Industry news
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Some dumb guy
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:00 am Post subject: Re: The GOP doesn't have the chance of a snowcone in Hell in |
 |
|
ZNUYBV wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 2, 8:43 am, "Server 13" <c.b...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"JimPgh" <iwantnom...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:b0k163ttk8s2uhet93n0lmv7hcn0ubjqti@4ax.com...
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:11:35 -0700, Some dumb guy <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
In fact, Hillary is looking pretty good to them now.
She's white.
You're a racist.
ROFLMAO Playing stupid, the #1 hobby of republicans everywhere!
We shall see who's stupid. If the Democrats run Obama rather than
Clinton you will know that they are more stupid than the Repubs ever
have been.
Clinton is a sure thing and Obama doesn't have a Chinaman's chance.
|
Why are you so afraid of Obama? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lord Possum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:16 am Post subject: Re: Aluminum-water powered engines! |
|
|
In article <b5CdnYC6vPA_f_zbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@dls.net>, dietz@dls.net
says...
| Quote: |
mimus wrote:
Sigh. This doesn't replace gasoline with water
Yes, actually, it does. But see below.
No, it doesn't. The water isn't burned, as gasoline
is. The net energy producing reaction is aluminum
+ oxygen --> aluminum oxide. Water is involved only
transiently, be regenerated when the hydrogen is
oxidized.
So, this is just a weird way of burning aluminum.
Wouldn't aluminum-air batteries be simpler and cheaper?
Paul
===================== |
Uh ... doesn't processing of ores to produce aluminum cost anything?
Where is the end-cost factor? Using aluminum, whether in batteries
or in this reaction engine .. first requires ... aluminum. No? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BDK
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Hey Vandar, animal, BDK, JohnP, and other douchebags...W |
|
|
In article <zMidnYHtMvefXfzbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
CWilder@nospam.not says...
| Quote: |
BDK wrote:
In article <IYKdnVzRe48StvzbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
user200128- US@startfirst.net says...
Why don't you tell us what caused the building to fall shitstain.
You're obviously a qualified person who spends all of his
non-research time trolling the conspiracy groups on usenet. So go
ahead and wipe the shit off your fingers and type up a good report
on why the towers came down. Try to leave the words "kook" out of
just 1 post this year asswipe.
"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in
message news:8Iydne0chaiTkfzbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com...
That you think steel melted and caused the collapses shows you've
done zero research - typical of the few remaining deranged lunatic
kooks who are still delusional and willfully ignorant enough to
parrot old kook theories in public.
It's too hard to leave the "k--k" out of a reply to one of you folks.
We've been telling you why the towers came down for a long time.
Putting it simple, so even you might get it, if you let go of your
religion:
WTC1: Plane fly into building real fast, go BOOM. Later, fire and
booboo from plane make building fall down, go BOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
WTC2: Plane fly into building real fast, go BOOM. Later, fire and
booboo from plane make building fall down, go BOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
WTC7: Hunks of WTC1 crash into building, make fire and big booboo on
it, later, it fall down go BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Got it now?
See, I was nice and didn't use the K word..
BWHAHAHA!
BDK=Big Donut King must be one of those smoke eaters that dreams of
heroism while washing the chief's car every other day. Don't choke on the
cruller big boy.
|
Whatever little fantasy gets you through the day, "Wilder". Make up
whatever scenario you want and masturbate away.
BDK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
*Anarcissie*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: Re: Most popular Republican presidential candidate? Ron Paul |
|
|
On Jun 2, 3:24 pm, Dan Clore <c...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
*Anarcissie* wrote:
http://bostonnow.com/community/blogs/blackbart213/2007/06/02/most-pop...
Ron Paul. Who is this man? Actually, he is the leader of the polls in
the Republican Party by a clear majority. That is, if you watch the
debates and voted who was the winner.
That is, in unscientific polls, where a few energetic supporters can
stuff the ballot and skew results. The fact that these supporters
actually exist is encouraging, but one shouldn't take these poll results
at face value.
|
The boss media are going to quite a bit of effort to
eliminate heretics from the village square, as usual,
but this year they may fail due to the Internet, and
that could have interesting results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jake
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: Re: ElBaradei described those wanting to bomb Iran as "new c |
|
|
On Jun 3, 9:26 am, Mertis <mertisC...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
El Kabong wrote:
Thursday, 31 May 2007, 14:01 GMT 15:01 UK
Nuclear watchdog's attack warning
By Rob Broomby
BBC News
The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog has given one of his sternest warnings
against using military action to halt Iran's uranium enrichment programme.
Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
described those wanting to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities as "new crazies".
After Iraq, Dr ElBaradei said he did not want to see "another war".
He made his comments in an interview for a BBC Radio 4 documentary to be
broadcast at 2000BST on Friday.
This is not the first time that Dr ElBaradei has spoken out against the
possibility of using force against Iran, but it is perhaps his strongest
warning to date.
Tehran is still refusing to bow to demands from the UN Security Council to
halt its uranium enrichment programme, which the United States fears would
give it access to material for a bomb.
You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say 'let's go
and bomb Iran'
Dr Mohammad ElBaradei
Dr ElBaradei said a nuclear-armed Iran would be terrible but the jury was
still out as to whether the country even wanted nuclear weapons.
But he said you could not "bomb knowledge", and he was scathing towards
those who still favoured air strikes after the experience of intervention in
Iraq.
"I wake every morning and see 100 Iraqis innocent civilians are dying," he
said. "I have no brief other than to make sure we don't go into another war
or that we go crazy into killing each other. You do not want to give
additional argument to new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran.'"
Asked who the "new crazies" were he replied: "Those who have extreme views
and say the only solution is to impose your will by force."
Dr ElBaradei said he was not referring to President George Bush but his
remarks are likely to be interpreted as a swipe at those neo-conservatives
in the US who still favour military action.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/nuclear_detectives/6707457.stm
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
El Baradei repeatedly warned the U. S. and the rest of the world about
Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction. Don't you think somebody
should at least listen to this guy at least this once?
Jake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John P.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: Re: Hey Vandar, animal, BDK, JohnP, and other douchebags...W |
|
|
"Ratchet Up One more" <user200128-US@startfirst.net> wrote in a message
| Quote: |
So what you're saying is you have no explanation for a woman standing in
the impact area of the tower waving for help.
|
There's an easy explanation for it.
There was a woman standing in the impact area of the north tower waving for
help.
She worked in the north tower, thus explaining her presence there.
The north tower had been hit by a plane and was damaged. It was also on
fire. She wanted to leave, but she couldn't find a way out, thus, she was
waving for help.
What part of that are you having difficulty comprehending? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Moffitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:59 am Post subject: Re: Why does the DNC appeal to stupid people? |
|
|
"ZNUYBV" <auto294302@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180822167.074945.222450@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 1, 10:18 am, Cory Bhreckan <coryvreckan@NO_SPAM.verizon.net
wrote:
Harry Dope wrote:
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
By todays standards Mill is a Consevative.
|
Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and
the war on terrorism. They don't give a shit how many folks get killed, as
long as it isn't themselves or any of their own. ---- Harry Hope in
alt.fan.rush-Limbaugh June 15, 2006
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John P.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: Re: Hey Vandar, animal, BDK, JohnP, and other douchebags...W |
|
|
"Ratchet Up One more" <user200128-US@startfirst.net> wrote in a message
| Quote: |
Why don't you tell us what caused the building to fall shitstain. You're
obviously a qualified person who spends all of his non-research time
trolling the conspiracy groups on usenet. So go ahead and wipe the shit
off your fingers and type up a good report on why the towers came down.
Try to leave the words "kook" out of just 1 post this year asswipe.
|
You seemed to have somehow missed that there was a detailed investigation on
this very matter. It was conducted by the NIST, as well as a large number of
participants from outside the NIST. They released a 10,000+ page report on
the collapse of the towers. They answer your question in far more detail
than you probably desire.
Here's the JP summary version
A plane hit each building.
The buildings were severely damaged, but they survived being hit by a plane
(as they were designed to do). Some of the structure was destroyed.
The load normally supported by the structure, was now being carried by the
remaining structural components (some of these were damaged)
The plane crashes caused fires in the buildings.
Fires produce heat.
Heat causes steel to change - even if it doesn't melt.
Knowing that heat and fire can be a problem for steel framed structures (as
evidence by the number of such structures which have collapsed due to fires
before and since 9/11), NYC had a fire code in place requiring fireproofing
on steel structures.
Some of this fireproofing was knocked off in the plane crash, leaving
unprotected areas of steel.
The changes cause by the heat from the fires caused additional structural
components to fail.
As each component failed, the support for the building was transferred to
the remaining structure.
At some point, the remaining structure could no longer support the load
placed upon it.
The failure of the structure in the collapse area initiated the collapse of
the building.
If you have any questions, simply read through all 10,000+ pages of the NIST
report. You should find the answers you are looking for. If not, feel free
to ask and I'll try to point you to a reference which will provide your
answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John P.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: Re: Hey Vandar, animal, BDK, JohnP, and other douchebags...W |
|
|
"Ratchet Up One more" <user200128-US@startfirst.net> wrote in a message
| Quote: |
Where is the inferno? I plane carrying fuel just slammed into the floor
she is standing on. The fires are raging so hot that it softened the
steel.
|
In *that* area? Why do you think that? Have you ever seen a picture or video
showing a fire in the area where she is standing? Are you just assuming
there must have been a fire there since it is the impact point of the plane?
The plane was moving forward at something around 500 mph. Everything in the
plane, including the exploding fuel, would have continued forward at a
slowing rate. There is no reason to assume any of it would have stayed at
the very first point of impact.
Aside from the initial fireball from the exploding jet fuel, I have never
seen a picture or video showing a fire in the area where she is standing.
| Quote: |
The towers came down because of it and she is standing there waving. I
guess those fires weren't as bad as you want everyone to believe.
|
How bad does he want everyone to believe the fires were? Bad enough to cause
heat?
I'm not sure how you missed this, but she is not standing in an area where
there is fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John P.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:13 am Post subject: Re: Hey Vandar, animal, BDK, JohnP, and other douchebags...W |
|
|
"animal05" <wherewasIfriday@nowhere.com> wrote in a message
You may need to point out the fires in the linked photos are indicated by an
orange coloring that often appears to be shaped something like flames. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John P.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: Re: Hey Vandar, animal, BDK, JohnP, and other douchebags...W |
|
|
"animal05" <wherewasIfriday@nowhere.com> wrote in a message
| Quote: |
http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/mcallister/video/1/
*Note the rails bending under their own weight from the fire. (No live
load)
*Note the men standing close to the fire that is hot even to cause the
rails to bend.
*Note the men carrying the rail yet it is hot enough that a load force
will bend the rail even more.
This little video debunks severa; 911 kooker myths.
-That ordinary fire cannot get hot enough to cause structural weakness.
-That due to conductivity, the heat is transported away so as not to cause
structural strength loss.
-That fires could not be hot enough with someone standing in the opening.
But as usually 911 kookers will ignore the facts, and repeat the debunked
myths in the future
|
Obviously, they used thermite wood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John P.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: Re: Flight 93 Wreckage Under Armed Guard Buried Deep Inside |
|
|
"Buzz" <TheBuzzl@yahoo.com> wrote in a message
First the problem is that "all the evidence was destroyed", now the problem
is that it is saved and guarded (along with the masters of Michael Jackson's
master tapes). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kurt Lochner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: Re: Why does the GOP appeal to stupid people? |
|
|
David Moffitt <moffittd@earthlink.net> misquoted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402180.html
GOP Measure Forces House Debate on War
By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 15, 2006; Page A01
"Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq,
the House today will embark on its first extended debate on
the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote
against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the
war on terrorism."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The [GOP] don't give a shit how many folks get killed,
as long as it isn't themselves or any of their own."
--Harry Hope in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh June 15, 2006 15, 2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John P.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: Re: Ex-ATC - 'Knew 911 An Inside Job Within Hours' |
|
|
"-" <jazzerciser@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
| Quote: |
Robin Hordon Former FAA Air Traffic Controller
|
Fired by Reagan during the ATC strike. At least he doesn't have an ax to
grind. We can be sure he's completely unbiased.
I'm a little curious why, as a former ATC, he would make the mistake of
claiming NORAD would be monitoring within the continental US. One would
think he was aware that NORAD, pre-9/11, only covered the borders and
coasts, and was only tasked with looking for threats coming in from outside
the US.
He does go on to make accurate comments about our state of readiness during
the cold war. I wonder if he is aware significant changes were made after
the end of the cold war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Phlip
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: Re: Why does the GOP appeal to stupid people? |
|
|
| Quote: |
"Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq,
the House today will embark on its first extended debate on
the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote
against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the
war on terrorism."
|
One reason the Republicans might be preventing the Democrats from stopping
the war is the Republicans want to save their party by stopping it
themselves.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
1307 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
