Hi Tobias How do you feel about Occams razor ? ( Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor The U.S. is indeed controlled by a facist regime. see definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism It really matters very little if the WTC disaster was an exclusive Osama Bin Laden production or whether there was U.S. Government help. The net result was that the sheeple population of America fell over themselves to give away more of their natural rights to their glorious leaders. I would say the politicians in Washington should send a "thank you" letter to Osama. cc disclaimer: { the above comments are the opinion of Cedric Chang and while he believes that they reflect reality, more mature and reflective intellects may take Cedric to task for being too many sigmas away from the mean on the bell curve. } > > On Apr 5, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Tobias Gogolin wrote: > thats what fascist regimes always count on, that the reality is > just too > outrageous to buy at the level of what is considered normal > citizenry... its > the 'lie big' paradigm! > > Anyhow, you would be bored to death if you where to wait for any > building to > collapse because of fire! > Engineers know that rolled metal has something that is called a > 'benign mode > of failure'! that is things bend before they fail! that takes > energy and > time! Haven't seen other building fires that burned much longer? > And now the > worlds first 3 highrises that fail just like controlled demolitions > do! And > with so many benefits for the regime; but of course I understand, > there are > so many that depend on economic structures (corporations) that are > involved > and extract their wellbeing during hard times from the war that was > sold! > > Who really is interested to understand how all this works should > watch the 3 > hour documentary 'How Bankers control America' for example on > youtube... > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:48:07PM -0400, Rich wrote: >>> WOW!! And I though only Rosie O'Donnell and her pack of political >> eccentrics >>> were the only ones who exceeded the present knowledge of >>> thermodynamics. >> >> And the whole point of that http://www.debunking911.com/ was a nice >> insanely detailed step by step debunking of all of that stuff... >> >> Actually I thought their debunking of the molten metal hotspots left >> well after the collapse was really interesting. Basically, not >> only can >> iron burn in oxygen, which is how cutting torches work after all, >> but in >> the right conditions iron can burn in *air* and be self- >> sustaining. The >> conditions being a lot of rods with enough surface area, yet being >> well >> insulated enough to keep in heat, and a source of air. As the iron >> oxidizes, forming iron oxide it literally sucks in more air as the >> oxygen is used up by being bound to the iron. The reaction is >> exothermic >> of course, and if the heat loss is low enough it's self-sustaining >> until >> the supply of iron runs out. Since there is no CO(2) that needs to >> escape, the ventilation requierments are a fair bit less stringent >> than >> a typical fire. The debunking site doesn't mention it specificly >> IIRC, >> but I guess you'd just have to let the remaining nitrogen content >> diffuse outwards, or make-up oxygen diffuse inwards depending on your >> point of view. >> >> Iron can't bind to nitrogen correct? >> >>>> One must quite desperately want to protect ones trust in >>>> politicians >> and >>>> the >>>> military industrial complex to overrule so many hints that >>>> something >> was >>>> big >>>> time wrong on 911! >>>> And I'm not talking about foreign terrorists... >>>> >>>> I am surprised when otherwise pretty intelligent people start >> believing in >>>> so many firsts... >>>> Like the worlds first 3 steal frame buildings collapsing >>>> 'controlled >>>> demolition style' leaving hot spots of molten metal at their base, >> which >>>> doesn't even happen in cases of controlled demolition! And then >>>> they >> say >>>> that magic jet fuel did it... I mean really they should do their >>>> math, >>>> even >>>> if all of the energy contained in the provided fuel could have >>>> somehow >>>> been >>>> aspired to create temperatures hot enough to melt steel, how >>>> much of >> the >>>> steel required to bring down these towers could have been affected? >>>> I recommend to those that can fathom deep skull and bones like >>>> conspiracies >>>> to google ore Youtube 'Nuclear WTC' ! >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Peter Todd >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 08:01:51PM -0300, Enki wrote: >>>>>> On 4 Apr 2008 at 17:24, piclist@ian.org wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> As for the collapse not due to being structually damaged by the >>>>>>> planes >>>>> and >>>>>>> then set on fire, I don't know what else would have caused it. >>>>> Earthquake? >>>>>>> Gravity waves? Again, it seems pretty simple to me. Big >>>>>>> impact, >>>>> explosion, >>>>>>> and intense fire caused a collapse. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's because you are not an Engineer. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.debunking911.com/ is the best site I've seen >>>>> debunking 911 >>>>> conspiracy theories. Their front page photo is of a highly tilted >> south >>>>> tower coming down... >> >> > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist