469,315 Members | 2,064 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,315 developers. It's quick & easy.

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.

Sep 11 '08
176 4244
PV
"Dennis M. Hammes" <sc********@arvig.netwrites:
>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.
Someone put the negatives into a box of gravel and made crunching sounds? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 19 '08 #151
PV <pv*******@pobox.comwrote:
>"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. *
Again, it does depend on the cat; some of them will just drape there and purr,
because Someone Picked Them Up and Petting Will Shortly Occur.

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.
Sep 19 '08 #152
FOlks:

I don't know if you have anything relevant to add to
rec.audio.pro but you should keep your stupidity confined to
newsgroups where it *is* actually relevant.
All you clowns are doing is wasting disk space on servers.

Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

Sep 19 '08 #153
jellybean stonerfish wrote:
>
You know which war. The war on terra.
Terra? She was the Teen Titan who turned out to be a mole.

Her power was controlling Earth, so a war on her might get pretty ugly.
But she was also a total nutbar, so probably war is inevitable.
You know there were many lies.
Look up yellow cake for a big one.
No, my wife made yellow cake for my son's birthday a few months ago.
That's truth.

>
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.
Maybe you see malice where we see opportunism.

I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe fer
keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!), but I don't think they
planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it would require more
intelligence, organization, dedication, and focus than ANY of them have
demonstrated.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sep 19 '08 #154
In article <6j************@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Malcolm <ca*@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
>
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.
Planes didn't knock the buildings down, catastrophic fires did it. All
three buildings were hit by fires bigger than they were designed for.

Here's the thing: truthers rarely reference actual experts in their
claims, and when they do, it's an expert in a different field, like when
they have a geologist say it was definately a demolition job, or something
stupid like that.

They don't quote experts, of course, because the experts don't agree
with them.

Here's what the actual experts had to say about the demolition theory:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

--
-Ed Falk, fa**@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Sep 20 '08 #155
In article <bb**********************************@s50g2000hsb. googlegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."
Plane impact doesn't *need* to explain all the damage. Fire explains
it perfectly adequately.

Lots of buildings are destroyed every year without being hit by a plane.
It's not a requirement.

--
-Ed Falk, fa**@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Sep 20 '08 #156
In article <qv******************************@posted.plusnet >,
Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrote:
>Occam's razor seems to have been seriously dulled in some hands.
For the quotes file :)
--
-Ed Falk, fa**@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Sep 20 '08 #157
In article <gb**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrote:
I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe fer
keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!), but I don't think they
planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it would require more
intelligence, organization, dedication, and focus than ANY of them have
demonstrated.
You don't think Bush keeping up his stupid act takes great intelligence,
and he has achieved so many of his goals.
Sep 20 '08 #158
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article <gb**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrote:
> I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe fer
keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!), but I don't think they
planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it would require more
intelligence, organization, dedication, and focus than ANY of them have
demonstrated.

You don't think Bush keeping up his stupid act takes great intelligence,
and he has achieved so many of his goals.
I don't think it's an act. Not so much stupid as lack of wisdom and
common sense.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sep 20 '08 #159
theget wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:04 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arvig.netwrote:
>>theget wrote:
>>>On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arvig.netwrote:
>>>>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

Well, there you go.
The collapse of WTC7 was the "direct" result of tons of junk,
which were the "direct" result of distempering, which was the
"direct" result of fire, which was the "direct" result of a
35,000-gal Molotov cocktail, which was the "direct" result of plane
impact, which was the "direct" result of the forcible disarming, by
"police," of 288 American sovereigns whose right to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.
So -- "literally untrue," in physics, law, billiards, and insurance.

The only reason I didn't include the mis"direction" of Maxwell's
Demons is that there weren't enough of them (they were too busy
screwing the Red Sox) to drop WTC2 on the Suleiman Mosque, so it
landed -- rather directly -- on WTC7.

So -- obviously -- the single most "direct" cause of the collapse of
WTC7 is an original, architectural design fault.

No, that it was built right "under" WTC2.
Because if it had been built in downtown Riyadh, like it was spoZe
to be, IT WOULD STILL BE STANDING!!
QED.

Words, unfortunately, never mean what you *want* them to mean. They
mean what an entire civilisation of widely-varying professional
useage has /made/ them mean.
Guluk wid dat.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #160
PV wrote:
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. *

Hey. Don't be badmouthing the Acme catalog.
If they'da /had/ the Bat Wings liken they were spoZe ta, they
coulda /all/ got offen the Towers.
So there.

It's beginning to rankle that he (somebody) has snipped the
well-enough-made distinction at least twice (since its being dropped
into rap) /just so/ they could go on bickering about it.
Nor is it precisely "trivial," being one of the more fundamental
attributes (distribution) of English grammar. The bickersons are
insisting that the placement of the adverb doesn't matter, that the
two statements are equivalent.
They're /materially/ different, but the fracas surrounding them is
completely contrived.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #161
theget wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:53 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arvig.netwrote:
>>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?

What "two different words," d00d?
"Direct" is the /same/ word in both "contexts," which themselves
consist in the /same set of words/.
It has a completely different grammatical effect in the two
/different/ positions.
"Fluff," yes.
(Somebody stuck this into a poultry froup, so I saw you palm that
card. Couple-three times, even.)
>
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

Fluff your pillows. Take your meds.
From here (rap), you're the /only/ dude snipping the explanations
so you can reiterate your fluff.
I gotta admit, you're very good at seeing to it that you haven't
meant a damned thing worth knowing when it's all done.

Hint, clue, verb sap: In a "real" argument, you'd be cleared outta
the way with the pommel, never even take the point or eye off the
"real" target.
(For those who arrived late, that's the "+" thingy in the little
graphic down there.)

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #162
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>>On Sep 18, 2:10 pm, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.orgwrote:
>>>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.
Actually, like Theget, he died as a result of the impact of his
irresistable head with a relatively immovable argument.

>
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?
Why say that, when he obviously died as the direct result of a
gunfight with the Okay Chorale?
>
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.
Why not, since he died as the direct result of a Big Bang?
Actually, he died of having been born -- always perfectly true and
therefore trivial.
>
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.

Tsk. The word you're (both) trying to make "direct" mean is
"immediate," i.e., "without intermediate cause."
Well, it don't. "Direct" may be mediate or immediate.
>
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.

And now, and /now/, if only that fluff actually distinguished
something in English.
See, all three towers collapsed as a "direct" result of "plane
impact."
And /no/ towers collapsed as an "immediate" result of plane impact.
The "immediate" cause of two collapses was distemper, of the
third, garbage.
>
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.
Hear, hear. /Finally/.

They withstood the impacts and did not fall. They fell later
as an indirect result of the effects of the fires caused by the
Nope. "Direct and immediate" result of the fires.
>
impacts and assisted by the jet fuel from the planes.

In other words no WTC towers fell as direct consequences of plane
impact.
All three fell as "direct consequences," none fell as "immediate
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.
MAKE IT STOP, GOD, MAKE IT STOP, GOD, MAKE IT STOP, GOD, MAKE IT...

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #163
Wolfspawn wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

>>Wolfspawn wrote:

>>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>
>
>>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
>>
>>
>>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
>
>>>>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.
Excellent discussion of excellent points.
(Too bad it was about a /Conspiracy joke/.)
No, rehearse your knowledge. Nobody else will...

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #164
theget wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:25 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arvig.netwrote:
>>Wolfspawn wrote:
>>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
>>>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (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

A CC demolition almost /always/ begins as a "failure in one spot."
The rest drops into it from "multiple explosions over time."
As timing is everything, there's not a lot of time between
failures, so you're not going to see much that's intelligible without
some good slomos.

One thing conspicuously absent from every frame of "9/11" is found
somewhere in every demolition, however.
It's the detonation shock wave(s). Jumps from here to 'way over
here in a single frame without showing in the space between them.
The "9/11" "explosions" were all Hollywood Petroleum Whooshes and
Collapsing Airbox Whooshes and Junk Bouncing Off Junk Whooshes.
A detonation wave is always 'way to hell out in front of that,
whether you spot the air lens, the condensation (fog) wave, or the
object disturbance. The propagation is spherical.

But what fuels the Demolition Theorists is that 70-90% of what we did
see is THE SAME THING we'd have seen in a CCD.
Al-Qaeda's engineering students did their math well.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #165
0j******@bellsouth.net wrote:
FOlks:

I don't know if you have anything relevant to add to
rec.audio.pro but you should keep your stupidity confined to
newsgroups where it *is* actually relevant.
All you clowns are doing is wasting disk space on servers.
Can /you/ say "Eighty-dollar terabyte"?
(Or do you actually /believe/ in Intelligent Design?)
Hell, I remember when putting in /two/ 1.3MB floppies outranked
God by a whole megabyte.

BTW, "rec.pro" is an oxymoron, so your stupidity has leaked somewhere
relevant for a change.
>
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider


--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #166
PV wrote:
"Dennis M. Hammes" <sc********@arvig.netwrites:
>>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.


Someone put the negatives into a box of gravel and made crunching sounds? *

Naaah, that's just about how they put the Ray Gun Zaps into the 1934
Flash Gordon movies, and why the "rays" jump all over the screen
rather than from "gun" to target. Any kid could spot that without
even waking up.
The location of each star was transferred from a star map to the
film by pantograph, the position checked by microscope before
adjusting the punch depth for apparent magnitude.
Like cutting the first light-sabres right into the film in 1978,
i.e., /before/ CGI.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #167
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
jellybean stonerfish wrote:
>>
You know which war. The war on terra.


Terra? She was the Teen Titan who turned out to be a mole.

Her power was controlling Earth, so a war on her might get pretty
ugly. But she was also a total nutbar, so probably war is inevitable.
>You know there were many lies. Look up yellow cake for a big one.


No, my wife made yellow cake for my son's birthday a few months ago.
That's truth.

>>
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.


Maybe you see malice where we see opportunism.

Now that's just /fuken/ funny.
I need my piano tuned again, but Oppornokkity only tunes once.
>
I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe fer
keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!),
I want to buy an eye! R!
>
but I don't think they
planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it would require more
intelligence, organization, dedication, and focus than ANY of them have
demonstrated.
Not to mention more attention to secrecy, when tattling is these
bastards' stock in trade.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #168
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article <gb**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrote:

>> I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe fer
keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!), but I don't think they
planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it would require more
intelligence, organization, dedication, and focus than ANY of them have
demonstrated.


You don't think Bush keeping up his stupid act takes great intelligence,
and he has achieved so many of his goals.

But his "goals" are /stupid/, so where, exactly, does that leave your
premise? If enough stupid people ("voters") want a thing, well,
"there can be no doubt that the Law is whatever The Pee-pole want."
(You have no idea how much "mature wisdom" resembles merely being
tired.)

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #169
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
>In article <gb**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrote:
>> I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe
fer keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!), but I don't
think they planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it
would require more intelligence, organization, dedication, and focus
than ANY of them have demonstrated.


You don't think Bush keeping up his stupid act takes great
intelligence, and he has achieved so many of his goals.


I don't think it's an act. Not so much stupid as lack of wisdom and
common sense.
They's another definition of "stupid" I ain't never hearn of?

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 20 '08 #170
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>Walter Bushell wrote:
>>In article <gb**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrote:

I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe
fer keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!), but I don't
think they planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it
would require more intelligence, organization, dedication, and focus
than ANY of them have demonstrated.
You don't think Bush keeping up his stupid act takes great
intelligence, and he has achieved so many of his goals.


I don't think it's an act. Not so much stupid as lack of wisdom
and common sense.

They's another definition of "stupid" I ain't never hearn of?
Yes, actually. The inability to comprehend things intellectually would
be stupid. However, Bush's past history shows that he *CAN* comprehend
fairly complex notions, if he WANTS to.

This is the classic RPG division of the mental capacities. Intelligence
is the ability to understand specific concepts. Wisdom is the ability to
know how and when to apply those concepts.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sep 20 '08 #171
On Sep 20, 11:20 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arvig.netwrote:
theget wrote:
I gotta admit, you're very good at seeing to it that you haven't
meant a damned thing worth knowing when it's all done.
That's funny.

Hint, clue, verb sap: In a "real" argument, you'd be cleared outta
the way with the pommel, never even take the point or eye off the
"real" target.
(For those who arrived late, that's the "+" thingy in the little
graphic down there.)

--
-------(m+
I take your meaning usenet tough guy. You may want to be careful about
that. Me? I'm pretty easy going. Not everyone is. Think carefully
before you post something like this next time. Free advice. Maybe
worth a little something to you.

As a troll, I give you 2/10, Points taken off for lack of humorous
content and veiled threats.

Theget
Sep 20 '08 #172
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>Walter Bushell wrote:

In article <gb**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrote:

I think the current President and his crew are scurvy dogs ripe
fer keelhaulin' (it's Speak Like a Pirate Day, ARR!), but I don't
think they planned 9/11. To have done so and gotten away with it
would require more intelligence, organization, dedication, and
focus than ANY of them have demonstrated.

You don't think Bush keeping up his stupid act takes great
intelligence, and he has achieved so many of his goals.

I don't think it's an act. Not so much stupid as lack of wisdom
and common sense.

They's another definition of "stupid" I ain't never hearn of?

Yes, actually. The inability to comprehend things intellectually
would be stupid. However, Bush's past history shows that he *CAN*
comprehend fairly complex notions, if he WANTS to.

This is the classic RPG division of the mental capacities.
Intelligence is the ability to understand specific concepts. Wisdom is
the ability to know how and when to apply those concepts.
I'll buy the distinction for general use, as it's roughly the one I
use anyway.
Provided you recognise that "wisdom" as defined is thus merely an
extended subset of "intelligence."
But "stupid" has always included an element of deliberation, of
choice, in my lexicon, i.e., the choice to be ignorant, to be stupid.
It's thus a form of psychopathy, and not necessarily mild.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 21 '08 #173
In article
<3e**********************************@i76g2000hsf. googlegroups.com>,
"." <sw*******@yahoo.com wrote:
9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

http://www.911weknow.com
Good video. Any links to any rebuttals?

L
--
http://www.christianecon.com/2008/09/pray-vote.html
http://www.christianecon.com/2008/09...-imagined.html
Sep 27 '08 #174
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
0j******@bellsouth.net wrote:
>FOlks:

I don't know if you have anything relevant to add to
rec.audio.pro but you should keep your stupidity confined to
newsgroups where it *is* actually relevant.
All you clowns are doing is wasting disk space on servers.

Can /you/ say "Eighty-dollar terabyte"?
(Or do you actually /believe/ in Intelligent Design?)
Hell, I remember when putting in /two/ 1.3MB floppies outranked
God by a whole megabyte.

BTW, "rec.pro" is an oxymoron, so your stupidity has leaked
somewhere
relevant for a change.
And another moron who's never run a server farm is heard from.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Oct 2 '08 #175
J. Clarke wrote:
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>0j******@bellsouth.net wrote:

>>>FOlks:

I don't know if you have anything relevant to add to
rec.audio.pro but you should keep your stupidity confined to
newsgroups where it *is* actually relevant.
All you clowns are doing is wasting disk space on servers.

Can /you/ say "Eighty-dollar terabyte"?
(Or do you actually /believe/ in Intelligent Design?)
Hell, I remember when putting in /two/ 1.3MB floppies outranked
God by a whole megabyte.

BTW, "rec.pro" is an oxymoron, so your stupidity has leaked
somewhere
relevant for a change.


And another moron who's never run a server farm is heard from.
My servers all had them magneto-opticals.
That's right, I ran a WORM farm.
(Anything I planted, /stayed/ planted.)

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Oct 3 '08 #176

.;7611860 Wrote:
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.
Interesting stuff.
--
webwider
------------------------------------------------------------------------
webwider's Profile: http://nettechguide.com/forums/member.php?u=271
View this thread: http://nettechguide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1904757

Oct 11 '08 #177

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.