9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: S'mee on 21 Apr 2010 17:39 On Apr 21, 1:12 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > Just killfile Drain Man. The world is a better place, trust me. I'm so cheap I can't KF...wouldn't do it for the same reason I don't munge or outright LIE about my info. But hey it's cool...I'll let him be when he answers the question instead of running away like a startled chicken sqwuaking and clucking hither, tither and yon....but mostly yon. All that so called info and they keep coming to EXACTLY the wrong answer.
From: bert on 25 Apr 2010 09:06 On Apr 22, 6:32 pm, BrianNZ <br...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote: > n...(a)bid.nes wrote: > > On Apr 21, 7:05 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> n...(a)bid.nes wrote: > >>> On Apr 20, 7:31 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>> n...(a)bid.nes wrote: > >>>>> It's not *my* "fairy tale". I'll ask you to cite me supporting > >>>>> anyone's account of 911 or issue a retraction. > >>>> So you share Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's skepticism of the U.S. government's > >>>> 9-11 cartoon fairy tale? The way your post was worded, you seemed to > >>>> be criticizing him, as well as everyone else who questions the > >>>> government's 9-11 propaganda. You should learn to write more clearly.. > >>> Stop weaseling. > >> You brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (with whom you seem to share skepticism > >> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory) into this thread. That's not > >> weaseling, that's a fact. > > > First you make claims about *my* "fairy tale", now it's "with whom > > you seem to share skepticism of the government's 9-11 conspiracy > > theory...". That's weaseling. > > > You are determined to place me on one side or another of your > > obsession. > > "You are with us or against us". :) > > > > > I asked you to cite me supporting *anyone's* 911 account or retract > > your claims. > > > You have consistently evaded doing either. You know full well I have > > expressed no such support but are incapable of admitting error. > > > You are not worthy of my respect. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > henry will never supply you with any answer that he can't cut'n'paste. > The only bits of his posts that are 'his' words are when he tries to > belittle you or mock you if you aren't 'with him'. He will twist and > turn and never admit wrongdoing (deliberate or accidental. You are > totally correct, he is not worth your respect. Something like respect > needs to be earned, not handed out.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - To Ya All Bush & Cheney were the big guns of Enrod and made it the most corrupt and EVIL company. When we let Jeb Bush give the presidency to his brother Bush we got what we deserve by not fighting for out first amendment rights. TreBert
From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 19:49 no, no; de planes!, Boss, were not beeg eenough bombs, to knock Earth's tallest buildings into a gigantic subway that served them (according to the -a-hem- contractor who built'em .-) now, how does *anyone* explain: a) the cars that were melted in the street, below; and b) the molten metal found *weeks* later? > YOU and they are delusional. thus: are you still thinking of light as "photons with a guidewave" -- like that little cartoon, you found? thus: OMG, some dood hates Lyn!... well, find the article about actual sea-level data from tidal stations, yourself, mister Nice-guy. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall01/Tanawa/tanawa.html What Is a Torquetum? The torquetum, an analogue computer, can tell us, without long and tedious calculation, at any time of the night when planets or the Moon are visible, what their angular distance is from the Sun, or from the first point of Aries, and/or from some bright star in their vicinity. It can also tell us how much they are above or below the ecliptic. This would give us a fairly quick way to construct an almanac, with enough data to predict at least lunar eclipses, as well as occultations of bright stars or planets by the Moonthe which dramatic events ought to confirm the longitude readings obtained by using the torquetum to measure lunar distance. Rick Sanders > 148940000 km^2 Earth land area > 510072000 km^2 Earth sea area > 14000000 km^2 Antarctica area > 1.6 km Ice height thus: I dug into your wikilink, Sue; the upshot is that there is only practiceably "partial vacuum," with all kinds of waffling about "free space;" particularly laudable is: Scientists working in optical communications tend to use free space to refer to a medium with an unobstructed line of sight (often air, sometimes space). See Free-space optical communication and the What is Free Space Optical Communications?. The United States Patent Office defines free space in a number of ways. For radio and radar applications the definition is "space where the movement of energy in any direction is substantially unimpeded, such as the atmosphere, the ocean, or the earth" (Glossary in US Patent Class 342, Class Notes).[40] Another US Patent Office interpretation is Subclass 310: Communication over free space, where the definition is "a medium which is not a wire or a waveguide".[41] thus: now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder about his death at fifty-three, after dining with a manslaughterer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if you really want to get into WS's politics, find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, "Why the British hate Shakespeare" -- if you can do so, at http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. thus: the whole *problem* is the diagramming, which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched on paper. you simply do not need the pants, the lightcones they're made with, and the paradoxes of "looping in time" because of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, you won't be able to do *any* physics, that isn't "junkyard physics." thus: you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" than "photons," which is three things that have never been seen. Young proved that all properties of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls o'light for British academe. well, even if any large thing could be accelerated to so close to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," not "vacuum energy dynamics"). thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: Charlie on 29 Apr 2010 15:11 On 29/04/2010 19:52, Henry wrote: > Charlie wrote: >> On 21/04/2010 20:44, Henry wrote: > >> <snip drivel> > > If it was drivel, and you were intelligent, you'd be able to > refute it. Here's the part that shuts your conspiracy theory > down *hard*. > I don't have to refute it. I am happy to leave that to structural engineers, architects, chemical analysts and others who have the technical skills and interest to repudiate your claims. If either you or they reach a definitive conclusion, I will (a) be amazed and (b) acknowledge whoever 'wins' as the 'winner'. We both know that neither side will ever concede, however. In the meantime, I have only to point out that you keep on posting the same weary old stuff to a recreational UK newsgroup that has no interest whatsoever in your off-topic conspiracy theories relating to a US conspiracy. I accept that it matters to you, but it will only matter to us if either side comes up with something original, interesting or even funny. Until then ...
From: Henry on 29 Apr 2010 15:39
Charlie wrote: > On 29/04/2010 19:52, Henry wrote: >> Charlie wrote: >>> On 21/04/2010 20:44, Henry wrote: >> >>> <snip drivel> >> If it was drivel, and you were intelligent, you'd be able to >> refute it. Here's the part that shuts your conspiracy theory >> down *hard*. > I don't have to refute it. You can't refute it refute it, because it's accurate and factual. > I am happy to leave that to structural > engineers, architects, chemical analysts and others who have the > technical skills and interest to repudiate your claims. Actually, they agree that WTC7 was demolished. They've studied the evidence and they understand the basic principles of physics. As always, here's hard proof. http://www.ae911truth.org Further proof here. http://www.911speakout.org/ -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |