Discussion:
I Bent My Rear Axle!
(too old to reply)
Datesfat Chicks
2010-10-09 19:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Had the rear tire replaced at the dealership today. Just because I'm anal
and because I went over one pothole in the middle of the night that just
about broke my back (the "hit" seemed to be the rear tire coming out of the
hole), I had ordered a new rear axle in advance and picked it up at the
parts department and gave it to the service department to swap in.

I looked at the old axle. I cleaned it up with a paper towel. It seemed to
be bent, but because of the marks on it, I couldn't be sure it wasn't an
optical illusion. We got out a straightedge ... yep, bent.

The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.

The bend itself isn't centered on the axle -- it is closer to one end than
the other.

It wasn't a safety issue. The dealership told me stories about axles bent
so badly that they couldn't get them through the wheel to remove them. The
things won't fracture.

All interesting.

It gives me a data point, to know that this can be done and how much force
it takes. Seriously, that bump was really close to breaking my back.

DF
?
2010-10-09 20:06:04 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 9, 12:31 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.
>
> The bend itself isn't centered on the axle -- it is closer to one end than
> the other.

Well then, that side of your *swingarm* may be permanently bent/
twisted too.

In order to determine this, you need to check whether or not the rear
wheel is vertical at the same time as the front wheel (with the front
wheel pointed straight ahead) and check to see that the rear axle is
parallel with the swingarm pivot bolt

If the axle and swing arm pivot bolts aren't parallel, your swingarm
is twisted.

It might be easier to have a shop with a laser alignment tool to do
this for you...
Datesfat Chicks
2010-10-09 21:03:01 UTC
Permalink
"?" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f376a9a9-d70d-49a8-b30e-***@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>On Oct 9, 12:31 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.
>>
>> The bend itself isn't centered on the axle -- it is closer to one end
>> than
>> the other.
>
>Well then, that side of your *swingarm* may be permanently bent/
>twisted too.
>
>In order to determine this, you need to check whether or not the rear
>wheel is vertical at the same time as the front wheel (with the front
>wheel pointed straight ahead) and check to see that the rear axle is
>parallel with the swingarm pivot bolt
>
>If the axle and swing arm pivot bolts aren't parallel, your swingarm
>is twisted.
>
>It might be easier to have a shop with a laser alignment tool to do
>this for you...

There is a whole lot of complexity in evaluating that statement, and my only
response is "I'll check the swingarm when I have it off, probably over the
Winter".

Here is the complexity ...

My axle threads through from the left, and the nut is on the right. The
chain is on the left.

The bend in the axle is further towards the right (closer to the nut, and
further from the chain).

Looking at the bike from the back, it appears that the tire is not centered
in the swingarm or along the axle because of the sprocket and cush drive.
So, any extreme forces on the wheel might tend to bend the axle at a point
further to the right (even if the forces were straight up).

Also, it has been a year or two since I had the wheel off and apart, but
(again because of the sprocket and cush drive), my recollection is that the
two bearings for the rear wheel might not be symmetrically placed with
respect to the left-right center of the wheel. I don't remember if this is
true, but I remember there were two seals in there ...

Anyway, if the bearings aren't symmetrically placed, it might again mean
that a straight up force on the tire would tend to bend the axle at a point
to the right rather than at the center of the axle.

So, I don't know if the bend not being centered on the axle means there were
lateral forces on the wheel, or if this is an unavoidable consequence of the
mechanical design even without lateral forces.

Shorter answer: I'll check the swingarm. Good call.

DF
?
2010-10-09 21:42:19 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 9, 2:03 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Shorter answer: I'll check the swingarm. Good call.

Have somebody follow you while you ride down a flat road to see if the
rear wheel seems to be running at a slight angle from the vertical and
the motorcycle is running down the road like a puppy dog.

Another way to tell if something's bent is that the motorcycle will do
a big dutch
roll around all three axes when it hits a bump.
Tim
2010-10-10 03:24:27 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 9, 5:03 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "?" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f376a9a9-d70d-49a8-b30e-***@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 9, 12:31 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.
>
> >> The bend itself isn't centered on the axle -- it is closer to one end
> >> than
> >> the other.
>
> >Well then, that side of your *swingarm* may be permanently bent/
> >twisted too.
>
> >In order to determine this, you need to check whether or not the rear
> >wheel is vertical at the same time as the front wheel (with the front
> >wheel pointed straight ahead) and check to see that the rear axle is
> >parallel with the swingarm pivot bolt
>
> >If the axle and swing arm pivot bolts aren't parallel, your swingarm
> >is twisted.
>
> >It might be easier to have a shop with a laser alignment tool to do
> >this for you...
>
> There is a whole lot of complexity in evaluating that statement, and my only
> response is "I'll check the swingarm when I have it off, probably over the
> Winter".
>
> Here is the complexity ...
>
> My axle threads through from the left, and the nut is on the right.  The
> chain is on the left.
>
> The bend in the axle is further towards the right (closer to the nut, and
> further from the chain).
>
> Looking at the bike from the back, it appears that the tire is not centered
> in the swingarm or along the axle because of the sprocket and cush drive.
> So, any extreme forces on the wheel might tend to bend the axle at a point
> further to the right (even if the forces were straight up).
>
> Also, it has been a year or two since I had the wheel off and apart, but
> (again because of the sprocket and cush drive), my recollection is that the
> two bearings for the rear wheel might not be symmetrically placed with
> respect to the left-right center of the wheel.  I don't remember if this is
> true, but I remember there were two seals in there ...
>
> Anyway, if the bearings aren't symmetrically placed, it might again mean
> that a straight up force on the tire would tend to bend the axle at a point
> to the right rather than at the center of the axle.
>
> So, I don't know if the bend not being centered on the axle means there were
> lateral forces on the wheel, or if this is an unavoidable consequence of the
> mechanical design even without lateral forces.
>
> Shorter answer:  I'll check the swingarm.  Good call.

Or you could buy a motorcycle with decent suspension.


Naaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.
Henry
2010-10-11 16:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Datesfat Chicks wrote:

> Had the rear tire replaced at the dealership today. Just because I'm
> anal and because I went over one pothole in the middle of the night that
> just about broke my back (the "hit" seemed to be the rear tire coming
> out of the hole), I had ordered a new rear axle in advance and picked it
> up at the parts department and gave it to the service department to swap
> in.

> I looked at the old axle. I cleaned it up with a paper towel. It
> seemed to be bent, but because of the marks on it, I couldn't be sure it
> wasn't an optical illusion. We got out a straightedge ... yep, bent.

> The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.

I'd consider .062" a significant amount of run out, and I'm surprised
that hitting a pothole could bend the axle without also bending the
rim....





--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-11 18:33:10 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 10:22 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Datesfat Chicks wrote:
> > Had the rear tire replaced at the dealership today.  Just because I'm
> > anal and because I went over one pothole in the middle of the night that
> > just about broke my back (the "hit" seemed to be the rear tire coming
> > out of the hole), I had ordered a new rear axle in advance and picked it
> > up at the parts department and gave it to the service department to swap
> > in.
> > I looked at the old axle.  I cleaned it up with a paper towel.  It
> > seemed to be bent, but because of the marks on it, I couldn't be sure it
> > wasn't an optical illusion.  We got out a straightedge ... yep, bent.
> > The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.
>
>   I'd consider .062" a significant amount of run out, and I'm surprised
> that hitting a pothole could bend the axle without also bending the
> rim....

I sort of wonder if, with the weight of the bike sitting on it in the
same position for 10K or so (tire change interval), perhaps everyone's
axles have acquired the same degree of bend.
?
2010-10-11 19:38:26 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 11:33 am, "Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I sort of wonder if, with the weight of the bike sitting on it in the
> same position for 10K or so (tire change interval), perhaps everyone's
> axles have acquired the same degree of bend.

Either stick to what you *know* and don't ask stupid questions or
"reinvent yourself" as a mechanical engineer so you can calculate what
it takes to permanently deform a steel axle.
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-11 21:41:51 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 1:38 pm, "?" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:33 am, "Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I sort of wonder if, with the weight of the bike sitting on it in the
> > same position for 10K or so (tire change interval), perhaps everyone's
> > axles have acquired the same degree of bend.
>
> Either stick to what you *know* and don't ask stupid questions or
> "reinvent yourself" as a mechanical engineer so you can calculate what
> it takes to permanently deform a steel axle.

Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
calculate it.

But then again... I'm probably not on par with a guy who, after being
washed out of the aerospace industry, gravitated to his true level of
ability; that of a campground custodian.
Datesfat Chicks
2010-10-13 01:09:13 UTC
Permalink
"Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cceb209b-6885-43ee-b05f-***@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 1:38 pm, "?" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:33 am, "Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I sort of wonder if, with the weight of the bike sitting on it in the
> > same position for 10K or so (tire change interval), perhaps everyone's
> > axles have acquired the same degree of bend.
>
> Either stick to what you *know* and don't ask stupid questions or
> "reinvent yourself" as a mechanical engineer so you can calculate what
> it takes to permanently deform a steel axle.
>
>Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
>calculate it.
>
>But then again... I'm probably not on par with a guy who, after being
>washed out of the aerospace industry, gravitated to his true level of
>ability; that of a campground custodian.

Hi Don,

My understanding of ferrous materials is that there would be some creep at
room temperature, i.e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)

but the effect probably is non-linear with temperature so that you couldn't
measure it, i.e. at room temperature just about zero.

So, I don't think that a deformation of maybe 1/32-inch, even over 10K
miles, would be explained by creep.

There are other possibilities. One of the guys at the dealership said that
he has seen axles as new parts already not straight. So, I don't know how
they make axles, but there may be some possibility that a fraction of them
don't start life straight.

DF
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-13 03:18:02 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 12, 5:09 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:


> There are other possibilities.  One of the guys at the dealership said that
> he has seen axles as new parts already not straight.  So, I don't know how
> they make axles, but there may be some possibility that a fraction of them
> don't start life straight.

All axles start life straight. It's only moral turpitude
which causes them to become deviant.
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-13 03:59:01 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 12, 9:18 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 5:09 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are other possibilities.  One of the guys at the dealership said that
> > he has seen axles as new parts already not straight.  So, I don't know how
> > they make axles, but there may be some possibility that a fraction of them
> > don't start life straight.
>
> All axles start life straight. It's only moral turpitude
> which causes them to become deviant.

You're obviously not a Calvinist then. ;)
Bob Myers
2010-10-13 16:22:31 UTC
Permalink
On 10/12/2010 9:59 PM, Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:18 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt<***@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 5:09 pm, "Datesfat Chicks"<***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are other possibilities. One of the guys at the dealership said that
>>> he has seen axles as new parts already not straight. So, I don't know how
>>> they make axles, but there may be some possibility that a fraction of them
>>> don't start life straight.
>> All axles start life straight. It's only moral turpitude
>> which causes them to become deviant.
> You're obviously not a Calvinist then. ;)

Dunno about Rob, but I've always been more of a Calvin&Hobbesist, meself...

Bob M.
Twibil
2010-10-13 17:58:49 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 13, 9:22 am, Bob Myers <***@address.invalid> wrote:
>  
>
> Dunno about Rob, but I've always been more of a Calvin&Hobbesist, meself...

http://snavely.deviantart.com/favourites/#/d14ok89

You're not alone.
The Older Gentleman
2010-10-13 18:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Twibil <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://snavely.deviantart.com/favourites/#/d14ok89

Nice

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
The Older Gentleman
2010-10-13 14:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com> wrote:

> On Oct 12, 5:09 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > There are other possibilities. One of the guys at the dealership said that
> > he has seen axles as new parts already not straight. So, I don't know how
> > they make axles, but there may be some possibility that a fraction of them
> > don't start life straight.
>
> All axles start life straight. It's only moral turpitude
> which causes them to become deviant.

You're *funny* sometimes, you know that? :-))


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
Henry
2010-10-13 11:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
> calculate it.

So, you must agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of
experts that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's
massive hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't
cause the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry, right? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing,
and crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? Believe it or not, there are a few kooks
here who "think" that steel and air have the same physical
properties. Of course, the tend to get either very quiet or
even more stupid when they're challenged to elaborate or tell
what they disagree with below... ;-)

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-13 13:56:17 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 13, 5:49 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
> > calculate it.
>
>   So, you must agree...
<the usual kook rant snipped>

Well, I guess this marks the last time I bother trying to have a
discussion with you.
Henry
2010-10-13 14:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 13, 5:49 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:

>>> Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
>>> calculate it.

>> So, you must agree...

> <the usual kook rant snipped>

> Well, I guess this marks the last time I bother trying to have a
> discussion with you.

Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

<facts, hard evidence, and expert research restored>

Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's
massive hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't
cause the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-13 18:21:03 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 13, 8:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

> I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.

That's nice. Too bad for you I don't owe you one.
The Older Gentleman
2010-10-13 18:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 13, 8:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
>
> That's nice. Too bad for you I don't owe you one.

Heh


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
Henry
2010-10-13 18:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 13, 8:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:

>>> Well, I guess this marks the last time I bother trying to
>>> have a discussion with you.

>> Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
>> I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
>> irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
>> expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
>> but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
>> the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
>> and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
>> structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
>> But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
>> and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

> That's nice.

Yes, it is. When you and cowardly, self deprecating imbeciles
like twitbull and the older clown go tits up and/or run away,
you prove my point almost as well as I do - which of course,
is that belief in the government's impossible 9-11 conspiracy
theory is dependent on blind faith and ignorance. Stupidity
helps, too, of course... ;-)

> Too bad for you I don't owe you one.

You were just whining because you didn't think you could
have a discussion with me, but when I give you an opportunity
to do exactly that, you whine even more. Some conspiracy
theorists sure do get crazy stupid when they're challenged
to defend their beliefs.
Anyway, your reply is quite revealing. It tells us that you
know the "official" 9-11 conspiracy theory is an impossible
fairy tale, and you know the hard evidence and expert research
prove it to be impossible. You *simply* lack the intellectual
courage and honesty to admit it. Thanks for proving my point.


Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

<facts, hard evidence, and expert research restored>

Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's
massive hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't
cause the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
tomorrow@erols.com
2010-10-13 20:33:00 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 13, 2:38 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> >  Too bad for you I don't owe you one.
>
>   You were just whining because you didn't think you could
> have a discussion with me, but when I give you an opportunity
> to do exactly that, you whine even more.

No, he was looking for the opportunity to discuss MOTORCYCLING with
you, not your krazy kooky konspiracy theory that has konsumed your
brain and your life, leaving you a laughingstock to all your former
friends and acquaintances in rec.motorcycles.

> Some conspiracy
> theorists sure do get crazy stupid when they're challenged
> to defend their beliefs.

Yes, you do. And you have been. For years, now. And you are
getting WORSE, which I would never have believed possible had I not
witnessed it myself.
Henry
2010-10-14 13:21:38 UTC
Permalink
***@erols.com wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2:38 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>> You were just whining because you didn't think you could
>> have a discussion with me, but when I give you an opportunity
>> to do exactly that, you whine even more.

> No, he was looking for the opportunity to discuss MOTORCYCLING with
> you

Which lead to Don mentioning that he's trained in structural
steel design. It's called thread drift, it happens regularly,
you participate in it regularly, and it's nothing for you to
get all worked up over or cause you to disgrace yourself by
lying/forging my post.

> not your krazy kooky konspiracy theory

When you rant and whine about a "krazy kooky konspiracy
theory", but either run away, say something even more
stupid, or resort to forging/lying about what I've
written when I ask you to tell us what you disagree with
and why, you present yourself as mentally unstable - or
"kooky". The irony is at least as amusing as your utter
inability to grasp it - especially given that it's *your*
impossible conspiracy theory that blatantly violates the
most fundamental principles of physics.
Here, I'll make this as brief, clear, and simple as I can.
I believe the question is very clear and reasonable. If you
find it confusing or misleading in some way, let me know
and I'll see if I can simplify/clarify it further...
Do you think that government hired researchers at NIST, as
well as independent 9-11 truth researchers, are all wrong in
their agreement that WTC7 did in fact accelerate from rest
at the rate of free fall, or are you saying that it makes
perfect sense to you that WTC7's steel frame would accelerate
at the rate of free fall while falling through the path of
most resistance, crushing, bending, breaking, and shearing
thousands of tons of steel support columns?












--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
2010-10-14 13:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Funny how a guy who puts on such a macho front can act like
such a helpless pussy when it comes time for him to defend
his words...



Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 13, 8:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>> Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
>> I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
>> irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
>> expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
>> but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
>> the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
>> and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
>> structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
>> But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
>> and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

> That's nice.
> Too bad for you I don't owe you one.

You were just whining because you didn't think you could
have a discussion with me, but when I give you an opportunity
to do exactly that, you whine even more. Some conspiracy
theorists sure do get crazy stupid when they're challenged
to defend their beliefs.
Anyway, your reply is quite revealing. It tells us that you
know the "official" 9-11 conspiracy theory is an impossible
fairy tale, and you know the hard evidence and expert research
prove it to be impossible. You *simply* lack the intellectual
courage and honesty to admit it. Thanks for proving my point.


Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

<facts, hard evidence, and expert research restored>

Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's
massive hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't
cause the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
tomorrow@erols.com
2010-10-13 20:29:15 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 13, 10:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 5:49 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> >> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> >>> Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
> >>> calculate it.
> >>   So, you must agree...
> > <the usual kook rant snipped>
> > Well, I guess this marks the last time I bother trying to have a
> > discussion with you.
>
>   Why do you refer to the kook rant I posted as a "kook rant"?

<drily> I would think that, by now, it would be self-evident. </drily>
Henry
2010-10-14 12:48:18 UTC
Permalink
***@erols.com wrote:
> On Oct 13, 10:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>> Why do you refer to the kook rant I posted as a "kook rant"?

Tim, I didn't write that. You forged my post. That's very
dishonest and weak - but not surprising, given that merely
mentioning your insane 9-11 conspiracy theory seems to make
you emotionally unstable and irrational. Here's what I actually
wrote. Quotes are a good way to expose a kook's lies, which is
why kooks tend to avoid them, and an extreme cases, actually
forge them...

"Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"?"

Why are so many Cave Man conspiracy kooks so dishonest, cowardly,
and weak minded? Why are you so absolutely terrified of an honest,
open, and reasonable discussion of the facts? You do realize that
when you resort to lies, forgeries, and moronic accusations that
you can't back up, you come across as not only a liar and a coward,
but mentally weak and unstable, right?

> <drily> I would think that, by now, it would be self-evident. </drily>

It's quite evident that neither you, Don, twitbull, the older clown,
or any of your fellow Cave Man conspiracy kooks have the intellectual
courage, strength, or integrity to address the facts, hard evidence,
and expert research. But you can certainly lie, forge, run, hide, cower
and present yourselves as helpless, ignorant, frightened, and deluded
sheep, though. Simply ranting/lying that someone is a kook and then
running away when you're challenged to tell us what you find kooky
is borderline insanity. Thanks for proving my point. <g>

Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's massive
hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't cause
the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
tomorrow@erols.com
2010-10-14 13:40:20 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 14, 8:48 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> ***@erols.com wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 10:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> >>   Why do you refer to the kook rant I posted as a "kook rant"?
>
>   Tim, I didn't write that. You forged my post. That's very
> dishonest and weak

LOL!!!!

When one becomes a kook, one of the first things to go is ones sense
of humor.

Oops. Sorry, just noticed that I forgot to trim your list of kooky
krossposts.

Done.
Henry
2010-10-14 15:07:42 UTC
Permalink
***@erols.com wrote:
> On Oct 14, 8:48 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> ***@erols.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 10:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>>> Why do you refer to the kook rant I posted as a "kook rant"?

>> Tim, I didn't write that. You forged my post. That's very
>> dishonest and weak - but not surprising, given that merely
>> mentioning your insane 9-11 conspiracy theory seems to make
>> you emotionally unstable and irrational. Here's what I actually
>> wrote. Quotes are a good way to expose a kook's lies, which is
>> why kooks tend to avoid them, and in extreme cases, actually
>> forge them...

>> "Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
>> I posted as a "kook rant"?"


> LOL!!!!

> When one becomes a kook,

...you lie, forge, cower, hide, evade, and sacrifice your
credibility. You do that because you lack the intellectual
strength, honesty, and courage to have an open, honest
discussion of the actual facts and evidence. Thanks for
demonstrating that for us so clearly. Couldn't have done it
much better myself... ;-)


It's quite evident that neither you, Don, twitbull, the older clown,
or any of your fellow Cave Man conspiracy kooks have the intellectual
courage, strength, or integrity to address the facts, hard evidence,
and expert research. But you can certainly lie, forge, run, hide, cower
and present yourselves as helpless, ignorant, frightened, and deluded
sheep. Simply ranting/lying that someone is a kook and then running
away when you're challenged to tell us what you find kooky is
borderline insanity. Thanks for proving my point. <g>

Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's massive
hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't cause
the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
TOG@Toil
2010-10-14 15:28:00 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Oct, 14:40, "***@erols.com"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 8:48 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > ***@erols.com wrote:
> > > On Oct 13, 10:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> > >>   Why do you refer to the kook rant I posted as a "kook rant"?
>
> >   Tim, I didn't write that. You forged my post. That's very
> > dishonest and weak
>
> LOL!!!!
>
> When one becomes a kook, one of the first things to go is ones sense
> of humor.
>
> Oops. Sorry, just noticed that I forgot to trim your list of kooky
> krossposts.
>
> Done.

And I've re-edited the subject line to the original to remove extra
kookiness....
Henry
2010-10-14 16:23:37 UTC
Permalink
The older clown timidly admitted:

> extra kookiness....

You also post extra lies and cowardice. ;-) Now we'll
watch the clown run and hide from its own insanity.
What a shameful, pitiful thing to be forced to run,
hide, cower, and lie rather than defend your most
deeply held beliefs. But I suppose that can happen
when a kook's most deeply held beliefs have been
proved beyond any and all doubt to be at odds with
reality. The kook *simply* comes further undone...
<chuckle>


Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's
massive hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't
cause the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-14 17:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 13, 2:29 pm, "***@erols.com"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 10:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > > On Oct 13, 5:49 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> > >> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > >>> Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
> > >>> calculate it.
> > >>   So, you must agree...
> > > <the usual kook rant snipped>
> > > Well, I guess this marks the last time I bother trying to have a
> > > discussion with you.
>
> >   Why do you refer to the kook rant I posted as a "kook rant"?
>
> <drily> I would think that, by now, it would be self-evident. </drily>

Ever watched the (Canadian) TV series called "Kids in the Hall"?
There's one theme they used where a hopeless loser spends his time
"squishing peoples' heads" and thrills at the feeling of power that
gives him over others. At a distance, with hand extended in a pincer
grip to frame their heads between his index finger and thumb, he
pretends that he is squishing their heads. "Aha! I am squishing your
head! How do you like that?" he chortles.

It helps him deal with his boring, meaningless life. Henry reminds me
of that guy, as he imagines his arguments being so powerful they cause
everyone to flee in fear and become "borderline insane" in the face of
them.
MikeWhy
2010-10-14 18:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2:29 pm, "***@erols.com"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 10:14 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>>>> On Oct 13, 5:49 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>>>>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>>>>>> Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
>>>>>> calculate it.
>>>>> So, you must agree...
>>>> <the usual kook rant snipped>
>>>> Well, I guess this marks the last time I bother trying to have a
>>>> discussion with you.
>>
>>> Why do you refer to the kook rant I posted as a "kook rant"?
>>
>> <drily> I would think that, by now, it would be self-evident.
>> </drily>
>
> Ever watched the (Canadian) TV series called "Kids in the Hall"?
> There's one theme they used where a hopeless loser spends his time
> "squishing peoples' heads" and thrills at the feeling of power that
> gives him over others. At a distance, with hand extended in a pincer
> grip to frame their heads between his index finger and thumb, he
> pretends that he is squishing their heads. "Aha! I am squishing your
> head! How do you like that?" he chortles.

That's actually a demonstration of the wave phenomenon of light, a study of
how light diffracts through an aperture, similar to the effect of the sun
apparently smearing as it sinks behind a far horizon. It's a good thing
human heads are so springy; the demonstration does no lasting harm to the
squishee. I've seen the trick used to cover up a general discomfort and lack
of inspiration in interacting with young children, as in "Why is Uncle Nick
acting so weird?" And so it propagates from generation to generation across
cultural lines and geographic distance. (If you haven't done so already,
I'll bet you're right now fighting the urge to squish a few lightbulbs and
heads without being detected, as you contemplate the hidden wonders of this
universe.)
Henry
2010-10-14 18:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> Ever watched the (Canadian) TV series called "Kids in the Hall"?
> There's one theme they used where a hopeless loser spends his time
> "squishing peoples' heads" and thrills at the feeling of power that
> gives him over others.

Never heard of it, but it does look like your kind of show.
No doubt, you "think" that by making childish accusations
that you're pitifully incapable of defending, you're
"squishing my head". Instead of making a complete fool of
yourself by imitating the silly games you watch on TV,
why not act like a man rather than a hopeless loser, and
defend your silly accusations? What are you afraid of?
Here, I'll give you another chance to back up your silly kook
rants. ;-)

Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

<facts, hard evidence, and expert research restored>

Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's
massive hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't
cause the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-14 23:23:14 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 14, 12:38 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > Ever watched the (Canadian) TV series called "Kids in the Hall"?
> > There's one theme they used where a hopeless loser spends his time
> > "squishing peoples' heads" and thrills at the feeling of power that
> > gives him over others.
>
>   Never heard of it, but it does look like your kind of show.
> No doubt, you "think" that by making childish accusations
> that you're pitifully incapable of defending, you're
> "squishing my head".

Heh, heh. Poor Henry. Every line and every joke you've ever used has
been borrowed.

You know, if you ever "think" up your own stuff, "your betters" might
someday read past the first sentence of the crap you write.
Henry
2010-10-15 12:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> Heh, heh. Poor Henry. Every line and every joke you've ever used has
> been borrowed.

WTF? Right now, you and your cowardly backpedaling, weaseling,
and hiding from your own words are the joke, but I'm not
interested in borrowing you or your timid little pussy
act - it's unseemly... ;-)
Instead of making a complete fool of yourself, why not act
like a man and defend your silly accusations? What are you
afraid of? Here, I'll give you another chance to back up your
silly kook rants.... <g>

Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

<facts, hard evidence, and expert research restored>

Do you agree with Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of experts
that the gradual heating of a small portion of WTC7's
massive hurricane and earthquake resistant steel frame couldn't
cause the entire frame to drop at free fall with near perfect
symmetry? You agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-15 14:20:24 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> >
> > Heh, heh.  Poor Henry.  Every line and every joke you've ever used has
> > been borrowed.
>
> > You know, if you ever "think" up your own stuff, "your betters" might
> > someday read past the first sentence of the crap you write.
>
>   WTF? Right now, you and your cowardly backpedaling, weaseling,
> and hiding

Oh, lots of names to make you feel powerful. Were you squshing a
picture of my head as you wrote that?

But hey, you know that no one reads what you write, don't you? You
admit as much when you try to pack as much of your "argument" (school
yard taunts are what you consider arguments) in the subject lines by
changing them - knowing full well that's the only thing you write that
people might see.

Have you ever considered it is your low tactics (and not your issue)
that presents the biggest obstacle to your prosletyizing efforts?

And don't you feel the slightest twinge of guilt while portraying
others in the way you do; knowing full well that you would act the
same if someone insisted you engage in a discussion you are not
interested in continuing for 10 years straight? I suspect, if your
mother were still around, she'd be dismayed at how you behave.
Henry
2010-10-15 14:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:

>>> Heh, heh. Poor Henry. Every line and every joke you've ever used has
>>> been borrowed.

>> WTF? Right now, you and your cowardly backpedaling, weaseling,
>> and hiding from your own words are the joke, but I'm not
>> interested in borrowing you or your timid little pussy
>> act - it's unseemly... ;-)
>> Instead of making a complete fool of yourself, why not act
>> like a man and defend your silly accusations? What are you
>> afraid of? Here, I'll give you another chance to back up your
>> silly kook rants.... <g>

> Oh, lots of names to make you feel powerful.

Names? It's not names that me feel powerful - you do that for
me. <g> Watching how you've been reduced to disgracing yourself
by publicly hiding and cowering from your own kook rants would
make just about anyone feel powerful by comparison <g> You sure
can be a sensitive, timid, and helpless little pussy at times.
Instead of making a complete fool of yourself, why not act
like a man and defend your silly accusations? What are you
afraid of? Here, I'll give you another chance to back up your
silly kook rants.... <g>
Why do you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

<facts, hard evidence, and expert research restored>

Do you agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-15 18:32:39 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 8:54 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> >> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> >>> Heh, heh.  Poor Henry.  Every line and every joke you've ever used has
> >>> been borrowed.
> >>  WTF? Right now, you and your cowardly backpedaling, weaseling,
> >> and hiding from your own words are the joke, but I'm not
> >> interested in borrowing you or your timid little pussy
> >> act - it's unseemly...  ;-)
> >>  Instead of making a complete fool of yourself, why not act
> >> like a man and defend your silly accusations? What are you
> >> afraid of? Here, I'll give you another chance to back up your
> >> silly kook rants.... <g>
> > Oh, lots of names to make you feel powerful.
>
>   Names? It's not names that me feel powerful

And that marks as far as you read.

I had hoped to occassionally bring you back into the fold of normal
human relations by responding to your motorcycle-related posts (few
and far between as they are), thinking you were able to respect
boundaries.[1] But that now appears impossible so I won't even be
doing that from this point forward.

Perhaps, since I was one of the few remaining who showed you even that
small degree of respect, you'll now be receiving even less feedback on
your posts now. Well done.


[1]

As in:

Question: "Would you like to talk about subject X?"
Answer: "No."
Response: "Okay."

Not as in:

Question: "Would you like to talk about subject X?"
Answer: "No."
Response: "If you don't, I will fabricate reasons why you don't." [2]

[2] Such a person doesn't sound like someone even you would want to
involve yourself with, right?
Henry
2010-10-15 19:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> Perhaps, since I was one of the few remaining who showed you even that
> small degree of respect

When you label something that someone has written a "kook
rant", but then refuse to explain what you thought was
kooky - well, that's not how people show respect - that's
how they show that they're a kook.
If you're going to make accusations, you should be able to
back them up. Otherwise, you begin to regress to the level
of a self loathing psychotic imbecile like twitbull. Granted,
you haven't gone *that* low, but for your sake, you should
strive to be a *much* better man that that. When you make
insulting accusations that can't you back up, that makes
you look far worse than the person you're trying to insult.

Here, I'll give you another chance to back up your accusation.
Why did you refer to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research
I posted as a "kook rant"? Why does the topic of 9-11 trigger an
irrational, emotional, knee jerk response from you? I've come to
expect that from helpless imbeciles like twitbull and a few others,
but you seem more sane than that. If there was something kooky in
the information I posted, seems like you'd be able to point it out,
and tell us why you feel that way. As someone who's trained in
structural steel design, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
But when you simply ignore documented evidence and expert research
and label it a "kook rant", you help prove my point.

<facts, hard evidence, and expert research restored>

Do you agree that bending, breaking, shearing, and
crushing tens of thousands of tons of structural steel
would produce significantly more resistance than falling
through air, right? If not, can you tell us what you
disagree with and why?

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-15 19:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 11:06 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > Perhaps, since I was one of the few remaining who showed you even that
> > small degree of respect
>
>   When you label something that someone has written a "kook
> rant", but then refuse to explain what you thought was
> kooky - well, that's not how people show respect - that's
> how they show that they're a kook.

Since you seem to have long ago exhausted whatever respect
reeky readers ever had for you, I can only conclude then that you
are wasting your time talking to a whole newsgroup full of kooks.

Perhaps you should consider moving on and finding a more
receptive and respectful audience rather than wasting your
time and everyone else's by continuing to post your demolition
conspiracy theories to a motorcycle newsgroup where nobody
even reads them anymore.

Hope this helps and best of luck in your search. I don't think
you've shown much respect for this newsgroup when you
bombard it with your off topic postings. It should hardly surprise
you if you get little respect in return.
Henry
2010-10-15 19:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:06 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>> When you label something that someone has written a "kook
>> rant", but then refuse to explain what you thought was
>> kooky - well, that's not how people show respect - that's
>> how they show that they're a kook.

> Since you seem to have long ago exhausted whatever respect
> reeky readers ever had for you, I can only conclude then that you
> are wasting your time talking to a whole newsgroup full of kooks.

This newsgroup isn't full of kooks. They are a minority -
- but they do tend to get rather very emotional and excited
at times...

> Perhaps you should consider moving on and finding a more
> receptive and respectful audience rather than wasting your
> time and everyone else's by continuing to post your demolition
> conspiracy theories to a motorcycle newsgroup where nobody
> even reads them anymore.

There are many off topic posts, but the 9-11 threads seem to
draw the most interest, so obviously, many people read them.
As they should, as this was the most monumental event in modern
history.

> Hope this helps and best of luck in your search. I don't think
> you've shown much respect for this newsgroup when you
> bombard it with your off topic postings. It should hardly surprise
> you if you get little respect in return.

The few people who aren't capable of showing respect are not the
sort of people whose respect I would want anyway, so it works out
pretty well. Also, I get plenty of respect in the real world, and
don't really have a need or desire to seek it from strangers on
newsgroups. Discussing 9-11 is a good way to separate reasonable,
informed, intelligent, thinking folks who are capable of having
a calm, logical, and rational discussion, from shrill, small
minded petty kooks and imbeciles who are limited to spewing grade
school "insults" and childish kook drivel. It's a rather efficient
filter. ;-)



--


"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-15 21:38:51 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 11:47 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > I don't think
> > you've shown much respect for this newsgroup when you
> > bombard it with your off topic postings. It should hardly surprise
> > you if you get little respect in return.
>
>   The few people who aren't capable of showing respect are not the
> sort of people whose respect I would want anyway, so it works out
> pretty well. Also, I get plenty of respect in the real world, and
> don't really have a need or desire to seek it from strangers on
> newsgroups. Discussing 9-11 is a good way to separate reasonable,
> informed, intelligent, thinking folks who are capable of having
> a calm, logical, and rational discussion, from shrill, small
> minded petty kooks and imbeciles who are limited to spewing grade
> school "insults" and childish kook drivel. It's a rather efficient
> filter. ;-)

Please be sure that you count me among those who has no
more respect for you. I suspect that as a kid, you were raised
by people who gave in to you whenever you decided to get
obnoxious and that this expectation has unfortunately carried
over into your adulthood.

You say you get plenty of respect in the real world and don't
have a need to seek it in newsgroups and so you post so
many times daily only to filter out the kooks and nutjobs.

Sure thing, Henry. No doubt in anybody's mind that
this is why you keep posting.

You have my sympathy.
The Older Gentleman
2010-10-15 22:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Please be sure that you count me among those who has no
> more respect for you. I suspect that as a kid, you were raised
> by people who gave in to you whenever you decided to get
> obnoxious and that this expectation has unfortunately carried
> over into your adulthood.
>
> You say you get plenty of respect in the real world and don't
> have a need to seek it in newsgroups and so you post so
> many times daily only to filter out the kooks and nutjobs.
>
> Sure thing, Henry. No doubt in anybody's mind that
> this is why you keep posting.
>
> You have my sympathy.

As I said before, he needs this belief system as a sort of crutch.

He worked in an environment where he was surrounded by hugely bright,
competent people. The intellectual elite of the US and beyond. And he
wasn't in the same league.

He needed something to elevate him to their level and beyond, and he's
found it. This lunatic conspiracy theory. And it makes him feel superior
to all those academics, professors, doctors and lowly students who
ignored him, teased him, patronised him and generally made him feel low.

But now the boot is on the other foot. He Knows The Truth, and all those
petty people who choose to ignore, decry or rubbish it - well, that just
*proves* they're inferior to him, doesn't it? Because They Cannot
Understand Nor Even See.

It's truly, truly sad that (as others besides you have said) a mind has
been so completely corrupted that it now spits at its erstwhile friends.

Nutjob. SImple as.



--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400Fx2 Triumph Street Triple
Kawasaki GT550 Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250 Back to nine bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-16 00:26:55 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 2:43 pm, ***@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com> wrote:

> > You say you  get plenty of respect in the real world and don't
> > have a need to seek it in newsgroups and so you post so
> > many times daily only to filter out the kooks and nutjobs.
>
> > Sure thing, Henry. No doubt in anybody's mind that
> > this is why you keep posting.

> He worked in an environment where he was surrounded by hugely bright,
> competent people. The intellectual elite of the US and beyond. And he
> wasn't in the same league.

Bright people are usually bright enough to respect any job
well done. That's been my experience anyway. Problem
comes in if there's a need for glory and adulation.

Few people achieve this or particularly care. Pure speculation,
but people who have failed to live up to parental expectations
sometimes seem to get goofy in this way.

> But now the boot is on the other foot. He Knows The Truth, and all those
> petty people who choose to ignore, decry or rubbish it - well, that just
> *proves* they're inferior to him, doesn't it? Because They Cannot
> Understand Nor Even See.

See above.

> It's truly, truly sad that (as others besides you have said) a mind has
> been so completely corrupted that it now spits at its erstwhile friends.
>
> Nutjob. SImple as.

Never too late to mend one's ways.
The Older Gentleman
2010-10-16 17:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com> wrote:

> Bright people are usually bright enough to respect any job
> well done. That's been my experience anyway

I agree completely. But dim people with delusions of grandeur are a
different kettle of fish.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
Henry
2010-10-16 20:51:11 UTC
Permalink
The Older Clown admitted:

> Nutjob. SImple as.

True, but you're also a liar and a coward. Just keeping things
honest and accurate...


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
2010-10-16 20:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:47 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>> The few people who aren't capable of showing respect are not the
>> sort of people whose respect I would want anyway, so it works out
>> pretty well. Also, I get plenty of respect in the real world, and
>> don't really have a need or desire to seek it from strangers on
>> newsgroups. Discussing 9-11 is a good way to separate reasonable,
>> informed, intelligent, thinking folks who are capable of having
>> a calm, logical, and rational discussion, from shrill, small
>> minded petty kooks and imbeciles who are limited to spewing grade
>> school "insults" and childish kook drivel. It's a rather efficient
>> filter. ;-)

> You say you get plenty of respect in the real world and don't
> have a need to seek it in newsgroups

Yes, I did say that. I said it because its true.

> and so you post so many times daily only to filter out the
> kooks and nutjobs.

Nope, that's not at all what I said. I post the truth about 9-11
because that false flag terror attack is the most significant and
monumental event in modern history, and its tragic aftermath is
still taking a *very* heavy toll today. The sooner we expose the
truth and bring the terrorists to justice, the sooner we can end
the exploitation of 9-11 to further wars, war crimes, mass murder,
more terrorism, death, destruction, unspeakable suffering, an
obscene waste of taxpayer dollars, and the ultimate downfall of
The United States. The fact that my posts upset a few shrill,
small minded, petty kooks and imbeciles is just a slight bonus.
Got it now? ;-)




--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-17 00:34:04 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 16, 12:49 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 11:47 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> >>   The few people who aren't capable of showing respect are not the
> >> sort of people whose respect I would want anyway, so it works out
> >> pretty well. Also, I get plenty of respect in the real world, and
> >> don't really have a need or desire to seek it from strangers on
> >> newsgroups. Discussing 9-11 is a good way to separate reasonable,
> >> informed, intelligent, thinking folks who are capable of having
> >> a calm, logical, and rational discussion, from shrill, small
> >> minded petty kooks and imbeciles who are limited to spewing grade
> >> school "insults" and childish kook drivel. It's a rather efficient
> >> filter. ;-)
> > You say you  get plenty of respect in the real world and don't
> > have a need to seek it in newsgroups
>
>   Yes, I did say that. I said it because its true.
>
> > and so you post so many times daily only to filter out the
> > kooks  and nutjobs.
>
>   Nope, that's not at all what I said. I post the truth about 9-11
> because that false flag terror attack is the most significant and
> monumental event in modern history, and its tragic aftermath is
> still taking a *very* heavy toll today. The sooner we expose the
> truth and bring the terrorists to justice, the sooner we can end
> the exploitation of 9-11 to further wars, war crimes, mass murder,
> more terrorism, death, destruction, unspeakable suffering, an
> obscene waste of taxpayer dollars, and the ultimate downfall of
> The United States. The fact that my posts upset a few shrill,
> small minded, petty kooks and imbeciles is just a slight bonus.
>   Got it now? ;-)

Basically, you're full of it. Henry. In all the years which you've
been posting, how many readers of rec.motorcycles have
you convinced ? Any names ?

If you had any sincere interest in this stupid conspiracy theory
of yours, you'd be exchanging information and research with
people who believe as you do, rather than cluttering up a
motorcycle newsgroup with your useless cut and pastes.

You admit yourself, that you've largely been killfiled, and those
who bother to respond to you do so only to ask you to go away.
You've pretty clearly wasted the last several years cluttering
up a newsgroup full of people who don't give a shit only because
you feel you've been insulted and have got your panties in a wad.

What you remind me of is a very small, very spoiled infant,
lying down in a public place, kicking, screaming, bellowing
and demanding people pay attention to him. Your antics are
really getting quite pathetic.
Henry
2010-10-17 22:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Oct 16, 12:49 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

>>> You say you get plenty of respect in the real world and don't
>>> have a need to seek it in newsgroups

>> Yes, I did say that. I said it because its true.
>>
>>> and so you post so many times daily only to filter out the
>>> kooks and nutjobs.

>> Nope, that's not at all what I said. I post the truth about 9-11
>> because that false flag terror attack is the most significant and
>> monumental event in modern history, and its tragic aftermath is
>> still taking a *very* heavy toll today. The sooner we expose the
>> truth and bring the terrorists to justice, the sooner we can end
>> the exploitation of 9-11 to further wars, war crimes, mass murder,
>> more terrorism, death, destruction, unspeakable suffering, an
>> obscene waste of taxpayer dollars, and the ultimate downfall of
>> The United States. The fact that my posts upset a few shrill,
>> small minded, petty kooks and imbeciles is just a slight bonus.
>> Got it now? ;-)

> If you had any sincere interest in this stupid conspiracy theory
> of yours,

Actually, there are quite literally *millions* of people who have
rejected your impossible magic fire/super Arab/Cave Man conspiracy
theory, and more every day.
What's really stupid is your blind faith in the lies of perceived
authorities, your belief that some guy living in a cave without so
much as a cell phone, shut down NORAD and suspended the principles
of physics. Also quite stupid is your inability to cite even *one*
fact or claim in the evidence I've posted that's inaccurate or
false. If what I've been saying was stupid, one of you gullible
sheep would be able cite something that's false, at odds with the
evidence, or impossible - like I do with your Cave Man conspiracy
theory on a regular basis. By obsessing over me and avoiding the
hard evidence and research, you prove my point. That's pretty
stupid, too. I'll give you another chance to show us that your
not merely spewing emotional drivel. Find something "stupid" from
the facts, evidence, and research below, and tell us why you
believe it's stupid.

Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-18 00:04:29 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 17, 2:42 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

> > If you had any sincere interest in this stupid conspiracy theory
> > of yours,
>
>   Actually, there are quite literally *millions* of people who have
> rejected your impossible magic fire/super Arab/Cave Man conspiracy
> theory, and more every day.

Yet none of these *millions* of people feel the need to
post it on rec.motorcycles. Perhaps this is because
they don't have their panties in a wad the way Henry
Hansteen does and chose instead to direct their efforts
toward research and exchange of information.

Here's a thought, asshole. Post stuff about motorcycles
on rec.motorcycles and stuff about conspiracies on
alt.conspiracies or someplace else where somebody
might actually want to read it.

Or stay killfiled and ignored on reeky. No big deal I guess.

Bye.
Henry
2010-10-18 14:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2:42 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

>>> If you had any sincere interest in this stupid conspiracy theory
>>> of yours,

>> Actually, there are quite literally *millions* of people who have
>> rejected your impossible magic fire/super Arab/Cave Man conspiracy
>> theory, and more every day.
>> What's really stupid is your blind faith in the lies of perceived
>> authorities, your belief that some guy living in a cave without so
>> much as a cell phone, shut down NORAD and suspended the principles
>> of physics. Also quite stupid is your inability to cite even *one*
>> fact or claim in the evidence I've posted that's inaccurate or
>> false. If what I've been saying was stupid, one of you gullible
>> sheep would be able cite something that's false, at odds with the
>> evidence, or impossible - like I do with your Cave Man conspiracy
>> theory on a regular basis. By obsessing over me and avoiding the
>> hard evidence and research, you prove my point. That's pretty
>> stupid, too. I'll give you another chance to show us that your
>> not merely spewing emotional drivel. Find something "stupid" from
>> the facts, evidence, and research below, and tell us why you
>> believe it's stupid.
>>
>> Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
>> if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
>> to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
>> and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
>> evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.
>>
>> http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
>>
>> Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
>> Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.
>>
>> http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
>>
>> TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
>>
>> Dear Dr. Sunder,
>>
>> Here are our talking points:
>>
>> 1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
>> fatal flaws:
>>
>> a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
>> for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
>> experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
>> acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
>> the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
>> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
>> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
>> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
>> converted to motion.)
>>
>> Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
>> or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
>> frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
>> not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
>> is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
>> fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.
>>
>>
>> The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
>> the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
>> fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
>> conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
>> partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
>> of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
>> caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
>> the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
>> ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
>> framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
>> anywhere. It's physically impossible.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4
>>
>> Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
>> sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
>> *extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
>> hot.
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
>>
>> Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
>>
>> Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
>> fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
>> frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
>> own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
>> quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
>> object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
>> the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
>> gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
>> we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
>>
>> Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/
>>

> Here's a thought, asshole.

Not really. That's more of a fact free and emotional kook
rant. Seems like if you think the information I posted is
"stupid", you'd be able to quote at least one example of
this alleged stupidity. So far, the only stupidity is
in your replies. Why do you reply to a post if you have
nothing intelligent to ad?

> Post stuff about motorcycles on rec.motorcycles

Many of the posts here are off topic trivial nonsense.
My off topic posts are about something of monumental
importance to *all* of us.



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-18 16:42:14 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 18, 8:11 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

> > Post stuff about motorcycles on rec.motorcycles
>
>   Many of the posts here are off topic trivial nonsense.
> My off topic posts are about something of monumental
> importance to *all* of us.

You are posting on an international newsgroup so - unless you're so
myopic to think every controversy in your country should be at the top
of everyone's list of important items to deal with - it isn't of
monumental importance to "us". Certainly not enough to justify
flooding an international motorcycle newsgroup for 10 years daily, for
sure.

Don't presume to be the judge of what is of "monumental importance" to
everyone else in the world. If everyone behaved like you, specialized
newsgroups of international scope would cease to be functional.

How often do Canadians or Brits misuse this newsgroup, arguing over
their countrys' controveries? And what would would be the effect if
they did?

A basic standard of morality arises from asking yourself the simple
question: "How would I like it if everyone else acted like I do?"
Mark Olson
2010-10-18 17:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> A basic standard of morality arises from asking yourself the simple
> question: "How would I like it if everyone else acted like I do?"

That only works if you're not a total lunatic, unfortunately.
Henry
2010-10-18 17:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Mark Olson wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:

>> A basic standard of morality arises from asking yourself the simple
>> question: "How would I like it if everyone else acted like I do?"

Well, let's see - in my case, there would be no crime, no
theft, no lies, no litter, no poverty, less waste, no war,
no torture, no mass murder, no man made suffering, no greed,
no hate, no racism, no laziness or stupidity, and all off
topic newsgroup posts would be very well written and about
something that actually matters to all of us. Good point,
Don. I also wish more people asked themselves that question...

> That only works if you're not a total lunatic, unfortunately.

Marky must be referring to twitbull spewing its *endless*
insane lies about what people write, what they do for a
living, what they've written, and even their mothers, while
it hides and cowers behind its killfile. Or perhaps he had
the older clown's *endless* shit brained lies about what I've
written and do for a living, or all the other insane kook lies
and reality defying kook drivel that's spewed here by pus
brained Cave Man conspiracy kooks. Seems like those nut jobs
would learn to just keep their mouths shut if they aren't
going to address the actual topic at hand. They should know
by now that one of their many sabne betters is giong to cvall them on their
bullshit.... ;-)


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
tomorrow@erols.com
2010-10-18 19:07:19 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 18, 1:47 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Mark Olson wrote:
> > Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> >> A basic standard of morality arises from asking yourself the simple
> >> question: "How would I like it if everyone else acted like I do?"
>
>   Well, let's see - in my case, there would be no crime, no
> theft, no lies, no litter, no poverty, less waste, no war,
> no torture, no mass murder, no man made suffering, no greed,
> no hate, no racism, no laziness or stupidity, and all off
> topic newsgroup posts would be very well written and about
> something that actually matters to all of us. Good point,
> Don. I also wish more people asked themselves that question...

You forgot to mention that no one posting would have an inordinately
high, inflated (even laughable) opinion about their own self-worth and
importance, and that everyone posting would be modest and - of course
- well respected by everyone else, and that every post would be
anxiously awaited with bated breath and intense anticipation prior to
being read in its entirety by one and all..... you know, if everyone
else acted like you do, Henry.
Henry
2010-10-19 12:17:56 UTC
Permalink
***@erols.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 1:47 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Mark Olson wrote:
>>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:

>>>> A basic standard of morality arises from asking yourself the simple
>>>> question: "How would I like it if everyone else acted like I do?"

>> Well, let's see - in my case, there would be no crime, no
>> theft, no lies, no litter, no poverty, less waste, no war,
>> no torture, no mass murder, no man made suffering, no greed,
>> no hate, no racism, no laziness or stupidity, and all off
>> topic newsgroup posts would be very well written and about
>> something that actually matters to all of us. Good point,
>> Don. I also wish more people asked themselves that question...

> You forgot to mention that no one posting would have an inordinately
> high, inflated (even laughable) opinion about their own self-worth and
> importance, and that everyone posting would be modest and - of course
> - well respected by everyone else, and that every post would be
> anxiously awaited with bated breath and intense anticipation prior to
> being read in its entirety by one and all..... you know, if everyone
> else acted like you do, Henry.

All very good points, Tim - thanks. Too bad it's an unrealistic
goal, or we'd all live in an almost perfect, blissful world. I'm
actually a bit surprised that you agree with me on this, since up
until now, you've reserved most of your admiration and respect for
people like twitbull and the clown, who are best known for their
lack of integrity, their lack of respect for themselves and others,
and their cowardice, lies, and their inordinately high, inflated
(even laughable) opinion about their own self-worth and. Maybe
there's hope for you after all!


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
2010-10-18 17:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 18, 8:11 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>
>>> Post stuff about motorcycles on rec.motorcycles
>> Many of the posts here are off topic trivial nonsense.
>> My off topic posts are about something of monumental
>> importance to *all* of us.

> You are posting on an international newsgroup

So, you "think" 9-11 and its aftermath only effect
the U.S.? Wow.....

> How often do Canadians or Brits misuse this newsgroup, arguing over
> their countrys' controveries?

Holy shit, you don't even know that Canada and Britain are
directly involved in the Middle East campaign of war crimes,
mass murder, death, destruction, and suffering that's "justified"
by the false falg terror attacks of 9-11? Wow - again...



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-19 00:33:00 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 18, 11:30 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 8:11 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>
> >>> Post stuff about motorcycles on rec.motorcycles
> >>   Many of the posts here are off topic trivial nonsense.
> >> My off topic posts are about something of monumental
> >> importance to *all* of us.
> > You are posting on an international newsgroup
>
>   So, you "think" 9-11 and its aftermath only effect
> the U.S.? Wow.....
>
> > How often do Canadians or Brits misuse this newsgroup, arguing over
> > their countrys' controveries?
>
>   Holy shit, you don't even know that Canada and Britain are
> directly involved in the Middle East campaign of war crimes,
> mass murder, death, destruction, and suffering that's "justified"
> by the false falg terror attacks of 9-11? Wow - again...

It's just your wish to discredit a President you hated that makes it
so centrally important to you. Unless you want to make the case that
all the other terror attacks that have occurred before and since then
are also "false flag" operations, 9/11 is only a small part of the
overall equation now. There are far more pertinent matters to deal
with.

On that note, it's good to see you commented on one of those different
topics (the racism thread). Even though your only aim is probably to
turn it into a discussion of your 9/11 theories... At least it's a
sign you might be able to expand your focus.
Henry
2010-10-19 12:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 18, 11:30 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 8:11 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>>>> Post stuff about motorcycles on rec.motorcycles
>>>> Many of the posts here are off topic trivial nonsense.
>>>> My off topic posts are about something of monumental
>>>> importance to *all* of us.

>>> You are posting on an international newsgroup

>> So, you "think" 9-11 and its aftermath only effect
>> the U.S.? Wow.....

>>> How often do Canadians or Brits misuse this newsgroup, arguing over
>>> their countrys' controveries?

>> Holy shit, you don't even know that Canada and Britain are
>> directly involved in the Middle East campaign of war crimes,
>> mass murder, death, destruction, and suffering that's "justified"
>> by the false flag terror attacks of 9-11? Wow - again...

> It's just your wish to discredit a President you hated that makes it
> so centrally important to you.

9-11 is far bigger than Bush,who played a very minor role - and
besides, he's been as discredited and disgraced as any president
in history, and he did it himself. I don't need to do it. Hell,
even twitbull, who voted for the imbecile, eventually realized
that he made a mistake, and twit is a *very* slow learner... ;-)


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
2010-10-19 13:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> Unless you want to make the case that
> all the other terror attacks that have occurred before and since then
> are also "false flag" operations, 9/11 is only a small part of the
> overall equation now.

9-11 is still used on a regular basics to "justify" the endless
immoral, illegal, unprovoked, and barbaric wars of terror in the
Middle East, as well as increased government secrecy, military
spending, and the erosion of citizens' rights and freedoms. 9-11
is still the heart of the "equation".

From http://911speakout.org

"9/11 does not go away. It is with us on a daily basis. It has been the
emotional rationale for a long list of radical changes in US policy,
many of which continue with us even under the Obama administration:

* a supposed "War on Terrorism"
* actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
* possible future wars against a supposed "axis of evil"
* condoning torture and indefinite detention without any
kind of due process
* scuttling the Geneva conventions
* the sacrifice of civil liberties at home

If 9/11 "changed everything," as George W. Bush has said, then it is
extremely important that we "get it right." What really happened that
day? The administration made a rush to judgment, immediately destroyed
much of the evidence, stamped much of the remaining evidence "Secret,"
and implied that critics were "with the terrorists."

If all you know is what you have read in the papers or seen on the TV
News, you are not fully informed, and you are quite possibly
misinformed. We believe you have also been intentionally DIS-informed.

A "9/11 Truth Movement," inspired initially by families of 9/11 victims,
has amassed a significant amount of research that casts doubt on the
official story line, but many people have never heard this or thought
through the implications. The Bush administration and the compliant
media want this issue to go away, so any attempt to discuss or speak out
on this issue is dismissed as a "conspiracy theory." But keep in mind
that even the official story of 9/11 is a rather bizarre "conspiracy
theory.""


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-18 19:45:10 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 18, 6:11 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> Seems like if you think the information I posted is
> "stupid", you'd be able to quote at least one example of
> this alleged stupidity.

I no longer feel you're worth arguing and nobody else
needs convincing that your posts are stupid.

> So far, the only stupidity is
> in your replies. Why do you reply to a post if you have
> nothing intelligent to ad?

To persuade you to stop posting on reeky. Duhhhhh !!!!

>
> > Post stuff about motorcycles on rec.motorcycles
>
>   Many of the posts here are off topic trivial nonsense.
> My off topic posts are about something of monumental
> importance to *all* of us.

Show of hands please. Anybody besides Henry think Henry's
posting something of monumental importance ?
Somebody ? Anybody ?

Another show of hands please. Anybody think Henry's
morphed into a classic troll ?

I think we all know the answer to both of those.

Let me point out that the reason everybody's sick of you
is that you've been posting the exact same OT stuff not
once, but for many years. And nobody but you thinks it's
important. Believe it or don't.

I think this concludes my participation in this intervention.
?
2010-10-19 00:46:16 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 18, 12:45 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com>
wrote:

> Show of hands please. Anybody besides Henry think Henry's
> posting something of monumental importance ?
> Somebody ? Anybody ?

Am I "anybody"?

I support Henry's 1st Amendment rights to free speech.

If you don't want to argue when Henry, don't read his posts and you
won't be tempted to waste your time and you won't be irritated by his
opinions which you disagree with.

> Another show of hands please. Anybody think Henry's
> morphed into a classic troll ?

So? If he's a troll, he's far from the only troll in reeky.
Tim
2010-10-19 11:47:11 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 18, 8:46 pm, "?" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 12:45 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Show of hands please. Anybody besides Henry think Henry's
> > posting something of monumental importance ?
> > Somebody ? Anybody ?
>
> Am I "anybody"?
>
> I support Henry's 1st Amendment rights to free speech.

No one here objects to Henry's right to free speech. NO ONE. So your
attempt to change the subject and painty yourself as somehoe noble,
fails.

No one here has asked Henry to stop posting his drivel - he has,
simply, been asked to post his drivel in a topical newsgroup.

Just as no one has ever asked you to stop posting your racist,
misogynistic, and pathological lies. We just would appreciate it if
you would post them in alt.sociopathic.views instead of
rec.motorcycles.
?
2010-10-19 13:54:04 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 19, 4:47 am, Toxic Tim <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Just as no one has ever asked you to stop posting your racist,
> misogynistic, and pathological lies. We just would appreciate it if
> you would post them in alt.sociopathic.views instead of
> rec.motorcycles.

I reserve my right to drop my trousers and crap in the middle of reeky
just like all the other trolls defending this cyber territory.
Bob Myers
2010-10-19 17:42:51 UTC
Permalink
On 10/19/2010 7:54 AM, ? wrote:
> On Oct 19, 4:47 am, Toxic Tim<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Just as no one has ever asked you to stop posting your racist,
>> misogynistic, and pathological lies. We just would appreciate it if
>> you would post them in alt.sociopathic.views instead of
>> rec.motorcycles.
> I reserve my right to drop my trousers and crap in the middle of reeky
> just like all the other trolls defending this cyber territory.

Except that, given what appears to be an unfortunate inversion
of your digestive system, you don't seem to have any need to
drop your trousers to do that.

Bob M.
Henry
2010-10-19 15:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Tim wrote:
> On Oct 18, 8:46 pm, "?" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 12:45 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com>
>> wrote:

>>> Show of hands please. Anybody besides Henry think Henry's
>>> posting something of monumental importance ?
>>> Somebody ? Anybody ?

>> Am I "anybody"?

>> I support Henry's 1st Amendment rights to free speech.

> No one here objects to Henry's right to free speech. NO ONE. So your
> attempt to change the subject and painty yourself as somehoe noble,
> fails.

> No one here has asked Henry to stop posting his drivel - he has,
> simply, been asked to post his drivel in a topical newsgroup.

If you want anyone to take your whining seriously, you'll also
need to ask twitbull and the older clown to take their insane
lies and crippling obsessions to a newsgroup dedicated to the
rants of psychotically obsessed lying cowards and psychopaths.
And of course, you'll have to ask everyone else who posts anything
unrelated to motorcycles to the appropriate newsgroup.
If you were honest with yourself and others, you'd admit that
you only get upset about posts containing the facts, evidence,
expert research, and truth about 9-11 because it proves that your
9-11 conspiracy theory is quite literally physically impossible.



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
tomorrow@erols.com
2010-10-19 18:01:39 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 19, 11:04 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>   If you were honest with yourself and others, you'd admit that
> you only get upset about posts containing the facts, evidence,
> expert research, and truth about 9-11 because it proves that your
> 9-11 conspiracy theory is quite literally physically impossible.

Heh. Poor Henry. You *still* claim that *I* have a 9-11 conspiracy
theory. I have never once, not ONCE, ever told you or anyone else,
here or anywhere else, what my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs are
about what happened on 9-11.

Still, that does not prevent you from, once again (as always), making
things up out of thin air to suit your own needs.
Henry
2010-10-19 18:32:05 UTC
Permalink
***@erols.com wrote:
> On Oct 19, 11:04 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>> If you want anyone to take your whining seriously, you'll also
>> need to ask twitbull and the older clown to take their insane
>> lies and crippling obsessions to a newsgroup dedicated to the
>> rants of psychotically obsessed lying cowards and psychopaths.
>> And of course, you'll have to ask everyone else who posts anything
>> unrelated to motorcycles to the appropriate newsgroup.
>> If you were honest with yourself and others, you'd admit that
>> you only get upset about posts containing the facts, evidence,
>> expert research, and truth about 9-11 because it proves that your
>> 9-11 conspiracy theory is quite literally physically impossible.

> Heh. Poor Henry.

Wrong again. I'm actually quite wealthy.

> You *still* claim that *I* have a 9-11 conspiracy
> theory. I have never once, not ONCE, ever told you or anyone else,
> here or anywhere else, what my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs are
> about what happened on 9-11.

You most definitely have, Tim. There are only two 9-11 conspiracy
theories. Your impossible Cave Man conspiracy theory, and the proven
inside job conspiracy theory. Since you go ballistic whenever someone
suggests that 9-11 was an inside you, either you're die hard supporter
of the Cave Man conspiracy theory, or you think there never even was
an attack on 9-11-01. Again, logic and reason using the tried and true
process of elimination...



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
tomorrow@erols.com
2010-10-19 21:56:41 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 19, 2:32 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> ***@erols.com wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 11:04 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> >> If you want anyone to take your whining seriously, you'll also
> >> need to ask twitbull and the older clown to take their insane
> >> lies and crippling obsessions to a newsgroup dedicated to the
> >> rants of psychotically obsessed lying cowards and psychopaths.
> >> And of course, you'll have to ask everyone else who posts anything
> >> unrelated to motorcycles to the appropriate newsgroup.
> >>  If you were honest with yourself and others, you'd admit that
> >> you only get upset about posts containing the facts, evidence,
> >> expert research, and truth about 9-11 because it proves that your
> >> 9-11 conspiracy theory is quite literally physically impossible.
> > Heh.  Poor Henry.
>
>   Wrong again. I'm actually quite wealthy.
>
> >  You *still* claim that *I* have a 9-11 conspiracy
> > theory.  I have never once, not ONCE, ever told you or anyone else,
> > here or anywhere else, what my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs are
> > about what happened on 9-11.
>
>   You most definitely have, Tim.

Fine. Provide cites to support your contention.
Twibil
2010-10-20 02:27:03 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 19, 2:56 pm, "***@erols.com"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >  You *still* claim that *I* have a 9-11 conspiracy
> > > theory.  I have never once, not ONCE, ever told you or anyone else,
> > > here or anywhere else, what my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs are
> > > about what happened on 9-11.
>
> >   You most definitely have, Tim.
>
> Fine.  Provide cites to support your contention.

"Support? We don't need no steeking support!"

In poor Hen3ry's mind there can be only two sorts of people: those who
worship at his enlightened feet and "the enemy".

And since you don't worship at his feet.......
Henry
2010-10-20 12:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Twitbull psychotically obsessed:

> "Support? We don't need no steeking support!"

Well, you do have the support of Bush and Cheney, and
of course, they would never lie to you about anything,
or kill innocent people, right, twit? <chuckle>


http://www.georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/911-lies-another-basis-for-impeachment.html


9/11 Lies: Another Basis for Impeachment
"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly
classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence
linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there
was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative
ties with Al Qaeda".

In addition, a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February
2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant
doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.

And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and
continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis.
Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that
Saddam was behind 9/11.

Indeed, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing
the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001.

Therefore, Bush expressly justified the Iraq war to Congress by
representing that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11
attacks.

Grounds for impeachment based on 9-11 lies are just as important as
those based on lies regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why?
Because the administration's false claims about Saddam and 9/11 helped
convince a large portion of the American public to support the invasion
of Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important
to remember that, at the time, the Saddam-911 link was at least as
important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.

Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many
Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close
ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting
questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since that terrible day,
the American people have been terrified, and thus irrational, based upon
the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the
bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong
leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical
decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues until "we get the
bad guys."

Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the
anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of
torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking
that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on
9/11, and had to be stopped at any cost. Thus, I would argue that the
Saddam-911 deception was a necessary precursor to the administration's
WMD lies and torture policies.

And polls show that almost 90% of the troops in Iraq are under the
mistaken belief that the U.S. mission in that country is ?to retaliate
for Saddam?s role in the 9-11 attacks.? In other words, our kids are
fighting and dying because of this lie.

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after
the Reichstag fire had occurred. (As you might know, the Reichstag fire
was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men,
which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against
neighboring countries.) Do you believe you could have stopped the
government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by
convincing people that Germans are a good people who do not torture
others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of
disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of
their countries? I believe not, without first exposing that the
Reichstag fire -- the sole event which allowed the German parliament and
other institutions to hand Hitler total power. The Germans were in
shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader.

Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans
were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over
all of their power to leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg
trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.

But Can They Really Be Impeached for 9/11 Lies?

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has stated that "Making,
ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing
information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a
climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals" is
grounds for impeachment (see paragraph 10) and see paragraph 7 here
("Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about
the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S.
government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments
with false information . . . .")

Lying about Saddam's connection to 9/11 may thus be an impeachable offense.

Postscript: On December 16, 2005, Bush admitted "There was no evidence
that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11" (and see this
video). However, Bush and Cheney continue to frequently invoke 9/11 as
justification for the Iraq war (and see this).

A bipartisan Senate Report from 2006 found that Bush misled the press on
Iraq link to Al-Qaeda

On April 24, 2007, Congressman Kucinich submitted articles of
impeachment against Vice President Cheney which include Cheney's false
linkage of Iraq and 9/11.

It has also just been revealed that 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks,
Rumsfeld said "my interest is to hit Saddam". This confirms previous
reports that hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said "Go massive . .
. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." And at 2:40 p.m. on
September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top
administration officials, several lines below the statement "judge
whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same
time", is the statement "Hard to get a good case." In other words, top
officials knew that there wasn't a good case that Hussein was behind
9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify
war with Iraq anyway.

This article does not discuss the evidence that elements of the U.S.
government actually carried out or aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks
themselves. However, if articles of impeachment were filed concerning
the administration's lies about 9/11, then the truth of who actually
carried out the 9/11 attacks would be relevant, and a door opened to
examine such evidence.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml

CIA briefing memo exposes Bush lies on 9/11
By Barry Grey
12 April 2004
The declassification and release of the president?s daily brief (PDB)
for August 6, 2001, coming on the heels of National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice?s appearance before the commission appointed to
investigate the events of September 11, has thoroughly exposed the
official version of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington as
a tissue of lies.

Whatever shred of credibility remained for the Bush administration?s
claims that it had no prior warnings of an attack by Osama bin Laden?s
Al Qaeda network on the US mainland has been shattered by the
publication of the CIA memo, entitled ?Bin Laden Determined to Strike in
US.?

The administration?s decision to release the memo, like every other
concession it has made to demands for a public investigation of the 9/11
attacks, was taken in a grudging attempt to quell growing skepticism
over the official line, and the vocal protests of family members of 9/11
victims, many of whom are outraged over White House stonewalling and
sabotage of efforts to uncover the facts surrounding the worst single
attack on US civilians in American history.

When the existence of the August 2001 PDB was first revealed in May of
2002, White House officials, first and foremost, Condoleezza Rice,
dismissed it as irrelevant. Rice declared at the time that the memo
dealt entirely with possible terrorist attacks outside the US. She was,
as is now proven, lying then, and, as even a cursory examination of her
sworn testimony last week before the 9/11 panel shows, she is lying still.

For nearly two years the White House refused to release the document,
given to President Bush more than a month before the hijack-bombings of
the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It only agreed to do so in the wake
of the controversy sparked by the testimony last month of Bush?s former
counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, who told the 9/11 panel that
the Bush administration took no serious action in response to multiple
warnings of an impending, massive attack within the US by Al Qaeda, and
then exploited the death of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 to
implement an agenda for invading and occupying Iraq that had preoccupied
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company from the outset of the Bush
administration.

The content of the August 6, 2001 PDB makes clear why the administration
was so reluctant to release the document. It is a clear and stark
warning that Al Qaeda is actively preparing an attack within the US,
that its previous attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania show
that it has the capability to do so, and that a likely method of attack
involves the hijacking of one or more US commercial aircraft.

In her April 8 testimony before the 9/11 panel, Rice, under prodding
from one of the commissioners, former Watergate prosecutor Richard
Ben-Veniste, gave out the title of the August 6 presidential brief. The
official heading of the suppressed document produced an audible gasp
from the audience in the hearing room, which included dozens of family
members of 9/11 victims.

Yet Rice continued to lie about the contents and implications of the
PDB. Her dissembling had three essential components.

* Lie number one: Rice declared numerous times that the PDB was not a
?threat warning.? It was merely a ?historical? review of past events and
old intelligence, and contained no warnings of current threats. Nor did
it, she claimed, give any indication as to specific cities or buildings
to be targeted.

* Lie number two: Notwithstanding the title of the document, Rice
continued to maintain that it contained no warnings of attacks within
the US.

* Lie number three: Rice reiterated her previous assertions that the PDB
in no way pointed to the possibility of hijacked airplanes being used as
missiles.

Unfortunately for Rice and the rest of the Bush administration, the
plain language of the document, and the actual context in which it
appeared, flatly contradict all three contentions.

The claim that the memo was purely of a ?historical? character and
contained no warnings of current or specific threats is belied by the
following information in the document:

Al Qaeda, it said, had active cells in the US that were planning
attacks. It mentioned the existence of such cells in California and New
York. It said the FBI had collected information since 1998 indicating
?patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent
surveillance of federal buildings in New York.? (Our emphasis).

The document also referred to the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 in
connection with a statement by bin Laden that he wanted to follow the
example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and ?bring the
fighting to America.? It further said that the foiled Al Qaeda plot to
bomb the airport in Los Angeles during the millennium celebrations of
December-January 2000 ?may have been part of bin Laden?s first serious
attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US.? It cited statements
from convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam to the FBI that bin Laden was aware
of the plot and that a top bin Laden lieutenant helped facilitate it.
(This history, it should be noted, was anything but remote, since the
aborted attack on Los Angeles occurred only twenty months prior to the
August 6, 2001 briefing).

The document went on to say that the FBI was conducting 70 full-field
investigations throughout the US into bin Laden threats, and that the
FBI and CIA were investigating a tip that bin Laden supporters in the US
were planning attacks with explosives. (Why would the FBI and CIA be
conducting such probes if there were no current threats? Rice did not
explain this conundrum).

Finally?and in a sense most damaging to Rice?s characterization of the
memo as merely of ?historical? interest?the CIA briefers wrote that bin
Laden was ?patient,? that he began planning for attacks years in
advance, and was not deterred by setbacks. This comment could have only
one meaning: it was a specific caution against any tendency to belittle
the looming threat on the grounds that most of the hard information at
hand dealt with past events and previously gathered intelligence.

Rice?s second lie?that the PDB did not contain threat warnings of
attacks within the US?is contradicted by virtually everything in the
document, beginning with the title. Among the specific potential targets
named in the memo are: California, New York and Washington DC. The memo,
moreover, suggests that federal buildings in New York and the World
Trade Center are prime objectives.

Rice?s third lie?that no one could reasonably be expected to infer from
the PDB that bin Laden might seek to use hijacked planes as bombs?is
perhaps the most cynical of all. The August 6 PDB occurred in the midst
of growing alarms from local FBI offices over a suspicious pattern of
Arab and Muslim immigrants taking training courses in the piloting of
commercial jets at US flight schools. On July 10, less than a month
before Bush received the CIA briefing while vacationing at his Texas
ranch, an FBI agent in the Phoenix, Arizona office sent a memo to FBI
headquarters in Washington urging that it undertake a national survey of
American flight schools to see if there was evidence of an Islamist
terrorist plot to hijack commercial aircraft.

Ten days later, Italian authorities, in collaboration with the US, shut
down air space around Genoa, the site of the Group of 8 summit, and
declared the area a no-fly zone. War ships were stationed in the area as
well. These precautions were taken specifically out of concern that Al
Qaeda terrorists might hijack airplanes and use them to bomb the summit,
which was attended by the leaders of the major powers, including George
W. Bush.

In his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Richard Clarke said he
briefed Rice, to whom he reported, on the warnings that terrorists might
use aircraft to attack the G-8 summit. Rice herself testified that she
knew at the time that Italian and American authorities were acting to
guard the summit from air attacks.

Finally, one week after Bush received the August 6 PDB, immigration
authorities in Minneapolis, Minnesota arrested Zaccarias Moussaoui, an
Islamic fundamentalist extremist who had sought training in flying a
Boeing 747 at a Minneapolis-area flight school. The US government has
since charged Moussaoui with being a co-conspirator in the September 11
attacks.

At the time of Moussaoui?s detention, FBI officials in Minneapolis sent
a series of urgent requests to FBI headquarters in Washington for
authorization to pursue an investigation into the man?s suspected links
to Al Qaeda. The agents explicitly cited fears that Moussaoui was
training to fly commercial jets in order to pilot one into a skyscraper,
and named the World Trade Center as a likely target. Top FBI officials
denied their requests and refused to authorize a search of Moussaoui?s
computer hard drive.

Neither the Bush administration, nor congressional investigators, nor
any other official body has ever explained this extraordinary decision
on the part of FBI headquarters. One thing can be said for certain,
however: had the Bush White House been seriously interested in pursuing
the warnings contained in the PDB it received one week prior to
Moussaoui?s detention and two weeks after the Genoa summit, the alarms
raised by the Minneapolis FBI would not have gone unheeded and steps
would have been taken that would have likely unraveled the plot that
was, within a few weeks, to destroy the World Trade Center and the lives
of some 3,000 civilians.

Instead, Bush remained on vacation at his Crawford, Texas ranch for
another three weeks, fishing and clearing brush. And, as Rice has
acknowledged, the first and only cabinet meeting prior to 9/11 dedicated
to a discussion of the threat of Al Qaeda terrorist attacks occurred on
September 4, 2001?one week before the hijack-bombings.

Even as Rice insisted to the 9/11 commission that the August 6, 2001 PDB
did not contain warnings of an imminent attack in the US, she maintained
that the Bush administration vigorously acted to protect the American
people, issuing orders, alerts and instructions to all relevant
intelligence and police agencies, as well as to the air transport
industry. She repeatedly spoke of ?tasking? the FBI to conduct intensive
?full-field? investigations into reports of Al Qaeda activity in the US.

But the remarks of two commissioners, which went uncontested, utterly
exposed these claims as fraudulent. Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney
general in the Clinton administration, said:

?Secretary [Norman] Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea
of a threat. The administration of the FAA [Federal Aviation
Administration], responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea.
Yes, the attorney general was briefed, but there was no evidence of any
activity by him about this.

?You indicate in your statement that the FBI tasked its field offices to
find out what was going on out there. We have no record of that. The
Washington field office international terrorism people say they never
heard about the warnings, they were not asked to come to the table and
shake those trees. SACs, special agents in charge, around the
country?Miami in particular?had no knowledge of this.?

Another commissioner, former Democratic congressman Timothy Roemer, said:

?We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 commission. We?ve
gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have
found nobody?nobody at the FBI who knows anything about a tasking of
field offices.

?We have talked to the director at the time of the FBI during this
threat period, Mr. Pickard. He said he did not tell the field offices to
do this. And we have talked to the special agents in charge. They don?t
have any recollections of receiving a notice of threat.?

Finally, there was the following exchange between commissioner
Ben-Veniste and Rice:

Ben-Veniste: ?Did the president meet with the director of the FBI
between August 6 and September 11??

Rice: ?I will have to get back to you on that. I am not certain.?

The facts cited here constitute only a small part of a veritable
mountain of evidence demonstrating that the Bush administration, the CIA
and the FBI played a crucial role in one of the greatest crimes in US
history. In its aftermath, every branch of government, both political
parties, and the media have been engaged in a non-stop effort to conceal
this role from the American people. The 9/11 commission itself is part
and parcel of the official coverup. It proceeds entirely from the
premise that the ability of 19 foreign terrorists, a number of whom were
known to US authorities, to commandeer four commercial jets and fly
three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, without the
slightest interference from the government or air industry officials,
was simply a ?failure of intelligence.?

But this ?failure? does not admit of any innocent explanation. Suffice
it to note that even the most elementary and obvious measures taken in
response to a welter of threat warnings in the summer of 2001 would
have, at the very least, saved hundreds of lives. Had airport and
airline officials been properly alerted, and the identities of known Al
Qaeda operatives living in the US been revealed to them, it is highly
unlikely that all, or even any, of the hijackers would have been able to
board the targeted planes.

Had the World Trade Center, a likely target of attack, been alerted of
the threats, and New York City officials been ?tasked? with drawing up
emergency response plans, orders would have gone out to vacate all
buildings in the vicinity within seconds of the actual terrorist strike.
Many lives would have been spared, even had the hijackers succeeded in
hitting the first of the twin towers at the World Trade Center.

No such measures were taken. There are only two plausible explanations
for this. One is a level of incompetence and indifference to the
public?s safety on the part of the Bush administration and the
responsible federal authorities?beginning with the president himself and
the power behind the throne, Vice President Dick Cheney?that rises to
the level of criminal negligence. Here the emphasis must be placed on
?criminal,? especially in light of the cynical manner in which the
tragedy of 9/11 was used to implement the most sweeping and reactionary
foreign and domestic policies, including the barbaric invasion and
occupation of Iraq and an unprecedented assault on democratic rights
within the US.

The alternate explanation is a deliberate and calculated decision to
?stand down? the intelligence and security apparatus, in order to allow
a terrorist attack within the US to occur. Certainly the role of top FBI
officials in running interference for Al Qaeda operatives and blocking
an investigation of their flight training activities points in this
direction.

It is not necessary to assume that those involved in such a conspiracy
would have known of or anticipated the enormous scale of the attacks.
They may have expected a ?traditional? hijacking, for example. But it
would not be the first time that a regime in crisis resorted to such
methods to extricate itself from intractable problems and create
conditions for stampeding the country behind policies that otherwise
would be politically impossible to implement.

It is no secret that the ?war on terror? that Bush announced within
hours of the 9/11 attacks corresponds to the program of military
aggression, domestic repression and global hegemony that was drawn up
prior to the theft of the 2000 election by those who were to become
leading figures in the present administration.

As Rice told the 9/11 commission, referring to the ?opportunity?
provided by the September 11 disaster:

?Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake
of catastrophic events?events which create a new consensus that allows
us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting.?




--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Tim
2010-10-21 01:15:40 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 20, 8:13 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Twitbull psychotically obsessed:
>
> > "Support?  We don't need no steeking support!"
>
>   Well, you do have the support of Bush and Cheney, and
> of course, they would never lie to you about anything,
> or kill innocent people, right, twit? <chuckle>

> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You *still* claim that *I* have a 9-11 conspiracy
> > theory. I have never once, not ONCE, ever told you or anyone else,
> > here or anywhere else, what my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs are
> > about what happened on 9-11.

> You most definitely have, Tim.

Please provide cites to support your assertion..
a***@gmail.com
2020-07-30 09:27:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 6:15:40 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> On Oct 20, 8:13 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> > Twitbull psychotically obsessed:
> >
> > > "Support?  We don't need no steeking support!"
> >
> >   Well, you do have the support of Bush and Cheney, and
> > of course, they would never lie to you about anything,
> > or kill innocent people, right, twit? <chuckle>
>
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You *still* claim that *I* have a 9-11 conspiracy
> > > theory. I have never once, not ONCE, ever told you or anyone else,
> > > here or anywhere else, what my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs are
> > > about what happened on 9-11.
>
> > You most definitely have, Tim.
>
> Please provide cites to support your assertion..

i just wanted to state this,
after 10 years.

i found this thread due to having had a similar experience with a bent axle and am researching.

i have to say this has been a roller coaster of idiocy and conspiracy theories that was buck wild the moment a 911 conspiracy was introduced.

one can only hope that, after 10 years of assured lunacy, henry was committed to the local asylum to get the help he needs.
Henry
2010-10-19 12:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Oct 18, 6:11 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

>> Seems like if you think the information I posted is
>> "stupid", you'd be able to quote at least one example of
>> this alleged stupidity.

> I no longer feel you're worth arguing

Why can't you discuss things with people without arguing
and calling them names? Why not have an honest, open, and
reasonable discussion, instead? I'm as aware as everyone
else that this has proven to be incredibly difficult for
followers of the "official" 9-11 conspiracy theory, who
tend to become incredibly emotional, irrational, insulting,
and often childish when their conspiracy theory is questioned,
but that doesn't mean you have to follow their lead. You
could try to set an example for them. Here, try again to
tell us what you think is "stupid" from the evidence and
expert research below.


Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Tim
2010-10-16 19:26:14 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 3:47 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:


> I get plenty of respect in the real world, and
> don't really have a need or desire to seek it from strangers on
> newsgroups.

Damn it, man, now you've gone and made me nearly choke to death on my
Coca-Cola. You should warn people before you post stuff that
freakin' hilarious.
Henry
2010-10-16 21:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Tim wrote:
> On Oct 15, 3:47 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

> The few people who aren't capable of showing respect are not the
> sort of people whose respect I would want anyway, so it works out
> pretty well. Also, I get plenty of respect in the real world, and
> don't really have a need or desire to seek it from strangers on
> newsgroups. Discussing 9-11 is a good way to separate reasonable,
> informed, intelligent, thinking folks who are capable of having
> a calm, logical, and rational discussion, from shrill, small
> minded petty kooks and imbeciles who are limited to spewing grade
> school "insults" and childish kook drivel. It's a rather efficient
> filter. ;-)

> Damn it, man, now you've gone and made me nearly choke to death on
> my Coca-Cola.

Tim, you need to get a grip on your emotions. You've been rather
unstable lately. Also, you should switch from the chemical
laced liquid sugar to water. That'll make clean up easier when
you have your spit spray fits, too. ;-)

> When one becomes a kook, one of the first things to go is ones
> sense of humor.
> You should warn people before you post stuff that freakin'
> hilarious.

Say WTF?? Looks like you've come so far unglued that in one
kook rant, you say I have no sense of humor, and in your very
next kook rant, you say I'm hilarious. You're like a Pavlov
dog - the moment you see the numbers 9-11, your "mind" goes
absolutely kooky. <g>
Apparently, my shrill, small minded petty kook and imbecile
filter is working *perfectly*.... ;-)




--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
tomorrow@erols.com
2010-10-18 13:36:19 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 16, 5:11 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Tim wrote:

> When one becomes a kook, one of the first things to go is ones
> sense of humor.]

> > You should warn people before you post stuff that freakin'
> > hilarious.

>   Say WTF?? Looks like you've come so far unglued that in one
> kook rant, you say I have no sense of humor, and in your very
> next kook rant, you say I'm hilarious.

Oh Henry! You don't have to have a sense of humor to say something
incredibly hilarious.

In fact, you are reeky's posterboy for demonstrating that!
Henry
2010-10-15 19:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> I had hoped to occassionally bring you back into the fold of normal
> human relations by responding to your motorcycle-related posts (few
> and far between as they are), thinking you were able to respect
> boundaries.[1] But that now appears impossible so I won't even be
> doing that from this point forward.

> [1]
>
> As in:
>
> Question: "Would you like to talk about subject X?"
> Answer: "No."
> Response: "Okay."

After you mentioned that you had been trained in structural
steel design, I decided to ask you about WTC7's free fall and
symmetric drop, which anyone who is knowledgeable in structural
steel design would know is impossible without demolition. If
you had just said you don't want to discuss it, I would have
been fine with that. But that's not what you did. You said the
research and evidence I posted was a "kook rant", but could not
back up your accusation. I believe people who make accusations
should be able to back them up, and if they can't, I think their
behavior should be well exposed.


> Not as in:

> Question: "Would you like to talk about subject X?"
> Answer: "No."
> Response: "If you don't, I will fabricate reasons why you don't." [2]

> [2] Such a person doesn't sound like someone even you would want to
> involve yourself with, right?

Of course, that's not what happened here, but such a person is
a vast improvement over someone who makes insulting accusations
but lacks the self respect, honesty, and integrity to back them
up. Think twitbull, if your stomach can bear it... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-15 23:53:00 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 1:33 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > I had hoped to occassionally bring you back into the fold of normal
> > human relations by responding to your motorcycle-related posts (few
> > and far between as they are), thinking you were able to respect
> > boundaries.[1]  But that now appears impossible so I won't even be
> > doing that from this point forward.
> > [1]
>
> > As in:
>
> > Question:  "Would you like to talk about subject X?"
> > Answer:  "No."
> > Response: "Okay."
>
>   After you mentioned that you had been trained in structural
> steel design, I decided to ask you about WTC7's free fall and
> symmetric drop, which anyone who is knowledgeable in structural
> steel design would know is impossible without demolition. If
> you had just said you don't want to discuss it, I would have
> been fine with that. But that's not what you did. You said the
> research and evidence I posted was a "kook rant",

Heh, heh, heh. Sheeeeeeeeesh. You sure have a thin skin for a guy
who loves to spend every day calling other people names, Henry.

I (once) characterize your obsessive, repetitive screeds as kooky
(hint: that's a critique of your behaviour, not your theory). You, on
the other hand, have engaged in calling me every name in the book you
can think of for days. Do see me crying about it? Try to be a man
about it, instead of whining like a baby all the time.

> but could not
> back up your accusation. I believe people who make accusations
> should be able to back them up, and if they can't, I think their
> behavior should be well exposed.
>
> > Not as in:
> > Question:  "Would you like to talk about subject X?"
> > Answer:  "No."
> > Response: "If you don't, I will fabricate reasons why you don't." [2]
> > [2]  Such a person doesn't sound like someone even you would want to
> > involve yourself with, right?
>
>   Of course, that's not what happened here, but such a person is
> a vast improvement over someone who makes insulting accusations
> but lacks the self respect, honesty, and integrity to back them
> up. Think twitbull, if your stomach can bear it... ;-)

Now think of someone so dishonest, lacking in integrity,
disrespectful, immature, dull-witted, selfish and intolerant that he
makes him look like a saint if *your* stomach can bear it. That's
peoples' opinion of you (mine included). I'm not saying that to be
mean. That's actually the way you are viewed by everyone here.

Now tell us about the "us" you keep referring to, who are good people
and who you imagine are on your side.
Beav
2010-10-16 19:07:46 UTC
Permalink
"Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fee6a455-c40b-466c-94c1-***@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> > Not as in:
>> > Question: "Would you like to talk about subject X?"
>> > Answer: "No."
>> > Response: "If you don't, I will fabricate reasons why you don't." [2]
>> > [2] Such a person doesn't sound like someone even you would want to
>> > involve yourself with, right?
>>
>> Of course, that's not what happened here, but such a person is
>> a vast improvement over someone who makes insulting accusations
>> but lacks the self respect, honesty, and integrity to back them
>> up. Think twitbull, if your stomach can bear it... ;-)
>
> Now think of someone so dishonest, lacking in integrity,
> disrespectful, immature, dull-witted, selfish and intolerant that he
> makes him look like a saint if *your* stomach can bear it. That's
> peoples' opinion of you (mine included). I'm not saying that to be
> mean. That's actually the way you are viewed by everyone here.
>
> Now tell us about the "us" you keep referring to, who are good people
> and who you imagine are on your side.

Fuck me stiff, is he still waffling on about the fucking WTC consprickacy?

--
Beav
The Older Gentleman
2010-10-16 21:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Beav <***@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote:

> Fuck me stiff, is he still waffling on about the fucking WTC consprickacy?

You do know he used to pose as an academic from Cornell, until it
emerged he was basically a janitor there?


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
Henry
2010-10-16 23:03:10 UTC
Permalink
The older clown's crippling, psychotic obsession forced it to spew:
> Beav <***@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote:

>> Fuck me stiff, is he still waffling on about the fucking WTC
>> consprickacy?

> You do know he used to pose as an academic from Cornell, until it
> emerged he was basically a janitor there?

And this, folks, is why the clown has been reduced to
disgracing and humiliating itself by engaging in its
insane, crippling obsession while hiding and cowering
behind its killfile. Of course, I've never claimed to
be an academic from Cornell, nor have I ever been a
janitor anywhere. The clown is not only a helpless,
self deprecating coward, but it's a delusional, lying
sack of shit. Would that we all could have such laughable,
disgraced, and utterly impotent "critics". ;-)
And of course, it is Beavis and the clown who have
swallowed an impossible cartoon fairy tale conspiracy,
and they do so out of *nothing* but blind faith, ignorance,
and stupidity. That facts cited below are proof - facts
that neither the Beavis, the clown, nor anyone else can
refute...

Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.


The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from: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
Henry
2010-10-16 22:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:33 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

>> After you mentioned that you had been trained in structural
>> steel design, I decided to ask you about WTC7's free fall and
>> symmetric drop, which anyone who is knowledgeable in structural
>> steel design would know is impossible without demolition. If
>> you had just said you don't want to discuss it, I would have
>> been fine with that. But that's not what you did. You said the
>> research and evidence I posted was a "kook rant",

> Heh, heh, heh. Sheeeeeeeeesh. You sure have a thin skin for a guy
> who loves to spend every day calling other people names, Henry.

That's the problem with communicating through writing - emotions
aren't always conveyed well. I don't mind you calling it a kook
rant at all, because as soon as I challenge you to back up your
accusation, you got tits up and discredit yourself and your
impossible conspiracy theory. I like that. Now, if you said it
was a kook rant and then backed up your words by showing us
that something I had written was obviously wrong, I might get
a little uncomfortable. But as long as you and the other Cave
Man conspiracy theorists continue to prove my point by limiting
your rants to childish, fact free kook drivel and grade school
"insults", I'm golden. ;-) You're merely confirming what I've
been saying for years about the intellect of the typical cave
man conspiracy kook, and I appreciate that.

> I (once) characterize your obsessive, repetitive screeds as kooky
> (hint: that's a critique of your behaviour, not your theory).

Actually, you've done it far more than once, and each time
you prove my point and discredit yourself by going tits up
when you're challenged to defend your accusation. Note,
that's still not a complaint - it's a hearty thank you. ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Calgary (Don)
2010-10-15 19:31:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:20:24 -0700 (PDT), "Road Glidin' Don"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>But hey, you know that no one reads what you write, don't you?

To be fair, if I don't see the usual 130+ lines in his message, I will
read the first sentence or two to see where he is going. If I see the
130+ lines it is pretty obvious he is onto the same old shit.
Stephen!
2010-10-19 20:38:44 UTC
Permalink
"Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:428e0347-f5fc-465c-
9486-***@i17g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:

> Ever watched the (Canadian) TV series called "Kids in the Hall"?

Excellent show. Along the lines of "The Whitest Kids You Know".

--
RCOS #7
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
Henry
2010-10-11 19:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:22 am, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>> Datesfat Chicks wrote:

>>> Had the rear tire replaced at the dealership today. Just because I'm
>>> anal and because I went over one pothole in the middle of the night that
>>> just about broke my back (the "hit" seemed to be the rear tire coming
>>> out of the hole), I had ordered a new rear axle in advance and picked it
>>> up at the parts department and gave it to the service department to swap
>>> in.
>>> I looked at the old axle. I cleaned it up with a paper towel. It
>>> seemed to be bent, but because of the marks on it, I couldn't be sure it
>>> wasn't an optical illusion. We got out a straightedge ... yep, bent.
>>> The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.

>> I'd consider .062" a significant amount of run out, and I'm surprised
>> that hitting a pothole could bend the axle without also bending the
>> rim....

> I sort of wonder if, with the weight of the bike sitting on it in the
> same position for 10K or so (tire change interval), perhaps everyone's
> axles have acquired the same degree of bend.

Some degree maybe, but would take a hell of a lot of force to bend
one 1/16th of an inch while it's in the wheel and clamped between the
swingarm ends. I've owned a lot of bikes and never had a bent axle. I
wonder if David's straight edge was bent or if he had a few too many
beers... ;-)


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Road Glidin' Don
2010-10-11 21:33:28 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 1:51 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>
> > I sort of wonder if, with the weight of the bike sitting on it in the
> > same position for 10K or so (tire change interval), perhaps everyone's
> > axles have acquired the same degree of bend.
>
>   Some degree maybe, but would take a hell of a lot of force to bend
> one 1/16th of an inch while it's in the wheel and clamped between the
> swingarm ends. I've owned a lot of bikes and never had a bent axle. I
> wonder if David's straight edge was bent or if he had a few too many
> beers...  ;-)

Heh. The latter sounds like a possibility as well. But the
discussion made me wonder how many people here [1] have actually gone
and measured their rear axles. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer
was zero, so who's to say many of ours aren't also like that?


[1] Beside the OP and, of course, a responder who is known to make
things up to become part of a discussion.
?
2010-10-11 22:32:07 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 12:51 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:

> Some degree maybe, but would take a hell of a lot of force to bend
> one 1/16th of an inch while it's in the wheel and clamped between the
> swingarm ends. I've owned a lot of bikes and never had a bent axle. I
> wonder if David's straight edge was bent or if he had a few too many
> beers... ;-)

In almost 50 years of riding, I've had one bent axle, and one bent
fork tube after the bike hit the wall at a half mile dirt track at 70
mph.

Motorcycle frames are stressed to take *at least* 6 or 7g's transient
loads without permanently deforming.

And it would take about 10 g's vertical acceleration to bend the rear
axle by hitting a pothole as David did.

So it would take something like 5000 pounds of force hitting the
center of his axle to bend it *permanently* if it was simply supported
at the ends.
MikeWhy
2010-10-11 23:12:44 UTC
Permalink
? wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:51 pm, Henry <9-***@experts.org> wrote:
>
>> Some degree maybe, but would take a hell of a lot of force to bend
>> one 1/16th of an inch while it's in the wheel and clamped between the
>> swingarm ends. I've owned a lot of bikes and never had a bent axle. I
>> wonder if David's straight edge was bent or if he had a few too many
>> beers... ;-)
>
> In almost 50 years of riding, I've had one bent axle, and one bent
> fork tube after the bike hit the wall at a half mile dirt track at 70
> mph.
>
> Motorcycle frames are stressed to take *at least* 6 or 7g's transient
> loads without permanently deforming.
>
> And it would take about 10 g's vertical acceleration to bend the rear
> axle by hitting a pothole as David did.
>
> So it would take something like 5000 pounds of force hitting the
> center of his axle to bend it *permanently* if it was simply supported
> at the ends.

It's easier to imagine the monkeys in the back room are as aware as we are
of David's obsessions and proclivities. Me personally, I would clamp it in a
vise and smack it with a hammer to put a nice bend in it, for his collection
of failed parts and imagined, narrowly avoided deaths.

I don't see how an axle will bend without destroying the bearings that
support it. Even with a single-sided swingarm. But then, I hesitate to state
this strongly, because I don't know the details of how they're held in. At
worst, I would think he would pop a few spokes well before the loads got
high enough to bend the axle.
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-11 19:14:42 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 9, 11:31 am, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Had the rear tire replaced at the dealership today.  Just because I'm anal
> and because I went over one pothole in the middle of the night that just
> about broke my back (the "hit" seemed to be the rear tire coming out of the
> hole), I had ordered a new rear axle in advance and picked it up at the
> parts department and gave it to the service department to swap in.
>
> I looked at the old axle.  I cleaned it up with a paper towel.  It seemed to
> be bent, but because of the marks on it, I couldn't be sure it wasn't an
> optical illusion.  We got out a straightedge ... yep, bent.
>
> The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.
>
> The bend itself isn't centered on the axle -- it is closer to one end than
> the other.
>
> It wasn't a safety issue.  The dealership told me stories about axles bent
> so badly that they couldn't get them through the wheel to remove them.  The
> things won't fracture.
>
> All interesting.
>
> It gives me a data point, to know that this can be done and how much force
> it takes.  Seriously, that bump was really close to breaking my back.

It seems unlikely to me that the axle could get bent
without destroying the tire, wheel and possibly other
components.

What diameter axle are we talking about here ?
Any other components damaged ?

Is it possible that it was incorrectly lubricated ?
Tim
2010-10-12 03:27:22 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 3:14 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:31 am, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Had the rear tire replaced at the dealership today.  Just because I'm anal
> > and because I went over one pothole in the middle of the night that just
> > about broke my back (the "hit" seemed to be the rear tire coming out of the
> > hole), I had ordered a new rear axle in advance and picked it up at the
> > parts department and gave it to the service department to swap in.
>
> > I looked at the old axle.  I cleaned it up with a paper towel.  It seemed to
> > be bent, but because of the marks on it, I couldn't be sure it wasn't an
> > optical illusion.  We got out a straightedge ... yep, bent.
>
> > The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.
>
> > The bend itself isn't centered on the axle -- it is closer to one end than
> > the other.
>
> > It wasn't a safety issue.  The dealership told me stories about axles bent
> > so badly that they couldn't get them through the wheel to remove them.  The
> > things won't fracture.
>
> > All interesting.
>
> > It gives me a data point, to know that this can be done and how much force
> > it takes.  Seriously, that bump was really close to breaking my back.
>
> It seems unlikely to me that the axle could get bent
> without destroying the tire, wheel and possibly other
> components.
>
> What diameter axle are we talking about here ?
> Any other components damaged ?
>
> Is it possible that it was incorrectly lubricated ?

Or, more insidiously, correctly lubricated..... but with expired
lubricant!
Rob Kleinschmidt
2010-10-12 06:46:39 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 7:27 pm, Tim <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 3:14 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 11:31 am, "Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > It gives me a data point, to know that this can be done and how much force
> > > it takes.  Seriously, that bump was really close to breaking my back.
>
> > It seems unlikely to me that the axle could get bent
> > without destroying the tire, wheel and possibly other
> > components.

> > Is it possible that it was incorrectly lubricated ?
>
> Or, more insidiously, correctly lubricated..... but with expired
> lubricant!

That'd certainly do it. Only a miracle would
allow anyone to walk away from that one.

You're a very lucky man, David.
Beav
2010-10-11 20:02:34 UTC
Permalink
"Datesfat Chicks" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> Had the rear tire replaced at the dealership today. Just because I'm anal
> and because I went over one pothole in the middle of the night that just
> about broke my back (the "hit" seemed to be the rear tire coming out of
> the hole), I had ordered a new rear axle in advance and picked it up at
> the parts department and gave it to the service department to swap in.
>
> I looked at the old axle. I cleaned it up with a paper towel. It seemed
> to be bent, but because of the marks on it, I couldn't be sure it wasn't
> an optical illusion. We got out a straightedge ... yep, bent.
>
> The bend is very minor, maybe about 1/16 of an inch runout.
>
> The bend itself isn't centered on the axle -- it is closer to one end than
> the other.
>
> It wasn't a safety issue. The dealership told me stories about axles bent
> so badly that they couldn't get them through the wheel to remove them.
> The things won't fracture.
>
> All interesting.
>
> It gives me a data point, to know that this can be done and how much force
> it takes. Seriously, that bump was really close to breaking my back.

If the hole didn't break your back, it didn't bend the axle either.

--
Beav
?
2010-10-11 22:24:36 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, "Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:38 pm, "?" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Either stick to what you *know* and don't ask stupid questions or
> > "reinvent yourself" as a mechanical engineer so you can calculate what
> > it takes to permanently deform a steel axle.
>
> Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
> calculate it.

Then *do* it and quit speculating about the ridiculous possibility of
a motorcycle bending its axle by its own weight at an acceleration of
1 g.
>
> But then again... I'm probably not on par with a guy who, after being
> washed out of the aerospace industry, gravitated to his true level of
> ability; that of a campground custodian.

You're right, you're not on a par with me, but I was never a
campground custodian.
Beav
2010-10-12 14:14:27 UTC
Permalink
"?" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2193482-7091-4e8d-97e3-***@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, "Road Glidin' Don" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 1:38 pm, "?" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Either stick to what you *know* and don't ask stupid questions or
>> > "reinvent yourself" as a mechanical engineer so you can calculate what
>> > it takes to permanently deform a steel axle.
>>
>> Actually, having been trained in structural steel design, I could
>> calculate it.
>
> Then *do* it and quit speculating about the ridiculous possibility of
> a motorcycle bending its axle by its own weight at an acceleration of
> 1 g.
>>
>> But then again... I'm probably not on par with a guy who, after being
>> washed out of the aerospace industry, gravitated to his true level of
>> ability; that of a campground custodian.
>
> You're right, you're not on a par with me, but I was never a
> campground custodian.

Although some would say campground comedian.

--
Beav
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...