"9/11 Truth in Ten Minutes" - pure scientific evidence for those who seek truth
Posted August 5th, 2008 by imperium8infinitum8
output
Here is a quick video on the events of 9/11. All the information is cited, sound arguments, convicing....
this video is dedicated to all the paulites who still believe the official story:
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Lets get the other bldgs. straight....jzneff....
First, we start with a picture of the area:
http://i37.photobucket.co...
Second, the bldgs.:
Bldg. 3: Marriott World Trade Center Hotel was a 22-story[1] steel-framed building with 825 rooms. The hotel was connected to the North and South tower, and many went through the hotel to get to the Twin Towers. It was destroyed.
Bldg. 4: Four World Trade Center was a 9-story low-rise office building in the southeast corner of the site, in Lower Manhattan, New York City. It was damaged beyond repair as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and was later demolished. LATER DEMOLISHED!!
Bldg. 5: 9-story low-rise office building built 1970-1972. The entire building was demolished by January 2002 as part of the WTC removal project. The World Trade Center (E) subway station was located under the building, and access into the station was available through the building. Floors 4 through 9 suffered partial collapse and/or fire damage. Floors 1-3 were undamaged. Some of the collapse was due to impact from steel and debris from World Trade Center 1 (North Tower). Other collapsed sections were due to fire damage. Portions of internal collapse and burnout were found on upper floors, mainly floors 6-8. The exterior facade suffered severe fire damage. The upper floors (5-9) were on fire after the second tower collapse. So, basically, your WTC 7 COMPLETE collapse onto itself excuse due to fire/damage doesn't add up.
Basically, you had buildings 5 and 6 bearing some of the debris load, therefore there is NO WAY the debris from the towers makes WTC 7 fall the WAY it did.
Thanks for the info...
Not a day goes by that I do not learn more about the crime or the cover-up of 9/11.
Most people that I talk to still do not even know about the collapse of WTC7--I didn't know until 2006. It's time for the unwashed masses to wake up!
"Truth, crushed to Earth, shall rise again." -William Cullen Bryant
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
Video has been removed by
Video has been removed by the user.
Anthrax Attack Was State-Sponsored Terror (But the State Was Ame
Anthrax Attack Was State-Sponsored Terror (But the State Was America)
The chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998 - who describes himself as one of the "four or five people in the whole country" who could make the type of anthrax used in the 2001 attacks - noted in testimony to Congress:
"I have maintained from the first descriptions of the material contained in the Daschle letter that the quality appeared to be such that it could be produced only by some group that was involved with a current or former state program in recent years. The level of knowledge, expertise, and experience required and the types of special equipment required to make such quality product takes time and experimentation to develop. Further, the nature of the finished dried product is such that safety equipment and facilities must be used to protect the individuals involved and to shield their clandestine activity from discovery."
Similarly, a manufacturer of specialized anthrax equipment said:
"You would need [a] chemist who is familiar with colloidal [fumed] silica, and a material science person to put it all together, and then some mechanical engineers to make this work . . . probably some containment people, if you don't want to kill anybody. You need half a dozen, I think, really smart people."
The U.N. biologist mentioned above also said that the equipment to make such high-tech anthrax does not exist at Fort Detrick, where Ivins worked. People who work at Fort Detrick have confirmed this.
In other words, a lone scientist couldn't have done it without the support of a whole government laboratory. And Fort Detrick was not one such potential laboratory.
What Does the FBI Say?
Until 2006, the FBI seemed to support this conclusion, but then suddenly and inexplicably changed its mind. According to the New York Times, the FBI changed its mind and took the position that the anthrax was not high-tech -- and thus could have been produced by a "lone nut" -- based upon a single paper published by one of its scientists.
The new theory was shown to be unsupported by any evidence in a various scientific papers
(see this and this). And even the editor of the journal in which the new FBI hypothesis was published later criticized the article:
"The statement should have had a reference. An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation."
In other words, the FBI scientist just made up the new claim that the anthrax was not so high-tech that it had to have been made by a government-sponsored bioweapons program.
So why did the FBI change its tune, based upon an unsupported statement by one of its scientists?
Well, if the evidence pointed to state-sponsored terror, ruled out states the U.S. government wanted to blame the attack on (such as Iraq), and actually pointed towards America as being the "state sponsor", the government might want to distract people from the true culprits, right? Especially given that producing weaponized anthrax violates laws to which the U.S. is a signatory, and could constitute war crimes, right?
