It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
D > that is exactly what you have been doing.
D >
D > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Indeed the basement, garage, subway, H&M station (OK, it's PATH
today) were smashed into pieces. The IRT South Ferry line that was
engolfed by the late WTC, because it ran in Greenixh St that was
incorporated into the campus, was totaled. The tunnel was since
replaced -- AS AN EL! -- but the very station is still missing. It
will be built in coordiantion with the new WTC. If you were to leave
the train at the spot where the old station was, you would step into
air six or so floors ABOVE the bottom of the pit of Ground Zero.
The BMT Montague line was not dmaged, for a really strange,
stranger than fixtion, reason. It was swamped by muck and gook from
the collapsed. It was not reopened, altho trains passed thru it,
because the streets upstairs were still closed to traffic suring the
rescue and recovery. During this closure, the station was renovated so
it looked brand new --IN THE ORIGINAL BMT MOTIF! -- when it was put
back in operation. One new ornamentation is a pair of memorial sculted
murals depicting hostorical sites near the station.
Alas, this station is again closedm with trains bypassing, it for
a new round of rebuilding to connect it to the new transit center a
block away. It may reopen this winter.
The H&M station ws not only squahed, the tunnel were severed from
the Hudson River and its site filled in with debris and rubble from
the collapse. No trains were trapped because as the fires in north
tower grew, service was stopped with trains held back in new jersey.
One last ttrain, already shooting the tube to WTC was told to scud
thru the WTC and come right back to NJ.
It was replaced with a temporary station keeping the same
trackwork. It opened about Thanksgiving of 2003 an now fields some
40,000 riders a day. This is down from 60,000 in the late WTC
mainly because the destination for the extra 20,000 is not yet back in
place. It, too, is an el, so you can say that the els came back to
Lower Manhattan.
Now come the stanger than fiction parts. Water, as aliquid (to get
some science back into this post) maintains its volume under pressure.
it's incompressible. So it can only be displaced from one place to an
other. Well, all the water in the towers, elsewhere on the campus,
like in toilets, standpipes, coffee makers, fish bowls, sode bottles,
and all that, fell with the rest of the towers and contents.
The solid parts crushed, the gases vents. The water was pushed and
pressed down into the H&M station and other areas of the basement.
Where can it go?
It burst out of Ground Zero thru the sheared off train tunnels,
jetted TWO KILOMETEERS to New Jersey, and gushed up into the station
there. At first, it was thought ther was a separate attack in New
Jersey, before realizing that the meters deep flood was coming from
the WTC, then under fall across the river.
The big fear wa that the tunnels wre smashed and the water was
river water.No, it was fresh, not saline (Hudson River is not a
river, but a fjord), and it had other components not found in river
water (soda, soup, tea, crap, &c)
The other item is that there WAS a structure that survived the
collapse within the campus. It was the remains of the original H&M
train station built in, IIRC, 1905 as part of US's 2nd rapid transit
subway. Because back then the riverfront was much closer to
inland than now, there was the danger of flooding from storms or, yes,
anarchist actions.
So the structure was made of solid concrete several meters thick.
In fact, when the late WTC was built, the towers were supposed to next
to Church St, the east side of Ground Zero. But the builders could not
demolish this old station. SO they had to redesing the towers to sit
farther back from Church St off of the station site. The station was
never used for any serious purpose during the life of the WTC except
for an 'iron mountain'record sagekeeping facility.
It sure worked as hoped; it was completely unscathed by the
collpase. You can see its upper surface along the Church St side of
the campus and part of is side from within Ground Zero.
This barrier saved the BMT subway from the fate of the neighboring
IRT.
It rally pays to send time at Ground Zero during your next trip to
Bew York. The perimeter is nicely improved for visitors with story

Continued in next message.

---
� RoseReader 2.52� P005004

Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:01:31
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
> actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
> pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
> foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
> biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
> are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
> instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
> undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
> of insulting him.
>
> It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
> that is exactly what you have been doing.
I have not called anyone names, but simply pointed out how many times I
have seen others do so. I do not defend everything in every harebrained
website, but it is abundantly clear to me that the 911 commission report
is simply not credible.

I did not say what I think was credible. I only commented on the point
about "hard and brittle", pointing out that at the speed of aircraft,
the term is appropriate. How flexible wings appear out the window of an
aircraft is not relevant. You could throw Jellow at the buildings at 500
mph and have devastating effects.

Perhaps you've not seen photos of wheat straw embedded in wood studs
after a tornado?

I have not said anyone was stupid or crazy. I have seen several others
in this thread do that, and realized that I was looking at a trend I had
seen in many other threads, most specifically having to do with anyone
who poses *questions*, not theories, about 911.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:37:45
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

There is ZERO questions about what happened on 911, not only did many many
people SEE it happen, many of them also died afterwards when the building
crumbled after the fire from the jet fuel did it's job.

Saying the 911 report is not true or beliveable is the same as saying you
could walk across a stream of flowing hot lava.

END OF LINE

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote in message
news:7Nw_g.129$LX6.131201@news.sisna.com...
> Dan wrote:
>> Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
>> actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
>> pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
>> foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
>> biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars are
>> "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise instead
>> of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were undamaged,
>> Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead of insulting
>> him.
>>
>> It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
>> that is exactly what you have been doing.
> I have not called anyone names, but simply pointed out how many times I
> have seen others do so. I do not defend everything in every harebrained
> website, but it is abundantly clear to me that the 911 commission report
> is simply not credible.
>
> I did not say what I think was credible. I only commented on the point
> about "hard and brittle", pointing out that at the speed of aircraft, the
> term is appropriate. How flexible wings appear out the window of an
> aircraft is not relevant. You could throw Jellow at the buildings at 500
> mph and have devastating effects.
>
> Perhaps you've not seen photos of wheat straw embedded in wood studs after
> a tornado?
>
> I have not said anyone was stupid or crazy. I have seen several others in
> this thread do that, and realized that I was looking at a trend I had seen
> in many other threads, most specifically having to do with anyone who
> poses *questions*, not theories, about 911.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 18:59:45
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:
> There is ZERO questions about what happened on 911, not only did many many
> people SEE it happen, many of them also died afterwards when the building
> crumbled after the fire from the jet fuel did it's job.
I've seen video of people who were *there*, on the street, making
comments about what they saw or heard *that very day*, that turned out
to conflict with the 911 commission report. They obviously have
questions. Naturally, the families of those who died on 911 delved into
all this more carefully than you or I have, and they have questions. I
dont see that your opinion on this issue is relevant.

> Saying the 911 report is not true or beliveable is the same as saying you
> could walk across a stream of flowing hot lava.
You are welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is. opinion. I'm
willing to wait for the new congress to convene, and show us the NIST
report on why WTC 7 collapsed, which if you recall, was *NOT* hit by a
plane. There are, naturally questions about that which challenge your
assertion that there are none.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:24:00
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 01:20:27 -0500, Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote:

>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know I know...
>>>
>>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>>
>>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>
>> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
>> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
>> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>>
>> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
substantively" with?

Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:20:08
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
> substantively" with?
Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
*facts*. We've all seen them often enough.

Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?

I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
soon after they convene.

There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
"facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.

If you have any alternative explanation, I'd be grateful.

But we could also be patient, and wait to see what the new congress
makes of it. Their opinion counts lots more than ours does.

No, more to the point here is to consider not we think of the facts, but
what *they* will think. Given the demagoguery already seen in the CSPAN
speeches, I'd expect charges of arson against Silverstein, and a
concerted effort to locate all the men Jeb Bush employed who were in
charge of the 'security' at the WTC complex to see what they know.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:44:00
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

now you've gone to the STUPID side that says they BUIKT the tower with demo
charges in it and then blew them. For those people I issure an invite to
take a swim in the living , flowing stream of lava coming from the volcano
in Hawaii.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote in message
news:x2x_g.132$ZV6.53301@news.sisna.com...
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>> sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>> "dealing
>> substantively" with?
> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are *facts*.
> We've all seen them often enough.
>
> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>
> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it soon
> after they convene.
>
> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and the
> *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which conflicts
> with what a controlled demolition would look like.
>
> If you have any alternative explanation, I'd be grateful.
>
> But we could also be patient, and wait to see what the new congress makes
> of it. Their opinion counts lots more than ours does.
>
> No, more to the point here is to consider not we think of the facts, but
> what *they* will think. Given the demagoguery already seen in the CSPAN
> speeches, I'd expect charges of arson against Silverstein, and a concerted
> effort to locate all the men Jeb Bush employed who were in charge of the
> 'security' at the WTC complex to see what they know.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:55:45
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>> sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>> "dealing
>> substantively" with?
> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
> *facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>
> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>
> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
> soon after they convene.
>
> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
> the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
> conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.

OK, try this on for size. When buildings are brought down by
controlled demolition walls are removed, structural members are weakened
or removed, windows and furniture are removed etc. When all is ready
explosives are carefully installed in specific order and all are
connected with great lengths of det cord. When you see buildings brought
down in seconds just remember it took weeks to prepare the building to
include hauling off tons of debris before the building site is safe for
demolition. In order for YOU to tell us WTC 7 was brought down with
controlled demolition you have to be able to show us one of two things:

1: either WTC 7 was constructed with built in demolition charges

or

2: how the weeks of preparations were hidden in such a way as no
one noticed trucks hauling debris, employees, passers by and visitors
didn't missing walls, windows etc and employees and visitors didn't
notice a mile or two of bright red det cord on the morning of 9/11.

Since neither happened I suggest your "voice over" experts are not
experts at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:50:45
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
of this was seen to be going on on 911

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Dan" <B2431@aol.com > wrote in message
news:Gkz_g.31726$eZ4.2059@dukeread06...
> Day Brown wrote:
>> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>>>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go
>>>> on.
>>
>>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>>> sekrit Nazi
>>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>>> "dealing
>>> substantively" with?
>> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
>> *facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>>
>> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
>> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>>
>> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
>> soon after they convene.
>>
>> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
>> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
>> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
>> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and the
>> *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which conflicts
>> with what a controlled demolition would look like.
>
> OK, try this on for size. When buildings are brought down by controlled
> demolition walls are removed, structural members are weakened or removed,
> windows and furniture are removed etc. When all is ready explosives are
> carefully installed in specific order and all are connected with great
> lengths of det cord. When you see buildings brought down in seconds just
> remember it took weeks to prepare the building to include hauling off tons
> of debris before the building site is safe for demolition. In order for
> YOU to tell us WTC 7 was brought down with controlled demolition you have
> to be able to show us one of two things:
>
> 1: either WTC 7 was constructed with built in demolition charges
>
> or
>
> 2: how the weeks of preparations were hidden in such a way as no one
> noticed trucks hauling debris, employees, passers by and visitors didn't
> missing walls, windows etc and employees and visitors didn't notice a mile
> or two of bright red det cord on the morning of 9/11.
>
> Since neither happened I suggest your "voice over" experts are not
> experts at all.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:23:12
From: David J. Hughes
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:

> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
> elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
> man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
> of this was seen to be going on on 911
>
>

Depending on the application, either or both Det Cord and Electrical
firing cable will be used.
In cases where very short delays are desired, special resistance
circuits will be used from single firing signal.
IIRC, the original version of this type of circuit was invented by a
safecracker in the 1930's, who used a bit of foil from a gum wrapper to
delay the detonation of the second charge by a few milliseconds, and, as
a patriotic American, gave the secret to the US military during WWII.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 20:19:35
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

I lived in Honolulu,Hi. they imploed a building there, and as I was down
near the site that day, I got to stand behind the firing panel, the demo man
stood there and there was 6 charges to go off and he had 6 switchs, there
was a 7th swite wich armed the other 6 and as his clock hit 10am and he was
given the all clear sign, he flipped each switch one after the other, in
less than 5seconds and with the throw of each switch there was a blast
inside the building. They had cameras set up and everyone got to see the
blasts from inside. By the time the 6th blast went off one end of the
building ( a long 15floor building downtown) was already starting to fall
inward. I saw all the extra stuff he had, all pure copper wire and they had
used 6 --- 1/2lb charges of C4, the same stuff I used in vietnam. There was
no real super strong support beams, so they just took out the main walls and
it all came down.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"David J. Hughes" <davidjhughes.tx@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:1161483839_5023@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Starlord wrote:
>
>> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they
>> ise elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there
>> is one man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped
>> order. None of this was seen to be going on on 911
>>
>>
>
> Depending on the application, either or both Det Cord and Electrical
> firing cable will be used.
> In cases where very short delays are desired, special resistance circuits
> will be used from single firing signal.
> IIRC, the original version of this type of circuit was invented by a
> safecracker in the 1930's, who used a bit of foil from a gum wrapper to
> delay the detonation of the second charge by a few milliseconds, and, as a
> patriotic American, gave the secret to the US military during WWII.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 03:37:11
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 21:23:12 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
<davidjhughes.tx@netzero.net > wrote:

>Starlord wrote:
>
>> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
>> elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
>> man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
>> of this was seen to be going on on 911
>>
>>
>
>Depending on the application, either or both Det Cord and Electrical
>firing cable will be used.

True indeed.

>In cases where very short delays are desired, special resistance
>circuits will be used from single firing signal.
>IIRC, the original version of this type of circuit was invented by a
>safecracker in the 1930's, who used a bit of foil from a gum wrapper to
>delay the detonation of the second charge by a few milliseconds, and, as
>a patriotic American, gave the secret to the US military during WWII.

Most delay charges are done with delay blasting caps. They are available
from a millisecond or two delay to several seconds.

Ever see a face shot in a quarry..where they blast out the side of the
hill? First row of shots are instantanious detonation. This loosens the
rock between the edge and the shot. A very short time later..second row
goes off..now loosening the rock between it and where the original row
was..no resistance because the first row is now falling away..then the
third row, longer delay, 4th row..again a longer delay..etc.

All charges were fired at the same time..firing circuit was engergized
at the same instant..but the delay in the proceeding rows of charges
allows the cliff to start moving before the next row goes..else they
would simply make foxholes in the ground.

Often times..each charge in a single row is linked with det cord..but
each row has one or more delay caps to get things started.

Gunner, once Class B blaster.

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:14:30
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:
> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
> elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
> man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
> of this was seen to be going on on 911
>
>

No need to be rude. If you disagree just say so.

Next time Discovery does a show on controlled demolitions watch it.
The wire to which you refer leads to det cord. The firing panel just
initiates the process. There are delays clipped in between det cord
segments to ensure each charge goes in sequence. Det cord is available
in various burn rates. Boosters may be required between det cord and
some types of explosives.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 23:02:00
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Oh and just HOW am I going to watch that channel? On my broken down normal
broadcast T.V. Ant that sits on a pole next to this trailer I live in?
Cable, which is very costly doesn't come this far down the road and I live
on a fixed income so I do without a dish, so next time ASK someone if they
have cable or dish before sticking your foot in your mouth.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Dan" <B2431@aol.com > wrote in message
news:g7D_g.31732$eZ4.22615@dukeread06...
.
>
> Next time Discovery does a show on controlled demolitions watch it. The
> wire to which you refer leads to det cord. >

Date: 22 Oct 2006 01:47:45
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:
> Oh and just HOW am I going to watch that channel? On my broken down normal
> broadcast T.V. Ant that sits on a pole next to this trailer I live in?
> Cable, which is very costly doesn't come this far down the road and I live
> on a fixed income so I do without a dish, so next time ASK someone if they
> have cable or dish before sticking your foot in your mouth.
>
>
Did I say you had Discovery at home? There are other ways.

"Woe is me" whine is noted, you just came to the wrong place for
sympathy. I am a 100% disabled veteran who is house bound most of the time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 09:01:53
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

i'M A 30% DISABLED vietnam vet myself, but I still manage to work a 100 by
150ft garden area and I now own my trailer and I'm well known in the
astronomy world.

BTW, I don't know why this was cross posted to sci.astro.am because it has
ZERO to do with astronomy. So after I make my last reply, I'm going to make
a new message rule that'll delete this whole line of messages for now on. In
my opion anyone who can't get the FACTS that the WTC two main buildings went
down from planes crashing into them and that there was other buildings
damaged from fallind debrie, should go back to school and at lest learn some
hard core sci facts at lest even at high school level. Because the following
are facts, no "If's, and's or but's around them"

1.Tall building are NOT built with demo charges in them, otherwise there
could never be radios or anything else allowed within citys.

2. There is ZERo hidden deals with the wat the WTC came down and anyone who
thinks there is needs to get a brain transplant so they can do some real
thinking.

3. This line of messages has ZERO to do with ASTRONOMY so it should NEVER
have been posted to this newsgroup.

4. Welcome to the Cyber Black Hole.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Dan" <B2431@aol.com > wrote in message
news:HuE_g.31734$eZ4.20486@dukeread06...
> Starlord wrote:
>> Oh and just HOW am I going to watch that channel? On my broken down
>> normal broadcast T.V. Ant that sits on a pole next to this trailer I live
>> in? Cable, which is very costly doesn't come this far down the road and I
>> live on a fixed income so I do without a dish, so next time ASK someone
>> if they have cable or dish before sticking your foot in your mouth.
>>
>>
> Did I say you had Discovery at home? There are other ways.
>
> "Woe is me" whine is noted, you just came to the wrong place for
> sympathy. I am a 100% disabled veteran who is house bound most of the
> time.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 01:04:47
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <Gkz_g.31726$eZ4.2059@dukeread06 >, Dan <B2431@aol.com>
wrote:

> Day Brown wrote:
> > Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
> >>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
> >
> >> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
> >> sekrit Nazi
> >> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
> >> "dealing
> >> substantively" with?
> > Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
> > *facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
> >
> > Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
> > why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
> >
> > I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
> > soon after they convene.
> >
> > There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
> > shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
> > knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
> > "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
> > the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
> > conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.
>
> OK, try this on for size. When buildings are brought down by
> controlled demolition walls are removed, structural members are weakened
> or removed, windows and furniture are removed etc. When all is ready
> explosives are carefully installed in specific order and all are
> connected with great lengths of det cord. When you see buildings brought
> down in seconds just remember it took weeks to prepare the building to
> include hauling off tons of debris before the building site is safe for
> demolition. In order for YOU to tell us WTC 7 was brought down with
> controlled demolition you have to be able to show us one of two things:
>
> 1: either WTC 7 was constructed with built in demolition charges
>
> or
>
> 2: how the weeks of preparations were hidden in such a way as no
> one noticed trucks hauling debris, employees, passers by and visitors
> didn't missing walls, windows etc and employees and visitors didn't
> notice a mile or two of bright red det cord on the morning of 9/11.
>
> Since neither happened I suggest your "voice over" experts are not
> experts at all.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

I *HAD* to be the invisible space aliens mentioned in a thread in
sci.space.policy! That or a cloaked Romulan battle cruiser!

Date: 21 Oct 2006 20:11:11
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <Gkz_g.31726$eZ4.2059@dukeread06>, Dan <B2431@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>>>>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>>>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>>>> sekrit Nazi
>>>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>>>> "dealing
>>>> substantively" with?
>>> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
>>> *facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>>>
>>> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
>>> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>>>
>>> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
>>> soon after they convene.
>>>
>>> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
>>> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
>>> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
>>> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
>>> the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
>>> conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.
>> OK, try this on for size. When buildings are brought down by
>> controlled demolition walls are removed, structural members are weakened
>> or removed, windows and furniture are removed etc. When all is ready
>> explosives are carefully installed in specific order and all are
>> connected with great lengths of det cord. When you see buildings brought
>> down in seconds just remember it took weeks to prepare the building to
>> include hauling off tons of debris before the building site is safe for
>> demolition. In order for YOU to tell us WTC 7 was brought down with
>> controlled demolition you have to be able to show us one of two things:
>>
>> 1: either WTC 7 was constructed with built in demolition charges
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2: how the weeks of preparations were hidden in such a way as no
>> one noticed trucks hauling debris, employees, passers by and visitors
>> didn't missing walls, windows etc and employees and visitors didn't
>> notice a mile or two of bright red det cord on the morning of 9/11.
>>
>> Since neither happened I suggest your "voice over" experts are not
>> experts at all.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Dan,
>
> I *HAD* to be the invisible space aliens mentioned in a thread in
> sci.space.policy! That or a cloaked Romulan battle cruiser!

Either that or the buildings are all still there under cloak. No one
died, they were all bought off and put in the federal witness protection
program. Hey, it makes as much sense as the conspiracy theories I have
seen. Oops, was that an "ad hominum" attack?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 23:46:18
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 17:20:08 -0500, Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote:

>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
>> substantively" with?
>Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
>*facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>
>Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
>why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?

Because four years ago a report was issued by the Structural Engineering
Institute of the American Society for Civil Engineers in conjunction with the US
government; with the assistance of the New York City Department of Design and
Construction, the New York City Office of Emergency Management, the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Structural Engineers Association of New York, the American
Concrete Institute, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council of
American Structural Engineers, the International Code Council, the Council on
Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations, the National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire
Protection Engineers and the Masonry Society.

And it is just possible that they are giving themselves every opportunity to
make the best case possible that either confirms their previous work as reported
in the September 2002 report or conclusively refute it. Until such refutation
surfaces, I'm going to have to go with the collective wisdom of SEI/ACE, NIST,
OEM, the Port Authority, SEAoNY, ACI, AISC, CASE, ICC, CATBUH, SCSEA,
NFPA, SFPE and TMS.

>There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
>shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
>knowledgeable in controlled demolition.

And the footage shows that WTC7 took 13 seconds to fall.

>Do you regard their comments as
>"facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
>the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
>conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.

Really? Do your controlled demolitions ever show part of the building, a
penthouse in the WTC7 case, fall into the interior of the building and then
nothing happens for six seconds and then the rest of the building starts to come
down?

>If you have any alternative explanation, I'd be grateful.

You could always check out the Sep 2002 World Trade Center Building
Performance Study, chapter 5 deals with WTC7 and presents the alternative
explanation you are looking for.

>But we could also be patient, and wait to see what the new congress
>makes of it. Their opinion counts lots more than ours does.

Why? Does congress get some special government engineering training?

>No, more to the point here is to consider not we think of the facts, but
>what *they* will think. Given the demagoguery already seen in the CSPAN
>speeches, I'd expect charges of arson against Silverstein, and a
>concerted effort to locate all the men Jeb Bush employed who were in
>charge of the 'security' at the WTC complex to see what they know.

Rather than debate experts and evidence, ponder few points.

#1: It was only by random chance that WTC 7 was hit by a large piece of
debris and a fire started.
#2: Unless the Government has a time machine, there is no way they could have
known in advance that WTC 7 would catch on fire.
#3: No other building in the WTC complex was found to be wired for detonation.
That means that this controlled demolition was set up some time in the 12 hours
between the time the fire started and the building fell; otherwise the
government would have had to destroy a completely untouched building.
#4: Controlled demolition takes weeks, not days to set up; interior walls
have to be knocked out and structural members have to be partially cut through,
then the charges have to be placed. Note that no one working in WTC 7 reported
that people were in their offices destroying walls prior to or on 9/11. That
means that hundreds of engineers would have had to go into a smoke filled
burning building and perform weeks worth of prep work in less than 12 hours.
#5: City engineers were busy trying to repair a 20 inch broken water main in
the street right in front of WTC-7, they didn't see hundreds of people carrying
explosives into the building. Neither did the thousands of rescue workers,
hundreds of spectators or dozens of cameras. No one saw them enter, no one saw
them working, no one saw them leave.
#6: There is absolutely no motive to bring down an empty building that 99.99%
of the people in the US didn't even know existed. Not with the chances that the
prep work would be seen during the 12 hours that multiple cameras were focused
on the burning building.

In light of the above, it's a declaration of utter insanity to think that
either a) the government has a time machine, or b) that they sent hundreds of
invisible ninja engineers carrying tons of explosives into a smoke filled
burning building to do a couple of weeks worth of work in 12 hours and then
disappear without a trace, or c) that the government somehow snuck explosives
into WTC7 while it was built in 1985 so they could destroy it 16 years later.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:22:04
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <R_i_g.91$vd7.165019@news.sisna.com >,
Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net > whined:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I know I know...
> >>
> >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> >>
> >>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> >>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
> >
> >
> > It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> > The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> > with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
> >
> > Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
> rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

Since the self=styled "9/11 'Truth' Seekers" have no facts other than
rank speculation to go on, I have to assume that they are nothing but a
bunch of technically incompetent loons whose only statement of fact is,
"I hate Bush, so he *HAD* to be involved!"

The diligence of their pursuit of the "truth" reminds me of O J
Simpson's pursuit of the *REAL* killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
Goldman.

Day, you are DISMISSED!

Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:08:02
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> Since the self=styled "9/11 'Truth' Seekers" have no facts other than
> rank speculation to go on, I have to assume that they are nothing but a
> bunch of technically incompetent loons whose only statement of fact is,
> "I hate Bush, so he *HAD* to be involved!"
I have not said anything about Bush. I dont pretend to know what part,
if any that he played in 911.

But as for *facts*, I have gone to the 911 websites and looked at the
very same video that Big Media showed us all hundreds of times. The
images are about as factual as things in this world get. But then, I saw
how the webmasters slooooowed the video down, and began talking about
details (which is to say *facts* that you say dont exist) that are
evident in replay and freeze frame. The same as seen in sporting events
to have another look to better understand what happened.

> The diligence of their pursuit of the "truth" reminds me of O J
> Simpson's pursuit of the *REAL* killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
> Goldman.
>
> Day, you are DISMISSED!
Did Jesus give you that power? Scuze me, but I dont think he cares what
I say here. You may believe the case is closed, but its a free Web, and
you dont have the power to dismiss anyone.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:40:34
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

and all the ones who see more in the film than whats there in real life is
about as bad as those who belive there's a face on mars when all it is is a
wind blown hill that's now all the special at all.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote in message
news:dTw_g.130$6B7.197774@news.sisna.com...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> Since the self=styled "9/11 'Truth' Seekers" have no facts other than
>> rank speculation to go on, I have to assume that they are nothing but a
>> bunch of technically incompetent loons whose only statement of fact is,
>> "I hate Bush, so he *HAD* to be involved!"
> I have not said anything about Bush. I dont pretend to know what part,
> if any that he played in 911.
>
> But as for *facts*, I have gone to the 911 websites and looked at the very
> same video that Big Media showed us all hundreds of times. The images are
> about as factual as things in this world get. But then, I saw how the
> webmasters slooooowed the video down, and began talking about details
> (which is to say *facts* that you say dont exist) that are evident in
> replay and freeze frame. The same as seen in sporting events to have
> another look to better understand what happened.
>
>> The diligence of their pursuit of the "truth" reminds me of O J Simpson's
>> pursuit of the *REAL* killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
>> Day, you are DISMISSED!
> Did Jesus give you that power? Scuze me, but I dont think he cares what I
> say here. You may believe the case is closed, but its a free Web, and you
> dont have the power to dismiss anyone.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:22:15
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote to Orval:

> its a free Web, and
> you dont have the power to dismiss anyone.

I thought this was Usenet. One of us is confused.

--
St. John
I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else.
-Winston Churchill

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:11:55
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <R_i_g.91$vd7.165019@news.sisna.com >,
Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I know I know...
> >>
> >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> >>
> >>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> >>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
> >
> >
> > It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> > The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> > with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
> >
> > Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
> rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

They are in the same category!

Date: 21 Oct 2006 14:15:54
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Na, it wasn't Klingons, you need to change your thinking to a Shadow Battle
spider Starship coming out of Hyperspace and using it's partical beam to
distroy them.

I live for the One ... I Die for the One.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Orval Fairbairn" <orfairbairn@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:orfairbairn-50BE21.15115521102006@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <R_i_g.91$vd7.165019@news.sisna.com>,
> Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net> wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> > In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>I know I know...
>> >>
>> >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>> >>
>> >>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>> >>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>> >
>> >
>> > It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
>> > The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
>> > with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>> >
>> > Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter
>> > fire?
>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>> rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
> They are in the same category!

Date: 21 Oct 2006 23:12:42
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 14:15:54 -0700, "Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info >
wrote:

>Na, it wasn't Klingons, you need to change your thinking to a Shadow Battle
>spider Starship coming out of Hyperspace and using it's partical beam to
>distroy them.
>
>I live for the One ... I Die for the One.

Maybe it was a White Star, they could have detected Shadow Agents in New York
and took out the towers to save the Earth before the Vorlons dropped by and took
out the whole planet.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 13:53:16
From: Steve Hix
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

> In article <R_i_g.91$vd7.165019@news.sisna.com>,
> Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net> wrote:
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I know I know...
> > >>
> > >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> > >>
> > >>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> > >>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
> > >
> > >
> > > It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> > > The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> > > with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
> > >
> > > Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?

And that signature would be what, exactly?

Date: 25 Oct 2006 02:00:38
From: Jack
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:

> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
> rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

You have yet to state a fact which supports your ridiculous claims.

Jack

Date: 26 Oct 2006 20:48:13
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Jack wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>
> You have yet to state a fact which supports your ridiculous claims.
What claims have I made? so far, most of what I've done is draw ad
hominum and one liners from you guys.

Like most Americans, I dont have claims, I have *questions*. I dont see
answers.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 01:00:06
From: Jack
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fat....

Day Brown wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>
>>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>>
>>
>> You have yet to state a fact which supports your ridiculous claims.
> What claims have I made? so far, most of what I've done is draw ad
> hominum and one liners from you guys.
>
> Like most Americans, I dont have claims, I have *questions*. I dont see
> answers.

You claim to have "...the facts we have to go on...."

And, you draw bizarre conclusions -- which you label "questions".

You waste a little of our time, because we are slightly amused. You
waste a great deal of your own, because you are...oh, how you say?
"Nuts", I think describes it pretty well.

Jack

Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:34:30
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <orfairbairn-FC2EBD.13424018102006@news.west.earthlink.net >,
orfairbairn@earthlink.net mumbled
> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > I know I know...
> >
> > you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> >
> > You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> > and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>
> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?

We did but all we found were bits of Photon Torpedoes

Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:28:30
From: shevek4@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1162407610.072013.298260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "B2431@aol.com" <B2431@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > In article <pj7gk2513o29aogrqkgnf4duovmsunrg93@4ax.com>,
> > > grasshopper <er21@qwest.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
> > > > <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > > > >>Griessel) wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > > > >>>>again:....
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > > > >>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Eugene L Griessel
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > > > >>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > > > >>about it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Grantland
> > > > >
> > > > >Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
> > > > >Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
> > > > >Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
> > > > >
> > > > >Gunner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > Of course it HAD to include the Elves! How else could they have covertly
> > > installed all of that balonium-enhanced "thermate", the C4 and other
> > > stuff required to support the conspiracy?
> >
> > That typo is still going around? It was Elvis, people, Elvis, get it
> > right.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Elves, Elvis, who cares? Elves are a more credible perp than Elvis to
> support the conspiracy loons, anyhow.

Sorry to jump in on this thread here completely out of context..

Look who is now amongst those claiming explosives were planted in the
building:

Official Transcript:

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned
attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed
to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who
have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the
operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off
at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped
above from escaping. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

Date: 01 Nov 2006 11:00:10
From: B2431@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <pj7gk2513o29aogrqkgnf4duovmsunrg93@4ax.com>,
> grasshopper <er21@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
> > <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > >>Griessel) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > >>>>again:....
> > >>>
> > >>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > >>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > >>>
> > >>>Eugene L Griessel
> > >>>
> > >>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > >>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> > >>
> > >>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > >>about it.
> > >>
> > >>Grantland
> > >
> > >Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
> > >Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
> > >Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
> > >
> > >Gunner
> >
> >
> > Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!
>
> Of course it HAD to include the Elves! How else could they have covertly
> installed all of that balonium-enhanced "thermate", the C4 and other
> stuff required to support the conspiracy?

That typo is still going around? It was Elvis, people, Elvis, get it
right.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 01 Nov 2006 20:21:53
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1162407610.072013.298260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"B2431@aol.com" <B2431@aol.com > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article <pj7gk2513o29aogrqkgnf4duovmsunrg93@4ax.com>,
> > grasshopper <er21@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
> > > <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > > >>Griessel) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > > >>>>again:....
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > > >>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Eugene L Griessel
> > > >>>
> > > >>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > > >>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> > > >>
> > > >>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > > >>about it.
> > > >>
> > > >>Grantland
> > > >
> > > >Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
> > > >Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
> > > >Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
> > > >
> > > >Gunner
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Of course it HAD to include the Elves! How else could they have covertly
> > installed all of that balonium-enhanced "thermate", the C4 and other
> > stuff required to support the conspiracy?
>
> That typo is still going around? It was Elvis, people, Elvis, get it
> right.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Elves, Elvis, who cares? Elves are a more credible perp than Elvis to
support the conspiracy loons, anyhow.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 07:40:37
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:21:53 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
<orfairbairn@earthlink.net > wrote:

>In article <1162407610.072013.298260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "B2431@aol.com" <B2431@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> > In article <pj7gk2513o29aogrqkgnf4duovmsunrg93@4ax.com>,
>> > grasshopper <er21@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
>> > > <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
>> > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
>> > > >>Griessel) wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
>> > > >>>>again:....
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
>> > > >>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Eugene L Griessel
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
>> > > >>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
>> > > >>about it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Grantland
>> > > >
>> > > >Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
>> > > >Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
>> > > >Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
>> > > >
>> > > >Gunner
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > Of course it HAD to include the Elves! How else could they have covertly
>> > installed all of that balonium-enhanced "thermate", the C4 and other
>> > stuff required to support the conspiracy?
>>
>> That typo is still going around? It was Elvis, people, Elvis, get it
>> right.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Elves, Elvis, who cares? Elves are a more credible perp than Elvis to
>support the conspiracy loons, anyhow.

It was Elvis that supplied the Unobtainium enrichment casings.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Date: 20 Oct 2006 06:56:23
From: Robert Sturgeon
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 00:52:53 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.

That's right.

>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)

Yawn...

>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>were not destroyed?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:24:50
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> On 18 2006 00:52:53 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>
> That's right.
>
>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>
> Yawn...
This is 8 posters in a row who were unable to come up with anything that
resembled a rigorous scientific analysis of the facts we have to go on,
but instead relied on lame humor and/or ad hominum. Maybe that's why 84%
now think there are questions that beg answers, which were not provided
here, by the 911 commission, or anywhere else.
>
>>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>were not destroyed?

Date: 21 Oct 2006 07:18:42
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:21:50
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
>> This is 8 posters in a row who were unable to come up with anything that
>> resembled a rigorous scientific analysis of the facts we have to go
>> on, but instead relied on lame humor and/or ad hominum. Maybe that's
>> why 84% now think there are questions that beg answers, which were not
>> provided here, by the 911 commission, or anywhere else.
>
>
> So, other than being rude what have you to offer?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Is reporting what you all have posted being "rude"?
As for the facts of the issue at hand, that's in another post.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 20:01:06
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>>> This is 8 posters in a row who were unable to come up with anything that
>>> resembled a rigorous scientific analysis of the facts we have to go
>>> on, but instead relied on lame humor and/or ad hominum. Maybe that's
>>> why 84% now think there are questions that beg answers, which were
>>> not provided here, by the 911 commission, or anywhere else.
>>
>>
>> So, other than being rude what have you to offer?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> Is reporting what you all have posted being "rude"?
> As for the facts of the issue at hand, that's in another post.

From the first post you made yesterday you accused us all of making
"ad hominum" attacks and not addressing the cite given. You persisted on
saying that even after some of us addressed the errors given in the
cite. Did it ever occur to you the best way to deal with a cite that
tells us the buildings were designed to pulverize to protect the
foundations is to laugh at it? You went out of your way to make your
comments so I'd say you were rude and I bet most people reading your
posts would agree.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 19:12:32
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> From the first post you made yesterday you accused us all of making
> "ad hominum" attacks and not addressing the cite given. You persisted on
> saying that even after some of us addressed the errors given in the
> cite. Did it ever occur to you the best way to deal with a cite that
> tells us the buildings were designed to pulverize to protect the
> foundations is to laugh at it? You went out of your way to make your
> comments so I'd say you were rude and I bet most people reading your
> posts would agree.
I simply counted the ad hominum in a series of posts. Denigrating the
veracity of the poster rather than dealing with the facts is gonzo simpler.

I have not offered an opinion in this thread why the buildings fell,
other than report on the video I've seen of WTC 7 and the voice over by
professional controlled demolitionists on what is going on as the video
is slowed down enough so you can see it.

I then went to the NIST website, and I see that their report is to be
released in spring 2007. Which I note is after a new congress. At this
point, the human psychology is obvious. The bureaucrats have been
sitting on their report all these years awaiting political coverage to
protect their careers.

Since the polls now say that only 16% of the electorate dont have
questions about 911; logically, the other 84% who do are just as crazy
in your eyes as those who have raised questions on USENET. If so, you
may want to think about that, and what life will be like in a nation
with an electorate that is so irrational.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 19:32:45
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> From the first post you made yesterday you accused us all of making
>> "ad hominum" attacks and not addressing the cite given. You persisted
>> on saying that even after some of us addressed the errors given in the
>> cite. Did it ever occur to you the best way to deal with a cite that
>> tells us the buildings were designed to pulverize to protect the
>> foundations is to laugh at it? You went out of your way to make your
>> comments so I'd say you were rude and I bet most people reading your
>> posts would agree.
> I simply counted the ad hominum in a series of posts. Denigrating the
> veracity of the poster rather than dealing with the facts is gonzo simpler.

Which is probably why you did it.

Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 16:13:31
From:
Subject: 911- Radio ON AIR debater wanted

Hey Gunner, Starlord, Dan or anyone... there is a Radio Show
opportunity.

Jon Gold wrote:

Debate Me On Visibility 9-11

Michael Wolsey has asked me to find someone who DOESN'T think the
Government was complicit in attacks to debate me on his show,
Visibility 9-11.
....
If you're interested, email Michael at
michael (*at^) colorado911visibility.org.
The rules haven't been established yet.

(I am just a messenger!)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3967

====
"No Planes Theory" Is the Most Likely Explanation for What Really
Happened on 9/11
====

OF COURSE, at first blush, the idea that no real planes were used in
9/11 seems absurd.

But when ALL the evidence is taken into account, it is the only
reasonable conclusion.

So let's go through it piece by piece---

BY ITSELF, videos that show conflicting plane paths for the second hit
do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used on 9/11. Perhaps a
network created footage because they were too cheap to buy footage, or
wanted more dramatic footage than what was available. But clearly these
videos show the south tower exploding. If planes were added in-- what
happened to THE REAL PLANE in the video?

BY ITSELF, the fact that videos of the second hit have different
timings for when the plane goes in and the fireball comes out doesn't
mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But if there was a real plane
going into the building, why would the timing differ for different
shots?

BY ITSELF, that the explosions that occur in the south tower right
after the plane enter don't always line up the same as where the plane
went in doesn't mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But, as above, if
there was a real plane going into the building, why would this
alignment differ for different videos?

BY ITSELF, weird anomalies in photos and videos of the second hit do
not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps there was
something strange in the air that day that made the plane look strange.
But is this really a convincing explanation?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the second plane completely melted into the
south tower, without slowing, or distorting or breaking or exploding
upon impact does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used.
Perhaps that is just the way a fast large bodied jetliner impacts a
steel frame building-- even though it defies physics and examples of
other plane crashes.

BY ITSELF, the fact that CNN footage of the second hit shows signs of
editing and signs of sloppy bluescreen technology do not conclusively
tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps CNN had good reason to alter
the video, though it is not at all clear what these reasons might be.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the airplane wings and tail cut through large
steel columns on the WTC wall do not conclusively tell us that no plane
was used. But it sure is strange that the fuel carried in the wings was
never ignited by the impact of the wings on these large columns. And it
sure is strange the huge tail section, which breaks off quite easily in
other plane crashes, slid into the building without a hitch.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the south tower fireball came out all on one
side of the building, even though the plane hit straight on and just
slightly off-center, does not conclusively tell us that no plane was
used. But it sure is strange, particularly in comparison to the North
tower hit, where explosions came out all sides of the building.
Moreover, the port wing of the second plane should clearly have broken
open on the core columns and sprayed fuel all out the west side of the
tower, in an analogous fashion to what the starboard wing apparently
did (giving rise to the huge famous fireball)-- yet the port wing
simply in the building disappeared without any clear explosion. What
happened to it?

BY ITSELF, the fact that very few airplane parts were found at any 9/11
crash site do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Sure,
perhaps these were incredibly violent plane crashes that tore up the
plane much more than in "normal" crashes-- but it still does make one
wonder, since typically plane crashes are quite violent but still leave
plenty of parts on the ground.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the few airplane parts were found at any 9/11
crash site were not verified to make sure they matched the plane that
officially crashed at that site does not prove no plane was used in
9/11. After all, why does the government need to prove anything to
anyone?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, no black boxes were found in the
rubble at the WTC, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Even
though these boxes are incredibly sturdy and meant to survive the worst
plane crashes, the fact that FOUR of these boxes (two per plane)
vanished at Ground Zero only shows how destructive the unusual
collapses of the two towers was.*

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official flight path of the Pentagon crash
is impossible does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it does
make one wonder what really happened.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official story of the crash of UA93 makes
absolutely no sense does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it
makes you wonder what the hell the government is lying about.

BY ITSELF, the fact that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly on
9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it sure tends to
support that flights 11 and 77 were not involved in the attacks.

BY ITSELF, the fact the passenger lists for the four 9/11 planes are
highly suspect, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes
you wonder why we can't have the truth.

BY ITSELF, the fact that it is highly doubtful terrorists training on
small prop planes and flight simulators could have piloted the planes
so effectively on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11.
Perhaps they got REALLY lucky.

BY ITSELF, the fact that terrorists armed at most with knives,
boxcutters and fake bombs took over four large jets with not one of
eight pilots notifying air traffic control of a hijacking by any
standard means does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they
got REALLY REALLY lucky. But how much luck can we reasonably expect for
the terrorists on that day?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, forty minutes after two hijacked
jets attacked New York City, a third hijacked plane flew hundreds of
miles before penetrating Washington DC airspace to attack the Pentagon
WITHOUT AIR FORCE INTERCEPTION-- this does not prove no plane was used
in 9/11. Perhaps NORAD just had a REALLY REALLY BAD DAY. But when can
we simply laugh at the absurdity of the official story?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the media lies about what the government does
all the time, and covers for the government all the time, does not
prove no plane was used on 9/11. But certainly the media is capable of
covering up and disseminating such a huge lie.

BY ITSELF, the fact that 9/11 has all the features of a highly
sophisticated covert operation that was years in the works and was an
operation that clearly aided geopolitical goals of the US does not
prove no plane was used on 9/11. But it would support the idea that the
9/11 planners would know how difficult and therefore risky it would be
to control real hijackings and real aircraft.

So, indeed-- all these things BY THEMSELVES do not prove that 9/11 was
carried out without real planes.

But together, all the evidence presented here points to the idea that--
NO REAL PLANES WERE USED IN 9/11.

What WAS used for the 9/11 attacks?

My current hypothesis is pre-planted bombs and missiles (possibly
cloaked missiles). However, the whole POINT is that the whole operation
rested on the idea of making it LOOK as though planes were used. Thus,
a few plane parts were planted, videos were faked, "witnesses" were
coached, hijacked plane paths were faked, hijackings were faked,
cockpit radio transmissions were faked, plane passenger lists were
created with fake IDs and passenger/crew phone calls were faked.
Possibly a real Boeing jet flew near each 9/11 crash site to act as a
decoy.** Some real passengers were likely killed on 9/11 or given new
identities.

Doesn't the scale of this operation make it seem highly implausible?

Clearly 9/11 was a very large complicated operation, with many
interconnecting parts. I think the whole thing could have been done
with perhaps 50-100 key operatives who knew much of the plot. These
people would be subject assassination if they spoke out. Some of them
may have been killed on 9/11 itself. Other people would be involved but
not know the whole story and might even think what they were doing was
innocuous (FBI agents for instance).

LINKS to the same text, but WITH LINKS to proof:
http://tinyurl.com/rmeaf

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/putting-it-all-together-no-planes.html

Date: 22 Oct 2006 18:44:02
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911- Radio ON AIR debater wanted

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> Hey Gunner, Starlord, Dan or anyone... there is a Radio Show
> opportunity.
>
> Jon Gold wrote:
>
> Debate Me On Visibility 9-11
>
> Michael Wolsey has asked me to find someone who DOESN'T think the
> Government was complicit in attacks to debate me on his show,
> Visibility 9-11.
> ....
> If you're interested, email Michael at
> michael (*at^) colorado911visibility.org.
> The rules haven't been established yet.
>
> <snip> a total disconnect from reality

You have got to be kidding. Anyone who could come up with a theory
like yours can debate himself and still lose.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 19:33:54
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: 911- Radio ON AIR debater wanted

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> Hey Gunner, Starlord, Dan or anyone... there is a Radio Show
> opportunity.

It's a sucker bet. The guy who controls the microphone switch controls
the outcome.

--
St. John
erstwhile talk show host

Date: 22 Oct 2006 23:46:35
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911- Radio ON AIR debater wanted

In article <ehgv52$apj$15@n4vu2.n4vu.com >,
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com > wrote:

> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > Hey Gunner, Starlord, Dan or anyone... there is a Radio Show
> > opportunity.
>
> It's a sucker bet. The guy who controls the microphone switch controls
> the outcome.

If no planes were involved, I vote for the cloaked Klingon/Romulan
theory, as it has far more credibility than the "invisible aliens"
planting charges, which is more credible than the "US Gov't did it"
speculations.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 18:59:20
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911- Radio ON AIR debater wanted

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <ehgv52$apj$15@n4vu2.n4vu.com>,
> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
>
>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>> Hey Gunner, Starlord, Dan or anyone... there is a Radio Show
>>> opportunity.
>> It's a sucker bet. The guy who controls the microphone switch controls
>> the outcome.
>
> If no planes were involved, I vote for the cloaked Klingon/Romulan
> theory, as it has far more credibility than the "invisible aliens"
> planting charges, which is more credible than the "US Gov't did it"
> speculations.

