OT: 9/11 Anniversary: Watch 9/11 Mysteries - How the World TradeCentre was demolished by the Neocons for an excuse to go back into Iraq

[.]

9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

http://www.911weknow.com

Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
3 demolished buildings in the weeks before 9/11. Since 9-11 the
American public has shown a "remarkable indifference to being
deceived" (George Soros). But this is changing. As Hugo Chavez put it:
"The world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are
standing up." Millions around the world are realizing that they are
being lied to - not in a small, lazy way, but in a big way. It's time
to ask hard questions, many of which 911 Mysteries helps to answer. 90
minutes of evidence and analysis, filled with eyewitness testimonials.
Point-by-point review of the official story set alongside clear
science. The question is not one of politics or nationalism or
loyalty, but one of strict and simple physics. Does steel melt in open
air fires? What caused the core to vanish in seconds? No agenda. No
finger-pointing. Just the facts and the questions.

A story of people: Willie Rodriguez's strange recollection of noises
on the 34th floor. Who was up there, bumping around? Scott Forbes'
similar story, weeks before the towers fell. Here's how shaped charges
slice through steel beams to control the way they fall.

For greater clarity, download the movie over bittorrent - or buy a DVD
online at www.911weknow.com.

[theget]

On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

Al Dykes wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>damage and death.

>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>Please define "same".

>>>>but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Theget

[Wolfspawn]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

And your point is? Are you trying to disagree with me?

What's YOUR point? That only direct plane impact can bring down buildings
like WTC-7?

From what I know no one has claimed that a plane directly impacted
WTC7. If you disagree please tell me.

My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."

Fine. Except that direct plane impact one two buildings led to all the
damage.

[Al Dykes]

In article <ef**********************************@z66g2000hsc. googlegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:

>On Sep 18, 9:19 am, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

Please define "same".

but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7?

What exactly is your point? How does this address my claim that no
plane directly impacted WTC7? Do you disagree? Do you have evidence to
the contrary? Please share it with us.

What does what DIDN'T happen have to wo with what DID happen?

WTC7 caught fire and the fire caused the buiding to collapse.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

[Al Dykes]

In article <0b**********************************@l64g2000hse. googlegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:

>On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

>Al Dykes wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>damage and death.

>>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>>Please define "same".

>>>>>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Fire.

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

[Wolfspawn]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, PV wrote:

Gianluca <gi*********@hotmail.comwrites:

Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?

... and the Reptilians.

But seriously, it's time to wake up:

http://www.911missinglinks.com

Oh, yay, a meta-conspiracy. *HATE* *

You made it sound interesting. And the text on the main page suggests a
meta-conspiracy that I would LOVE to see disseminated, that all 9-11
conspiracy sites are in fact created by the government to distract from
their real crimes in exploiting the 9-11 tragedy.

Alas, if you play the video, it's all about how the Israeli Mossad blew up
the Twin Towers. Their infiltration of other 9-11 conspiracy sites is what
prevent them from pointing at the Mossad as the true culprits.

[theget]

On Sep 18, 1:03 pm, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

And your point is? Are you trying to disagree with me?

What's YOUR point? That only direct plane impact can bring down buildings
like WTC-7?

What are you talking about? Where did I suggest that? Try to keep
the context of what I wrote in mind. It may help you figure out the
meaning. Please see below.

>

From what I know no one has claimed that a plane directly impacted
WTC7. If you disagree please tell me.

My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."

Fine.

Then we are in agreement. Although Dennis M. Hammes has written
something that suggests to me that even in context the word "direct"
doesn't mean what I thought it meant. I'm waiting for him to suggest a
new word so we can go around again.

Except that direct plane impact one two buildings led to all the
damage.

Which contradicts what I wrote how?

If you choose to ignore the context of what I wrote and interpret the
statement in isolation then you can of course come to any conclusion
you wish.

That's something like saying that since only two buildings were hit by
airplanes and three collapsed the airplanes don't account for all the
damage. That kind of thinking is the result of ignoring context (the
proximity of the buildings and debris from the direct hit, etc..) and
leads to saying things like "Therefore plane impact can't explain all
the damage." The truth is that no airplane directly hit WTC7 and so,
in context (of the claim and the assertion) the correction to that
statement is "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

I'll amplify.

False claim from earlier in this thread:
Two buildings were directly hit by aircraft but three collapsed
therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Implies what?

True claim posted by me to correct the false claim:
Two buildings were directly hit by aircraft but three collapsed
therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

In the context of being a correction implies what?
Is this clear or not?

Theget

[theget]

On Sep 18, 1:48 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 18, 9:19 am, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

Please define "same".

but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7?

What exactly is your point? How does this address my claim that no
plane directly impacted WTC7? Do you disagree? Do you have evidence to
the contrary? Please share it with us.

What does what DIDN'T happen have to wo with what DID happen?

I was discussing my correction to a false claim. What are you
discussing?

WTC7 caught fire and the fire caused the buiding to collapse.

How did WTC7 catch fire? It wasn't because an airplane hit it, was it?

Here again is the claim that was made by Chris Malcolm here,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3a927c3e9d742a
"As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three
adjacent buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them
were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

FTFY again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."

If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."

Is this clear?

Theget

[Wolfspawn]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."

Do you agree that the collapse of the Twin Towers, because of plane
impact, is sufficent to explain all the damage, such as the fall of WTC-7?

[Juha Nieminen]

Walter Bushell wrote:

In article <JB***************@read4.inet.fi>,
Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidwrote:

>It's actually the opposite: If there had been stars on the
photographs, *that* would have been suspicious. It would need to be
explained how you can photograph both the lunar surface and the stars at
the same time with the same camera settings, without badly overexposing
the lunar surface.

A short interval flash, with long exposure. This technique is use to
photograph people against the backdrop of city lights, for example.

Even if they had had flashes in their cameras, how would that be of
any help in that situation? The technique you describe is used at night,
in a very dark environment, not in bright daylight.

[theget]

On Sep 18, 1:49 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

Al Dykes wrote:
In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>damage and death.

>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>Please define "same".

>>>>but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Fire.

So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:
"Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage."
to read instead:
"Therefore fire plane impact can't explain all the damage."

That doesn't sound semantically meaningful to me. Maybe you could be
more explicit about what you meant?

Theget

[Wolfspawn]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

FTFY again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."

If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."

Is this clear?

That really is all you were saying. My apologies.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

PV, theget, you guys (and a couple of others) are all violently
agreeing. You're just (mistakenly) thinking the other guy is in the
other camp.

I.e., "theget" was responding to a "truther" implying that because WTC7
wasn't hit by a plane, it must have been destroyed by something other
than plane damage. Theget said,

"direct plane damage can't explain the collapse."

Perhaps he SHOULD have been slightly more clear (even though I
understood what he meant in his first post) by saying it this way:

"*DIRECT* plane damage can't explain the collapse. It was INdirect
plane damage, caused by the collapse and fire of the other two buildings
and the lack of firefighting capability at the time and location of WTC
7, that caused it to collapse."
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[theget]

On Sep 18, 2:47 pm, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

FTFY again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."

If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."

Is this clear?

That really is all you were saying. My apologies.

I thank you for your apology although I don't think it's required. And
please accept mine if I have offended you in anyway, and in advance
once you read the post that missed this one.

Theget

[Wolfspawn]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:
"Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage."
to read instead:
"Therefore fire plane impact can't explain all the damage."

That doesn't sound semantically meaningful to me. Maybe you could be
more explicit about what you meant?

We thought you were apolgizing for the conspiracy theorists. So maybe
saying "Impact, fire, collapse does explain all the damage". Since damage
to WTC-7 was caused directly by the collapse which was caused directly by
the plane crash and resulting fire.

It seems meaningless to seperate the causes. WTC-7 would not have fallen
if not for the plane crash. It didn't fall due to a coincidental,
unrelated fire, and a coincidental unrelated water outtage. All the things
that caused it to fall ultimately lead back to the plane crash.

[PV]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrites:

> "*DIRECT* plane damage can't explain the collapse. It was INdirect
plane damage, caused by the collapse and fire of the other two buildings
and the lack of firefighting capability at the time and location of WTC
7, that caused it to collapse."

This is called "a difference that makes no difference." No planes, no fire,
no collapsed WT7. Of what possible significance is it that there's a chance
(not a certainty) that no pieces of plane fell on WT7?

Needless splitting of hairs is generally one of the danger signs of a kook.
I think that's borne out. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital Scott Dorsey <kl****@panix.comwrote:

Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrote:

>>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.

Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a full
von Neumann machine.

In fact, the Harvard Mark I was programmable, and was actually a full
von Neumann machine although it had seperate address and data space,
and predates the Colossus by a few years.

The Harvard Mk I, like many of the so-called computers of that era,
was a programmable calculator. Conceptually they were equivalent to the
Analytical Engine that Babbage designed but never built. Nor was the
Harvard Mark One the first of that kind to be built. Zuse's
German Z3 of 1941 predated it by a few years.

You minimise the critical importance of the step between the von
Neumann architecture and the earlier programmable calculators: you can
implement software tools such as a compiler in a von Neumann machine.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

[theget]

On Sep 18, 4:09 pm, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:
"Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage."
to read instead:
"Therefore fire plane impact can't explain all the damage."

That doesn't sound semantically meaningful to me. Maybe you could be
more explicit about what you meant?

We

We? Uh, yeah, I know what you mean.

thought you were apolgizing for the conspiracy theorists.

Explaining why context is important. I think that was ignored. I
think that's one of the things conspiracy nuts do.

So maybe
saying "Impact, fire, collapse does explain all the damage". Since damage
to WTC-7 was caused directly by the collapse which was caused directly by
the plane crash and resulting fire.

Or perhaps just correcting Chris Malcolm's statement.

>
It seems meaningless to seperate the causes. WTC-7 would not have fallen
if not for the plane crash.

I disagree. In the context of what Chris Malcolm claimed it was
important.

It didn't fall due to a coincidental,
unrelated fire, and a coincidental unrelated water outtage. All the things
that caused it to fall ultimately lead back to the plane crash.

But not a direct impact.

I think it's important to understand the point that CM was trying to
make. Otherwise you won't be able to address the issues he fails to
understand.

I think this will lead to a more substantial failure. I suspect that
when people suggest that not all the damage can be traced back to a
plane impact you must specifically address that. Failure to do so
will only make them feel like they've made a point with some validity.
Theget

[theget]

On Sep 18, 4:40 pm, [e-mail] (PV) wrote:

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <[e-mail]:

"*DIRECT* plane damage can't explain the collapse. It was INdirect
plane damage, caused by the collapse and fire of the other two buildings
and the lack of firefighting capability at the time and location of WTC
7, that caused it to collapse."

This is called "a difference that makes no difference."

I'm sorry, but I think that this ignores the context of Chris
Malcolm's claim.

No planes, no fire,
no collapsed WT7. Of what possible significance is it that there's a chance
(not a certainty) that no pieces of plane fell on WT7?

Almost zero. But that point should be explained to someone who thinks
that not all of the damage can be attributed to planes because of
three buildings that collapsed only two were hit by planes.

It may not make a difference to you, but it might to someone who
raises issues like this.

Assuming that they're not dishonest to begin with. Some people are.

Remember, you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of
the people some of the time, but you can't fool anyone the way you can
fool yourself. I suspect some of the conspiracy believers fall into
this category. Nothing is gained by blowing off what they say as
unimportant. It must be addressed, if not for those who raise the
issues, then for those who might be reading and wondering why what CM
said didn't get a serious retort. I'll define serious some other
time.

>
Needless splitting of hairs is generally one of the danger signs of a kook.
I think that's borne out. *

Perhaps failing to split hairs when it's important to do so or not
recognizing when it's important is a sign of something too?

Theget

[David DeLaney]

Dennis M. Hammes <sc********@arvig.netwrote:

>PV wrote:

>"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.comwrites:

>>>All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.written are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.

Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *

Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.

Unless the cat enjoys it, of course.

Dave "determining whether your cat is of this kind is, however, fraught" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from db*@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:00:50 -0400, db*@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>Dennis M. Hammes <sc********@arvig.netwrote:

>>PV wrote:

>>"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.comwrites:
All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.written are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.

Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *

Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.

Unless the cat enjoys it, of course.

Dave "determining whether your cat is of this kind is, however, fraught" DeLaney

I have this terrible feeling that this one might be well over the
line into Things Man Was Not Meant to Know territory -- but have
you ever determined a cat to be in that category?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Al Dykes]

In article <49**********************************@v16g2000prc. googlegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:

>On Sep 18, 1:49 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>damage and death.

>>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>>Please define "same".

>>>>>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

>It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

>Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Fire.

So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:
"Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage."
to read instead:
"Therefore fire plane impact can't explain all the damage."

That doesn't sound semantically meaningful to me. Maybe you could be
more explicit about what you meant?

What is your point?

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

[Al Dykes]

In article <49**********************************@v16g2000prc. googlegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:

>On Sep 18, 1:49 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>damage and death.

>>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>>Please define "same".

>>>>>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

>It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

>Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Fire.

So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:

I don't give a sh*t what you do. Your circular dialog isn't original
or interesting.

We can all agree that no airplane hit WTC7.

What is your point?

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

[theget]

On Sep 18, 7:18 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 18, 1:49 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:
On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>damage and death.

>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>Please define "same".

>>>>but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Fire.

So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:
"Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage."
to read instead:
"Therefore fire plane impact can't explain all the damage."

That doesn't sound semantically meaningful to me. Maybe you could be
more explicit about what you meant?

What is your point?

That wasn't a point. That was a question. Thats what the "?" at the
sentence means.

Theget

[theget]

On Sep 18, 7:30 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 18, 1:49 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:
On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>damage and death.

>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>Please define "same".

>>>>but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Fire.

So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:

I don't give a sh*t what you do.

And yet you made a suggestion about what I should do. Not a very good
one, but still a suggestion.

Your circular dialog isn't original or interesting.

Circular? What's circular about it?

We can all agree that no airplane hit WTC7.

Yes. But the point was that Chris Malcolm made a claim about this that
I wished to disagree with.

What is your point?

That Chris Malcolm's point was incorrect.

Please tell me if that is clear or not.

Theget

[David DeLaney]

Bill Snyder <bs*****@airmail.netwrote:

>db*@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>>Dennis M. Hammes <sc********@arvig.netwrote:

>>>Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.

Unless the cat enjoys it, of course.

Dave "determining whether your cat is of this kind is, however, fraught"

DeLaney

>
I have this terrible feeling that this one might be well over the
line into Things Man Was Not Meant to Know territory -- but have
you ever determined a cat to be in that category?

I ... do not actually remember. But of the cats we had I think a couple would
have had I ever checked. (Last time I lived with a cat was about 20 years ago.)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from db*@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:

On Sep 18, 2:10 pm, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

>On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."

>Do you agree that the collapse of the Twin Towers, because of plane
impact, is sufficent to explain all the damage, such as the fall of WTC-7?

I'm not sure that it's relevant to my correction of Chris Malcolm's
claim here,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3a927c3e9d742a
"As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three
adjacent buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them
were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

My correction was:
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Some of the people who have got involved with this argument do not
appear to be native speakers of English. Let me give you an example
which should be familiar to Americans of whatever native language.

Suppose we have three gunmen facing three lawmen in a shoot out. They
all draw and shoot. Two of the gunmen are killed by bullets. All
bullets miss the third gunman. Unfortunately as one of the shot gunmen
goes down he throws his gun in the air and it comes down on the head
of the third unharmed gunman, causing him to stagger, lose his
balance, and fall. In his fall he hits his head on a rock and is
killed.

Let us now consider the meaning of the English word "impact". Among
its many meanings are "hit" and "collision". These are the relevant
meanings when considering buildings being hit by planes or gunmen
being hit by bullets. There are always two things involved in a hit or
collision, the thing hit, and the thing by which it is hit.

In our shoot out we could therefore quite reasonably say that two
gunmen were killed by being hit by bullets, or if you like bullet
impact. It would not be a normal reasonable use of English to say that
the third gunman was killed by bullet impact because he wasn't hit by
a bullet. In terms of impacts he died as a result of the impact of a
rock. That rock impact was the indirect consequence of a gun
impact. That gun impact was in turn the indirect consequence of the
impact of a bullet on an adjacent gunman.

How about saying that the third gunman died as the indirect result of
bullet impact? That would be misleading, because it suggests that he
was hit by a bullet, but not killed by it, but something that happened
to him as a result of being hit by the bullet, such as falling over
and hitting his head, killed him.

So in English we would not say that the third gunman died as a result
of a bullet impact because he was not hit a bullet and the phrase
"bullet impact" implies being hit a by a bullet. We would also not say
that he died as an indirect consequence of bullet impact because that
suggest he was hit but not killed by a bullet. In the case in
question, where it was the impact of a bullet on another gunman which
indirectly led to his death, we would say that he died as the indirect
result of a bullet impact on another person.

Now let us return to the three buildings collapsing as a result of
two of them being hit by planes and the third being hit by debris from
an adjacent falling tower.

I hope it is now clear that it is correct English to say:

Only two towers collapsed as a result of plane impact. The third
tower did not collapse as a result of plane impact. It collapsed as
an indirect result of a plane impact on another tower.

Note too that the towers which collapsed as a result of plane impact,
i.e. being hit by planes, did not collapse as a direct result of those
impacts. They withstood the impacts and did not fall. They fell later
as an indirect result of the effects of the fires caused by the
impacts and assisted by the jet fuel from the planes.

In other words no WTC towers fell as direct consequences of plane
impact. Two of them fell as the indirect results of plane impact. The
third fell as an indirect result of the fall of an adjacent tower.

That's why my original statement is a correct normal use of English
which needs no correction of qualification to be understood.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

[Dennis M. Hammes]

PV wrote:

theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrites:

>>>Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

What's your point?

That *is* the point. WTC7 was just as much a casualty to the two main
events as the twin towers were.

Why do you hate this country, and the people who died on 9/11 so much?
Seriously, 9/11 "truthers" make me wish you could deport citizens for being
evil fucktards. *

You can. Just deport 'em over the border they're standing on.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[Dennis M. Hammes]

theget wrote:

On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

>>Al Dykes wrote:

>>>In article <[e-mail]>,
theget <[e-mail]:

>>>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>>>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>>>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>>>damage and death.

>>>>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>>>buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>>>>Please define "same".

>>>>>>>but only two of them were hit
>>>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>>>>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

>>>Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

>>>The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

>>>"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.

It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
word would you suggest?

Theget

Why not what you just put, since it isn't the original rather
ambiguous question or comment.
To say "The collapse of WTC7 was not the direct result of plane
impact" is deliberate fluff and literally untrue.
To say "...was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7" is
unfluffy, literally true -- and unfortunately trivial, as "9/11"
taught the entire country to count to two in less than an hour.
I.e., that the trivial trVth runs out of planes is also trivial.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[Dennis M. Hammes]

theget wrote:

On Sep 18, 7:30 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

>>>On Sep 18, 1:49 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

>>>>theget <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[e-mail]>,
>>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>>>>>>>>In article <[e-mail]>,

>>>>>>>>>theget <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>>>>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>>>>>>>>>>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>>>>>>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>>>>>>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>>>>>>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>>>>>>>damage and death.

>>>>>>>>>>>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>>>>>>>buildings collapsed in the same manner,

>>>>>>>>>>Please define "same".

>>>>>>>>>>>but only two of them were hit
>>>>>>>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>>>>>>>>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

>>>>>>>>>And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

>>>>>>>>Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
>>>>correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

>>>>>>>Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

>>>>>>>The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
>>>tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
>>>plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

>>>>>>>"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
>>>what really happened.

>>>>>>It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
>>"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
>>original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
>>and he can look it up.
> Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
>>original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
>>cocktails with human garnish.
> And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
>>working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
>>construction from Oil Money.
> "More"?
> All it took was one.

>>>>>Ok, if you don't like my use of the word direct to suggest that WTC7's
>collapse was not the result of direct plane impact on WTC7, then what
>word would you suggest?

>>>>Fire.

>>>So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:

I don't give a sh*t what you do.

And yet you made a suggestion about what I should do. Not a very good
one, but still a suggestion.

>>Your circular dialog isn't original or interesting.

Circular? What's circular about it?

Okay, so a figure "8" is /two/ circles.
(Ask any skater.)

>

>>We can all agree that no airplane hit WTC7.

Yes. But the point was that Chris Malcolm made a claim about this that
I wished to disagree with.

Then do so. Pleace to be able to /explain/ why.

>

>>What is your point?

That Chris Malcolm's point was incorrect.

Rea-a-a-a-ally.

>
Please tell me if that is clear or not.

You certainly kept saying so.

>
Theget

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[Dennis M. Hammes]

Wolfspawn wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

>>>In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>damage and death.

>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner,

Please define "same".

>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

Ah. You mean like a controlled-collapse demolition.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[Dennis M. Hammes]

Don Pearce wrote:

Wolfspawn wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article
<[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:
>
>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:
>>
>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>damage and death.
>>
>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three
>adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner,
>
Please define "same".
>
>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed
right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

I also suspect that a million tons of concrete and steel being dropped
1500 ft a few yards from another building might just do a bit of damage.
Occam's razor seems to have been seriously dulled in some hands.

d

Oh, come on. Next, you'll be telling us that St. Paul's was
destroyed by German bombing even though it's well known that no bomb
actually touched it.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[Dennis M. Hammes]

theget wrote:

>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."

If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."

Is this clear?

Yabut you aren't. You've been fluffing the clear difference between
"direct cause" (absolutely, in the case) and "direct impact"
(obviously not) throughout the entire squawk, with a reasonable
accumulation of evidence that you aren't even aware of its existence
in the two quite distinct statements.
English grammar is distributive mostly, so that it damwell matters
which words you stick others next to.
The oversight is magnified by the fact that the true claim [direct
cause] is a complex sequence, while the true claim [no third plane]
is merely trivial, so that attention to the /statement/ is dismissed
along with attention to the fact.

>
Theget

Aren't you glad you brought this to a poultry froup?
Don't you wish everybody did?
Didn't think so.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[Dennis M. Hammes]

Bill Snyder wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:00:50 -0400, db*@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>>Dennis M. Hammes <sc********@arvig.netwrote:

>>>PV wrote:

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.comwrites:

>All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.written are exactly those kinds of idiots.
>It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.

Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *

Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.

Unless the cat enjoys it, of course.

Dave "determining whether your cat is of this kind is, however, fraught" DeLaney

I have this terrible feeling that this one might be well over the
line into Things Man Was Not Meant to Know territory -- but have
you ever determined a cat to be in that category?

Pick up a (any) cat in one hand and a Dust Buster in the other.
Wake them up simultaneously.
(Actually, waking up the Dust Buster will achieve all the rest
well within the apparent simultaneity of a PETN fuse.)

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[Wolfspawn]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

Wolfspawn wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,

theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <[e-mail]:

>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

Please define "same".

but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

Ah. You mean like a controlled-collapse demolition.

Not really, since controlled-collapse demolitions don't appear first as a
sagging in one portion of the building an hour before the final collapse.
And controlled demolitions don't take place in buildings that are on fire
on every floor, with smoke pouring out every window. Fire tends to mess up
demolitions set-ups. But the firefighters knew the building was about to
collapse. That's why the fire chief ordered everyone out of the expected
dust cloud area an hour before it went. One firefighter gives his acount
about how he had set up an emergency first-aid center in a park near WTC7,
and the fire chief was yelling at him for setting up so close, because the
expected dust cloud would ruin the set up when they were caught in it. So
he had to move it.

[theget]

On Sep 19, 9:04 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

theget wrote:

On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

>Al Dykes wrote:

Why not what you just put, since it isn't the original rather
ambiguous question or comment.
To say "The collapse of WTC7 was not the direct result of plane
impact" is deliberate fluff and literally untrue.

No. It's not fluff. You're missing the context. It is literally true.

Theget

[theget]

On Sep 19, 9:25 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

Wolfspawn wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, [e-mail] (Al Dykes) wrote:

The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

Ah. You mean like a controlled-collapse demolition.

I'm not a demolition expert by any stretch, but from the documentaries
I've seen, this is not how controlled collapse demolition is done.
It's not failure at in one spot. There are multiple explosions over
time. Two very different things.

Theget

[theget]

On Sep 19, 9:53 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

theget wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."

If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."

Is this clear?

Yabut you aren't. You've been fluffing the clear difference

There's no fluffing on my part.

between

"direct cause" (absolutely, in the case) and "direct impact"

This implies that two different words don't change meaning. And you
accuse me of fluff?

Ok, then I accuse you of not reading my statement in it's context.
Take it out of context and you can reach any conclusion you wish.

Is that clear?
Theget

[Dennis M. Hammes]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrote:

>>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.

Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a full
von Neumann machine.

A St. Cyr cipher with a programmable shift, or call it a teletype
with a second commutator shifting the code commutator during
transmission.
Not a VN "computer."
Miss either the setting code or any shift, you got garbage.

>
In fact, the Harvard Mark I was programmable, and was actually a full
von Neumann machine although it had seperate address and data space,
and predates the Colossus by a few years.

And most of those years were spent crawling through the guts looking
for the burnt-out tube.
The "reliability" of the 12AU7A/ECC87 is miniscule when there's
35,000 of 'em hafta /all/ be working at the same time. The real
miracle of the 2N404 was -- no cathode heater filament. Though why
nobody stuck a grid in an 0B2 I'll never know, as there were plenty
of cold-cathode amplifiers in the books for a while, and a switching
triode /swamps/ any cathode noise.

>
Not that Alan Turing's work didn't have a lot to do with all of the
programmable systems of that era, because it did.
--scott

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[theget]

On Sep 19, 8:09 am, Chris Malcolm <[e-mail]:

In rec.photo.digital theget <[e-mail]:

On Sep 18, 2:10 pm, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."
Do you agree that the collapse of the Twin Towers, because of plane
impact, is sufficent to explain all the damage, such as the fall of WTC-7?

I'm not sure that it's relevant to my correction of Chris Malcolm's
claim here,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...se_frm/thread/...
"As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three
adjacent buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them
were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."
My correction was:
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Some of the people who have got involved with this argument do not
appear to be native speakers of English. Let me give you an example
which should be familiar to Americans of whatever native language.

Suppose we have three gunmen facing three lawmen in a shoot out. They
all draw and shoot. Two of the gunmen are killed by bullets. All
bullets miss the third gunman. Unfortunately as one of the shot gunmen
goes down he throws his gun in the air and it comes down on the head
of the third unharmed gunman, causing him to stagger, lose his
balance, and fall. In his fall he hits his head on a rock and is
killed.

Let us now consider the meaning of the English word "impact". Among
its many meanings are "hit" and "collision". These are the relevant
meanings when considering buildings being hit by planes or gunmen
being hit by bullets. There are always two things involved in a hit or
collision, the thing hit, and the thing by which it is hit.

In our shoot out we could therefore quite reasonably say that two
gunmen were killed by being hit by bullets, or if you like bullet
impact. It would not be a normal reasonable use of English to say that
the third gunman was killed by bullet impact because he wasn't hit by
a bullet. In terms of impacts he died as a result of the impact of a
rock. That rock impact was the indirect consequence of a gun
impact. That gun impact was in turn the indirect consequence of the
impact of a bullet on an adjacent gunman.

How about saying that the third gunman died as the indirect result of
bullet impact? That would be misleading, because it suggests that he
was hit by a bullet, but not killed by it, but something that happened
to him as a result of being hit by the bullet, such as falling over
and hitting his head, killed him.

So in English we would not say that the third gunman died as a result
of a bullet impact because he was not hit a bullet and the phrase
"bullet impact" implies being hit a by a bullet. We would also not say
that he died as an indirect consequence of bullet impact because that
suggest he was hit but not killed by a bullet. In the case in
question, where it was the impact of a bullet on another gunman which
indirectly led to his death, we would say that he died as the indirect
result of a bullet impact on another person.

Now let us return to the three buildings collapsing as a result of
two of them being hit by planes and the third being hit by debris from
an adjacent falling tower.

I hope it is now clear that it is correct English to say:

Only two towers collapsed as a result of plane impact. The third
tower did not collapse as a result of plane impact. It collapsed as
an indirect result of a plane impact on another tower.

Note too that the towers which collapsed as a result of plane impact,
i.e. being hit by planes, did not collapse as a direct result of those
impacts. They withstood the impacts and did not fall. They fell later
as an indirect result of the effects of the fires caused by the
impacts and assisted by the jet fuel from the planes.

In other words no WTC towers fell as direct consequences of plane
impact. Two of them fell as the indirect results of plane impact. The
third fell as an indirect result of the fall of an adjacent tower.

That's why my original statement is a correct normal use of English
which needs no correction of qualification to be understood.

I think your original statement said something a little bit different.

You wrote: "As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show,
three adjacent buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of
them were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

So if you'll allow me, I'll repeat part of my original response to
your post.

'Please define "same".'

Maybe I should have written: Please define "same manner".

But your post was long and complicated so maybe I didn't understand
it. Grammer (and spelling) was never my strong point.

However, reading this post suggests that I'm guilty of the same thing
that many others here are guilty of IMO and I apologize for
misinterpreting what you wrote.
Theget

[jellybean stonerfish]

Regardless of how the towers were brought down, plane or explosives,
there is still the big problem. PNAC
Yes they have removed their website, but the people involved have not
been prosecuted. The war was based on a lie. Who benefited? The Bush
war monger and friends. Anybody with half a brain can see that he,
cheney, rumsfield, etc. were happy the attacks happened. They wanted
them to happen, and allowed or caused them to happen. They are the real
enemy, not al-qaida

stonerfish

--
Be a good citizen. Spit on a car that has a W sticker.

[Wolfspawn]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:04 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

theget wrote:

On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

>>Al Dykes wrote:

Why not what you just put, since it isn't the original rather
ambiguous question or comment.
To say "The collapse of WTC7 was not the direct result of plane
impact" is deliberate fluff and literally untrue.

No. It's not fluff. You're missing the context. It is literally true.

No, since there is not hard difference between "direct" and "indirect" in
this context other than degree of removal from the initial cause.

Is the "direct" result of the plane crash the explosion that instantly
occurred? Is the "direct" result confined to the floors physically damaged
by the impact, and is the explosion of the fuel considered an "indirect"
result of physical impact?

It's correct to say the WTC-7's collapse was caused "directly" by the
plane's impact on one of the Twin Towers, if one chooses to include all
consequences proceeding from that impact beyond the instant of the impact.

It is correct to say it was NOT "directly" caused by the plane crash, if
you choose "directly" to be confined to the seconds following the crash.

You simply need to provide context for what time span YOU mean "direct"
and "indirect" to refer to. There is no pre-defined limit, as far as I can
tell.

[theget]

On Sep 19, 10:42 am, jellybean stonerfish <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Regardless of how the towers were brought down, plane or explosives,
there is still the big problem.

You mean that doesn't matter. You're right. Al-Queda tried both ways.

PNAC Yes they have removed their website,

Do you mean this one? http://www.newamericancentury.org/

but the people involved have not been prosecuted.

Osama bin Laden and his most of his unmerry men haven't been captured.
Yet. I hope that will come.

The war was based on a lie.

Which war? Which lie?

Who benefited?

Now you're going to tell us that Al-Jazeera faked all those videos of
OBL with a big grin on his face?

The Bush war monger and friends.

Uh...

Anybody with half a brain can see that he, cheney,
rumsfield, etc. were happy the attacks happened.

Funny, plenty of people have told me that I have only half a brain, or
at least that's what I assume they mean when they call me a half-wit
and I never saw those guys look happy when the attacks happened.
Shock maybe, but happiness? No. Do you have trouble reading facial
expressions?

Perhaps you're projecting your own glee? I saw video on those left-
liberal-leaning networks that showed plenty of people who were happy
about the attacks. Dancing in the streets even.

They wanted them to happen, and allowed or caused them to happen.

That's strange. I thought it was because Clinton never took the
measures required after the first AQ attack on the WTC. But there
does seem to be some evidence that the Bush admin ignored some warning
signs. That only proves that they, both Clinton and Bush, were stupid,
not that they were evil.

They are the real enemy, not al-qaida

Bush and his buds might not be the best of people, but if you think AQ
is not your real enemy you are likely to be sadly disappointed.

Let me try to clarify this for you. Bush has some bad ideas and does
some bad things. Same for Clinton. AQ is the enemy of all humanity.
It's not just us they hate. They hate all Shia muslims. They hate
the vast majority of Muslim governments. They kill indiscriminately
because they think everyone who isn't one of them is evil for not
following their interpretation of some book.

stonerfish

--
Be a good citizen. Spit on a car that has a W sticker.

You are either deluded or a troll. If you are a troll I give you 1/10
since you got me, but what you posted wasn't amusing. If you are
deluded I strongly suggest that you do not share your opinions with
people who live or work in NYC or the Pentagon.

Theget

[theget]

On Sep 19, 10:42 am, Wolfspawn <[e-mail]:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:04 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

theget wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <[e-mail]:

>Al Dykes wrote:

Why not what you just put, since it isn't the original rather
ambiguous question or comment.
To say "The collapse of WTC7 was not the direct result of plane
impact" is deliberate fluff and literally untrue.

No. It's not fluff. You're missing the context. It is literally true.

No, since there is not hard difference between "direct" and "indirect" in
this context other than degree of removal from the initial cause.

Is the "direct" result of the plane crash the explosion that instantly
occurred? Is the "direct" result confined to the floors physically damaged
by the impact, and is the explosion of the fuel considered an "indirect"
result of physical impact?

It's correct to say the WTC-7's collapse was caused "directly" by the
plane's impact on one of the Twin Towers, if one chooses to include all
consequences proceeding from that impact beyond the instant of the impact.

It is correct to say it was NOT "directly" caused by the plane crash, if
you choose "directly" to be confined to the seconds following the crash.

You simply need to provide context for what time span YOU mean "direct"
and "indirect" to refer to. There is no pre-defined limit, as far as I can
tell.

All that and no mention of the context of my original reply to Chris
Malcolm and no mention of our subsequent exchange either. Well,
that's what losing context will do for you.

Enjoy,

Theget

[Wolfspawn]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

All that and no mention of the context of my original reply to Chris
Malcolm and no mention of our subsequent exchange either. Well,
that's what losing context will do for you.

Sometimes it happens in a long thread.

[PV]

"Dennis M. Hammes" <sc********@arvig.netwrites:

>Pick up a (any) cat in one hand and a Dust Buster in the other.
Wake them up simultaneously.
(Actually, waking up the Dust Buster will achieve all the rest
well within the apparent simultaneity of a PETN fuse.)

There is not enough iodine and bandaids in the WORLD to deal with the
fallout from doing that. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

[Dennis M. Hammes]

Walter Bushell wrote:

In article <JB***************@read4.inet.fi>,
Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidwrote:

>>It's actually the opposite: If there had been stars on the
photographs, *that* would have been suspicious. It would need to be
explained how you can photograph both the lunar surface and the stars at
the same time with the same camera settings, without badly overexposing
the lunar surface.

A short interval flash, with long exposure. This technique is use to
photograph people against the backdrop of city lights, for example.

Yuh, but not landscape. Illumination falls off with the square of
the distance from the source, so there's always a "hot spot" in the
foreground.
The "lunar" lighting is uniform, proving only that They
photographed the "landscape," then Foleyed in the star-studded sky --
even easier than Foleying in the star-studded cast.

What the Conspiracy can't cover is that the photos were not processed
by any govt agency, but by a private commercial contractor, Mazell
Photochrome of Dallas. There were two 50-shot cassettes of 70mm
Ektachrome on the backs of two waist-view Hasselblads w/90mm Zeiss
Planars -- spare camera more than second cassette, but no reliable
ability to swap magazines in those gloves.
Because the "images" were Public Domain (having been publicly
funded), Mazell obtained license to cover some of their and NASA's
costs by selling 8x8" (the 'Blad is 2.25" square format even with the
2.25x3.25 cut or Polaroid backs) prints to the public.
Since "our" studio used Mazell routinely, I got some of the first
prints (extant customer preoffer, less than a month after landing)
from the "First Series," descending astronaut (actually the /second/
guy down, something the Public NEVER CONSIDER in laying out the
sequence for the News Story), the footprint, the flag -- with its
blatantly obvious horizontal support rod (actually the handle of the
sampling shovel; the flag was one of the last things to go up).
And the Big Blue Marble hanging over the flag.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[PV]

Wolfspawn <cr***@bfn.orgwrites:

>It is correct to say it was NOT "directly" caused by the plane crash, if
you choose "directly" to be confined to the seconds following the crash.

Even then, not necessarily. Who's to say that a piece of flaming plane
wreckage, isn't what started the fire at WT7? If I remember right, pieces
of plane were found quite some distance away.

Making a distinction like this is a snow job. It's arguing about trivial
points because those are the only points that can be made. It's the kind of
crap that you get from armchair conspiracy supergeniuses who've ordered one
too many things from the acme catalog. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

[Dennis M. Hammes]

Juha Nieminen wrote:

Walter Bushell wrote:

>>In article <JB***************@read4.inet.fi>,
Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidwrote:

>>>It's actually the opposite: If there had been stars on the
photographs, *that* would have been suspicious. It would need to be
explained how you can photograph both the lunar surface and the stars at
the same time with the same camera settings, without badly overexposing
the lunar surface.

A short interval flash, with long exposure. This technique is use to
photograph people against the backdrop of city lights, for example.

Even if they had had flashes in their cameras, how would that be of
any help in that situation? The technique you describe is used at night,
in a very dark environment, not in bright daylight.

Actually more used in broad daylight, it's called "flash fill." It
reduces the hideous contrast between direct sunlight and shade even
with diffusion fill from an atmosphere, as that contrast can leave
black holes in the face if the exposure is taken for the highlights.
The Apollo 11 'Blads went up without flash -- it isn't used to
illuminate landscape -- why the shadows are so dam' black even down
front.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org

[jellybean stonerfish]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:11:25 -0700, theget wrote:

On Sep 19, 10:42 am, jellybean stonerfish <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Regardless of how the towers were brought down, plane or explosives,
there is still the big problem.

You mean that doesn't matter. You're right. Al-Queda tried both ways.

>PNAC Yes they have removed their website,

Do you mean this one? http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Thanks, I didn't realize they had it back up.

>

>but the people involved have not been prosecuted.

Osama bin Laden and his most of his unmerry men haven't been captured.
Yet. I hope that will come.

>The war was based on a lie.

Which war? Which lie?

You know which war. The war on terra. You know there were many lies.
Look up yellow cake for a big one.

>

>Who benefited?

Now you're going to tell us that Al-Jazeera faked all those videos of
OBL with a big grin on his face?

No. But maybe the CIA. Remember the one where obl had a different face,
and the us gov verified it as authentic. Or how about the one where obl
was listening to a radio, hearing of the attacks and smiling. The only
way we could get such a video is if we had someone on the inside. If we
had someone inside, then we knew what was going to happen. Are you
stupid, or brainwashed?

>

>The Bush war monger and friends.

Uh...

OK, How else could PNAC have pushed through their agenda of increasing
military domination of the world. Have you read their agenda? Do you
remember bush's speech on 9-14. If he didn't look pleased to you, then
you are blind. And he was loving the USA cheers from the audience.
Actually working for them. Do you know about rumsfield calling 911
attacks a "blessing in disguise"? Do you not know of the billions of
dollars funneled through halliburton? Do you not know of the insurance
payoff to silverman.
Maybe you don't know. Perhaps you only watch and read corporate news.

>

>Anybody with half a brain can see that he, cheney, rumsfield, etc. were
happy the attacks happened.

Funny, plenty of people have told me that I have only half a brain, or
at least that's what I assume they mean when they call me a half-wit and
I never saw those guys look happy when the attacks happened. Shock
maybe, but happiness? No. Do you have trouble reading facial
expressions?

Does the phrase "Drunk with power" mean anything to you. Watch some of
those w speeches shortly after 911.

Perhaps you're projecting your own glee? I saw video on those left-
liberal-leaning networks that showed plenty of people who were happy
about the attacks. Dancing in the streets even.

The world trade center attacks did not make me happy. There were a lot
of civilian deaths.

I will hold my tongue about the pentagon attacks.

>

>They wanted them to happen, and allowed or caused them to happen.

That's strange. I thought it was because Clinton never took the
measures required after the first AQ attack on the WTC. But there does
seem to be some evidence that the Bush admin ignored some warning signs.
That only proves that they, both Clinton and Bush, were stupid, not that
they were evil.

> They are the real enemy, not al-qaida

Bush and his buds might not be the best of people, but if you think AQ
is not your real enemy you are likely to be sadly disappointed.

I know one thing, the usa gov has declared war on me and my people. If
my name doesn't give it away, I smoke pot. Also I experiment with other
organics. The war on drugs was a lie, as well as the war on terra.

>
Let me try to clarify this for you. Bush has some bad ideas and does
some bad things. Same for Clinton. AQ is the enemy of all humanity. It's
not just us they hate. They hate all Shia muslims. They hate the vast
majority of Muslim governments. They kill indiscriminately because they
think everyone who isn't one of them is evil for not following their
interpretation of some book.

I agree with you that killing based on "following their interpretation of
some book" is a great threat to humanity. But remember, there are people
following another book or two that are also destructive.

The bible is bullshit, the koran is a lie,
the bagavad gita did not fall from the sky
These are the books that were written by men.
They've caused wars, now follow if you can
Corporate Avenger

>

>stonerfish

--
Be a good citizen. Spit on a car that has a W sticker.

You are either deluded or a troll. If you are a troll I give you 1/10
since you got me, but what you posted wasn't amusing.

This entire thread is a troll. You were "got" way before I joined in.

If you are deluded

I am a bit deluded. I think with love and commitment we can bring those
who have taken over the USA to justice.

I strongly suggest that you do not share your opinions with people who
live or work in NYC or the Pentagon.

Theget

There are many people who feel like I do. The current administration is
insane with hatred. I think bush believes the only possible future is
armageddon. And he is doing his part to bring us there.

stonerfish
p.s.
Anyway, I am sick of this stuff. I will come back to this type of
thread once in a while, but may never reply to your response to this
post. What is the point. I said what I wanted to say. You have heard
it all before.

[Dennis M. Hammes]

PV wrote:

Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidwrites:

>Oh, you might have the objection that the lunar surface doesn't
reflect but something like 10% of the light? However, the Sun is
*really* bright, and 10% of *really* bright is still very bright, and
the cameras were tuned to photograph this 10% reflected light clearly.

That's quite right, but you also have to consider that the photographer,
wearing a very reflective white spacesuit, ALSO acted as a fill-in light
for the pictures. Professional photographers sometimes have an assistant
hold up a big piece of white poster board to do exactly the same thing. *

Heh. Forgot that one. (Seldom use it.) Tnx.
Tripod with a white umbrella is cheaper than an assistant, and
takes less stowage (6x6x24"). Also got a diffuse side and a
concentrate side.
(Black umbrella sometimes used to increase shadow contrast,
colored to establish Mood Highlights.)

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org