Indeed, on September 4, 2001, the New York Times revealed that the government was going to produce a highly-potent anthrax strain at a military lab in Ohio.
And Dugway Proving Grounds had been producing high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax for quite some time before the attacks, and had shipped Ames strain anthrax "back and forth" with Fort Detrick.
Since 16 labs and many hundreds of people had access to the exact strain of anthrax used in the attacks, a state-sponsored operation could have been set up almost anywhere in the U.S.
They needed a patsy to pin the attacks on and deflect the fact that this was a false flag operation which also implicated an illegal bioweapons program.
The anthrax attacks was a crime in search of a patsy.
And see this.
Posted by George Washington at 9:35 AM
Older Post Home
http://georgewashington2....
Video has been removed...............
What's going on here? I continually go to video links posted here to find the video has been removed by the user.
it's not the user that is deleting them.
hence censorship.
Spread the word and donate - http://www.dvds4delegates...
The war on your mind -- http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion91...
OK, time to set the record straight...
All you people that STILL doubt that the towers were brought down by explosives need to listen to the people with brains.
I give you the Scholars for 9/11 Truth video "Improbable Collapse":
http://video.google.com/v...
May your eyes be opened. Enjoy!
To the skeptic, that just
To the skeptic, that just further establishes these conspiracy theories as matters of religious belief, not fact. Dr. Jones primarily uses the same technique as used by creationists to criticize evolution. Specifically, creationists erect strawmen, claim that evolution can't possibly explain this, that or the other thing, and thus by implication creationism must be true, even though no real alternate theory has been presented.
Same thing here. Dr Jones does not bother to show evidence of how this conspiracy was pulled off, he mostly argues that anomalies exist in the "official" explanation. But his own anomalies are not even consistent with each other. First he starts talking about thermite, then goes on to talk about explosions. Well thermite is not an explosive, and what explosions were heard were not nearly loud enough to be characteristic of the implosion of a building of that size. Especially if it had not been pre-weakened first.
Further, I am absolutely aghast at his explanation for the extreme heat found as much as seven days later and the finding of molten metal. How does one manage to earn a PhD in physics and not understand the difference between heat and temperature?
For example, a blow torch has a very high temperature but relative to a bon fire, very little heat. You can for instance, put your finger within a few inches of the flame of a blow torch with little discomfort, yet may find discomfort at distances as far as 5 to 10 feet from a bon fire. IOW, temperature is an instantaneous or point value while heat is a measure of energy.
Thermite is like the blow torch. It burns at a very high temperature, but only for a very short period of time, and affected only a relatively small amount of mass. Thus it does not possess a lot of heat. OTOH, the fires burned at much lower temperature, but they burned for an hour to an hour and a half for WTC1 and 2 and seven hours for WTC7, and involved much more mass. Thus like the bon fire, these fires possessed significantly more heat.
So the fact that the ground was still hot seven days later better supports the theory that fire significantly contributed to bringing down the buildings, rather than thermite.
But since he, like most defenders of these conspiracy theories, argues by anomaly, how about these anomalies.
1> The NYFD and all of the major networks were reporting up to two hours before WTC 7 fell that it was in imminent danger of collapse. The BBC even misread it and claimed that WTC 7 had already collapsed. If it were really taken down by implosion, shouldn't it have come as a surprise?
2> What happened to the 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel used for the generators in building 7? The two 6000 gallon tanks below grade were found empty and the ground was not found to be contaminated by diesel fuel. Note: Once power was pulled from building seven the fuel would start pumping to the generators, and that fuel line runs right up the south face of the building. The same south face which was significantly damaged by the collapse of the north tower. Hmm, think that might have contributed to the fires?
So where is the alternate conspiracy theory, explaining among other things; what type of demolition material was used; where was it placed; how was it was snuck into buildings having activity 24/7/365; how was it hidden in buildings with primarily exposed super structures (WTC 1 & 2 anyway); why was there no residue found in the debris of ignition systems; why were no columns or trusses showing evidence of being cut by thermite or blasted by explosives; were the buildings pre-weakened as in any conventional demolition or was vastly more demolition material used to compensate; and on and on. Until those and other issues are addressed, there is no alternate conspiracy theory, it remains simply a list of anomalies to be explained. Even if the NIST theory is completely wrong, it provides no evidence for any conspiracy theory.
Regards,
Eric
To the skeptic no evidence is sufficient. To the believer, no evidence is necessary.
Don't forget, Eric:
The Official Story, "OBL/KSM sent 19 suicidal freedom-haters with box cutters to hijack four jets and smash into buildings to bring America to her knees..." is itself a conspiracy THEORY... with no admissible evidence nor indictments.
You on the other hand, HAVE been indicted for curiously participating in an ongoing psychological perception war aimed primarily against the American people, to cover-up the glaring anomalies (such as WTC7, a 2 scenario paradox at the Pentagon, and the "Let's-Roll-to-the-empty-hole" in Shanksville) which serves to perpetuate a bankrupting War On Terror (a complete absurdity), and a demonstrable ongoing crime against humanity.
Why you do this, I really have no idea... yet continuing as you do, you only make yourself sound ever more foolish, if not down right despicable.
Er, why is it exactly that
Er, why is it exactly that you are entitled to your anomalies but I am not entitled to mine? :)
This is an excellent video,
This is an excellent video, but it was NOT made by Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Zeitgeist and spreading the message
This is my first post on the Daily Paul. Over the weekend I watched a great movie called: Zeitgeist. It is about the myths of religion, 9/11, and who really owns the media. After watching it, I shared it with several of my friends and family on my blog. I was hoping to get some Daily Paulers to come over to my blog and post some comments about what you think of the movie. Do you think the movie is based on reliable evidence? Can you give further research links for people to investigate?
I believe the best way to get other people to look into Ron Paul and his ideas is by talking to new people who have never heard the message. This means going to other blogs on the internet and leaving messages as well as talking to people on the streets.
The link to my blog is: http://www.racheliva.blogspot.com/ and the link to the movie Zeitgeist is here.
Please read this...
I've posted this a number of times in relation to the WT7 collapse, and really have gotten ignored and called nasty names...and I haven't seen a single rational response to this. In very simple terms, this is why I believe WT7 collapsed.
note: this is conjecture unless I state otherwise
1) Fact: WT7 was built on a Con Edison substation, with a cassion foundation that was never intended to hold a building more than 20-25 stories. WT7 was 47 stories
2) Conjecture: There were several fires in WT7. I know, not enough to cause a massive building collapse, but i'm sure you can conceded that this building was burning.
3) Conjecture: There was some appreciable damage done to the external structure to WT7. Certainly not enough to cause building failure, but there was some damage done.
4) Pure conjecture: WT7 stood a few hundred feet from the 2 largest buildings to collapse in human history. There was likely a tremendous amount of force piledriven into the ground, which caused measurable shaking and likley shifted a great deal of material.
5) Fact: Shoddy fireproofing: Thanks to the tree huggers, you can't coat reinforced beams with asbestos any more.
None of these factors seems powerful enough to bring the building down on their own. Judging by the video's of the collapse, this building failed at the ground level and collapsed from the bottom up.
So in summary, you have a underground foundation that had a massive amount of weight, more than it was ever built to hold. You have some structural damage to the facade, as well as some fires burning. You also had 2 very violent tetonic events, which not only shook the building but also may have shifted the foundation it was built on.
This building was visably buckling and moving hours before the collapse. When the owner said "pull it" he was likely referring to the firefighting effort because he'd just seen 3000 people die, and didn't want any more needless deaths trying to save his building. The BBC reported on the collapse, because they were given (wild conjecture) a note from a NYC official telling them of a imminent collapse, and they weren't familiar with the word imminent. They ran with the story and got it wrong.
If the 9/11 commision report is the government's attempt to spin and whitewash an inside job...you would have thought they could have paid for some better spin doctors, because I could have written that report better on my toilet.
Please, stay rational and civil and tell me where the weaknesses are in this story...in short, if Uncle Sam were to tell you this same tale, how would you respond?
Hey jzneff...
ALL the answers are on "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice" - http://www.stj911.com/ind...
If you had actually read what people have been kind enough to point you to you might come to understand some basic physics and common sense. You would see science and physics proving that the buildings were brought down with explosives.
Ever hear of the Pentagon? The evidence (or lack there of) on that site is yet another smoking gun proving that the government or those that actually run the government, are LYING.
Do your own damned research and quit pestering us with your deceit and stupidity.
Lol...
number 4 is the most laughable excuse of all...what about the other wtc buildings that were CLOSER to the towers that didnt collapse upon themselves? Fires would NOT have caused a collapse like that, why cant you see that??
The other buildings
They were very small buildings...less than 10 stories and bearing significantly less weight than WTC7.
I love brainless disinfo.
Makes me feel like I am putting pressure because you are here. Real scientific answer there oil boy.
LOL
Yeah...you're really getting to the heart of the matter with your posts.
"Bull$%^$...your %$%^ disinfo $#%$% troll $%$% get the $%$% out of my website...for I am %$% growing $#%$# #$%$ HHO and you are $%$% for that $%$%."
Trust me...even your fellow truthers are embarrassed to have you argue on their side.
Keep making fun of my analysis on crude...for it's dropping faster than you can make foul mouthed childish comments.
Move out of Mommy's basement, then you can call me brainless.
LIke I said I am tired of beating you over the head with
Facts. Numbscull. Excuse me if I don't spell things out a thousand times for you.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
I noticed you didn't provide any sources
I noticed you didn't provide any sources for your "facts." Care to provide them now or would you like for us to just trust you like the Big Brother Government expects us to just trust them that 9/11 was unavoidable and not fire a single individual and promote some of those who were responsible for the break down in defense of Washington, D.C. and NYC on 9/11?
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
Which fact are you questioning?
I put 2 facts in there.
1) The WTC7 was built on the Con Ed substation...
2) Fireproofing beams using asbestos was against the law when WT7 was built
Which of those are you questioning, and what sources would you trust? I'm guessing you don't trust any MSM sources...it's a nasty catch-22, the only sources you trust are other truthers.
On it?
1) Or over it? I don't believe they would alow a building to be built without a strong enough foundation.
2) Does that mean that there was no fireproofing? I doubt that also.
OK
1) Over it...you find it hard to believe that city planners and archtects would make a bonehead decision? I'm sure it happens a lot.
2) Nope...there was fireproofing, but I have never found anything that insulates against heat as well as asbestos.
Yes I find
it hard to believe, in fact they probably paid more attention to having a strong foundation due to the fact it was over a con ed station.
2) I am sure the fireproofing was just as good or better than asbestos, and what do tree huggers have to do with asbestos not being used anymore? Maybe the millions of cases of lung cancer had something to do with it!!
My asbestos tree has pretty fireproof flowers in the spring. : )
forbidden fruit...
Let's see the "mainstream" sources. Demonstrate for us just how few and far between the coverage of WTC7 by the "mainstream" media has been.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
Try this one
This is from wikipedia.org article on 7 World Trade Center
The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.
"crappy job of investigation"
"...built on a Con Edison substation, with a cassion [sic] foundation that was never intended to hold a building more than 20-25 stories."
To support this assertion, you're relying on the following, apparently: Salvarinas, John J. (1986). "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects". Proceedings of the 1986 Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, Vancouver: Canadian Steel Construction Council
According to this source, "Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames."
Thus, WTC7 was engineered with a hybrid caisson foundation, consisting of old and new caissons, based on the unique needs of the designers to incorporate the Con Ed substation and an existing shipping/receiving ramp into their design plans.
Thus, WTC7 was engineered and built with a hybrid caisson foundation, consisting of old and new caissons, intended to hold a 47-story building.
Considering all of that, someone could arguably label your assertion that WTC7 was "...built on a Con Edison substation, with a cassion [sic] foundation that was never intended to hold a building more than 20-25 stories" as intellectually dishonest.
Also, neither of the sources that you cited support your "shoddy fireproofing" assertion.
So much for your "facts."
I would also add that the NIST progress report that you cite does not tackle the question of how uncontrolled hydro-carbon fires could have caused observed ground temperatures of 1100+ degrees Fahrenheit five days later on 9/16/2001, according to a NASA/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) thermal imaging/spectrometer on that date, at the site of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 which was not struck by an aircraft, thus not exposed to burning jet fuel.
Perhaps in answering that question NIST could improve their chances for success in trying "to determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed" since fire is so central to their current hypothesis.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
Ok
So you have a hybrid foundation, fusing old and new elements of structural support. I would take that to mean that neither structure was capable of supporting the building themselves, but together they could support the structure.
If you ask me...sounds like they made a hybrid foundation to save the money it would have cost to actually demolish the Con Ed station and do it right the first time.
So if one of the two structural supports were to fail, or if the diaphram were to become damaged (this was on the 5th floor, where there was definite damage from the falling twin towers) than the building may have become unstable.
Would you not agree that this is very atypical of the way skyscrapers are designed?
Stop Stupidity now.
So let me get this right. The base of the building caused every joint member and support as well as weld and bolt to magically loose all strength at once and fall into a pile of dust. You are laughable at best with your attempt at spreading disinfo.
Your assumption is like asking me to believe in Santa Claus.
The Collaspe
Was just so clean and uniform and neat. A nice neat package, if you will, ready for instant removal as like a construction site. Then all evidence hauled off without examination, quickly as in secret.
I find it hard to impossible that a building would fall in this manner without assistance.
I'm with you
Yes...the collapse did look very nice and neat...but the problem we run into is a complete lack of perspective.
We don't know what a structural failure would look like on a building on that size...because it has never happened in the history of mankind.
These were by far the 3 largest building collapses, controlled or otherwise, that we have ever seen. I saw with my own 2 eyes the 4th largest collapse ever, and this was a 29 story building in Detroit.
I think it probably shouldn't have looked so uniform, but with nothing else to compare it with, it's hard to say one way or the other.
Fuck off.
Rationality would require you to not phrase that question in such a way that you are poking at us disinfo whore.
Buildings closer to the towers that were all but shredded in half stood until they were torn down. WTC 7 had little damage was further away and most of the fires were out by the end of the day when it fell at free fall speed. Only demolition can cause that. I am through being civil with you 70 dollar oil boy.
http://video.google.com/v...
Grow up
You do a disservice to the truth movement...a barrier in rallying support to your cause and a reason why more people refuse to stand up with you. I would love to see more investigations into 9/11, but really hate to take your side in any argument.
You do a disservice to this movement...the powers that be love to paint us as nothing but wacko's living in Mom's basement blogging endlessly about how the world is coming to an end. You make it really easy for them to paint us with a broad brush.
You are a barrier to enlightened and rational discussion, and more-so are a foul mouthed child.
We can't win in this movement by calling 95% of America stupid and insisting on bringing up divisive arguments just so we can feel right...we have to calmly and rationally explain where we come from and where we'd like to go...and you are incapable of that.
You can't even be civil with people who are on the same side of the revolution....how can you ever expect to convert a neo-con or a liberal. We cannot win if we cannot convert people to our cause.
You called me a moron for predicting $70 oil when it was $147. Now it's more than $30 lower than that...you're certainly in the majority for believing it won't get to $70, but i'm sure most people didn't think it would get to $115. Maybe next time read a post before you ridicule.
Go back to your garden and prepare for the collapse...and let the rest of us who are dedicated to winning in this revolution be on the front line.
You are not trying to help the truth movement
So let me get this right. The base of the building caused every joint member and support as well as weld and bolt to magically loose all strength at once and fall into a pile of dust. You are laughable at best with your attempt at spreading disinfo.
Your assumption is like asking me to believe in Santa Claus.
And speaking of front lines. I tried to invite you to come to Ron Paul events and bring the family. You always decline. Front lines my ass. I bet you haven't even passed out a slim jim.
There are two movments here
There's the truth movement...of which I have a small amount of interest, merely academic curiousity.
There's the freedom movement...of which everyone here posting is a part of and one which I care deeply about.
Honestly, beyond wanting a better explanation of the mistakes and a new investigation into 9/11, no, I don't spend much time.
As far as the rEVOLution, I am as dedicated as anyone to saving this country.
For me, dedication does not mean rallying with other people already well aware of our movement. Might be good for some, but it's not for me. I think my role is to convert other people to the cause of freedom...and those people aren't at Ron Paul rallies.
The ones I have converted are the ones I love...my friends and family. Maybe I don't pass out slim jims, but there are other ways to spread the message.
Criticize my efforts if you like, but I won Dr. Paul at least 20 votes in Macomb County, MI primary. Small results, i'll admit, but we have perhaps 5% of Americans in our cause...and if we all convert 20 people to join us...you do the math.
I told you when you invited me...I have a vested interest in remaining anynonomous, and I will offer no further explanation.
Likely excuse for a Disinfo agent.
What is your vested interest in remaining anonymous. I like to be transparent to an extent.
Like I said
I'll offer no further explanation.
Understand, I'm quite a paranoid person, and somewhat a recluse at times because I don't easily trust people...and certainly don't trust anyone I meet via the internet.
I have my reasons to be skeptical of people I meet online, and I have a lot to lose.
I can assure you (which is the best I can do) that I have no vested interest in being here besides furthering the cause of freedom. I am not paid by anyone to post here, I don't work for any government agency, and I don't have an agenda to be here besides mental excercise and interest in this movement (the freedom movement).
I've been called a disinfo agent more times that I can count...it's something that I couldn't disprove even if I were to take Rhino's pie in the face challenge. If you want to believe me an agent of government, so be it, but i'm simply here to learn and share my thoughts.
I doubt you're here to learn
Or else you wouldn't continue to spread this bullshit in relation to scientific knowledge and fact. You have been show multiple times and still come back with this crap.
Edit that post
If you can make it make any sense at all...i'll respond. I don't even know what you were trying to say.
Hold on a second
He's just playing devil's advocate here:
"If the 9/11 commision report is the government's attempt to spin and whitewash an inside job...you would have thought they could have paid for some better spin doctors, because I could have written that report better on my toilet.
Please, stay rational and civil and tell me where the weaknesses are in this story...in short, if Uncle Sam were to tell you this same tale, how would you respond?"
And he does have the right to argue the case for $70 oil. We can all dream, right?
p.s. - How's that HHO unit working out for you?
************
http://www.dvds4delegates.com
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear."
~Ambrose Redmoon
LOL ... a priceless "p.s."
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Actually
The "p.s." was in a serious tone. I'm considering adding a Smack's booster to one of my cars. And I do appreciate your role, rhino.
************
http://www.dvds4delegates.com
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear."
~Ambrose Redmoon
He was meaning well.
Fuck you to. We already showed you to be disinfo vermin over at the liberty love forums.
Sorry. I took it as humor.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
I am trying to build a EFIE map sensor
To manage my O2 sensor. Seems that the HHO is causing my fuel pump to work overtime because of the extra O2 I am getting from the cell which is making my computer think their is extra O2.
I am only getting 43 or so miles to the gallon on my eclipse Right now. Which is good but I want better.
It's going good tho.
Oh geez, time for another HHO thread?
What kind of mileage were you getting before? I'm thinking of adding the unit to my '69 VW bus. It has a map sensor in the driver's door. Every time I put my road atlas in the side pocket it rubs against my leg so I know it's there...
************
http://www.dvds4delegates.com
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear."
~Ambrose Redmoon
28 to 30 at best.
LOL... if it's a 69 you don't need to worry about a mapping sensor..lol. So cut off the leg...hahahaa. If anything play with your carburetor. Hell yes this will help that bus. Make sure you shrink wrap the cell to keep ark from heating the water up and use KOH instead of baking soda..
Youtube zero fossil fuels. The guy there has over 150 movies explaining the process in depth..
Ok, 'pull' this
Pull on this for a while...'Pull it' is not a firefighting term. And there were no active firefighting activities in WTC Building 7. But hey, what do I know? I've only read what the guys on the scene (that's FDNY) had to say about it.
So if Larry the JackAss spoke to the FDNY and decided to "Pull it", he must have been speaking with someone other than Chief Dan Nigro (yeah, he's retired now but he wasn't on 9/11/01) because Chief Nigro said in an interview "...For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
But what does he know, right? He was only the Chief of the entire FDNY on 9/11/01. I'm sure Larry the JackAss discussed 'pulling it' with someone. Perhaps he just got a little confused as to whom and when in the excitement of the moment. But that's just speculation on my part.
One thing is for sure though. And that is that I agree that we don't know exactly what happened.
You're right
Pull it may not be a firefighting term..but Larry Silverstein is not a firefighter.
I just find it hard to believe that if Silverstein was "in on it" and trusted with perhaps the most critical secret in the history of mankind, that he would let the pull it comment slip.
Perhaps he has a bit of an inflated ego and wanted credit with saving lives that were actually saved by Dan Nigro...either way, i'm very glad one decent decision was made that day...regardless of who made the decision.
I'll agree with you, again.
Larry S isn't and was never a firefighter. He's a real estate developer. His company has demolished (taken down or 'pulled'...you pick) more than a few buildings. Look it up on the web, it's easy to find. So, when Larry had his 'oops!' moment, it was with a few decades of real estate developing under his belt and in between his ears. So it's a safe bet his 'pull it' comment was to be in reference to demolition. Not anywhere near as much of a stretch as claiming it was in reference to pulling firefighters out of the building, because there weren't any in WTC 7 nor were there any even near WTC 7 thanks to Chief Nigro's decision and orders.
Count it as one more streak of still steaming B.S. leading to the pile, shall we?