What you fail to take into account is we are all Romulans therefore
our government did it. Either that or the buildings never really
existed. Maybe we don't exist, OMG we are them!

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 18:38:20
From: Winston Smith
Subject: Re: 911- Radio ON AIR debater wanted

On Sun, 22 2006 18:59:20 -0500, Dan <B2431@aol.com > wrote:

>Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>> In article <ehgv52$apj$15@n4vu2.n4vu.com>,
>> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>>>> Hey Gunner, Starlord, Dan or anyone... there is a Radio Show
>>>> opportunity.
>>> It's a sucker bet. The guy who controls the microphone switch controls
>>> the outcome.
>>
>> If no planes were involved, I vote for the cloaked Klingon/Romulan
>> theory, as it has far more credibility than the "invisible aliens"
>> planting charges, which is more credible than the "US Gov't did it"
>> speculations.
>
> What you fail to take into account is we are all Romulans therefore
>our government did it.

Been studying scientology have you ??
http://www.skeptictank.org/gen3/gen01985.htm

> Either that or the buildings never really
>existed. Maybe we don't exist, OMG we are them!
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired''

--
W§ mostly in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira

Date: 18 Oct 2006 19:04:49
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:
> > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> >> Dan, Griessel, Orval
> >>
> >>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> >>>> I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
> >> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
> >>
> >> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
> >> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
> >> engines.
> >>
> >>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> >>>> It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> >>> See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> >>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >> Dan, you and the others:
> >>
> >> I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
> >> provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
> >> researched oneselves.
> >>
> >> HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
> >>
> >> Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
> >> searchable.
> >>
> >> Of course, right now, you just don't care.
> >>
> >> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
> >>
> >> But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
> >>
> >> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
> >
> > They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
> > incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
> > meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
> > physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
> > instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
> > even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
> > "mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
> > physics.
>
> If you are using "child-like physics" you are doing it all wrong. The
> buildings never were in "free fall" since each structural member
> encountered by the falling floors would have provided resistance. If you
> had dropped a marble from the roof of the second tower to collapse at
> exactly the same instant as the first one started to collapse of would
> hit the ground before the roof of the first tower did. Air provides less
> resistance than steel, aluminum, dry wall, acoustic tile etc does.

If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.

PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds

PROPOSITION 2:
A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
kinematical considerations alone:

Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at a
constant)

Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds

>
> My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
> > _vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
> > thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
> > and objective thought and analysis.
>
> In other words you do not understand scientific method or higher
> level science and math.
>
> The responses and feedback from
> > this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
> > the current state of affairs.
> >
> > That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
> > deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
> > amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
> > its realization.
> >
> You mean like the deception set forth by the OP that the subway
> wasn't damaged?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 18 Oct 2006 22:46:02
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:
>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>>> Dan, Griessel, Orval
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>>>>> I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>>>> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
>>>>
>>>> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
>>>> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
>>>> engines.
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>>>>> It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
>>>>> See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>> Dan, you and the others:
>>>>
>>>> I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
>>>> provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
>>>> researched oneselves.
>>>>
>>>> HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
>>>>
>>>> Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
>>>> searchable.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, right now, you just don't care.
>>>>
>>>> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
>>>>
>>>> But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
>>>>
>>>> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
>>> They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
>>> incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
>>> meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
>>> physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
>>> instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
>>> even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
>>> "mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
>>> physics.
>> If you are using "child-like physics" you are doing it all wrong. The
>> buildings never were in "free fall" since each structural member
>> encountered by the falling floors would have provided resistance. If you
>> had dropped a marble from the roof of the second tower to collapse at
>> exactly the same instant as the first one started to collapse of would
>> hit the ground before the roof of the first tower did. Air provides less
>> resistance than steel, aluminum, dry wall, acoustic tile etc does.
>
>
> If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
> from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
> logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
>
> PROPOSITION 1:
> It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
> ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
> Collapse start time: 17 seconds
> Collapse end time: 23 seconds
> Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
>
> PROPOSITION 2:
> A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
> seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
> kinematical considerations alone:
>
> Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
> total time^2
>
> or
>
> s = ut + 1/2at^2
> where
> s = 174 m (height of building)
> u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
> a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at a
> constant)
>
> Thus,
> 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
>
> Solving for t
> t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
> = 5.9590
> ~ 6 seconds

Firstly use the simpler equation x = 1/2(9.8065 m/s�) t� since
initial velocity can be assumed to be 0 m/s. I won't quibble with your
height since I don't really care. In rounding off acceleration due to
gravity you have come close to eliminating difference the actual fall
time from free fall. When dealing with a short distance like 174m and a
relatively small acceleration like g rounding errors give false results.
Find actual t out to 3 places right of the decimal and you will
see what I mean.

A very important consideration is over small distances
electromagnetic force is stronger than g. If you don't believe me think
about why you don't fall through the floor. When you do the final
calculations you can't omit anything that will effect acceleration.
Also, your basic formula doesn't take into consideration air compressing
in lower floors during collapse. That's what was blowing out the windows.

Maybe, just maybe, the people who have taken more math and physics
than you have know what they are talking about.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:20:46
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 19:04:49 -0700, schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:

>PROPOSITION 1:
> It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
>ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
> Collapse start time: 17 seconds
> Collapse end time: 23 seconds
> Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/?action=view¤t=911NewsReport.flv

Collapse start time: 3:25 (penthouse falls through the roof)
Collapse end time: 3:38 (roof hits the ground)
Total collapse time: 13 seconds.

Reality sucks, doesn't it.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 16:06:15
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.

There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
PHYSICS.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
also, causing decelleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.
AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
tailplane.
The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.
Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a
wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have
been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong
number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the
aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was
custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the
back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why
would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
towers.
And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
Easy- they are B2s.
They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
But it's not new.
The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
Prescot Bush.
So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same
pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to
the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
agents?
They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?

Date: 19 Oct 2006 02:58:43
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1161212775.521692.27760@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
u2r2h@gmx.net Again, boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a
Sasquatch, inhaled a bunch of chemtrails, wet the bed, howled at the
Moon and excreted:

> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
> There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
> planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
> For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
> assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
> It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
> pieces and fall into the street.

Now we're back to the Klingon/Romulan notion.

The planes came apart as they encountered other objects (floors, outer
skin, center spine, office furniture, people, etc. Their sheer momentum
acted as a tsunami, sweeping all before it. As the planes disintegrated,
their fuel started a fuel/air explosion and created massive secondary
fires on the impacted floors.

> I will deal with this first.
> PHYSICS.
> "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
> That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
> be equal.
> Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
> Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
> break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
> recieved by EACH object.
> If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
> all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
> would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
> not break up.
> I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
> it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.

Your contention is erroneous, in that it ignores the momentum of the
disintegrating aircraft, which, even if it were a liquid, would impart
enough dynamic pressure to sweep everything in its path.

> Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
> If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
> intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
> that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
> also, causing decelleration and deflection.
> The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
> though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
> in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.

Momentum, momentum, momentum!

> AERODYNAMICS.
> The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
> tailplane.
> The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
> of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
> surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
> to determine the direction of tumble.
> And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
> tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
> us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.
> Then there are the glaring anomalies.

The planes may have tumbled after impact, acting as a huge rifle bullet
tumbling after impact, causing even more damage than a homogenous bullet.

> People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a
> wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have
> been fitted to a 767.

How do you know it was a CFM56?

> And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong
> number of tread grooves to be from a 767.

Different tires may be present on the same aircraft, depending on what
spares were in house when they were changed.

> Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
> And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the
> aircraft we were told hit the building.

How do you know it was a JT8D?

> I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was
> custom-made for the job.
> Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
> A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the
> back.

Good Photoshop!

> WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
> In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why
> would they go and spray that on it?
> Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
> None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
> There were no planes that hit the towers.
> There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
> towers.

Back to the Klingon/Romulan idea.

> And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
> Easy- they are B2s.
> They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
> Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
> But it's not new.
> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
> Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
> Prescot Bush.
> So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
> And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same
> pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to
> the next.
> Who made those?
> And why?
> Check 3 of them out here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
> When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
> ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
> intentions.
> Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
> agents?
> They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?

But I can spot a stooge!

Date: 20 Oct 2006 08:10:18
From: Robert Sturgeon
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Thu, 19 2006 02:58:43 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
<orfairbairn@earthlink.net > wrote:

>In article <1161212775.521692.27760@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> u2r2h@gmx.net Again, boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a
>Sasquatch, inhaled a bunch of chemtrails, wet the bed, howled at the
>Moon and excreted:
>
>> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>>
>> There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
>> planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
>> For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
>> assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
>> It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
>> pieces and fall into the street.
>
>
>Now we're back to the Klingon/Romulan notion.
>
>The planes came apart as they encountered other objects (floors, outer
>skin, center spine, office furniture, people, etc. Their sheer momentum
>acted as a tsunami, sweeping all before it. As the planes disintegrated,
>their fuel started a fuel/air explosion and created massive secondary
>fires on the impacted floors.

All the sane people know that.

The mainstream news media would like nothing better than to
pin 9/11 on Bush and the Evil Republicans. If there was
anything at all to indicate that Bush and the Evil
Republicans did it, the mainstream news media would be all
over the story. They aren't, because this 9/11 conspiracy
crap is nonsense, pure and simple.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Date: 24 Oct 2006 04:57:06
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Fri, 20 2006 08:10:18 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
<rsturge@inreach.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 19 2006 02:58:43 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
><orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <1161212775.521692.27760@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> u2r2h@gmx.net Again, boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a
>>Sasquatch, inhaled a bunch of chemtrails, wet the bed, howled at the
>>Moon and excreted:
>>
>>> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>>>
>>> There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
>>> planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
>>> For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
>>> assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
>>> It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
>>> pieces and fall into the street.
>>
>>
>>Now we're back to the Klingon/Romulan notion.
>>
>>The planes came apart as they encountered other objects (floors, outer
>>skin, center spine, office furniture, people, etc. Their sheer momentum
>>acted as a tsunami, sweeping all before it. As the planes disintegrated,
>>their fuel started a fuel/air explosion and created massive secondary
>>fires on the impacted floors.
>
>All the sane people know that.

Few people know enough of physics or material
science to "know" that. Rather, they accept the
official position because to do otherwise requires
proving an alternative explanation.

>The mainstream news media would like nothing better than to
>pin 9/11 on Bush and the Evil Republicans. If there was
>anything at all to indicate that Bush and the Evil
>Republicans did it, the mainstream news media would be all
>over the story. They aren't, because this 9/11 conspiracy
>crap is nonsense, pure and simple.

Whether they "did it" or not is just one of hundreds of questions.

This much is certain - a lot of strange circumstances converged
on 9/11 to allow an interconnected series of highly improbable
events.

Somebody did it. Somebody knew the right day and the right
time to pull off the ideal sneak attack. Somebody called
an emergency drill for the morning of 9/11. Somebody ordered
an unprecedented standdown of key personnel. Somebody
countermanded the order to lift the drill when it became evident
that something was wrong.

Somebody knew quite a bit and/or had a lot of help.

So let's stop lumping these questions and issues under
the category of 'conspiracy' and instead seek answers.

>(rest snipped)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:01:28
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Thu, 19 2006 02:58:43 GMT, Orval Fairbairn <orfairbairn@earthlink.net >
wrote:

>Your contention is erroneous, in that it ignores the momentum of the
>disintegrating aircraft, which, even if it were a liquid, would impart
>enough dynamic pressure to sweep everything in its path.

Actually, when modeling the Pentagon crash, they treated the plane impact as
it were a liquid, just as they would model an avalanche of various sized rocks.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 18:35:11
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
> There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
> planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.

Not only is the physics there but all the video showing impact into
the towers show penetration.

> For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
> assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
> It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
> pieces and fall into the street.

The only way for that to happen is if the wall was completely
indestructible.

> I will deal with this first.
> PHYSICS.
> "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
> That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
> be equal.
> Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
> Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
> break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
> recieved by EACH object.
> If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
> all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
> would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
> not break up.

No, it means that the aircraft MASS remained great enough to
maintain inertia into the building. It does NOT mean it remained
"intact," just that, as the aircraft was destroyed on impact it imparted
enough force to damage the buildings.

> I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
> it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
> Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
> If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
> intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
> that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
> also, causing decelleration and deflection.
> The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
> though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
> in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.

See above. If you want to argue terminal ballistics you have to be
able to define which parts of the airplane struck which structural and
non structural member.

> AERODYNAMICS.
> The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
> tailplane.

That would be a function of torque, not aerodynamics.

> The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
> of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
> surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
> to determine the direction of tumble.

Think of inertia at that point.

> And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
> tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
> us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.

Are you saying that an aircraft MUST gain altitude when banking? What
about banking when descending or maintaining altitude? Pilots do it
every day.

> Then there are the glaring anomalies.
> People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a
> wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have
> been fitted to a 767.
> And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong
> number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
> Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
> And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the
> aircraft we were told hit the building.
> I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was
> custom-made for the job.
> Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
> A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the
> back.
> WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
> In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why
> would they go and spray that on it?
> Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
> None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
> There were no planes that hit the towers.
> There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
> towers.
> And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
> Easy- they are B2s.
> They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
> Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
> But it's not new.
> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
> Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
> Prescot Bush.
> So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
> And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same
> pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to
> the next.
> Who made those?
> And why?
> Check 3 of them out here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
> When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
> ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
> intentions.
> Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
> agents?
> They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
>

Well, I guess I don't want to try whatever you are on. I prefer reality.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 18 Oct 2006 23:34:57
From: John Smith
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 16:06:15 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
>

<stupid crap deleted >

You clearly don't have a hint of a clue what the hell you are talking
about.

Since it is ALL crap from start to finish - I'm not going to waste
several hours refuting all your wrong conclusions proceeding from
wrong premises and wrong "facts".

Go get a degree in engineering and you might - maybe - figure out how
far you are into LA LA land - but I seriously doubt it.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:59:50
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 16:06:15 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
>There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
>planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
>For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
>assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.

Why? I can throw a brick through a window and I can take the same brick and
smash it into pea sized pieces and throw them together at the same speed and
they will still go through the window. In much the same manner that a shotgun
slug will go through plywood and buckshot will go through plywood.

>It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
>pieces and fall into the street.

<snip outrageous bullshit >

In 1945 a 10 ton army twin engined bomber smashed into the Empire State
building at a modest 200 mph. It went right through the steel girder and
concrete wall. Despite the low speed it did not smash into pieces and fall into
the street. In fact, the only things to hit the ground were small pieces of
debris and burning fuel.

>And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
>Easy- they are B2s.
>They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
>Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.

ROTFLMAO. I served on a US airbase where the B2 was operated. When the front
landing gear failed on one of them in 1989, it didn't hover and float to the
ground. It flew all the way to Utah to do a vastly more dangerous wheels up
landing on a dry salt lake bed.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 15:10:10
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> Dan, Griessel, Orval
>
> > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> > > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>
> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
>
> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
> engines.
>
> > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> > > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> > See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Dan, you and the others:
>
> I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
> provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
> researched oneselves.
>
> HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
>
> Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
> searchable.
>
> Of course, right now, you just don't care.
>
> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
>
> But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
>
> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
"mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
physics. My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
_vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
and objective thought and analysis. The responses and feedback from
this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
the current state of affairs.

That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
its realization.

> Me included.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 18 Oct 2006 12:41:56
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan, Griessel, Orval

> >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html

> > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?

Some of the water does not make it through the steel.

But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
engines.

> >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html

> > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, you and the others:

I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
researched oneselves.

HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!

Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
searchable.

Of course, right now, you just don't care.

3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.

But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.

And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

Me included.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 22:23:38
From: T Wake
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1161200516.177364.92810@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
>
> Me included.

You intend to apologise?

Your grammar and spelling are as poor as your conspiracy theories. At least
find an interesting / realistic one.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 20:57:25
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1161200516.177364.92810@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
u2r2h@gmx.net shared some strawberry ice cream with a Grey at Area 51,
boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a Sasquatch, avoided a
Chupacabra, inhaled some chemtrails, wet the bed and howled at the Moon:

> Dan, Griessel, Orval
>
> > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> > > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>
> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
>
> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
> engines.

The planes were Klingon/Romulan holograms timed to coincide with the
disrupter fire.

The WTC buildings were essentially open shells, with a central core and
a thin outer skin. Certainly, large, massive parts would go through or
disrupt the central spine of the building.

Just look at the momentum of 250,000 lbs at 500 kt.

The structure of the planes worked just like a high-pressure water jet
and cut through most things in their path.

> > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> > > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> > See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Dan, you and the others:
>
> I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
> provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
> researched oneselves.
>
> HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
>
> Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
> searchable.
>
> Of course, right now, you just don't care.
>
> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
>
> But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
>
> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

Don't you mean "youse guys"?

> Me included.

I do not intend to apologize for stating the obvious: the self-styled
"9/11 'Truth' Movement" is composed of a bunch of hare-brained kooks,
who make a lot of bald assertions with zero evidence to back them up.

I suggest that you conspiracy loons go over to Afghanistan, look up Bin
Laden and see how long you survive.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 18:10:48
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1161200516.177364.92810@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> u2r2h@gmx.net shared some strawberry ice cream with a Grey at Area 51,
> boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a Sasquatch, avoided a
> Chupacabra, inhaled some chemtrails, wet the bed and howled at the Moon:
>
>> Dan, Griessel, Orval
>>
>>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>>> I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
>>
>> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
>> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
>> engines.
>
> The planes were Klingon/Romulan holograms timed to coincide with the
> disrupter fire.
>
> The WTC buildings were essentially open shells, with a central core and
> a thin outer skin. Certainly, large, massive parts would go through or
> disrupt the central spine of the building.
>
> Just look at the momentum of 250,000 lbs at 500 kt.
>
> The structure of the planes worked just like a high-pressure water jet
> and cut through most things in their path.
>
>
>
>>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>>> It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
>>> See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> Dan, you and the others:
>>
>> I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
>> provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
>> researched oneselves.
>>
>> HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
>>
>> Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
>> searchable.
>>
>> Of course, right now, you just don't care.
>>
>> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
>>
>> But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
>>
>> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
>
> Don't you mean "youse guys"?
>
>> Me included.
>
> I do not intend to apologize for stating the obvious: the self-styled
> "9/11 'Truth' Movement" is composed of a bunch of hare-brained kooks,
> who make a lot of bald assertions with zero evidence to back them up.
>
> I suggest that you conspiracy loons go over to Afghanistan, look up Bin
> Laden and see how long you survive.

I guess I don't see why I should apologize for pointing out anyone
can see wing spars are flexible as opposed to "hard and brittle" as the
cite claims.

For anyone who doesn't believe me take a flight in rough weather.
Select a window seat where you can see the wing flex. I don't know what
the numbers are on B-767 are, but on KC-135 the wing tips could flex as
much as 14 feet without damaging the wing. I saw a show on Dicovery
where they tested a B-777 wing to destruction. It flexed something like
28 feet, if memory serves, without failing. A "hard and brittle" wing
spar couldn't do that.

I guess I also don't see why I should apologize for pointing out it
makes no sense for a building to be designed to "pulverize" in order to
save it's foundation. as the cite claims.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:35:14
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1161200516.177364.92810@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
u2r2h@gmx.net mumbled

> Come on, you know there was no plane.

When you resort to bald faced lie's you cross the line into lunacy.

Explain the people who SAW a plane hit the towers.

Date: 19 Oct 2006 01:46:03
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>
> The red-neck americans here

SNIP

Ahh, but they are vastly more educated and have reams more practical
experienec on the subject than ignorant <insert ethnic/religious/etc
slur of your choice here > slime like you, pinhead

CANNOT understand.

SNIP

So tell us your backgriound that makes your understanding superior to
ten rest of the world

1) Degree, Year and School

2) Experience in the study of materials and structues under extreme
conditions

3) Papres, if any, published on the subject at hand -- Title, Journal
and Issue

They will keep fighting
> tooth and nail that 911 conspiracies are crap.

SNIP

IThat it's crap is self-evident

"The UFO's that poeple see in September 11 videos are actually B2
bomberss using secret Nazi technology to hover while remeinaing
invisble due to ionizing gas"

That's at least three or four howlers in onel lousy sentence

. They just cannot
> understand, because their universe would collapse.

SNIP

Sounds like agood self-description of you, Charlie

As far as the nanimation goes, this is from the same Blog which
embraced Lauro Chavez as its poster boy for the "Trutth" with his
"shocking revelations" of how "NOARD Was shut down" on September 11,
2001. To bad that Chavez has been provee dto be an utter fraud - his DD
Form 214 (Discahrge) proveeddto have been dored, that the whole
"truth" movement has been running away from him so fast that their
shows are smoking. Here's whta the blog owner has to say:

"Arg, he got meh!

In fact a lot of 911 truthers feared it was too good.

I hearby retract my support of this peice of trash.

Looking at the document he provided even I can say its clearly been
dored. What a cockbag.

Seeing as I'm of the conspiritorial mindset, I could see how this was
diversionary and a very good attempt to discredit some of the movement.

And the name tag Luaro Jones Chavez even seemed fishy to me but I let
it go. The majority of the 911blogger people wouldn't bite on this guy"

(Of course, NOW they are claiming he was a mole sent by the Powers of
Darkness (tm) to infltrate their little world and make them look
ridiculous (which they do quite nicely on their own))

So anything coming from that site can be treated with the respect it
desrevesa nd used as toiilet paper

Date: 19 Oct 2006 01:16:49
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>

SNIP

NO!!

They were gray!

Bogus phyiscs demolished by others snipped

?
> None of the plane videos show a CRASH.

SNIP

Excuse me?

What the HELL is this?

http://www.members.aol.com/spiritflight7/WTCAirCrash.jpg

Considering sevearl million - perhaps tens of millions - saw this event
happen in reaal time on TV, did the entire species have a mass
hallucination? Someone spiked the world's water supply with acid?

With that one sentense, you have completely and utterly blown whatever
shards of credibiliity you might have had to Hell.

> There were no planes that hit the towers.

SNIP

http://chelpacat.journalspace.com/gallery/view.php?u=32790&i=183791

> There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
> towers.

SNIP

So tell us how all those people had a mass hallucination

> And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
> Easy- they are B2s.
> They can cloak in ionised gas

SNIP

"Cloak"

We're back to the Romulans and Klingions again

We've got invisible aircraft

Wanna know a really, really top, absolute secret? The US military just
wishes it could do a tenth of what foamers like you claim it can

BTW, the postulated ionized gas effect ONLY would work against RADAR -
which last time I cracked a physics textbook was a long way down the
electromganteic spectrum from visible light

"The Russian Academy of Sciences, however, according to a 1999 report
by Jane's Defense Weekly, claims to have developed a low-budget
RADAR-stealth technique, namely the cloaking of aircraft in ionized gas
(plasma). Plasma absorbs radio waves, so it is theoretically possible
to diminish the RADAR reflectivity of an otherwise non-stealthy
aircraft by a factor of 100 or more by generating plasma at the nose
and leading edges of an aircraft and allowing it flow backward over the
fuselage and wings. The Russian system is supposedly lightweight ( >220
lb [100 kg]) and retrofittable to existing aircraft, making it the
stealth capability available at least cost to virtually any air force.
A disadvantage of the plasma technique that it would probably make the
aircraft glow in the visible part of the spectrum."

http://www.espionageinfo.com/Sp-Te/Stealth-Technology.html

So your "invisble" airplane would glow in the dark!

