4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11673
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1019.
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
It could just be that Goldi has gone away for the weekend and doesn't know the site is down,or that there has been an equipment failure of some sort and they are working on getting it fixed.
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug. I doubt the last one,though. I think she would post a notice if she were going to do this.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 9:21:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: sneakypete (#4)
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug.

Crap????

Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????
I dont think so. Ass kissing goys make me and this forum sick.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 10:00:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????

I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.
BTW,I was called a anti-Semite there the day before the site went down,and it wasn't the first time. I see no evidence of the Jews and Israeli-Firsters there having any more influence with her than anybody else. In fact,she even banned Margueritte a couple of years ago under another of her screen names.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 11:28:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.

Perhaps there is a thought...
You also like magician, Marge and the others see nothing but Jew haters.
If you look at LP, that is nearly all you see, people that see anti semitism under their bed, in the closet and are afraid to deal with it.
No one on LP has ever raised the specter of anti goyism, have you ever wondered about that Pete????
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 11:51:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Missed this one.
I can't speak for anyone else,but you would hear protest there from me.
What you seem to be missing is most of the people there (and everywhere else) that cheer the suggestion we nuke the A-Rabs aren't Jewish. Most are Christians,if in name only. They are people who bought into the whole terrorism thing at face value,and they are scared.
BTW,I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city. Once that happens,all bets are off. Even I will be cheering to see the mushroom clouds over Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 12:03:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: sneakypete (#28)
I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city.

Maybe that's why I thought you to be the enemy. Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 14:31:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

It pained me to believe it so without reservation, but the complicity by purposeful neglect indicts the globalist Bush Administration puppetmeisters is obvious IMO.
Oh...And, no, I don't believe Bush himself was capable of masterminding a lemonade stand.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:32:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect

Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 20:38:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

Gray area there, Pete.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded - along with an open cash register - then claiming no responsibility for the thievery.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:47:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: F16Fighter, sneakypete (#85)
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded -

If you both are going to say the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because of fire then you're both either very ignorant or trolls. There is too much evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Once you believe that the collapses were helped by explosives, then you have to believe that the Bush administration was complicit.
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.
So which is it? Ignorance? Or shilliness?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 23:53:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: Critter (#127)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

wonderfully succinct

christine posted on 2009-03-22 0:06:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#149. To: christine (#137)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

Before 911,
a Logistics employee I am good friends with, for Fed Ex told me about a system of vectored red lights that DC had in place to warn of any unauthorized aircraft from even getting near the capitol, and if the craft did not turn around, anti aircraft weapons were at the ready.
He flys a lot Alot.
I believe him.
However I have never broached the subject of the 911 attacks - for reasons of just getting along. I think he has got to go along with the ruse.

tom007 posted on 2009-03-22 0:15:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
What is more likely? Our domestic air defense systems were hopelessly unprepared, or our government set it up, then perfectly executed the plan? Shit during the Clinton admin, a plane hit the white house, on accident.
Our government is incompetent, that much is clear.
It can't even torture people in Iraq in secret, do you think they can pull off a 9-11 without anyone knowing? Probably not.
Our foreign policy caused 9-11, and silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth. Playing chess with other nations has fucking consequences.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 0:27:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth

Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.
For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!
Everybody jumped on the one little fact about the Senate seat,and that was all they needed or wanted to hear.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:08:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct

LOL
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Rotara posted on 2009-03-22 1:10:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Sometimes the right answer is the simple one,not the one that makes you feel good or vindicated.
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:42:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 1:49:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#265. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

BullBarack! Saudi Arabia had EVERYTHING to gain from it. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to either Israel OR the US,but he was very much a threat to the House of Saud.
Just like every other tribal leader/king in Arabia,the King there dreamed of being the King of a United Arabia. Saddam Hussein had this same dream,and he had the means and the willpower to do it. We invaded Iraq to protect the House of Saud.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 2:07:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
Sneak...I spent a whole 'nother thread being logical with them and it didn't work...
You're arguing with people who do not believe that a planes impact, exposion and ensuing fires caused more than even MINIMAL damage. IN some cases, some believe the planes were remote controlled. Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.
You're also arguing with people who believe that a well financed international terrorist group doesn't exist.
Good luck, mon frer..

war posted on 2009-03-22 8:28:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#520. To: war, sneakypete (#281) (Edited)
Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.

If you believe that a 110 story building (make that TWO 110 story buildings) can collapse in slightly more than free fall speed, then you must also believe that the tooth fairy is really the Easter bunny in drag.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 17:44:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
Helloo...McFly...anyone home McFly??
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

war posted on 2009-03-22 19:10:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

Excuse me? The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.
Did you miss the one that I posted to YOU, indicating it should have taken about 97 seconds?
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 21:17:54 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#835. To: FormerLurker (#591)
The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.

Wha...chuckle...huh? Go back and rrada it again moron...a point further OUT the the right on an X-axis is a GREATER number, doof.

war posted on 2009-03-23 8:34:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#990. To: war (#835)
Wha...chuckle...huh? Go back and rrada it again moron...a point further OUT the the right on an X-axis is a GREATER number, doof.

The report you link stated that it would have been possible for the WTC to collapse by "pancaking" in 8 seconds, yet it would have taken an object 9.2 seconds to hit the ground if it had fallen through thin air when dropped from the top of the WTC. That is impossible, yet folks like you not only believe that it is possible, but you view it as scientific fact.
Then you have the gall to think you know more about physics than those who know better, and have the audacity to call them morons or worse...

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-23 16:09:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#995. To: FormerLurker (#990)
I posted three vids that proved with actual physics formulas that even if conditions were ideal (they weren't even close to ideal) that it would have taken 44 seconds to collapse.

IndieTX posted on 2009-03-23 16:39:58 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#998. To: IndieTX (#995)
I posted three vids that proved with actual physics formulas that even if conditions were ideal (they weren't even close to ideal) that it would have taken 44 seconds to collapse.

Unfortunately real engineers aren't going to use youtube videos to argue a claim like that. Do you have a paper on it?

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-23 16:43:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1002. To: Rhino369, IndieTX (#998)
I posted three vids that proved with actual physics formulas that even if conditions were ideal (they weren't even close to ideal) that it would have taken 44 seconds to collapse.
Unfortunately real engineers aren't going to use youtube videos to argue a claim like that. Do you have a paper on it?

Physics formulas are physics formulas. What does it matter if they're on paper or on a video? Did you watch the videos?

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-23 17:03:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1005. To: wudidiz (#1002)

Physics formulas are physics formulas. What does it matter if they're on paper or on a video? Did you watch the videos?

I wasn't linked to the videos, but I will watch them. But yes it does matter that they are on video and not paper. Its very easy to fudge the numbers on a short video, and much harder to fudge numbers and use the wrong equations on a peer reviewed paper.
If you use the wrong equation for the wrong material you won't get anywhere near the correct answer.
Anyone with an engineering background can tell you this. If you start with garbage data, and use the wrong equations you can show anything.
So lets see the videos.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-23 17:07:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1007. To: Rhino369, IndieTX (#1005)
So lets see the videos.

freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...rtNum=97175&Disp=469#C469

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-23 17:11:58 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1012. To: wudidiz, IndieTX (#1007)
He is trying to model a collision with a freebody diagram. You cannot do that. He is assuming that the "resistance" force stays constant, when in fact the collision would shatter the top floors almost instantly, at which point the weight they could hold is no longer the weight they could hold before the impact. This is entirely bait and switch. The math they are doing is correct but they fail to properly model the situation.
Want to see what I'm saying. Turn a glass upside down, and place a ball on top of it. Of course the baseball will rest gently on the top of the glass. Using this guys phsyics that means the "resistance" force of the glass is at least 1 baseball*9.8m/s^2, or 1 baseball*g.
Now throw the baseball directly down at the glass. The glass shatters. After the impact is the glass providing 1 baseball*g resistance force? No, its providing almost none because it shattered.
In order to do the calculation this guy is attempting you'd have to run equations on a collision. This requires much more complicated equations. Basically you will have to calculate how much force the building experiences as the top collides with the bottom.
To find that force you'd find the momentum the top of the building had p=v*m; p=9.3m/s*massTopBuild
then the force = d(p)/dt. And since that bulding is made of steel that will not compress all that much that force is going to be >> than the resistance force he calculated since the collision happens over a very small period t.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-23 17:56:05 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1019. To: Rhino369 (#1012)
Believe what you want.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance... that principle is contempt prior to investigation" Herbert Spencer

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-23 18:04:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 1019.
#1049. To: wudidiz (#1019)
Believe what you want.

No, I know what is.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-23 20:29:08 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1055. To: wudidiz (#1019)
Hey, wudi.
I recall last year, your posts at FR. You were the first 'martyr' on what became a long list of FReepers who bit the bullet for supporting Ron Paul.
Remember this little ping list graphic for the RP Horde at FR?

Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday]
Podcast Weekly archive Toll-free 888-322-1414
Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Ah, the wrath that little banner could provoke among the freeper herd...
Anyway, I hadn't run into you but thought I'd tell you that you were only the first one banned. Dozens of us never backed down and ended up taking a bullet for RP, many of us having been there for 6-8 years. Of course, since it was FR that wasn't too huge a huge sacrifice.
I do hope a few of them survived the purge, just for next time.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-23 21:19:03 ET (13 images) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1019.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um