posted 10-24-2003 09:20 PM            

Why do you keep coming back then after you have been banned Proud Veteran? Adios!

Stay gone this time...

Edited quote by FLKook for naughty word

posted 10-24-2003 09:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:


Submitted by: Anonymous "
by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002
. . . .
The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts.

---

For now, I am going to ignore all of the other crap by another "Some Anonymous Person" (SAP) and instead focus on this one assertion.

So, if the calls were faked, How? Were the people that supposedly made them faked too? If the calls from real people, how were they faked so cleverly, that the loved ones, friends etc. of the people on the plane were totally fooled into believing that voices that they heard were in fact the their husbands, wives, etc?

It is amazing that TPTB had enough time to research the passengers before the flight to pick the right people to fake the voices of.

BTW has anyone here ever heard of "airphone?"

posted 10-24-2003 09:58 PM            

I support the military and I love my fellow men and women who serve. My dad served in WWII -- got a disease from serving as a belly gunner in a B-24 Liberator. I went to college the first time under the G.I. bill for disabled veterans' children.

I was angry when Bush promised to support the troops and then he slashed their benefits. I'm angry that soldiers have to die in Iraq for oil and not WMD.

I like capitalism. We have owned our own small business for over twenty years. We own our own home outright. Yeah, capitalism is good when you're honest and do a hard day's work.

I've taught in the public schools, served my community, and raised thinking children.

I volunteer in a political party, I help the elderly, and I give to those less fortunate.

I vote.

I pray to my own God and have respect for those who believe in the ONE God the father -- all peoples. I believe in the separation of church and state. Public schools are paid by taxpayers contributions and are therefore part of the state.

I believe that all men and women are equal regardless of the color of their skin or the amount of material goods they accumulate. Children and the elderly should have state funded health care and available nutrition as well as affordable drug coverage.

I believe in questioning government and preserving civil rights.

I believe in knowledge and the acquisition of truth through evidence and proof, therebye supporting the tenets of law and justice.

*
*
*
*
*

I am a liberal and proud of it!

I read, I think, I SEE.

"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others
that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been
would have appeared to them to be otherwise." -- Duchess to Alice, Lewis
Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

"Sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side." -
Claude McDonald

"News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising." --
Rubin Frank, former NBC news president

"The first casualty when war comes is Truth" -- U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to
stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but
is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1858-1919

bc

posted 10-25-2003 01:17 AM            

I believe in the separation of church and state.

posted 10-25-2003 03:36 AM            

"As a former poster, I was PV. I still see Mech thinks he the king now that he has power to do away with people he doesn't like."

Wow! Really? Interesting.

Could have fooled me. After all Thermit, Lulu, EMFX13 and FLKook have much more privelages than me.

I'm just a lowly Jr. Officer.

Bye now!

Next time read the rules.

posted 10-25-2003 06:39 AM            

or better yet..

O' Captain my Captain.

"Things would be a lot easier if this was a Dictatorship....just as long as i'm the dictator".

posted 10-25-2003 12:24 PM            

quoting

Reading this CutPaste made by Boomer Chick... I'm just going to point out some glaringly obvious lies, with my very limited knowledge. I just couldn't let this glaring/steaming pile to slip through.
www.chemtrailcentral.com/...45-12.html

"Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

Submitted by: Anonymous "
by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight.

They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

The only aircraft I have heard of occomplishing this was a 737 boeing intentionally rigged up to crash, to test a fuel additive. So here we have a lie.. First off it's doubtful a 757/767 could do the above mentioned without a good deal of rigging (while all are theoritically possible, they all also require a pilot to be present in the aircraft) second it has been semi-done with a 737, again, well rigged up.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's
neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

BULLSHIT ALERT : The *777* is Boeings ONLY 'Fly-by-wire' aircraft, and in that plane the pilots CAN override the computer. seattlepi.nwsource.com/bu...e202.shtml

I think this guy is globing together bits he may have heard in the news and pretending he knows something.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

Cool, bit irrelevant..

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

Ooh, hows that? Extreme stress on the airframe cause by an object in the flight path (IE: Building)?

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL.

BULLSHIT, as I've said before. A heavily rigged 737 has done it.. Get your facts straight.

It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.

I'm sorry "remote control" is NOT a standard feature on any airliner. I wish people who wrote this crap would try and backup their arguements (IE: Showing any evidence this is true)

The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote.

Complete lie, there is no such thing on commercial aircraft

Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit.
Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.

Sure, the aircraft knew it, but I'm sure the terrorists ignored Bitchin' Betty yellin 'PULL UP, PULL UP' 'TERRAIN'

Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.

The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.

Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I'd bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.. Cut his mic. As you can see I like the 'Fuck you you're a moron' approach more than making it obviously clear to anyone. It makes it more fun for me, the chemmies aren't going to listen anyway.

Anyways, after writing that all out a link with part of what BC posted. Too bad she didn't read the post under it.

alberta.indymedia.org/new...omment.php

If anyone wants to post that (the link, not my jibber-jabber) counteract what Bookerchick AKA ICP Groupie says.. Be my guest

CC

posted 10-25-2003 07:08 PM            

Dear man, I'm done. There are reasons why and you can find them at the serendipity links already given. Have a nice evening.

posted 10-25-2003 07:45 PM            

Time will tell you loudly and clearly!

Thanks for leaving!

posted 10-25-2003 07:50 PM            

Left the the country
during the two terms of elected President Bill Clinton,
and only returned when Bush the second was appointed?

Give proof!

Evidence to prove, to any unbiased reader, has been posted,
with links to videos, photos and statements which refute any coincidence theory.
that the WTC demolition was photographed from many angles with flashes of light, sounds of explosions, firemens' statements and dying declarations by victims.
(of the Bush OP Northwoods IMWIO)

Only a cultist who believes nothing but FAUX spoon fed propaganda could possibly ignore all evidence and believe Bush minions instead/ IMHO
(just: In My Well Informed Opinion-not a personal insult to any individual neo-con cultist)

Notice the thread drift cleverly crafted by neo-cons who follow Rush's rules of disinformation?

1. Attack the messenger, not the message
(Use insults and innuendo)
2. Divert the topic onto irrelevancies
3. Pick at details and ignore the thesis presented.
(eg: that cannot be a pine forest- I see a lone hardwood tree among those thousands of pines)
Can't see the forest for the woods?
Can't see the truth for neo-con bias?
Same Same

eg: look up and see chemtrails which are obviously not contrails;
refuse to believe your own eyes until/unless Rush tells you to see for yourself.

Drink that kool-aid and let the rest of us deal with reality.

posted 10-25-2003 09:16 PM            

About sums it up?

posted 10-25-2003 10:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Larson,

Dear man, I'm done. There are reasons why and you can find them at the serendipity links already given. Have a nice evening.

bc

---

That is a cop out.

BTW I have looked at and in at least one post here I have shown just how silly the serendipity pages are.

posted 10-26-2003 02:54 AM            

those pages have extensive links to TRUTH

I know how much truth hurts rightwing neo-cons.
It's like holy water to a vampire/
but serendipity has links to TRUTH
despite how much truth destroys all credibility of Bush lies.

So mode it be.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

posted 10-26-2003 10:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
This includes the fact that, as I pointed out, those pages have extensive links to the cultivation and use of "shrooms."

---

Larsen,

Obviously, you never heard of the "Good Friday Experiment" or rehabilitating criminals sucessfully experiments of the early and mid-sixties.

http://www.csp.org/practices/entheogens/docs/young-good_friday.html

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/leary2.htm

That's like me saying Alex Jones has no pertinent information because he is a Christian. Or course he is informative. He may even drink booze or beer, which contains the more dangerous drug, alcohol.

But wait, didn't the Inquistors, who drank alcohol, burn witches, not least of which was because they consummed "mushrooms" and "toadstools"? Some things never change.

Your credibility is slipping even more with assinine , unscientific statements like that. You are the one claiming that every alternative that sways sway from the government sponsered media, is false. Yet you want to discredit serendipity's credentials because of your totally misinformed opinion.

Now, let's turn the tables. Back up your statement that psilocybin is a dangerous natural mind-enhancer if used for intelligent purposes, as you are alluding to in your statement.

If you can't, then all of your work on your opinion of the WTC collape is nonsense, since you are applying your opinion, that seredipity's opinion of WTC is nonsense, because they link to sites that point out the goodness of a god/goddess-given substance, Psilocybin.

posted 10-26-2003 11:06 PM            

Look at how many of the perimeter columns are cut!!!

posted 10-27-2003 03:02 PM            

OK, first glaring aspect of the NIST, which is a government organization, is the term "preliminary assumptions and analysis". This report was given in June 2002.

I found a lie on page 5
"Because both towers were so completely destroyed when they collapsed, relatively little
physical evidence remained for investigation."

"Since neither the geometry nor the fuel distribution inside of either tower is
known after the collision, many assumptions are required to approximate these quantities."

In the following quotation, the lack of expertise and conjecture is also reiterated in another way:
"Therefore, detailed estimates of the thermal environment within each tower are problem-atic.
Comparisons of the output from the simulations to available photographs and videos
provide constraints on estimated interior geometries and fuel distributions, but cannot dis-criminate
entirely between different assumptions." (page 7)

As the only way to gauge heat and temperature volumes they continue to hem and haw about their inability to accurately assess and the first sentence is simply word play -- very poorly written:
"At this stage of our studies, we have not yet been able to
determine how the external damage changed as a function of time. Therefore, the estimate
of the exterior damage used herein was determined from the mosaic of visuals obtained
over the duration of the fires. As additional photographic and video evidence has become
available, we have begun to refine this initial assessment and to estimate temporal changes
in the exterior damage. An example is presented below of how high quality photographic
and video records of the external fire behavior may help to discriminate between very
different assumptions concerning interior damage and fuel distributions." (page 8)

An interesting fact about jet fuel:

"At this burning rate, the jet fuel would be
consumed in only a few minutes, assuming an adequate air supply, and even in less time if
the fuel were spread over a greater area. These estimates are consistent with those given
in the FEMA/ASCE study [7] and are important because they demonstrate that the jet fuel
would be consumed quickly relative to the duration of the tower fires." (page 10)

In the first part they studied the plume and determined a Gigawatt of energy emitted. A Gigawatt, but with no time parameters. No conclusion as to the affect on floors or structure. Just a snapshot in time of a plume and its heat potential -- nothing conclusive. Not worth even reading in terms of this thread or in terms of any theory supporting heating of the structure.

In this next quote, the preliminary aspect is once again brought home.

"The estimates are subject to change as
more visual records and other data become available. They could also change as additional
simulations are performed and more complex models are developed and utilized." (17)

In reading this adobe acrobat document, I found nothing of any intellectual or supportive value toward the heat/collapse theory. Another glaring indication that these authors present is their lack of specificity in the differences in the two towers in terms of impact and varying damage to the respective buildings due to heat.

In order to support your theory, Larson, you must come up with better documents. This one is too old and too obviuosly full of ambiguities and assumptions that fail to convince anyone. Obviously these researchers are on a payroll and had to come up with something. It wasn't much.

bc

posted 10-27-2003 11:27 PM            

Do you have any idea just how much a gigawatt of energy is?

I count at least 27 perimeter columns severed.

http://nymetro.com/news/articles/wtc/gallery/3.htm

This photo is captioned: The Facade Falls
The latticework facing of the south tower came tumbling to earth upon impact of the hijacked plane.

This isn’t just the "façade" these are the perimeter columns themselves!

posted 10-29-2003 10:19 AM            

Structural steel analysis status

posted 10-29-2003 08:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
quote

I believe in the separation of church and state.

You may support it but it isn't in the constitution.

---

Might help to actually read the US Constitution Professor.

It is very clearly in the Constitution:

>U.S. Constitution
Article VI
...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. <

There is your 'separation of church and state' so clearly worded nobody could possibly mistake it for anything else but a mandate.

Not changed by
>Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
<

clearly worded plain english:
>no religious test<
>no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof<

Nothing could be more clear unless it is the simple clear concise words of the guy who invented the concept of 'separation of church and state':

-while responding to a question by conservatives who mistakenly sought his approval of their tax evasion-

extremely significant how he began his comments to those conservatives of his day:
"Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?"

Same comment and question today!
(By the guy who invented the concept of separation of church and state)

Matthew 22: for those who only wave their Bibles instead of reading them:
>"18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."<