And Janes didn't say one damn word about the B2

and they can hover.
> Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.

SNIP

OK, cite issue and page, so I can view this wonder

> But it's not new.
> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.

SNIP

OMFG! !!

It's ARNDT !!!!

http://www.2000ad.org/thrillpower/straitjacket.jpg

> Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?

SNIP

Gustav Krupp und Von Bohlen, for one

> When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
> ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
> intentions.

SNIP

Flunked your science courses, did you....

> Do you not think our truth movement

SNIP

"Truth Movment"....yep, just like Herer Doktor Goebbel's ran "The
Ministry of Public Enlightenment"..(Did you think George Orwell was
just making that stuff up?)

would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
> agents?

SNIP

Fighting developing within the ranks is it? Well, when you lock a bunch
of paranoid lunatics in a room together, taht's what always happens.
Since they're motto is "trust no one", tghey can't trust their own
allies and the knives come out

> They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?

SNIP

They CAN'T make a plane invisible, asshole.

As ai said before, that ONE statement makes whatever physics you can
drag out - I don't give a damn if you manage to unify the forces and do
what Einstein couldn't - totally irrelevant and your argument

http://www.vortrupp.de/humor/pics/bullshit.jpg

No, allow me to correct myself

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4750/elephantdung9pi.jpg

So it is with great pride that we award you RAM's highest dishonor

http://i9.ebayimg.com/04/i/07/af/d9/71_1_b.JPG

Date: 19 Oct 2006 07:13:57
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

renaborney@aol.com wrote:
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
<snip >

>> But it's not new.
>> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
>
> SNIP
>
> OMFG! !!
>
> It's ARNDT !!!!
>
>
<snip >

Aren't has been silent lately. I think he enlisted in the U.S. Army.
He's probably on his 9,000th push up for insisting U.S. weapons and
technology are inferior to German. "Why should I train on M-16A2 when
the Army is going to replace it with the German [insert weapon type
here] any day now? My father was a weapons inspector which makes me
smarter than you. I had an uncle who was in the SS so I know more about
tactics than you. Why aren't I a general yet?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:06:06
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <K_JZg.31121$eZ4.2641@dukeread06 >, B2431@aol.com mumbled
> renaborney@aol.com wrote:
> > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> But it's not new.
> >> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > OMFG! !!
> >
> > It's ARNDT !!!!
> >
> >
> <snip>
>
> Aren't has been silent lately. I think he enlisted in the U.S. Army.
> He's probably on his 9,000th push up for insisting U.S. weapons and
> technology are inferior to German. "Why should I train on M-16A2 when
> the Army is going to replace it with the German [insert weapon type
> here] any day now? My father was a weapons inspector which makes me
> smarter than you. I had an uncle who was in the SS so I know more about
> tactics than you. Why aren't I a general yet?"
>

He wouldn't last two days in basic training

Date: 19 Oct 2006 00:53:21
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

> If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
> from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
> logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
>
> PROPOSITION 1:
> It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
> ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
> Collapse start time: 17 seconds
> Collapse end time: 23 seconds
> Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
>
> PROPOSITION 2:
> A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
> seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
> kinematical considerations alone:
>
> Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
> total time^2
>
> or
>
> s = ut + 1/2at^2
> where
> s = 174 m (height of building)
> u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
> a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at a
> constant)
>
> Thus,
> 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
>
> Solving for t
> t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
> = 5.9590
> ~ 6 seconds

:-)

The red-neck americans here CANNOT understand. They will keep fighting
tooth and nail that 911 conspiracies are crap.. They just cannot
understand, because their universe would collapse. USA being a force
of evil? Can't be.

Here an animation that might interest you.

WTC Finite Element Analysis --- Animated Rendering
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3861

Date: 19 Oct 2006 07:02:54
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>> If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
>> from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
>> logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
>>
>> PROPOSITION 1:
>> It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
>> ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
>>
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
>> Collapse start time: 17 seconds
>> Collapse end time: 23 seconds
>> Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
>>
>> PROPOSITION 2:
>> A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
>> seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
>> kinematical considerations alone:
>>
>> Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
>> total time^2
>>
>> or
>>
>> s = ut + 1/2at^2
>> where
>> s = 174 m (height of building)
>> u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
>> a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at a
>> constant)
>>
>> Thus,
>> 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
>>
>> Solving for t
>> t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
>> = 5.9590
>> ~ 6 seconds
>
> :-)
>

OK, since that impresses you he just proved my case. He said the
building fell in 6 seconds. Not "about 6 seconds" he said "6 seconds."
Using his own calculations free fall would be 5.959 seconds which means
less than 6 seconds. In other words the building fell slower than free
fall.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 19 Oct 2006 00:21:53
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote: >
> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.

SNIP

JC on burnt toast!! If the damn spars were brittlle, the %$#& wings
would fall off the first time they encountered a gust. I knew that, oh,
around 12 or so....but then, I had an engineer father and actually knew
how to read things like books on airplanes.....

He's peddling pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo designed to impress the
technologivallly illiterate.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:26:52
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 19 2006 00:21:53 -0700, "renaborney@aol.com" <renaborney@aol.com > wrote:

>
>Dan wrote:>
>> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
>> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
>> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
>
>SNIP
>
>JC on burnt toast!! If the damn spars were brittlle, the %$#& wings
>would fall off the first time they encountered a gust. I knew that, oh,
>around 12 or so....but then, I had an engineer father and actually knew
>how to read things like books on airplanes.....

One of my favorite bits on the Discovery channel showed Boeing testing a brand
new 757 to destruction. They held the plane up by the wing tips and applied
downward pressure until failure; when the spars finally gave the wing tips were
a good 6-8 feet above their normal position.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:30:11
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On 19 2006 00:21:53 -0700, "renaborney@aol.com" <renaborney@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:>
>>> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
>>> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
>>> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
>> SNIP
>>
>> JC on burnt toast!! If the damn spars were brittlle, the %$#& wings
>> would fall off the first time they encountered a gust. I knew that, oh,
>> around 12 or so....but then, I had an engineer father and actually knew
>> how to read things like books on airplanes.....
>
> One of my favorite bits on the Discovery channel showed Boeing testing a brand
> new 757 to destruction. They held the plane up by the wing tips and applied
> downward pressure until failure; when the spars finally gave the wing tips were
> a good 6-8 feet above their normal position.

If it was the same show I saw it was a a lot more than 8 feet and I
believe it was a 777.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 18 Oct 2006 22:27:04
From: John Keeney
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Date: 19 Oct 2006 19:48:57
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> Sorcerer wrote:
> <snip>
> > Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
> > 50% of Europeans are above average
>
> No fooling? On ANY distribution curve 50% of the sample is below
> average and 50% is above average.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

SNIP

Except in Lake Woebegone

Date: 19 Oct 2006 16:44:58
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

> As far as the nanimation goes, this is from the same Blog which

kill the messenger when you cannot face the music.

> (Of course, NOW they are claiming he was a mole sent by the Powers of
> Darkness (tm) to infltrate their little world and make them look
> ridiculous (which they do quite nicely on their own))

Powers of Darkness (don't exist) wouldn't do that of course!

You have a deep-seated fear to appear undecided=weak with your peers.

Re: Physics Fraud

Ah, the lost art of physics. Of course! The planes were just going too
damn fast to obey Newton's Laws! Those poor steel beams never knew what
hit them!

How ironic that we don't either. Certainly not a Boeing, though.

I'm going to throw my fuzzy physics lesson out here again on yet
another site and hope that I can get someone to correct the obvious
error in it, because the error only makes my argument stronger.

Imagine a stationary and suspended Boeing 767 was struck by a 500mph
WTC2. Can you still see it being undamaged? Can you still see sheared
steel beams in the tower?

If not, then you would be right.

In the case of a mid-air collision between two objects, it doesn't
matter what hits what when it comes to damage. Due to the converging
velocity being a relative factor, the observable resultant impact event
is identical no matter which object is travelling at 500mph. The same
thing would happen if each were flying toward each other at 250mph, one
at 400, the other at 100, etc.

So many people are impressed by the high velocity of the plane, that
they fail to even consider the vast difference in the densities of the
colliding materials.

Sure, density and mass aren't as "sexy" as speed, but of all the people
in here, if placed in the driver seat of a Yugo and set on a collision
course with that concrete wall in that video, how many of you would
instinctively step on the gas?

True, the faster you hit the wall, the more damage you would do to it.
Unfortunately, you would also damage yourself (and your Yugo) by an
even greater factor.

Now tell me, oh wise anonymous one...exactly how fast would I have to
be driving that Yugo to break through the wall without damaging the
car?

Class dismissed.

=== try number two ===

Display any DVD video showing the actual alleged crash of the 767 into
the south tower on 9/11. When the airliner comes into view hit the
pause button on your remote. Make a mark on your TV screen at the point
of the 767's nose. You can use a felt marker or tape. Then, keep
hitting your remote's single step button until the tail of the 767 just
passes the mark. keeping count of the single steps. Next, hit single
step until the 767 just comes into contact with the tower. Then, hit
single step, keeping count, until, the tail of the 767 is completely
absorbed into the tower. Notice that it takes the 767 the same number
of single steps to fly thru thin air as it does to penetrate the tower
for its entire length. This means that the 767 flies thru a steel and
concrete building at the same average speed as it does thru thin air.
This violates Newton's laws of motion, Also notice that during the
767's penetration into the tower that you see no crunching or vibration
of the airframe as it hits various points of resistance, no bending of
the wings, no breaking off of parts, no falling of parts towards the
street below. Then, when the 767 is completely absorbed, the building
seems to close up and retain its original form, followed immediately by
an explostion. This violates what I call Joe's Law: Airliners don't
meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them.
During this time, keep in mind Newton's Laws of Motion, also known as
Laws of Physics. They are: 1. Objects at rest remain at rest and
objects in motion remain in motion until a force is applied. 2. When a
force is applied to an object, the object will accelerate in the
direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action
produces an equal and opposite reaction. Also, keep in mind that these
laws are immutable. When an object hits points of resistence, it must
decelerate taking more time to travel the distance than it did before
the resistence was encountered.

I welcome comments from anyone who has performed this DVD test.

Found on 911blogger. posted by Joseph M. Keith Tustin, CA
apparently a retired aerospace engineer.

Date: 19 Oct 2006 19:06:47
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
<snip > a bunch of utter BS. No one claims the aircraft were undamaged in
striking the towers. You seem to have convinced yourself a mass of
aluminum can't penetrate glass, a relatively thin skin of stainless
steel and still have enough inertia to shove steel beams and pillars
aside to do the damage even as the aircraft is destroyed.

Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.
Get a rifle on .30-06. Get a military steel helmet and some mil spec
ball ammunition for the rifle. Examine the ammunition. Notice the bullet
is copper jacketed. If you were to open one of the bullets, not the
cartridge, just the part that exits the muzzle when fired, that's the
part called the bullet. The copper jacket is filled with lead. Both
copper and lead are softer than the steel in the helmet. OK,now have an
adult the the rifle, ammunition and helmet to a shooting range. Have the
adult fire 2 or 3 rounds into the helmet. After safing the rifle and
range examine the helmet. You will see holes made by the bullets. You
have just made holes in steel with copper and lead both of which are
softer than steel.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:06:23
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In article <3rUZg.31178$eZ4.27996@dukeread06 >, B2431@aol.com mumbled
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> <snip> a bunch of utter BS. No one claims the aircraft were undamaged in
> striking the towers. You seem to have convinced yourself a mass of
> aluminum can't penetrate glass, a relatively thin skin of stainless
> steel and still have enough inertia to shove steel beams and pillars
> aside to do the damage even as the aircraft is destroyed.
>
> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.
> Get a rifle on .30-06. Get a military steel helmet and some mil spec
> ball ammunition for the rifle. Examine the ammunition. Notice the bullet
> is copper jacketed. If you were to open one of the bullets, not the
> cartridge, just the part that exits the muzzle when fired, that's the
> part called the bullet. The copper jacket is filled with lead. Both
> copper and lead are softer than the steel in the helmet. OK,now have an
> adult the the rifle, ammunition and helmet to a shooting range. Have the
> adult fire 2 or 3 rounds into the helmet. After safing the rifle and
> range examine the helmet. You will see holes made by the bullets. You
> have just made holes in steel with copper and lead both of which are
> softer than steel.

Careful Dan, you forgot to tell him not to wear the helmet.....
he might get holes (more holes) in his head...

Date: 20 Oct 2006 14:45:21
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1161301498.540799.151260@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> As far as the nanimation goes, this is from the same Blog which

>
> True, the faster you hit the wall, the more damage you would do to it.
> Unfortunately, you would also damage yourself (and your Yugo) by an
> even greater factor.
>
> Now tell me, oh wise anonymous one...exactly how fast would I have to
> be driving that Yugo to break through the wall without damaging the
> car?
>

Who has claimed the aircraft that hit the twin towers were not damaged ?

> Class dismissed.
>

You obviously failed logic and physics 1

> === try number two ===
>
> Display any DVD video showing the actual alleged crash of the 767 into
> the south tower on 9/11. When the airliner comes into view hit the
> pause button on your remote. Make a mark on your TV screen at the point
> of the 767's nose. You can use a felt marker or tape. Then, keep
> hitting your remote's single step button until the tail of the 767 just
> passes the mark. keeping count of the single steps. Next, hit single
> step until the 767 just comes into contact with the tower. Then, hit
> single step, keeping count, until, the tail of the 767 is completely
> absorbed into the tower. Notice that it takes the 767 the same number
> of single steps to fly thru thin air as it does to penetrate the tower
> for its entire length.

Bad assumption, the aircraft was crumpling as it penetrated, hence the
length travelled was rather shorter.

>
> This means that the 767 flies thru a steel and
> concrete building at the same average speed as it does thru thin air.

No it means the tail didnt rapidly decelerate during the collision event
which is exactly what one would expect

> This violates Newton's laws of motion, Also notice that during the
> 767's penetration into the tower that you see no crunching or vibration
> of the airframe as it hits various points of resistance, no bending of
> the wings, no breaking off of parts, no falling of parts towards the
> street below. Then, when the 767 is completely absorbed, the building
> seems to close up and retain its original form, followed immediately by
> an explostion.

No the damage is clearly visible

> This violates what I call Joe's Law: Airliners don't
> meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them.

Not so, when a projectile, be it bullet or airframe hits a target
it deforms.

> During this time, keep in mind Newton's Laws of Motion, also known as
> Laws of Physics.

Newtons laws are a small subset of the laws of physics

> They are: 1. Objects at rest remain at rest and
> objects in motion remain in motion until a force is applied. 2. When a
> force is applied to an object, the object will accelerate in the
> direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action
> produces an equal and opposite reaction. Also, keep in mind that these
> laws are immutable. When an object hits points of resistence, it must
> decelerate taking more time to travel the distance than it did before
> the resistence was encountered.
>

Indeed and as you have observed the tail of the aircraft behaved as
described.

> I welcome comments from anyone who has performed this DVD test.
>
> Found on 911blogger. posted by Joseph M. Keith Tustin, CA
> apparently a retired aerospace engineer.
>

Hopefully they retired him before he could do any damage.

Keith

Date: 03 Nov 2006 15:06:19
From: B2431@aol.com
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

William Black wrote:
> "Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...
>
> > But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
> > furnace with an electric blower motor.
>
> Anyone got any plans for one of these?
>
> I'd like one but I can't afford to buy a new one (They're very expensive in
> the UK) but I could probably cobble one together if I had some plans.
>
> I can probably get hold of a tue iron, in fact I think I have one in the
> shed with the rest of my blacksmithing stuff.
>
> --
> William Black

Any good blacksmitthing book should have plans for a charcoal
furnace. If all else fails I have seen plans for sale on e-bay.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 03 Nov 2006 21:03:00
From: Vince
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really

B2431@aol.com wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> "Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...
>>
>>> But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
>>> furnace with an electric blower motor.
>> Anyone got any plans for one of these?
>>
>> I'd like one but I can't afford to buy a new one (They're very expensive in
>> the UK) but I could probably cobble one together if I had some plans.
>>
>> I can probably get hold of a tue iron, in fact I think I have one in the
>> shed with the rest of my blacksmithing stuff.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>
> Any good blacksmitthing book should have plans for a charcoal
> furnace. If all else fails I have seen plans for sale on e-bay.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lindsaybks.com/arch/caf/caf2.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.lindsaybks.com/arch/caf/index.html&h=454&w=500&sz=24&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=M0QL-PcFfmuy0M:&tbnh=118&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Bportable%2Bforge%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%7Clang_de%7Clang_it%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

Vince

Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:45:03
From:
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In sci.physics B2431@aol.com <B2431@aol.com > wrote:

> William Black wrote:
> > "Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...
> >
> > > But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
> > > furnace with an electric blower motor.
> >
> > Anyone got any plans for one of these?
> >
> > I'd like one but I can't afford to buy a new one (They're very expensive in
> > the UK) but I could probably cobble one together if I had some plans.
> >
> > I can probably get hold of a tue iron, in fact I think I have one in the
> > shed with the rest of my blacksmithing stuff.
> >
> > --
> > William Black

> Any good blacksmitthing book should have plans for a charcoal
> furnace. If all else fails I have seen plans for sale on e-bay.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

A few years back a friend and I had a situation where we needed to
do some forge work NOW.

We piled up some rocks, stuck a vacuum cleaner hose in blow mode in
the side, dumped in a couple of bags of BBQ charcoal and lit it off.

It worked just fine.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:15:05
From: William Black
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > wrote in message
news:ld0t14-bpq.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics B2431@aol.com <B2431@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> William Black wrote:
>> > "Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > > But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
>> > > furnace with an electric blower motor.
>> >
>> > Anyone got any plans for one of these?
>> >
>> > I'd like one but I can't afford to buy a new one (They're very
>> > expensive in
>> > the UK) but I could probably cobble one together if I had some plans.
>> >
>> > I can probably get hold of a tue iron, in fact I think I have one in
>> > the
>> > shed with the rest of my blacksmithing stuff.
>> >
>> > --
>> > William Black
>
>> Any good blacksmitthing book should have plans for a charcoal
>> furnace. If all else fails I have seen plans for sale on e-bay.
>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> A few years back a friend and I had a situation where we needed to
> do some forge work NOW.
>
> We piled up some rocks, stuck a vacuum cleaner hose in blow mode in
> the side, dumped in a couple of bags of BBQ charcoal and lit it off.
>
> It worked just fine.

I've also seen it done on a piece of green Oak still with the bark on the
outside and blown with a hair drier.

How long it would last is another matter...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 06:51:02
From: pyotr filipivich
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on
Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:45:03 GMT in misc.survivalism :
>In sci.physics B2431@aol.com <B2431@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> William Black wrote:
>> > "Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > > But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
>> > > furnace with an electric blower motor.
>> >
>> > Anyone got any plans for one of these?
>> >
>> > I'd like one but I can't afford to buy a new one (They're very expensive in
>> > the UK) but I could probably cobble one together if I had some plans.
>> >
>> > I can probably get hold of a tue iron, in fact I think I have one in the
>> > shed with the rest of my blacksmithing stuff.
>> >
>> > --
>> > William Black
>
>> Any good blacksmitthing book should have plans for a charcoal
>> furnace. If all else fails I have seen plans for sale on e-bay.
>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>A few years back a friend and I had a situation where we needed to
>do some forge work NOW.
>
>We piled up some rocks, stuck a vacuum cleaner hose in blow mode in
>the side, dumped in a couple of bags of BBQ charcoal and lit it off.
>
>It worked just fine.

And I'll wager you have some ideas how to do it better "for the next
time".

That's pretty much how technologies have advanced: pile rocks together,
and then see what improvements you can make. Either to the rock pilling,
the charcoal, or the air supply. Or what ever.

pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Typos, Grammos and da kind are the result Emmanations of Penumbra
Fortesque Consulting: Teaching Pigs to Sing since 1986.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 13:33:43
From:
Subject: 9/11 exploding cars -- was: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Nice to read about steel welding and hammering...

Yet reality at the WTC (on 11.sept 2001) is stranger than fiction

How about Steel evaporating?
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

What about the exploding cars?
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html
Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks.. about ...
cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6

Date: 04 Nov 2006 00:50:13
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 9/11 exploding cars -- was: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1162589622.976999.117730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

> Nice to read about steel welding and hammering...
>
> Yet reality at the WTC (on 11.sept 2001) is stranger than fiction
>
> How about Steel evaporating?
> http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

Klingon/Romulan disrupter fire.

> What about the exploding cars?
> http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.htm
> l
> Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks.. about ...
> cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6

Klingon/Romulan disrupter fire.

Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:23:33
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

I don't mean to attack the intelligence of Americans in particular. But
there is something very wrong when Americans look at the news channels
everyday and don't ask questions. America has been at war almost all of
the time since the Reagan administration. This has become a habit which
the current administration has made perpetual because America is
supposedly in the war on terror. And since no one knows when the war on
terror ends Americans have given carte blanche to the war monger in
chief to do as he pleases, which is war for ever. It has gotten worse
than just sending American men and women to go to faraway lands to kill
and be killed. Americans are told that it's better that way, because
it's much better to fight the terrorists on their soil than on US
proper soil. Now Americans are told to accept torture, indefinite
detentions and military tribunals as part of American laws. Well it's
the law now and Americans just don't say anything. All of this new era
of shame for America started since this fairy tale of how 9-11 happened
according to the official story line. From that make believe story
America has since invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands
have been killed in those two countries with thousands of American
soldiers as well. Bush and his bosses are war mongers, but what about
the American public? Or maybe Bush thinks Americans are simply too dumb
to do anything other than what he wants them to believe!?
..
The point of all of this is to show that Americans are not in control,
and they should otherwise they will have to share the blame for all the
killings commited by the erroneous policies of this war mongering
administration. They don't know why they are killing all the peoples
they are killing and continue to kill. To me it started when they
swallowed the 9-11 lie whole. They did not ask questions. They still
believe that it's 19 Arabs wielding box cutters who hijacked 4
airplanes almost at the same time flew them for few hours without being
intercepted by the most powerful airforce in the world. Later on that
same day two of the airplanes hit the two WTC towers, that somehow
miraculously fell to their footprints just like in a planned demolition
of buildings. A third airplane supposedly hit the Pentagon. A fourth
airplane was said to have crashed in Pennsylvania. Although whatever
was left of that airplane is in thousands of little pieces which
indicate another cause than just a crash. Whatreallyhappened.com is a
very good source of information on the myth of the official story of
9-11. But I have some questions that I don't think I ever read in any
of the 9-11 debunking articles. Did they ever discover any of the
bodies of the passengers of the planes that hit the WTC towers and the
Pentagon? Especially the bodies of the so called hijackers? Or did they
just evaporate (no pun intended)? An airport is a place with cameras
everywhere. Where are the pictures and videos showing the so called
hijackers at the airport in Boston on that day?

Date: 19 Oct 2006 22:24:49
From: Sorcerer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1161289413.370529.60620@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:43:26
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Sorcerer wrote:
<snip >
> Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
> 50% of Europeans are above average

No fooling? On ANY distribution curve 50% of the sample is below
average and 50% is above average.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:06:15
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <VcTZg.31173$eZ4.3519@dukeread06 >, B2431@aol.com mumbled
> Sorcerer wrote:
> <snip>
> > Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
> > 50% of Europeans are above average
>
> No fooling? On ANY distribution curve 50% of the sample is below
> average and 50% is above average.

The question is,
why do the 50% below the line keep coming here with silly theories ?

Date: 30 Oct 2006 07:38:08
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m > wrote:

>In article <VcTZg.31173$eZ4.3519@dukeread06>, B2431@aol.com mumbled
>> Sorcerer wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
>> > 50% of Europeans are above average
>>
>> No fooling? On ANY distribution curve 50% of the sample is below
>> average and 50% is above average.
>
>The question is,
>why do the 50% below the line keep coming here with silly theories ?

I think it's the lot in the second deviation to the left of the 50%
line.....

Eugene L Griessel

Civilization: Stone age = > Bronze age => Iron age => Garbage.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:17:28
From: Grantland
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Mon, 30 2006 07:38:08 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:
>
>>In article <VcTZg.31173$eZ4.3519@dukeread06>, B2431@aol.com mumbled
>>> Sorcerer wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> > Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
>>> > 50% of Europeans are above average
>>>
>>> No fooling? On ANY distribution curve 50% of the sample is below
>>> average and 50% is above average.
>>
>>The question is,
>>why do the 50% below the line keep coming here with silly theories ?
>
>I think it's the lot in the second deviation to the left of the 50%
>line.....
>
That would be African blacks. Actually, the putative mean IQ of 68
is, I aver, grossly overstated. First, the sample is not random - it
comprises only those actually present at school, at their desks,
willing to endure a "test" and capable of brandishing a pencil. The
lower echelons tend to self-deselect. Also, the practice of
discarding "aberrant" ie absurdly low scores is prevalent. Most
social scientists tend to be liberals and hence less than honest.
Second, the debilitating effects of AIDS dementia have not been fully
accounted for. This would further depress the true scores with the
progression of time.

Moot points, perhaps, since I suspect you are jesting.

Dr. Wally Onus
>Eugene L Griessel
>
> Civilization: Stone age => Bronze age => Iron age => Garbage.

Date: 19 Oct 2006 16:35:49
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> I don't mean to attack the intelligence of Americans in particular. But
> there is something very wrong when Americans look at the news channels
> everyday and don't ask questions.

We saw airplanes hit the towers. There never has been proof of
intentional demolition. The towers came down. What part do you not
understand?

America has been at war almost all of
> the time since the Reagan administration.

The human race has been at war since Adam and Eve.

<snip >

An airport is a place with cameras
> everywhere. Where are the pictures and videos showing the so called
> hijackers at the airport in Boston on that day?

The pictures of some of the hijackers have been broadcast many times.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:01:05
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> They still
> believe that it's 19 Arabs wielding box cutters who hijacked 4
> airplanes almost at the same time flew them for few hours...

Do you understand that when one of your assertions is that spectacularly
wrong that it undermines anything else you write?

Doesn't matter, most of it is self-undermining, anyway.
--
St. John
P.S. - maybe you simply misspelled "minutes."

Date: 20 Oct 2006 09:30:27
From: Peter Twydell
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In message <1161301498.540799.151260@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
u2r2h@gmx.net writes
>> As far as the nanimation goes, this is from the same Blog which
>
>kill the messenger when you cannot face the music.
>
>> (Of course, NOW they are claiming he was a mole sent by the Powers of
>> Darkness (tm) to infltrate their little world and make them look
>> ridiculous (which they do quite nicely on their own))
>
>Powers of Darkness (don't exist) wouldn't do that of course!
>
>You have a deep-seated fear to appear undecided=weak with your peers.
>
>
>Re: Physics Fraud
>
>Ah, the lost art of physics. Of course! The planes were just going too
>damn fast to obey Newton's Laws! Those poor steel beams never knew what
>hit them!
>
>How ironic that we don't either. Certainly not a Boeing, though.
>
>I'm going to throw my fuzzy physics lesson out here again on yet
>another site and hope that I can get someone to correct the obvious
>error in it, because the error only makes my argument stronger.
>
>Imagine a stationary and suspended Boeing 767 was struck by a 500mph
>WTC2. Can you still see it being undamaged? Can you still see sheared
>steel beams in the tower?
>
>If not, then you would be right.
>
>In the case of a mid-air collision between two objects, it doesn't
>matter what hits what when it comes to damage. Due to the converging
>velocity being a relative factor, the observable resultant impact event
>is identical no matter which object is travelling at 500mph. The same
>thing would happen if each were flying toward each other at 250mph, one
>at 400, the other at 100, etc.
>
You can't castigate other people for what you perceive as their poor
knowledge of physics when you show a lack of knowledge on your own part.

You obviously know neither the difference between momentum and energy
nor the equations used to calculate them.

>So many people are impressed by the high velocity of the plane, that
>they fail to even consider the vast difference in the densities of the
>colliding materials.
>
>Sure, density and mass aren't as "sexy" as speed, but of all the people
>in here, if placed in the driver seat of a Yugo and set on a collision
>course with that concrete wall in that video, how many of you would
>instinctively step on the gas?
>
>True, the faster you hit the wall, the more damage you would do to it.
>Unfortunately, you would also damage yourself (and your Yugo) by an
>even greater factor.
>
>Now tell me, oh wise anonymous one...exactly how fast would I have to
>be driving that Yugo to break through the wall without damaging the
>car?
>
And the relevance of this to an aircraft impact with a different type of
structure is what, exactly?

>Class dismissed.
>
>=== try number two ===
>
>Display any DVD video showing the actual alleged crash of the 767 into
>the south tower on 9/11. When the airliner comes into view hit the
>pause button on your remote. Make a mark on your TV screen at the point
>of the 767's nose. You can use a felt marker or tape. Then, keep
>hitting your remote's single step button until the tail of the 767 just
>passes the mark. keeping count of the single steps. Next, hit single
>step until the 767 just comes into contact with the tower. Then, hit
>single step, keeping count, until, the tail of the 767 is completely
>absorbed into the tower. Notice that it takes the 767 the same number
>of single steps to fly thru thin air as it does to penetrate the tower
>for its entire length. This means that the 767 flies thru a steel and
>concrete building at the same average speed as it does thru thin air.
>This violates Newton's laws of motion, Also notice that during the
>767's penetration into the tower that you see no crunching or vibration
>of the airframe as it hits various points of resistance, no bending of
>the wings, no breaking off of parts, no falling of parts towards the
>street below. Then, when the 767 is completely absorbed, the building
>seems to close up and retain its original form, followed immediately by
>an explostion. This violates what I call Joe's Law: Airliners don't
>meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them.
>During this time, keep in mind Newton's Laws of Motion, also known as
>Laws of Physics. They are: 1. Objects at rest remain at rest and
>objects in motion remain in motion until a force is applied. 2. When a
>force is applied to an object, the object will accelerate in the
>direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action
>produces an equal and opposite reaction. Also, keep in mind that these
>laws are immutable. When an object hits points of resistence, it must
>decelerate taking more time to travel the distance than it did before
>the resistence was encountered.
>
>I welcome comments from anyone who has performed this DVD test.
>
>Found on 911blogger. posted by Joseph M. Keith Tustin, CA
>apparently a retired aerospace engineer.
>
The 767's initial impact wasn't with a 'a steel and concrete building',
but only with the outer cladding. The tower's core was, wait for it, in
the MIDDLE of the structure and the outer skin was just that, a skin.

Just another konspiracy kook, coming to half-baked conclusions from
false premises.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:52:21
From: Andrew Chaplin
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

renaborney@aol.com wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > Sorcerer wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
> > > 50% of Europeans are above average
> >
> > No fooling? On ANY distribution curve 50% of the sample is below
> > average and 50% is above average.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> SNIP
>
> Except in Lake Woebegone

More usually, "Lake Wobegon" "where the women are strong, the men are
good looking, and all the children are above average."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:50:38
From: Sorcerer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chaplin@rogers.com > wrote in message
news:1161377541.348929.229310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Date: 20 Oct 2006 12:56:56
From: David E. Powell
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > Dan, Griessel, Orval
> >
> > > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> >
> > > > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
> >
> > Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
> >
> > But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
> > There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
> > engines.
> >
> > > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> >
> > > > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> > > See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > Dan, you and the others:
> >
> > I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
> > provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
> > researched oneselves.
> >
> > HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
> >
> > Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
> > searchable.
> >
> > Of course, right now, you just don't care.
> >
> > 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
> >
> > But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
> >
> > And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
>
> They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
> incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
> meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
> physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
> instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
> even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
> "mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
> physics.

Did you even consider they know more than pseudoscientists like you?
Sir, to call your understanding of physics "child like" is an insult to
children everywhere.

My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
> _vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
> thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
> and objective thought and analysis. The responses and feedback from
> this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
> the current state of affairs.

No. You're a dorf. That's the state of affairs. In the words of the
rec.sport.pro-wrestling policy for responding to trolls: You suck. Go
away.

> That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
> deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
> amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
> its realization.

Well, your posts aren't one of the greatest deceptions in history. In
fact, they are pretty lame, but I guess that's how it goes.

> > Me included.

Yeah, you suck too, original poster.

As for Dan, seeing as he is former Air Force, I think he would be a bit
more knowledgable about aircraft than you or I. I just know you and
your colleague in the conspiracy crowd are coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 20:17:48
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Johnny Bravo wrote:

I don't think you really believe your own writing, you just play
devil's advocat.

I recommend the calm explanation type:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-275577066688213413

Ah yes ... and about the alledged 767 crashing into the WTC a friend
said this:

Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction! If the wall was breached
or not by the nose of the plane, then the steel of the outerwall would
receive force from the plane.
An equal amount of force would be received back by the plane from the
wall.
The direction of that resultant force would be in the opposite
direction of the aircraft's motion, since the alleged straight entry of
the plane into the building requires the plane's motion into the
building to have been perpendicular to the face of the building (i.e.
at a right angle, 90 degrees etc).
That resultant force would have caused a DECELLERATION of the plane,
and this should be aparrent when carrying out the above test.
But it is not.
The crash was not real.
Of course, most of that resultant force would have in reality smashed
the plane to bits.
The force on the nose of the aircraft would have crushed the cockpit,
and the decelleration from the impact would have caused the wings, with
all of the fuel and the weight of the engines to at least partially
shear off.
And the lift from the wing and tailplane would have pulled the rear of
the craft violently upwards on impact.
And the plane was banking to the left, and therefore rising to the left
as it is shown just before it hits the building.
That also should have caused the rear of the plane to be thrown
violently in that direction as the nose dug in and the diagonal rising
of the plane was suddenly stopped.
And finally terminal ballistics show that when the resultant force
caused deflection of the nose of the craft, the heavier part of the
plane further back should have kept it's momentum and continued to the
wall faster than the deflected front of the plane, causing the plane to
tumble into the outerwall.
Just like a rifle bullet tumbles when it penetrates kevlar.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 13:27:06
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1161487068.806301.140200@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
> I don't think you really believe your own writing, you just play
> devil's advocat.
>
> I recommend the calm explanation type:
>
> http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-275577066688213413
>
> Ah yes ... and about the alledged 767 crashing into the WTC a friend
> said this:
>
> Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction! If the wall was breached
> or not by the nose of the plane, then the steel of the outerwall would
> receive force from the plane.
> An equal amount of force would be received back by the plane from the
> wall.
> The direction of that resultant force would be in the opposite
> direction of the aircraft's motion, since the alleged straight entry of
> the plane into the building requires the plane's motion into the
> building to have been perpendicular to the face of the building (i.e.
> at a right angle, 90 degrees etc).
> That resultant force would have caused a DECELLERATION of the plane,

Of the portion of the plane in contact

To transmit that deceleration to the tail section would require the
fuselage to be strong enough to transmit those forces.

The aircraft was travelling at around 500 mph or approx
750 fps. A 767 is approx 170 ft long so to halve the speed
within the length of the aircraft we can calculate the
acceleration required using the formula

v*v=u*u + 2as

where v=initial velocity (750)
u= final velocity (375)
a= acceleration
s= distance (170)

The solution gives an acceleration of thousands of gees

I dont think a 767 fuselage is stressed for that somehow.

> and this should be aparrent when carrying out the above test.
> But it is not.
> The crash was not real.
> Of course, most of that resultant force would have in reality smashed
> the plane to bits.

It did

> The force on the nose of the aircraft would have crushed the cockpit,
> and the decelleration from the impact would have caused the wings, with
> all of the fuel and the weight of the engines to at least partially
> shear off.

They did

> And the lift from the wing and tailplane would have pulled the rear of
> the craft violently upwards on impact.

Work out the lifting force available and calculate the results.
Its not adequate for the effect you describe.

> And the plane was banking to the left, and therefore rising to the left
> as it is shown just before it hits the building.
> That also should have caused the rear of the plane to be thrown
> violently in that direction as the nose dug in and the diagonal rising
> of the plane was suddenly stopped.

Work out the forces the structure would have to sustain and
then compare them with the actual structural strength

> And finally terminal ballistics show that when the resultant force
> caused deflection of the nose of the craft, the heavier part of the
> plane further back should have kept it's momentum and continued to the
> wall faster than the deflected front of the plane, causing the plane to
> tumble into the outerwall.

Sigh

Try a basic physics course. There they will teach you what words
like ballistics actually mean. More to the point they will teach
you about concepts such as inertia. To any educated person
your words make you appear exceedingly foolish.

>
> Just like a rifle bullet tumbles when it penetrates kevlar.
>

Rifle bullets tumble because their shape means that the centre
of gravity of the bullet is towards the rear so it naturally
prefers to fly base-first. This is not true of aircraft.

Keith

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:43:33
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
> I don't think you really believe your own writing, you just play
> devil's advocat.
>
> I recommend the calm explanation type:
>
> http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-275577066688213413
>
> Ah yes ... and about the alledged 767 crashing into the WTC a friend
> said this:
>
> Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction! If the wall was breached
> or not by the nose of the plane, then the steel of the outerwall would
> receive force from the plane.

As would the glass windows on the building.

> An equal amount of force would be received back by the plane from the
> wall.

True, but you are over simplifying what you don't understand/

> The direction of that resultant force would be in the opposite
> direction of the aircraft's motion, since the alleged straight entry of
> the plane into the building requires the plane's motion into the
> building to have been perpendicular to the face of the building (i.e.
> at a right angle, 90 degrees etc).

Wrong, that 90� would be from gyroscopic precession, however the
airplane was not spinning along the longitudinal axis.

> That resultant force would have caused a DECELLERATION of the plane,
> and this should be aparrent when carrying out the above test.

Sure it was, but it's beyond your skill to determine how much. If
you could analyze frame by frame you'd be able to see that, but you seem
to expecting a huge and sudden rate of negative acceleration outside the
building. This wouldn't be the case if the fuselage is collapsing
rapidly just inside the building.

> But it is not.
> The crash was not real.
> Of course, most of that resultant force would have in reality smashed
> the plane to bits.
> The force on the nose of the aircraft would have crushed the cockpit,
> and the decelleration from the impact would have caused the wings, with
> all of the fuel and the weight of the engines to at least partially
> shear off.

That depends on how rapidly the front of the aircraft is slowing.

> And the lift from the wing and tailplane would have pulled the rear of
> the craft violently upwards on impact.

The wing is at center of lift so that's wrong and where did you get
the idea the horizontal stab generates positive lift? I have seen many
aircraft where the stab generates negative lift.

> And the plane was banking to the left, and therefore rising to the left
> as it is shown just before it hits the building.

As I told you before banking an aircraft doesn't make it climb. If
that were the case who would an airplane ever land in a pattern?
Aircraft can and do bank while maintaining or losing altitude.

> That also should have caused the rear of the plane to be thrown
> violently in that direction as the nose dug in and the diagonal rising
> of the plane was suddenly stopped.

Wrong, but you'd know that if you had ever taken physics.

> And finally terminal ballistics show that when the resultant force
> caused deflection of the nose of the craft, the heavier part of the
> plane further back should have kept it's momentum and continued to the
> wall faster than the deflected front of the plane, causing the plane to
> tumble into the outerwall.

The aft part WAS maintaining momentum.

> Just like a rifle bullet tumbles when it penetrates kevlar.
>
You don't understand aerodynamics any more than you do basic
physics. The bullet tumbles due to torque from gyroscopic precession.
Look up torque and gyroscopic precession.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Date: 23 Oct 2006 00:00:02
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 21 2006 20:17:48 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
>I don't think you really believe your own writing, you just play
>devil's advocat.

I fully believe everything I write. Anyone who thinks that WTC 7 was taken
down by controlled demolotion has absolutely no explanantion for how either a)
the government knew in advance that WTC 7 would catch on fire or b) that weeks
worth of work was done in 12 hours in a burning building in full view of
thousands of people without anyone noticing.

If you have such an explanation, feel free to present it.

>Ah yes ... and about the alledged 767 crashing into the WTC a friend
>said this:
>
>Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction! If the wall was breached
>or not by the nose of the plane, then the steel of the outerwall would
>receive force from the plane.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. If you're going to post a hundred lines of
stupidity, please ensure it is at least somewhat relevant stupidity.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:05:42
From: slas
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.
>
> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
>
> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.

Ironic: the people who accuse the 9/11 doubters of wearing "tinfoil
hats" are really the ones who should be wearing them.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:05:29
From: slas
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.
>
> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
>
> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.

Ironic: the people who accuse the 9/11 oubters of wearing "tinfoil
hats" are really the ones who should be wearing them.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 07:47:47
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> > And finally terminal ballistics show that when the resultant force
> > caused deflection of the nose of the craft, the heavier part of the
> > plane further back should have kept it's momentum and continued to the
> > wall faster than the deflected front of the plane, causing the plane to
> > tumble into the outerwall.
>
> Sigh
>
> Try a basic physics course. There they will teach you what words
> like ballistics actually mean. More to the point they will teach
> you about concepts such as inertia. To any educated person
> your words make you appear exceedingly foolish.
>
> >
> > Just like a rifle bullet tumbles when it penetrates kevlar.
> >
>
> Rifle bullets tumble because their shape means that the centre
> of gravity of the bullet is towards the rear so it naturally
> prefers to fly base-first. This is not true of aircraft.
>
SNIP

For those who don't believe that staement...

"Some have claimed that the 5.7x28mm bullet "tumbles" when it
encounters tissue, suggesting that the bullet actually tumbles end over
end like a small buzz saw as it passes through. This is false. No
bullet "tumbles" in such a way when it strikes tissue. What some
high velocity bullets do is rotate a half turn or 180 degrees until
they are base forward. This is because the naturally stable condition
of any pointed bullet is base forward.

Bullets are stabilized nose forward by the spin imparted to them by the
barrel's rifling. If a bullet is traveling with sufficient velocity,
when it strikes a target and begins to slow down both in velocity and
spin rate, it loses its spin imparted stability and tries to return to
its naturally stable state-base forward. The 5.7mm bullet is no
different in this regard."

http://www.hendonpub.com/publications/tacticalresponse/otherfeaturedarticles.asp?ID=655

Date: 22 Oct 2006 16:39:45
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 22 2006 07:47:47 -0700, "renaborney@aol.com" <renaborney@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> > And finally terminal ballistics show that when the resultant force
>> > caused deflection of the nose of the craft, the heavier part of the
>> > plane further back should have kept it's momentum and continued to the
>> > wall faster than the deflected front of the plane, causing the plane to
>> > tumble into the outerwall.
>>
>> Sigh
>>
>> Try a basic physics course. There they will teach you what words
>> like ballistics actually mean. More to the point they will teach
>> you about concepts such as inertia. To any educated person
>> your words make you appear exceedingly foolish.
>>
>> >
>> > Just like a rifle bullet tumbles when it penetrates kevlar.
>> >
>>
>> Rifle bullets tumble because their shape means that the centre
>> of gravity of the bullet is towards the rear so it naturally
>> prefers to fly base-first. This is not true of aircraft.
>>
>SNIP
>
>For those who don't believe that staement...
>
>"Some have claimed that the 5.7x28mm bullet "tumbles" when it
>encounters tissue, suggesting that the bullet actually tumbles end over
>end like a small buzz saw as it passes through. This is false. No
>bullet "tumbles" in such a way when it strikes tissue. What some
>high velocity bullets do is rotate a half turn or 180 degrees until
>they are base forward. This is because the naturally stable condition
>of any pointed bullet is base forward.
>
>Bullets are stabilized nose forward by the spin imparted to them by the
>barrel's rifling. If a bullet is traveling with sufficient velocity,
>when it strikes a target and begins to slow down both in velocity and
>spin rate, it loses its spin imparted stability and tries to return to
>its naturally stable state-base forward. The 5.7mm bullet is no
>different in this regard."
>
>http://www.hendonpub.com/publications/tacticalresponse/otherfeaturedarticles.asp?ID=655

Bullet stability is a prime function of bullet design and the proper
spin rate. If the spin rate is too slow, or too fast for the sectional
density and length..the bullet is no longer stable..or is on the edge of
stability and it doesnt take much to push it over the edge. The original
rate of twist of the early M-16s/Stoners was right at the "too slow" end
of the spectrum..and if the bullets balance was upset in
flight..precession would occure and the bullet would do all manner of
bad things. Not the least was breaking in half at the cannalure while it
turned sideways...further upsetting the fine balances and
indeed..causing a tumbling action of the single or multiple pieces.

Been there, done that, both in live targets and hundreds and hundreds of
pounds of balistics gelatin.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Date: 22 Oct 2006 01:34:39
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown e:

SNIP

While you're working up an answer to my previous post, I haven't gotten
an answer to thie issues I raised in this one

> None of the plane videos show a CRASH.

SNIP

Excuse me?

What the HELL is this?

http://www.members.aol.com/spiritflight7/WTCAirCrash.jpg

Considering sevearl million - perhaps tens of millions - saw this event

happen in reaal time on TV, did the entire species have a mass
hallucination? Someone spiked the world's water supply with acid?

> There were no planes that hit the towers.
> There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
> towers.

SNIP

So tell us how all those people had a mass hallucination

> And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
> Easy- they are B2s.

SNIP

OK, there are something like a total of twenty one B-2's in the whole
wrorld - it should be easy for you to prove one was not accounted for
on September 11, 2001

> They can cloak in ionised gas

SNIP

The,postulated ionized gas effect ONLY would work against RADAR -
which last time I cracked a physics textbook was a long way down the
electromganteic spectrum from visible light

"The Russian Academy of Sciences, however, according to a 1999 report
by Jane's Defense Weekly, claims to have developed a low-budget
RADAR-stealth technique, namely the cloaking of aircraft in ionized gas

(plasma). Plasma absorbs radio waves, so it is theoretically possible
to diminish the RADAR reflectivity of an otherwise non-stealthy
aircraft by a factor of 100 or more by generating plasma at the nose
and leading edges of an aircraft and allowing it flow backward over the

fuselage and wings. The Russian system is supposedly lightweight ( >220
lb [100 kg]) and retrofittable to existing aircraft, making it the
stealth capability available at least cost to virtually any air force.
A disadvantage of the plasma technique that it would probably make the
aircraft glow in the visible part of the spectrum."

http://www.espionageinfo.com/Sp-Te/Stealth-Technology.html

So your "invisble" airplane would glow in the dark!

And Janes didn't say one damn word about the B2

and they can hover.

> Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.

SNIP

OK, cite issue and page, so I can view this wonder

> But it's not new.
> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.

SNIP

Cite one reputable source - not the Little Nazi's BIG Coloring Book
of Wunderwaffen - that proves this particularly assinine claim.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 01:19:07
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> > On 18 2006 00:52:53 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I know I know...
> >>
> >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> >
> >
> > That's right.
> >
> >
> >>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> >>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
> >
> >
> > Yawn...
> This is 8 posters in a row who were unable to come up with anything that
> resembled a rigorous scientific analysis of the facts

SNIP

You obviouslly mean "facts" like the following

"And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos? Easy-
they are B2s.
They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover. Jane's defence weekly
openly talks about it. But it's not new. The Nazis had that technology
in WW2."

I have to admit that I can not "sscientifically regorously" attempt to
rebutt "facts" such as those

I'm laughing too hard

That's something like SIX grotesrduely ludicrous comments in one
sentence.

There us just no way you can have a scientific discussion with a mind
like that.

If you feel otherwise, than present proof that his assertions are
correct.

I anticiapte your immediate reply with much pleasure.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:54:50
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Dan wrote:
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> <snip> a bunch of utter BS.

> < More snippage>

> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.

> < More snippage of a good example>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade head
and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.

Or examples of straw penetrating wood walls and telephone poles in a
tornado.

Or a barbwire fence tearing the roof off a car that went of the road.

Momentum is a terrible thing.

But then so are conspiracy nuts.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:07:34
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS.
>
>> < More snippage>
>
>> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.
>
>> < More snippage of a good example> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
> head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.

I assume you mean with a bow
in which case I kind of doubt it.
50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel

>
> Or examples of straw penetrating wood walls and telephone poles in a
> tornado.
>
> Or a barbwire fence tearing the roof off a car that went of the road.
>
>
> Momentum is a terrible thing.
>
> But then so are conspiracy nuts.
>
" MOMENTUM vs. KINETIC ENERGY:

Should you have an unquenchable interest in ballistic physics, you may
find it interesting that a few sporting enthusiasts will even dispute
the convention that KE is the best measurement for predicting hunting
penetration. A number of enthusiasts will debate that MOMENTUM is the
better mathematical model. Of course, KE and Momentum aren't the same
thing.....

Kinetic Energy = Weight X Velocity Squared /2 X Acceleration of Gravity
Momentum = Weight X Velocity / Acceleration of Gravity

Since velocity isn't squared in the momentum formula, arrow MASS plays
a much larger role. The kinetic energy of a moving body increases as
the square of the velocity whereas the momentum increases directly as
velocity increases. So if you recomputed our chart to show momentum,
then the graph would look much different. The heavier arrows would show
a significant improvement in overall momentum, and you could therefore
conclude that heavier arrows would indeed yield better penetration.

Right or wrong, the shooting sports have a number of traditions and
conventions regarding technical measurement. And the lethality of a
projectile (whether from a firearm or bow) is traditionally expressed as
a function of KE (ft-lbs). As such, most sporting enthusiasts have some
comprehension of this measurement. Unfortunately, a momentum rating in
Slug Feet-per-Second would surely leave many of us scratching our heads.
Given the dramatic difference in the two methodologies, it seems
unlikely that KE has remained the "standard" for so long if it's
entirely incorrect. There are a lot of talented engineers in the
archery industry. So either they have ALL missed it, or perhaps the
momentum theory has a glitch (not to worry - our team of physicists are
working on it now).

Should you have an interest in the debate regarding which mathematical
model is best applicable to archery, here's some basic argument on the
topic (http://www.booneman.com/_terminalarrow.php). For more
discussion, Dr. Ed Ashby also has an interesting and exhaustively
extensive article on the subject
(http://www.datakey.com.au/steve1/Momentum.pdf) you might want to check
out (have your scientific calculator handy).

http://www.huntersfriend.com/arrowhelp/arrow-selection-5.htm

Date: 30 Oct 2006 16:49:15
From: Peter Skelton
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Mon, 30 2006 12:07:34 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us >
wrote:

>jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS.
>>
>>> < More snippage>
>>
>>> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.
>>
>>> < More snippage of a good example> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
>> head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.
>
>I assume you mean with a bow
>in which case I kind of doubt it.
>50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>
My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.

Peter Skelton

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:42:17
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 2006 12:07:34 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
> wrote:
>
>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS.
>>>> < More snippage>
>>>> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.
>>>> < More snippage of a good example> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
>>> head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.
>> I assume you mean with a bow
>> in which case I kind of doubt it.
>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>
> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>
> Peter Skelton

Lots of aluminum heads out there on iron blocks

Vince

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:55:43
From: Peter Skelton
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Mon, 30 2006 18:42:17 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us >
wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 2006 12:07:34 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS.
>>>>> < More snippage>
>>>>> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.
>>>>> < More snippage of a good example> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
>>>> head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.
>>> I assume you mean with a bow
>>> in which case I kind of doubt it.
>>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>>
>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>Lots of aluminum heads out there on iron blocks
>
Best check that out, AFAIK most of the iron foundries for the
purpose went belly up some time ago. Aluminum blocks are in 85%
of north american cars. For trucks it's 25%, overall 52

http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_aluminum_claims_no/

Peter Skelton

Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:29:46
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 2006 18:42:17 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 2006 12:07:34 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS. < More
>>>>>> snippage> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself,
>>>>>> have an adult do it. < More snippage of a good example>
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor
>>>>> blade head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine
>>>>> block.
>>>> I assume you mean with a bow in which case I kind of doubt it.
>>>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>>>
>>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>>>
>>> Peter Skelton
>> Lots of aluminum heads out there on iron blocks
>>
> Best check that out, AFAIK most of the iron foundries for the purpose
> went belly up some time ago. Aluminum blocks are in 85% of north
> american cars. For trucks it's 25%, overall 52
>
> http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_aluminum_claims_no/
>
>
>
> Peter Skelton

read more carefully
Teh claim is about half the "blocks"

In North America, Schultz estimates 52% of engine blocks are aluminum,
with the remainder iron.
KS Aluminum-Technologie uses low-pressure casting to manufacture the
Porsche Cayenne�s aluminum engine block.

Some 85% of North American cars have aluminum engine blocks today, a
figure expected to reach 90% penetration within five years, Schultz says.

The last sentence refers to cars i.e. models.

Vince

Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:44:39
From: Peter Skelton
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Mon, 30 2006 20:29:46 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us >
wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 2006 18:42:17 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 2006 12:07:34 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS. < More
>>>>>>> snippage> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself,
>>>>>>> have an adult do it. < More snippage of a good example>
>>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor
>>>>>> blade head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine
>>>>>> block.
>>>>> I assume you mean with a bow in which case I kind of doubt it.
>>>>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>>>>
>>>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Skelton
>>> Lots of aluminum heads out there on iron blocks
>>>
>> Best check that out, AFAIK most of the iron foundries for the purpose
>> went belly up some time ago. Aluminum blocks are in 85% of north
>> american cars. For trucks it's 25%, overall 52
>>
>> http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_aluminum_claims_no/
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>
>read more carefully
>Teh claim is about half the "blocks"
>
What part of "52" was too obscure for you Vince?

>
>In North America, Schultz estimates 52% of engine blocks are aluminum,
>with the remainder iron.
>KS Aluminum-Technologie uses low-pressure casting to manufacture the
>Porsche Cayenne�s aluminum engine block.
>
> Some 85% of North American cars have aluminum engine blocks today, a
>figure expected to reach 90% penetration within five years, Schultz says.
>
>The last sentence refers to cars i.e. models.

Bunk: 85% of the cars, 25% of the light trucks 52 overall.

You read more carefully

Peter Skelton

Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:24:51
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 2006 20:29:46 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 2006 18:42:17 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 2006 12:07:34 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS. < More
>>>>>>>> snippage> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself,
>>>>>>>> have an adult do it. < More snippage of a good example>
>>>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor
>>>>>>> blade head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine
>>>>>>> block.
>>>>>> I assume you mean with a bow in which case I kind of doubt it.
>>>>>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>>>>>
>>>>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Skelton
>>>> Lots of aluminum heads out there on iron blocks
>>>>
>>> Best check that out, AFAIK most of the iron foundries for the purpose
>>> went belly up some time ago. Aluminum blocks are in 85% of north
>>> american cars. For trucks it's 25%, overall 52
>>>
>>> http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_aluminum_claims_no/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Skelton
>>
>> read more carefully
>> Teh claim is about half the "blocks"
>>
> What part of "52" was too obscure for you Vince?
>
>> In North America, Schultz estimates 52% of engine blocks are aluminum,
>> with the remainder iron.
>> KS Aluminum-Technologie uses low-pressure casting to manufacture the
>> Porsche Cayenne�s aluminum engine block.
>>
>> Some 85% of North American cars have aluminum engine blocks today, a
>> figure expected to reach 90% penetration within five years, Schultz says.
>>
>> The last sentence refers to cars i.e. models.
>
> Bunk: 85% of the cars, 25% of the light trucks 52 overall.
>
> You read more carefully
>
> Peter Skelton

if x = cars and

Y = trucks

(taking 52 as 50

if .85 (X) = .25 (Y)
multiply both sides time 4

3.4 (X)= Y

That implies that truck production is about 3.4 times that of cars

got any data supporting that?

Vince

Date: 31 Oct 2006 08:33:40
From: Peter Skelton
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Mon, 30 2006 23:24:51 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us >
wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 2006 20:29:46 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 2006 18:42:17 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 2006 12:07:34 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote: <snip> a bunch of utter BS. < More
>>>>>>>>> snippage> Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself,
>>>>>>>>> have an adult do it. < More snippage of a good example>
>>>>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor
>>>>>>>> blade head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine
>>>>>>>> block.
>>>>>>> I assume you mean with a bow in which case I kind of doubt it.
>>>>>>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Skelton
>>>>> Lots of aluminum heads out there on iron blocks
>>>>>
>>>> Best check that out, AFAIK most of the iron foundries for the purpose
>>>> went belly up some time ago. Aluminum blocks are in 85% of north
>>>> american cars. For trucks it's 25%, overall 52
>>>>
>>>> http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_aluminum_claims_no/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Skelton
>>>
>>> read more carefully
>>> Teh claim is about half the "blocks"
>>>
>> What part of "52" was too obscure for you Vince?
>>
>>> In North America, Schultz estimates 52% of engine blocks are aluminum,
>>> with the remainder iron.
>>> KS Aluminum-Technologie uses low-pressure casting to manufacture the
>>> Porsche Cayenne�s aluminum engine block.
>>>
>>> Some 85% of North American cars have aluminum engine blocks today, a
>>> figure expected to reach 90% penetration within five years, Schultz says.
>>>
>>> The last sentence refers to cars i.e. models.
>>
>> Bunk: 85% of the cars, 25% of the light trucks 52 overall.
>>
>> You read more carefully
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>if x = cars and
>
>Y = trucks
>
>(taking 52 as 50
>
>
>if .85 (X) = .25 (Y)
>multiply both sides time 4
>
Why are you saying 85% of the cars is 25% of the trucks? That
makes no sense at all, and does not follow from what I posted.
The numbers may not add up, they say there are twice as many
trucks as cars (the derrivation of this fact is left as an
exercise for the student). Here we're about half and half
(pick-ups, SUV's are trucks), I don't know the US numbers.

Peter Skelton

Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:39:33
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Peter Skelton wrote:
> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.

I've never had one. Cast iron, yes, but not steel. The distinction
isn't trivial; cast iron might fracture under impact where steel of the
same thickness would be impenetrable by the same missile.

--
St. John
Are we live or on tape?

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:50:13
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

St. John Smythe wrote:
> Peter Skelton wrote:
>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>
> I've never had one. Cast iron, yes, but not steel. The distinction
> isn't trivial; cast iron might fracture under impact where steel of the
> same thickness would be impenetrable by the same missile.
>

not at 50 ft pounds of energy applied to an engine block

Vince

Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:06:35
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Mon, 30 2006 18:50:13 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us > wrote:

>St. John Smythe wrote:
>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>>
>> I've never had one. Cast iron, yes, but not steel. The distinction
>> isn't trivial; cast iron might fracture under impact where steel of the
>> same thickness would be impenetrable by the same missile.
>>
>
>not at 50 ft pounds of energy applied to an engine block
>
>Vince
>
>
>

Ive fired 180gr bullets at 3400 fps at cast iron engine blocks. The
holes they made..if they made one..was only into the water jacket.
This at ranges inside of 50 feet. Out of a 300 Winchester Magnum,
among others. Aluminum blocks faired nearly as well.

Now..put a hardened core in the bullet..and you might make it into a
cylinder. Maybe. Sometimes

Gunner

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:44:01
From: Peter Skelton
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Mon, 30 2006 17:39:33 -0500, "St. John Smythe"
<sinjen@n4vu.com > wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> My last car with a steel engine block was made in 1974.
>
>I've never had one. Cast iron, yes, but not steel. The distinction
>isn't trivial; cast iron might fracture under impact where steel of the
>same thickness would be impenetrable by the same missile.

Mine were grey iron too, sorry about the error. Of course they're
virtually all aluminum these days.

Peter Skelton

Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:33:10
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us > wrote in message
news:iqOdnV-2aMHArNvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:

>>
>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
>> head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.
>
> I assume you mean with a bow
> in which case I kind of doubt it.
> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>

While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
ranges of around 60 m

Keith

Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:07:48
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:iqOdnV-2aMHArNvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
>>> head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.
>> I assume you mean with a bow
>> in which case I kind of doubt it.
>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>
>
> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
> ranges of around 60 m
>
> Keith
>
>

Obviously you can roll steel thin enough to penetrate with anything
(I've punched holes in steel cans with a spike in my hand)

Engine blocks are cast and bored. the steel has to be thicker

Sorry if I was incomplete

However I also doubt the bodkin claim on "armor"

eg what thickness are you describing

Vince

Vince

Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:10:43
From: William Black
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Keith Willshaw" <keith@kwillshawnospam.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:ei5k1m$lb3$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:iqOdnV-2aMHArNvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
>>> head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.
>>
>> I assume you mean with a bow
>> in which case I kind of doubt it.
>> 50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>
>
> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
> ranges of around 60 m

25 to 30 meters is the best I've seen done with a Yew bow.

With a steel bow you'd do a lot better, but nobody, well, nobody sane
shoots them these days as they're far too dangerous.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:02:44
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Mon, 30 2006 20:10:43 -0000, "William Black"
<william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>>
>> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
>> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
>> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
>> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
>> ranges of around 60 m
>
>25 to 30 meters is the best I've seen done with a Yew bow.

25=30 meters to do what..penetrate plate?
>
>With a steel bow you'd do a lot better, but nobody, well, nobody sane
>shoots them these days as they're far too dangerous.

Odd..all those cars and trucks going down the road with those
dangerous steel bows holding the axles on.

Gunner

Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:22:30
From: William Black
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net > wrote in message
news:hmpdk251rjaino3j2stssgjgoajjj19k2d@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 2006 20:10:43 -0000, "William Black"
> <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
>>> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
>>> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
>>> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
>>> ranges of around 60 m
>>
>>25 to 30 meters is the best I've seen done with a Yew bow.
>
> 25=30 meters to do what..penetrate plate?

Yes.

>>With a steel bow you'd do a lot better, but nobody, well, nobody sane
>>shoots them these days as they're far too dangerous.
>
> Odd..all those cars and trucks going down the road with those
> dangerous steel bows holding the axles on.

First of all they tend not to be stressed to the extent that a steel bow is.

Second, if it breaks there's little chance of it hitting someone.

Third, if a bow limb does break think about where the sharp ended broken
bit ends up.

It's a stab to the head or a slice through the balls.

Wooden bows, when they break, tend not to penetrate clothing...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:19:10
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Tue, 31 2006 10:22:30 -0000, "William Black"
<william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>
>"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:hmpdk251rjaino3j2stssgjgoajjj19k2d@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 2006 20:10:43 -0000, "William Black"
>> <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
>>>> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
>>>> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
>>>> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
>>>> ranges of around 60 m
>>>
>>>25 to 30 meters is the best I've seen done with a Yew bow.
>>
>> 25=30 meters to do what..penetrate plate?
>
>Yes.
>
>>>With a steel bow you'd do a lot better, but nobody, well, nobody sane
>>>shoots them these days as they're far too dangerous.
>>
>> Odd..all those cars and trucks going down the road with those
>> dangerous steel bows holding the axles on.
>
>First of all they tend not to be stressed to the extent that a steel bow is.
>
>Second, if it breaks there's little chance of it hitting someone.
>
>Third, if a bow limb does break think about where the sharp ended broken
>bit ends up.
>
>It's a stab to the head or a slice through the balls.
>
>Wooden bows, when they break, tend not to penetrate clothing...

But they do on occasion..penetrate no only clothing..but the abdominal
wall.

When was the last time you saw a steel bow break?

Gunner

Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:59:25
From: TOliver
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

As an interesting sidelight, a friend and local salvage magnate tells me
that at one time, there wasa lively trade exporting leaf springs from junked
US cars to Africa where the spring steel was favored for its flexibility,
and was used in countless village forges to produce cane
knives/machetes/pangas/etc.

Aren't their some museum examples of small seige warfar weapons, arbalests
and the like, with steel "bows". Steel "handheld" crossbows?

TMO

Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:42:09
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Tue, 31 2006 15:59:25 GMT, "TOliver" <toliverjrFIX@Hot.rr.com >
wrote:

>As an interesting sidelight, a friend and local salvage magnate tells me
>that at one time, there wasa lively trade exporting leaf springs from junked
>US cars to Africa where the spring steel was favored for its flexibility,
>and was used in countless village forges to produce cane
>knives/machetes/pangas/etc.

Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>
>Aren't their some museum examples of small seige warfar weapons, arbalests
>and the like, with steel "bows". Steel "handheld" crossbows?

Indeed. Steel "prods" were quite common.

And modern metalurgy and heat treatments can make a bow that is
unlikely to shatter.

The problem with steel bows..is its flexing charecteristics..and the
difficulty in manufacturing one with proper tiller, fistmel and so
forth. Plus they can be heavy bastards, rust and are also unpopular
because of their shock charecteristics and non traditional looks.

Fiberglass is cheaper to work with, has better draw and release
charecteristics and is far lighter.
>
>TMO
>

Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:16:03
From: William Black
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net > wrote in message
news:1uuek2pqflgpi2ej4lahhi2f4aa700gatf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 2006 15:59:25 GMT, "TOliver" <toliverjrFIX@Hot.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>As an interesting sidelight, a friend and local salvage magnate tells me
>>that at one time, there wasa lively trade exporting leaf springs from
>>junked
>>US cars to Africa where the spring steel was favored for its flexibility,
>>and was used in countless village forges to produce cane
>>knives/machetes/pangas/etc.
>
> Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
> springs of Mercedes automobiles.

Last time I looked they were made in a big factory near Delih...

Alongside most of the better reproductions you see of European medieval
swords...

>>Aren't their some museum examples of small seige warfar weapons, arbalests
>>and the like, with steel "bows". Steel "handheld" crossbows?
>
> Indeed. Steel "prods" were quite common.

Still are.

> Fiberglass is cheaper to work with, has better draw and release
> charecteristics and is far lighter.

But it doesn't have the speed.

It would make a far better hunting bow than a glass one.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:55:43
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Tue, 31 2006 17:16:03 -0000, "William Black"
<william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>>>US cars to Africa where the spring steel was favored for its flexibility,
>>>and was used in countless village forges to produce cane
>>>knives/machetes/pangas/etc.
>>
>> Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>> springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>
>Last time I looked they were made in a big factory near Delih...

Many of the poor and so so ones are. The (usually much)better ones
come from Nepal and are done by hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri

http://www.thekhukurihouse.com/Content/Support/

http://www.nepalesekhukuri.com/khukuri.html

http://www.m4040.com/Survival/Ghurka/History%20of%20the%20Ghurka%20Kukri.htm

Gunner, Kukri owner, user and collector

Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:37:38
From: Andrew Robert Breen
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In article <ei80bu$ra9$2@news.freedom2surf.net >,
William Black <william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:1uuek2pqflgpi2ej4lahhi2f4aa700gatf@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 31 2006 15:59:25 GMT, "TOliver" <toliverjrFIX@Hot.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>As an interesting sidelight, a friend and local salvage magnate tells me
>>>that at one time, there wasa lively trade exporting leaf springs from
>>>junked
>>>US cars to Africa where the spring steel was favored for its flexibility,
>>>and was used in countless village forges to produce cane
>>>knives/machetes/pangas/etc.
>>
>> Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>> springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>
>Last time I looked they were made in a big factory near Delih...

That sounds much more likely. I can't think what the last benz with
leaf-springs at the back end was - it's //way// back in the mists of time,
that one. Certainly the Ponton series used coils, and they went into
production in 1953. Come to that, the T300 Adenauer used coils at the
back, too, and that went into production in 1951. Did any post-war Merc'
use leaf springs? If not, the Ghurkas must have been feeling the draught
if they were depending on pre-war Mercedes for their Khukris.

Followups narrowed..

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Date: 03 Nov 2006 12:58:34
From: pyotr filipivich
Subject: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner
<gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net > wrote on Tue, 31 2006 16:42:09 GMT in
misc.survivalism :
>On Tue, 31 2006 15:59:25 GMT, "TOliver" <toliverjrFIX@Hot.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>As an interesting sidelight, a friend and local salvage magnate tells me
>>that at one time, there wasa lively trade exporting leaf springs from junked
>>US cars to Africa where the spring steel was favored for its flexibility,
>>and was used in countless village forges to produce cane
>>knives/machetes/pangas/etc.
>
>Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>springs of Mercedes automobiles.

Naturlich, das beste ist Krupppstahl.

pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Typos, Grammos and da kind are the result Emmanations of Penumbra
Fortesque Consulting: Teaching Pigs to Sing since 1986.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 13:06:26
From: Andrew Robert Breen
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In article <l7cmk21g0cv8e8dj450csasrog61vqccev@4ax.com >,
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com > wrote:
>Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner
><gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote on Tue, 31 2006 16:42:09 GMT in
>misc.survivalism :

>>Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>>springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>
> Naturlich, das beste ist Krupppstahl.

Must have been interesting sourcing the raw material, given that no
Mercedes since 1953 (at least - probably earlier) has used rear leaf
springs..

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Date: 03 Nov 2006 07:45:07
From: Lawrence Glickman
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:06:26 +0000 (UTC), azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
Breen) wrote:

>In article <l7cmk21g0cv8e8dj450csasrog61vqccev@4ax.com>,
>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner
>><gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote on Tue, 31 2006 16:42:09 GMT in
>>misc.survivalism :
>
>>>Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>>>springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>>
>> Naturlich, das beste ist Krupppstahl.
>
>Must have been interesting sourcing the raw material, given that no
>Mercedes since 1953 (at least - probably earlier) has used rear leaf
>springs..

You need to heat the spring leaf to red glowing hot in a forge, and
then oil quench it. This will make flames for a few minutes, but then
you let it cool, and heat it up again to de-temper the spring leaf so
it can be bent to a straight shape.

When it is oil quenched, it actually takes oil into the steel.
Annealing it will keep it from becoming brittle and breaking under
tremendous forces. It also gives you a chance to straighten it.

Oh yes, don't try to do this inside your house ;-\
Lots of fire, lots of smoke, lots of carbon monoxide from furnace.

Lg

Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:43:38
From: Vince
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a

Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:06:26 +0000 (UTC), azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
> Breen) wrote:
>
>> In article <l7cmk21g0cv8e8dj450csasrog61vqccev@4ax.com>,
>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner
>>> <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote on Tue, 31 2006 16:42:09 GMT in
>>> misc.survivalism :
>>>> Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>>>> springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>>> Naturlich, das beste ist Krupppstahl.
>> Must have been interesting sourcing the raw material, given that no
>> Mercedes since 1953 (at least - probably earlier) has used rear leaf
>> springs..
>
> You need to heat the spring leaf to red glowing hot in a forge, and
> then oil quench it. This will make flames for a few minutes, but then
> you let it cool, and heat it up again to de-temper the spring leaf so
> it can be bent to a straight shape.
>
> When it is oil quenched, it actually takes oil into the steel.
> Annealing it will keep it from becoming brittle and breaking under
> tremendous forces. It also gives you a chance to straighten it.
>
> Oh yes, don't try to do this inside your house ;-\
> Lots of fire, lots of smoke, lots of carbon monoxide from furnace.
>
> Lg
>
Historically India was the source of the finest sword steel in the
world. Many scientists spent a lot of time trying to figure out the
secret of wootz steel ingots from India

"Damascus" swords were made of Indian Steel

Vince

Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:33:45
From: William Black
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us > wrote in message
news:RLCdnQPzd_UAyNbYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...

> "Damascus" swords were made of Indian Steel

I thought 'Damascus steel' was a form of pattern welding.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 12:04:12
From: Lawrence Glickman
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:33:45 -0000, "William Black"
<william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>
>"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>news:RLCdnQPzd_UAyNbYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> "Damascus" swords were made of Indian Steel
>
>I thought 'Damascus steel' was a form of pattern welding.

Yes this is true.
More information than you ever wanted follows:

Wickepedia

Damascus steel

Damascus steel, also known as Damascened steel and sometimes watered
steel, now commonly refers to two types of steel used in custom knife
and sword making, pattern-weld and wootz (true damascus). Both types
of Damascened steel show complex patterns on the surface, which are
the result of internal structural elements in the steel. These
patterns are the result of the unique forging methods used for the
creation of Damascened steel, and skilled swordsmiths can manipulate
the patterns to create complex designs in the surface of the steel.

Origin of the term "Damascus"

The origins of the name "Damascus" remains somewhat controversial.
Although it would seem obvious that it refers to swords forged in
Damascus, there are several equally likely sources of the name. One is
the Arabic word damas for water, referring to the surface pattern of
moir� ripples which looks like turbulent water and is also seen in
some damask weaves of fabric. Another potential source is the
swordsmith himself: the author al-Beruni refers to swords made by a
man he names Damasqui. Finally another author, al-Kindi, refers to
swords made in Damascus as Damascene. This word has often been
employed as an epithet in various Eastern European legends (Sabya
Damaskinya or Sablja Dimiskija meaning "Damascene sword"), of which
perhaps the best known are the Bulgarian and Serbian legends of Prince
Marko, a historical figure of the late 14th century in what is now the
Republic of Macedonia.

Manufacture

The original Damascus steel swords may have been made in the vicinity
of Damascus, Syria, in the period from 900 AD to as late as 1750 AD.
Damascus steel is a type of steel alloy that is both hard and
flexible, a combination that made it ideal for the building of swords.
It is said that when Damascus made swords were first encountered by
Europeans during the Crusades it garnered an almost mythical
reputation�a Damascus steel blade was said to be able to cut a piece
of silk in half as it fell to the ground, as well as being able to
chop through normal blades, or even rock, without losing its sharp
edge. Recent metallurgical experiments, based on microscopic studies
of preserved Damascus-steel blades, have claimed to reproduce a very
similar steel via possible reconstructions of the historical process.

When forming a batch of steel, impurities are added to control the
properties of the resulting alloy. In general, notably during the era
of Damascus steel, one could produce an alloy that was hard and
brittle at one extreme by adding up to 2% carbon, or soft and
malleable at the other, with about 0.5% carbon. The problem for a
swordsmith is that the best steel should be both hard and
malleable�hard to hold an edge once sharpened, but malleable so it
would not break when hitting other metal in combat. This was not
possible with normal processes.

Metalsmiths in India and Sri Lanka perhaps as early as 300 BC
developed a new technique known as wootz steel that produced a
high-carbon steel of unusually high purity. Glass was added to a
mixture of iron and charcoal and then heated. The glass would act as a
flux and bind to other impurities in the mixture, allowing them to
rise to the surface and leave a more pure steel when the mixture
cooled. Thousands of steel making sites were found in Samanalawewa
area in Sri Lanka that made high carbon steel (Juleff, 1996). These
steel making furnaces were built facing western monsoon winds and wind
turbulance and suction was used to create heat in the furnace. Steel
making sites in Sri Lanka have been dated to 300 BC using carbon
dating technology. The technique propagated very slowly through the
world, reaching modern-day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan around 900 AD,
and then the Middle East around 1000 AD.

This process was further refined in the middle east, either using
locally produced steels, or by re-working wootz purchased from India.
The exact process remains unknown, but allowed carbides to precipitate
out as micro particles arranged in sheets or bands within the body of
a blade. The carbides are far harder than the surrounding low carbon
steel, allowing the swordsmith to make an edge which would cut hard
materials with the precipitated carbides, while the bands of softer
steel allowed the sword as a whole to remain tough and flexible.

The banded carbide precipitates appear in the blade as a swirling
pattern. By manipulating the ingot of steel in a certain way during
forging, various intentional patterns could be induced in the steel.
The most common of these was a pattern of lateral bands, often called
Mohammed's Ladder, most likely formed by cutting or forging notches
into the surface of the ingot, then forging it into the blade shape
(this is the method Pendray (below) used to reproduce the pattern).
The notches resulted in different degrees of work hardening between
top and bottom, and thus controlled the size of the carbide particles
in the surface at those areas, and thus the appearance of the bands.

Loss of the technique

For reasons that are not entirely clear, but possibly because sources
of ores containing trace amounts of tungsten and/or vanadium needed
for its production were depleted, the process was lost to the
middle-eastern metalsmiths around 1750. It has been eagerly sought by
many since that time.

It has long been argued that the raw material for Damascus steel
swords was imported from India, because India was the only known
center of crucible-fired steels like wootz. However this conclusion
became suspect when the furnaces in Turkmenistan were discovered,
demonstrating at least that the technique was moving out from India.
The wootz may have been manufactured locally in the Damascus area, but
so far no remains of the distinctive wootz furnaces have appeared.
Verhoeven et al.'s work supports the hypothesis that the wootz used
was from India, as several key impurities that appear to give Damascus
steel its properties point to particular ores available only in India.

The Russian bulat steel has many similar properties, at least in
nature if not in process. Recently various groups have claimed to have
recreated steel with properties consistent with true Damascus blades,
through experimental archaeology, though even they admit they cannot
be certain how it was originally created. Verhoeven et al. (1998)
argued that the keys are ores with certain trace elements, controlled
thermal cycling after the initial forging, and a grinding process to
reveal the final damask pattern. A somewhat different technique was
proposed by Wadsworth and Sherby (1980; also 2001).

Attempts at reproduction

From the very start, the superior capabilities of Damascus swords
attracted significant attention, and many attempts were made to
reproduce either the performance or the appearance of the Damascus
blades. Since pattern welding was a widespread technique, and produced
surface patterns similar to those found on Damascus blades, many
people believed that Damascus blades were made using a pattern welding
technique. This belief was challenged in the 1990s when J. D.
Verhoeven and A. H. Pendray published an article on their experiments
on reproducing the elemental, structural, and visual characteristics
of Damascus steel.

Verhoeven and Pendray started with a cake of steel that matched the
properties of the original wootz steel from India, which also matched
a number of original Damascus swords they had access to. The wootz was
in a soft, annealed state, with a large grain structure, and many
beads of pure iron carbide which were the result of the hypereutectoid
state of the wootz. They had already determined that the grains on the
surface of the steel were grains of iron carbide, so their question
was how to reproduce the fine iron carbide patterns they saw in the
Damascus blades from the large grains in the wootz.

By heating the cake of wootz to just below the critical temperature
which would cause the iron carbide to return to solution, it was
possible to forge the wootz with hand tools. Repeated forging, working
the wootz into a long, thin shape suitable for a knife or sword blade,
caused the large iron carbide crystals to fracture and spread out in
the pearlite matrix. The resulting steel contains bands of iron
carbide in a pearlite matrix, alternating with bands of ferrite and
cementite. In this process the steel work hardens, which is what
allows the normally soft wootz to be used for knives and swords.

Pattern welded "Damascened" steel
Pattern welded "Damascus steel" pocket knife
Enlarge
Pattern welded "Damascus steel" pocket knife

Main article: Pattern welding

For some time, it was believed that Damascus steel was made in a
similar fashion to what is known as pattern welding, a sword making
technique that was widely used in Europe and Japan. Pattern welding
was very common in the ancient world; Viking swords, Japanese katana
and Indonesian kris or keris swords were all made using pattern
welding techniques.

Pattern welding is a mechanical process that lays up strips of
material which are then pounded together, or folded, as in Japanese
practice. If the blade is then etched in acid the layering below the
surface is revealed, the patterns being similar to that of Damascus
steel. For some time this similarity was used to dismiss Damascus as
yet another pattern-welded steel, but modern metallurgy demonstrated
this to be wrong.

Pattern welded steel is commonly sold today as "Damascus steel",
though it appears that the original Damascus steel was not created
with that technique. Pattern weld Damascus is made out of several
types of steel and iron slices, which are then welded together to form
a billet. The patterns vary depending on what the smith does to the
billet. The billet is drawn out and folded until the desired number of
layers are formed. The end result, if done well, bears a strong
resemblance to the surface appearance of a true Damascus blade, though
the internal structure is completely dissimilar.

Another material similar to pattern weld is mokume-gane. Mokume is
made of the softer metals, like gold, silver, and copper. It is made
in much the same way as pattern weld Damascus, and is used for rings,
tsubas (the guard on a katana), and knife bolsters. The name
mokume-gane means "wood eye", referring to the pattern of the metals,
which looks like wood grain. It was first made by the Japanese.

Some old shotgun barrels (usually on double barreled guns) were formed
from wires that were wrapped around a mandrel and forged and welded
into shape. This leaves a visible wire pattern in the barrel and such
are referred to as "Damascus Barrels".

Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:35:14
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Nope, the steel was made very much like they do in Japan for the old swords
there.

and why in the hell is this being posted to SAA? Nothing in the way of
Astronomy in it at all.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"William Black" <william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:eifr0g$ooo$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:RLCdnQPzd_UAyNbYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> "Damascus" swords were made of Indian Steel
>
> I thought 'Damascus steel' was a form of pattern welding.
>
> --
> William Black
>
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.
>
>
>
>

Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:30:23
From: David G. Nagel
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a

William Black wrote:

> "Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:RLCdnQPzd_UAyNbYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>>"Damascus" swords were made of Indian Steel
>
>
> I thought 'Damascus steel' was a form of pattern welding.
>

Damascus steel blades are formed by hammering metal for a while then
folding it in half and hammering metal for another while then folding
it in half and hammering metal for still another while. Eventually you
get a very fine grain metal with a highly figured surface. Japanese
swords are made the same way but are not developed for the surface
patterns that the Damascus blade has. European sword smiths used the
same technique.
Damascus gun barrels are made by heating metal rods and twisting them
together and hammering them into a cylinder that becomes the barrel of a
long gun.
Both metal forms suffer from the same problem. The spaces between the
folds and twists of metal are susceptible to corrosion. This is why
Damascus steel long gun barrels are only used with reduced black powder
charges not modern gun powder. With the resulting higher pressures
generated by modern gun powder the a Damascus barrel can explode in your
face.
The heating and hammering process is a form of welding. Unfortunately
the spaces between layers of metal also contain contamination caused by
the combination of heat and exposure to air.

David Nagel

Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:01:32
From: Lawrence Glickman
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:43:38 -0500, Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us > wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:06:26 +0000 (UTC), azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
>> Breen) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <l7cmk21g0cv8e8dj450csasrog61vqccev@4ax.com>,
>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner
>>>> <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote on Tue, 31 2006 16:42:09 GMT in
>>>> misc.survivalism :
>>>>> Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>>>>> springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>>>> Naturlich, das beste ist Krupppstahl.
>>> Must have been interesting sourcing the raw material, given that no
>>> Mercedes since 1953 (at least - probably earlier) has used rear leaf
>>> springs..
>>
>> You need to heat the spring leaf to red glowing hot in a forge, and
>> then oil quench it. This will make flames for a few minutes, but then
>> you let it cool, and heat it up again to de-temper the spring leaf so
>> it can be bent to a straight shape.
>>
>> When it is oil quenched, it actually takes oil into the steel.
>> Annealing it will keep it from becoming brittle and breaking under
>> tremendous forces. It also gives you a chance to straighten it.
>>
>> Oh yes, don't try to do this inside your house ;-\
>> Lots of fire, lots of smoke, lots of carbon monoxide from furnace.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>Historically India was the source of the finest sword steel in the
>world. Many scientists spent a lot of time trying to figure out the
>secret of wootz steel ingots from India
>
>"Damascus" swords were made of Indian Steel
>
>
>
>Vince

Well you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so you need the
right *stock* to begin with. Unless you're going to pour your own,
and if you're that into it, you've got a heck of a fuel bill.

One really needs some enormously heavy duty equipment to work with
this kind of metal, unless you buy it already prefabricated. The only
problem I see with it is getting it straight...that is, taking the
warp out of the steel that makes it part of the leaf to begin with. I
guess you can do that by getting it very hot and hammering the shit
out of it. I would rather stamp it with a dead fall hammer of the 20
ton variety, as used in the drop forge process.

If you have the right tools, you can do anything. If you don't...you
pay for somebody else to do the work.

Lg

Date: 03 Nov 2006 19:01:48
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:36mmk2dhstp4u5fhf2483sj8b58jqrli06@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>Vince
>
> Well you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so you need the
> right *stock* to begin with. Unless you're going to pour your own,
> and if you're that into it, you've got a heck of a fuel bill.
>
> One really needs some enormously heavy duty equipment to work with
> this kind of metal, unless you buy it already prefabricated.

Actually you dont, spring steel is amenable to working if properly
tempered and that only requires heating to cherry red heat.
I have watched Maltese blacksmiths working spring steel
from old truck springs using nothing more than a traditional
blacksmiths forge

> The only
> problem I see with it is getting it straight...that is, taking the
> warp out of the steel that makes it part of the leaf to begin with. I
> guess you can do that by getting it very hot and hammering the shit
> out of it. I would rather stamp it with a dead fall hammer of the 20
> ton variety, as used in the drop forge process.
>

Heat the the metal to around 1500 F and you can work it with a
hand held hammer quite easily as long as you dont let it get
too cold. When finished you harden it by heating to the
critical temperature and quenching it in oil. This produce the
right grain structure.

Keith

Date: 03 Nov 2006 13:41:11
From: Lawrence Glickman
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 19:01:48 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<keith@kwillshawnospam.demon.co.uk > wrote:

>
>"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:36mmk2dhstp4u5fhf2483sj8b58jqrli06@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>Vince
>>
>> Well you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so you need the
>> right *stock* to begin with. Unless you're going to pour your own,
>> and if you're that into it, you've got a heck of a fuel bill.
>>
>> One really needs some enormously heavy duty equipment to work with
>> this kind of metal, unless you buy it already prefabricated.
>
>Actually you dont, spring steel is amenable to working if properly
>tempered and that only requires heating to cherry red heat.
>I have watched Maltese blacksmiths working spring steel
>from old truck springs using nothing more than a traditional
>blacksmiths forge

I don't have any Maltese blacksmiths in the local neighborhood, so I
can't comment on that.

>> The only
>> problem I see with it is getting it straight...that is, taking the
>> warp out of the steel that makes it part of the leaf to begin with. I
>> guess you can do that by getting it very hot and hammering the shit
>> out of it. I would rather stamp it with a dead fall hammer of the 20
>> ton variety, as used in the drop forge process.
>>
>
>Heat the the metal to around 1500 F and you can work it with a
>hand held hammer quite easily as long as you dont let it get
>too cold. When finished you harden it by heating to the
>critical temperature and quenching it in oil. This produce the
>right grain structure.
>
>Keith

It is dangerous work for a novice. For anyone contemplating this kind
of avocation/hobby, I recommend reading books on the subject, and
getting to know a smith at a local mill for mentoring/tutoring.

But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
furnace with an electric blower motor. In the end though, It might be
less expensive to buy the ready made finished product.

Why set up a kiln and all that for a one-off? You would need to
justify the labor and expense. You would need to make a lot of
product and sell it at a profit to make it worth the effort.

Lg

Date: 04 Nov 2006 00:27:05
From: John Husvar
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In article <846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com >,
Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net > wrote:

>
> It is dangerous work for a novice. For anyone contemplating this kind
> of avocation/hobby, I recommend reading books on the subject, and
> getting to know a smith at a local mill for mentoring/tutoring.

Yep.

I've been doing it for somewhat over 20 years. I was lucky to train
under a real blacksmith. Well, actually, several of them.

Figure on getting burned now and then. It's part of the game. Very
Important Rule # 1: Just because it ain't red any more doesn't mean it
isn't _hot_ any more. There's a reason for the term "Black Heat." :)

BTW: I still have a nice dagger I made out of one of those very pieces
of Old Chevy Spring you mention as being hard to work. When they're at
1800-1900 degrees, them old springs are like putty under your hammer and
they retemper real nice after an oil quench.

5160 and 9260 are very forgiving steels and make some beautiful knife
blades.

>
> But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
> furnace with an electric blower motor. In the end though, It might be
> less expensive to buy the ready made finished product.
>
> Why set up a kiln and all that for a one-off? You would need to
> justify the labor and expense. You would need to make a lot of
> product and sell it at a profit to make it worth the effort.

But, but, Larry, that takes all the fun out of it! :)

--
Bring back, Oh bring back
Oh, bring back that old continuity.
Bring back, oh, bring back
Oh, bring back Clerk Maxwell to me.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 22:47:03
From: Diogenes
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:27:05 GMT, John Husvar <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:

>In article <846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com>,
> Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is dangerous work for a novice. For anyone contemplating this kind
>> of avocation/hobby, I recommend reading books on the subject, and
>> getting to know a smith at a local mill for mentoring/tutoring.
>
>Yep.
>
>I've been doing it for somewhat over 20 years. I was lucky to train
>under a real blacksmith. Well, actually, several of them.
>
>Figure on getting burned now and then. It's part of the game. Very
>Important Rule # 1: Just because it ain't red any more doesn't mean it
>isn't _hot_ any more. There's a reason for the term "Black Heat." :)

<snip >

The "Old Chelmsford" Garrison House (1691) historical site in
Chelmsford Massachusetts includes the Byam Smithy, which was built
circa 1820. A few years ago I was fortunate to take a blacksmithing
course there, in which we used the original forge, bellows, and tools.
It was an experience I will always remember.

Our instructor started off the course by telling us "Just remember
this; once you get iron hot it stays hot for a very long time. If you
should forget this, the iron has its own way of reminding you."

He was right.

----
Diogenes (cdhoran@hotmail.com)

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .

Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:16:01
From: pyotr filipivich
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but John Husvar <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net >
wrote on Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:27:05 GMT in misc.survivalism :
>
>> It is dangerous work for a novice. For anyone contemplating this kind
>> of avocation/hobby, I recommend reading books on the subject, and
>> getting to know a smith at a local mill for mentoring/tutoring.
>
>Yep.
>
>I've been doing it for somewhat over 20 years. I was lucky to train
>under a real blacksmith. Well, actually, several of them.
>
>Figure on getting burned now and then. It's part of the game. Very
>Important Rule # 1: Just because it ain't red any more doesn't mean it
>isn't _hot_ any more. There's a reason for the term "Black Heat." :)

There's an story of a know it all hanging out at the smith's (with
friends. Back before cable TV and the Internet, "conversation" was what you
did for entertainment.) The smith finished up a horse shoe, and tossed it
at the pile, and it bounced and landed on the floor. Well, Mr Wiseguy
picks it up and drops it _real_ fast. The Smith says "Hot, warn't it?" To
which the wise guy responds "Doesn't take me long to inspect a horse shoe!"

[sf/x: rimshot!]
>
>BTW: I still have a nice dagger I made out of one of those very pieces
>of Old Chevy Spring you mention as being hard to work. When they're at
>1800-1900 degrees, them old springs are like putty under your hammer and
>they retemper real nice after an oil quench.
>
>5160 and 9260 are very forgiving steels and make some beautiful knife
>blades.

I've seen smiths working wire rope, just heating and hammering,
pounding it all together. Says it makes for some real interesting patterns
when you then make a knife blade out of it. I didn't have time to stay and
see the finished product.

tschus
pyotr

"If I had a Hammer
I wouldn't have to used this stupid rock!

Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:06:43
From: Dan
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a

pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but John Husvar <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote on Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:27:05 GMT in misc.survivalism :
>>> It is dangerous work for a novice. For anyone contemplating this kind
>>> of avocation/hobby, I recommend reading books on the subject, and
>>> getting to know a smith at a local mill for mentoring/tutoring.
>> Yep.
>>
>> I've been doing it for somewhat over 20 years. I was lucky to train
>> under a real blacksmith. Well, actually, several of them.
>>
>> Figure on getting burned now and then. It's part of the game. Very
>> Important Rule # 1: Just because it ain't red any more doesn't mean it
>> isn't _hot_ any more. There's a reason for the term "Black Heat." :)
>
> There's an story of a know it all hanging out at the smith's (with
> friends. Back before cable TV and the Internet, "conversation" was what you
> did for entertainment.) The smith finished up a horse shoe, and tossed it
> at the pile, and it bounced and landed on the floor. Well, Mr Wiseguy
> picks it up and drops it _real_ fast. The Smith says "Hot, warn't it?" To
> which the wise guy responds "Doesn't take me long to inspect a horse shoe!"
>
> [sf/x: rimshot!]
>> BTW: I still have a nice dagger I made out of one of those very pieces
>> of Old Chevy Spring you mention as being hard to work. When they're at
>> 1800-1900 degrees, them old springs are like putty under your hammer and
>> they retemper real nice after an oil quench.
>>
>> 5160 and 9260 are very forgiving steels and make some beautiful knife
>> blades.
>
> I've seen smiths working wire rope, just heating and hammering,
> pounding it all together. Says it makes for some real interesting patterns
> when you then make a knife blade out of it. I didn't have time to stay and
> see the finished product.
>
>
> tschus
> pyotr
>
> "If I had a Hammer
> I wouldn't have to used this stupid rock!
>

The finished product is known as Satan's lace. Bill Bagwell made
some fabulous pieces.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 03 Nov 2006 21:31:02
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 19:01:48 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith@kwillshawnospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:36mmk2dhstp4u5fhf2483sj8b58jqrli06@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Vince
>>>
>>> Well you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so you need the
>>> right *stock* to begin with. Unless you're going to pour your own,
>>> and if you're that into it, you've got a heck of a fuel bill.
>>>
>>> One really needs some enormously heavy duty equipment to work with
>>> this kind of metal, unless you buy it already prefabricated.
>>
>>Actually you dont, spring steel is amenable to working if properly
>>tempered and that only requires heating to cherry red heat.
>>I have watched Maltese blacksmiths working spring steel
>>from old truck springs using nothing more than a traditional
>>blacksmiths forge
>
> I don't have any Maltese blacksmiths in the local neighborhood, so I
> can't comment on that.
>
>>> The only
>>> problem I see with it is getting it straight...that is, taking the
>>> warp out of the steel that makes it part of the leaf to begin with. I
>>> guess you can do that by getting it very hot and hammering the shit
>>> out of it. I would rather stamp it with a dead fall hammer of the 20
>>> ton variety, as used in the drop forge process.
>>>
>>
>>Heat the the metal to around 1500 F and you can work it with a
>>hand held hammer quite easily as long as you dont let it get
>>too cold. When finished you harden it by heating to the
>>critical temperature and quenching it in oil. This produce the
>>right grain structure.
>>
>>Keith
>
> It is dangerous work for a novice. For anyone contemplating this kind
> of avocation/hobby, I recommend reading books on the subject, and
> getting to know a smith at a local mill for mentoring/tutoring.
>
> But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
> furnace with an electric blower motor. In the end though, It might be
> less expensive to buy the ready made finished product.
>

If however the country you live in does not have an indigenous
steel industry and labour is relatively cheap the economics differ.

> Why set up a kiln and all that for a one-off? You would need to
> justify the labor and expense.

In less developed parts of the world village smithies are still
commonly to be found so the capital cost is not high.

> You would need to make a lot of
> product and sell it at a profit to make it worth the effort.
>

And yet there are still traditional blacksmiths to be found
even in the USA and Western Europe

http://www.baba.org.uk/whatis.htm

While in Afghanistan and Pakistan you can find gunsmiths who can create you
a copy of an AK-47 using only primitive hand tools.

Keith

Date: 03 Nov 2006 12:05:02
From: Tim May
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In article <846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com >, Lawrence
Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net > wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 19:01:48 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith@kwillshawnospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >Actually you dont, spring steel is amenable to working if properly
> >tempered and that only requires heating to cherry red heat.
> >I have watched Maltese blacksmiths working spring steel
> >from old truck springs using nothing more than a traditional
> >blacksmiths forge
>
> I don't have any Maltese blacksmiths in the local neighborhood, so I
> can't comment on that.

I did in my high school shop, and then when I made a crude file knife
out of, yes, an old file.

This is not rocket science. Actually, rocket science is not rocket
science, either.

--Tim May

> >Heat the the metal to around 1500 F and you can work it with a
> >hand held hammer quite easily as long as you dont let it get
> >too cold. When finished you harden it by heating to the
> >critical temperature and quenching it in oil. This produce the
> >right grain structure.
> >
> >Keith
>
> It is dangerous work for a novice. For anyone contemplating this kind
> of avocation/hobby, I recommend reading books on the subject, and
> getting to know a smith at a local mill for mentoring/tutoring.

You grossly overestimate the dangers.

>
> But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
> furnace with an electric blower motor. In the end though, It might be
> less expensive to buy the ready made finished product.

Sure. So?

--Tim May

Date: 03 Nov 2006 19:58:01
From: William Black
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...

> But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
> furnace with an electric blower motor.

Anyone got any plans for one of these?

I'd like one but I can't afford to buy a new one (They're very expensive in
the UK) but I could probably cobble one together if I had some plans.

I can probably get hold of a tue iron, in fact I think I have one in the
shed with the rest of my blacksmithing stuff.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Date: 04 Nov 2006 00:18:52
From: John Husvar
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In article <eig6vg$1cc$1@news.freedom2surf.net >,
"William Black" <william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

> "Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:846nk2hiib1tq1055jbqet9khibvtdvijs@4ax.com...
>
> > But for a "One-Off" job, one might get by with a charcoal fueled
> > furnace with an electric blower motor.
>
> Anyone got any plans for one of these?
>
> I'd like one but I can't afford to buy a new one (They're very expensive in
> the UK) but I could probably cobble one together if I had some plans.
>
> I can probably get hold of a tue iron, in fact I think I have one in the
> shed with the rest of my blacksmithing stuff.

Old junk truck brake drum
2" pipe floor flange
2" X 4" pipe nipple
2" pipe "Tee"
another 2" X 4" pipe nipple
and another one
2" x 2" x 16 ga sheet with a short piece extending for a handle
2" pipe clamp holding a piece of 16 ga with a hole in it to match the
hole you put in the handle of the square piece while I wasn't looking
Assemble in the most logical manner to allow entry of an air blast and a
way to dump ashes

IOW: assemble the pieces of pipe and fittings into a "T" shape. Thread
one end of one nipple into the floor flange, bolt the floor flange to
the brake drum using whatever you can scrounge to make the whole mess
stay under the hole in the center of the drum. Throw a cast iron sewer
screen plate on top of the flange you bolted to the brake drum

Buy a big bag of restaurant lump charcoal. Light, blow air through the
horizontal leg of the tee.

Get some iron hot, hold it on a thick heavy piece of steel. hit it until
it looks like what you have in mind

Poof! You're a blacksmith. You can become a blacksmith in 30 seconds:
It'll take a lifetime or two to become a _good_ blacksmith. :)

Of course you _can_ also just google for "homebuilt blacksmith forge
plans." That works too.

Or go to anvilfire.com or ABANA.org and just look around.

--
Bring back, Oh bring back
Oh, bring back that old continuity.
Bring back, oh, bring back
Oh, bring back Clerk Maxwell to me.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:47:56
From: Tim May
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In article <1qhmk2tdf3okbqqph66a4973dfikonnpq1@4ax.com >, Lawrence
Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net > wrote:

> You need to heat the spring leaf to red glowing hot in a forge, and
> then oil quench it. This will make flames for a few minutes, but then
> you let it cool, and heat it up again to de-temper the spring leaf so
> it can be bent to a straight shape.
>
> When it is oil quenched, it actually takes oil into the steel.

Nope.

--Tim May

Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:23:07
From: Peter Skelton
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Date: 03 Nov 2006 13:29:46
From: William Black
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca > wrote in message
news:sjgmk2d0d2u9in5s61t09dtmgqqv0fki13@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:06:26 +0000 (UTC), azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew
> Robert Breen) wrote:
>
>>In article <l7cmk21g0cv8e8dj450csasrog61vqccev@4ax.com>,
>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner
>>><gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote on Tue, 31 2006 16:42:09 GMT in
>>>misc.survivalism :
>>
>>>>Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>>>>springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>>>
>>> Naturlich, das beste ist Krupppstahl.
>>
>>Must have been interesting sourcing the raw material, given that no
>>Mercedes since 1953 (at least - probably earlier) has used rear leaf
>>springs..
>
> They're made form truck springs. It would take one hell of a car
> to have springs large enough and spring alloy is not something
> weldable on the sort of forges they use.

They're made in a factory in Delhi on an Indian government contract.

The British buy from the same contract.

As far as I'm aware the factory makes all the Indian Army's edged weapons.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:42:05
From: Peter Skelton
Subject: Re: finest Gurkha Kukris was 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:29:46 -0000, "William Black"
<william_black@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:sjgmk2d0d2u9in5s61t09dtmgqqv0fki13@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:06:26 +0000 (UTC), azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew
>> Robert Breen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <l7cmk21g0cv8e8dj450csasrog61vqccev@4ax.com>,
>>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner
>>>><gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote on Tue, 31 2006 16:42:09 GMT in
>>>>misc.survivalism :
>>>
>>>>>Of course. And the finest Gurkha Kukris are made from the rear leaf
>>>>>springs of Mercedes automobiles.
>>>>
>>>> Naturlich, das beste ist Krupppstahl.
>>>
>>>Must have been interesting sourcing the raw material, given that no
>>>Mercedes since 1953 (at least - probably earlier) has used rear leaf
>>>springs..
>>
>> They're made form truck springs. It would take one hell of a car
>> to have springs large enough and spring alloy is not something
>> weldable on the sort of forges they use.
>
>They're made in a factory in Delhi on an Indian government contract.
>
>The British buy from the same contract.
>
>As far as I'm aware the factory makes all the Indian Army's edged weapons.

THere's a web site for the place, I went there a few days ago.

Peter Skelton

Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:05:11
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

TOliver wrote:
> As an interesting sidelight, a friend and local salvage magnate tells me
> that at one time, there wasa lively trade exporting leaf springs from junked
> US cars to Africa where the spring steel was favored for its flexibility,
> and was used in countless village forges to produce cane
> knives/machetes/pangas/etc.
>
> Aren't their some museum examples of small seige warfar weapons, arbalests
> and the like, with steel "bows". Steel "handheld" crossbows?
>
> TMO
>
>

True to both

Steel crossbows were not unusual

"By the 14th century, the crossbow was made of steel and several
different devices were used to "span" or pull back the bow string; the
graffle hook or belt and claw, the windlass, the crannequin and the
goat's foot. The front of the crossbow had a stirrup so the crossbowman
could get proper leverage to span the bowstring. Bolts or quarrels were
the arrows used. Point blank range was 60-70 yards, and maximum range at
a 45 degree of elevation was 350 yards. The rate of fire was two
quarrels per minute. Because of this slow rate of fire, the crossbow was
not an efficient weapon against Native Americans."

http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/HisArmur.html

leaf spring steel was a very popular product.
In Kenya I saw it made into a variety of products.

"The cost of spares made by the blacksmith has been found to be about
one third the cost of spares made at the Work Oxen Programme workshop.
Certainly the product made at the workshop is of better quality. When
the blacksmith uses good quality steel, such as that from the leaf
springs of cars, he can also make good products."
http://www.fao.org/Wairdocs/ILRI/x5455B/x5455b1i.htm

The pioche (pick), also produced by local blacksmiths, has a narrow,
chisel point, made from old vehicle leaf springs. The handle is always
short. It is used for planting, when it is held in one hand, while a
gourd or calabash containing the seed is held in the other. Bent double,
the user drives a hole in the soil with the pioche, flicks a seed from
the gourd into the hole with the fingers of the other hand, and then
presses his/her foot over the hole to fill it.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W8794E/w8794e02.htm

Vince

Vince

Date: 31 Oct 2006 13:12:10
From: Ricardo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

William Black wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith@kwillshawnospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ei5k1m$lb3$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>>news:iqOdnV-2aMHArNvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>jeffreysmidt@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Even a better example. Take a Bear Killer arrow, with razor blade
>>>>head and aluminum shaft and shoot it through a engine block.
>>>
>>>I assume you mean with a bow
>>>in which case I kind of doubt it.
>>>50 Ft pounds will not penetrate steel
>>>
>>
>>While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
>>engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
>>heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
>>ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
>>ranges of around 60 m
>
>
> 25 to 30 meters is the best I've seen done with a Yew bow.
>
> With a steel bow you'd do a lot better, but nobody, well, nobody sane
> shoots them these days as they're far too dangerous.
>

If a lack of sanity is a requirement to use a steel bow, many
contributors to this newsgroup seem eminently qualified to use one!

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:30:31
From: Paul J. Adam
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In message <gju1h.25416$GR2.3280@tornado.texas.rr.com >, TOliver
<toliverjrFIX@Hot.rr.com > writes
>Depending upon the
>range and striking angles, bodkin points fired from yew and horn bows
>certainly could pierce some plate and some inferior brands of modern steel
>helmets. The effect on current composites might be more notable than it
>might seem.

Bodkin points could be nasty against ballistic cloth (Kevlar, Spectra et
cetera) but the insert plates - and modern composite helmets - should
stop arrows nicely.

Of course there's the problem that with most modern armours, quite a lot
of you is outside the protection: having those parts perforated might
not be too lethal, should be pretty treatable with decent medical care,
but it would certainly hurt like hell while it happened.

Not that I'd trade a L85A2 for a bow of any type, mind you...

--
Scientific results cannot be used efficiently by soldiers who have no
understanding of them, and scientists cannot produce results useful for
warfare without an understanding of the operations.
- Dr. Theodore Von Karman

Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot >uk

Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:25:48
From: Paul J. Adam
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

In message <O8CdnSZFiL8m6tvYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Vince
<firelaw@firelaw.us > writes
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
>> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
>> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
>> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
>> ranges of around 60 m
>
>Obviously you can roll steel thin enough to penetrate with anything
>(I've punched holes in steel cans with a spike in my hand)
>
>Engine blocks are cast and bored. the steel has to be thicker
>
>Sorry if I was incomplete
>
>However I also doubt the bodkin claim on "armor"
>
>eg what thickness are you describing

A couple of millimetres at most: pre-firearms stuff that considered
weight as a more important issue than "proof strength" against harquebus
ball.

You have to be close, closer than I'd like to be to a mob of armed men
in plate armour (though as an archer I could probably run faster than
them) but reproductions of early iron breastplates can be defeated by a
bow at short range: the Royal Armouries make some money demonstrating
this to assorted TV programs.

--
Scientific results cannot be used efficiently by soldiers who have no
understanding of them, and scientists cannot produce results useful for
warfare without an understanding of the operations.
- Dr. Theodore Von Karman

Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot >uk

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:52:33
From: Vince
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message <O8CdnSZFiL8m6tvYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Vince
> <firelaw@firelaw.us> writes
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
>>> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
>>> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
>>> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
>>> ranges of around 60 m
>>
>> Obviously you can roll steel thin enough to penetrate with anything
>> (I've punched holes in steel cans with a spike in my hand)
>>
>> Engine blocks are cast and bored. the steel has to be thicker
>>
>> Sorry if I was incomplete
>>
>> However I also doubt the bodkin claim on "armor"
>>
>> eg what thickness are you describing
>
> A couple of millimetres at most: pre-firearms stuff that considered
> weight as a more important issue than "proof strength" against harquebus
> ball.
>
> You have to be close, closer than I'd like to be to a mob of armed men
> in plate armour (though as an archer I could probably run faster than
> them) but reproductions of early iron breastplates can be defeated by a
> bow at short range: the Royal Armouries make some money demonstrating
> this to assorted TV programs.
>

The battle plate I've seen was about 3 mm

If its made right the arrow does not peentrate

Vince

Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:54:21
From: TOliver
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue (only a really fast Yugo)

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us > wrote ...
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
Vince
>> <firelaw@firelaw.us> writes
>>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>> While I wouldnt give you any chance of cracking an
>>>> engine block tests with arrows using short bodkin
>>>> heads fired by longbowmen have shown an
>>>> ability to penetrate mild steel plate armour at
>>>> ranges of around 60 m
>>>
>>> Obviously you can roll steel thin enough to penetrate with anything
>>> (I've punched holes in steel cans with a spike in my hand)
>>>
>>> Engine blocks are cast and bored. the steel has to be thicker
>>>
>>> Sorry if I was incomplete
>>>
>>> However I also doubt the bodkin claim on "armor"
>>>
>>> eg what thickness are you describing
>>
>> A couple of millimetres at most: pre-firearms stuff that considered
>> weight as a more important issue than "proof strength" against harquebus
>> ball.
>>
>> You have to be close, closer than I'd like to be to a mob of armed men in
>> plate armour (though as an archer I could probably run faster than them)
>> but reproductions of early iron breastplates can be defeated by a bow at
>> short range: the Royal Armouries make some money demonstrating this to
>> assorted TV programs.
>>
>
> The battle plate I've seen was about 3 mm
>
> If its made right the arrow does not peentrate
>
Given the foundries and metalurgy of the day, I suspect that much if not
most plate was made a long way from "right". Certainly, those British
museum tests (on the History Channel or Discovery?) revealed some
unexpected - by me, having been something of an archer asa teenager -
results, with easier penetration of breast plates than I would have
anticipated. Visors and other facial armor was so then as to offer little
more than psychological pretection.

TMO

Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:30:02
From:
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

9/11 theorists are either silly or shrewd
By Cindy Rodr=EDguez
Denver Post Staff Columnist

They have been meeting in the basement of Hooked on Colfax bookstore
for a year, piecing together facts they have learned about what they
consider to be the biggest cover-up in American history.

They believe the federal government had a hand in the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001.

You think they're crazy? Some of their friends think so too....

.=2E..Members of http://www.Colorado911Visibility.org include
psychologists, lawyers, civil engineers, electrical engineers, an
aerospace engineer, physicists and lots of people with dorates and
master's degrees in the sciences.

They're well-read people, and they understand why people want to
dismiss them. They say people want to attack them as messengers because
it's too disturbing to believe the government that is supposed to
protect us would orchestrate the deaths of more than 3,000
Americans....

.=2E..The year-old group has an e-mail list of about 350 people. Among
them is Earl Staelin, a 66-year-old civil litigator who lives in
Littleton.

He started attending the meetings, held at 7 p.m. the third Friday of
every month, after watching a film about 9/11 at his church, First
Universalist Church of Denver.

He said the movie made convincing arguments why researchers believe the
World Trade Center towers fell by controlled demolition. About an hour
after the planes hit the towers, a series of explosions was seen and
heard in floors below the crash areas, and then both towers came down,
each in less than 10 seconds and in a free-fall manner consistent with
planned demolitions.

"It's the kind of thing that is very disturbing if it's true," Staelin
told me. "The responsible thing for us to do is ask questions, but it
takes a long time to get familiar with all the information to
understand what happened."

He said many of his friends who are engineers didn't believe the
official story, that the towers fell because burning fuel from the
planes caused the steel beams of the buildings to buckle. After he
showed films, such as "9-11 Mysteries: Demolitions," they came to the
same conclusion: demolition experts must have planned this in advance.

Why would the government do it? The explanations are plentiful, as is
the evidence that groups such as this one, which exist throughout the
nation, pore over and share on such websites as http://www.911truth.org
.

And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
again:....

Cindy Rodr=EDguez's column appears Tuesdays and Sundays. Read Cindy's
blog at http://www.denverpostbloghouse.com/rodriguez

Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:44:47
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
>again:....

I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.

Eugene L Griessel

He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 14:34:09
From: Grantland
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
>>again:....
>
>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
>
>Eugene L Griessel
>
> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.

9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
about it.

Grantland

Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:21:29
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com >
wrote:

>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
>Griessel) wrote:
>
>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>
>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
>>>again:....
>>
>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
>>
>>Eugene L Griessel
>>
>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
>
>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
>about it.
>
>Grantland

Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.

Gunner

Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:11:53
From: grasshopper
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
<gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net > wrote:

>On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
>>Griessel) wrote:
>>
>>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
>>>>again:....
>>>
>>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
>>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
>>>
>>>Eugene L Griessel
>>>
>>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
>>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
>>
>>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
>>about it.
>>
>>Grantland
>
>Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
>Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
>Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
>
>Gunner

Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!

Date: 01 Nov 2006 16:59:52
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <pj7gk2513o29aogrqkgnf4duovmsunrg93@4ax.com >,
grasshopper <er21@qwest.net > wrote:

> On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
> <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> >>Griessel) wrote:
> >>
> >>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> >>>>again:....
> >>>
> >>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> >>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> >>>
> >>>Eugene L Griessel
> >>>
> >>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> >>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> >>
> >>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> >>about it.
> >>
> >>Grantland
> >
> >Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
> >Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
> >Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
> >
> >Gunner
>
>
> Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!

Of course it HAD to include the Elves! How else could they have covertly
installed all of that balonium-enhanced "thermate", the C4 and other
stuff required to support the conspiracy?

Date: 02 Nov 2006 12:57:55
From: John Husvar
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <orfairbairn-1208EF.11595201112006@news.west.earthlink.net >,
Orval Fairbairn <orfairbairn@earthlink.net > wrote:

> In article <pj7gk2513o29aogrqkgnf4duovmsunrg93@4ax.com>,
> grasshopper <er21@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
> > <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > >>Griessel) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > >>>>again:....
> > >>>
> > >>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > >>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > >>>
> > >>>Eugene L Griessel
> > >>>
> > >>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > >>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> > >>
> > >>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > >>about it.
> > >>
> > >>Grantland
> > >
> > >Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
> > >Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
> > >Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
> > >
> > >Gunner
> >
> >
> > Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!
>
> Of course it HAD to include the Elves! How else could they have covertly
> installed all of that balonium-enhanced "thermate", the C4 and other
> stuff required to support the conspiracy?

Baruk Khazad! Khazad aimenu! Fix those damn cookie-baking Elves we will!
(OK, we'll maybe exempt Legolamb*.)

Hmmmm. Ever notice how Dwarvish sounds a lot like Finnish -- or Yiddish?
Must be my relatives -- or Gunner's.:)

Love,
Gimli

*Harvard Lampoon: Bored of the Rings.

--
Bring back, Oh bring back
Oh, bring back that old continuity.
Bring back, oh, bring back
Oh, bring back Clerk Maxwell to me.

Date: 02 Nov 2006 16:08:02
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:57:55 GMT, John Husvar <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:

>In article <orfairbairn-1208EF.11595201112006@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Orval Fairbairn <orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <pj7gk2513o29aogrqkgnf4duovmsunrg93@4ax.com>,
>> grasshopper <er21@qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 31 2006 16:21:29 GMT, Gunner
>> > <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Tue, 31 2006 14:34:09 +0200, Grantland <mithril@iafrica.com>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
>> > >>Griessel) wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
>> > >>>>again:....
>> > >>>
>> > >>>I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
>> > >>>them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Eugene L Griessel
>> > >>>
>> > >>> He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
>> > >>> Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
>> > >>
>> > >>9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
>> > >>about it.
>> > >>
>> > >>Grantland
>> > >
>> > >Of course it was. A well orchastrated plot by the Greens, Illuminati,
>> > >Tri-laterialists, Bush the Evil Genius, Micheal Moore, Hans Blick,
>> > >Elvis and his love children and the Keebler elves.
>> > >
>> > >Gunner
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh God.....Not the ELVES!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Of course it HAD to include the Elves! How else could they have covertly
>> installed all of that balonium-enhanced "thermate", the C4 and other
>> stuff required to support the conspiracy?
>
>Baruk Khazad! Khazad aimenu! Fix those damn cookie-baking Elves we will!
>(OK, we'll maybe exempt Legolamb*.)
>
>Hmmmm. Ever notice how Dwarvish sounds a lot like Finnish -- or Yiddish?
>Must be my relatives -- or Gunner's.:)

Thats why I wear my hair long on the sides...keeps folks from staring
at the ears....

>
>Love,
>Gimli
>
>*Harvard Lampoon: Bored of the Rings.

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:32: