More 911 problems.Twin Towers. this government says pancaked

[s.xkitten]

You know how many of those damn videos I've seen? More then what you have been posting. Not to mention s.x already posted that it had NOT fallen at freefall speed.

at least one person listens

[2dimes]

How can you talk about this while the government is burning down Cali?

[muy_thaiguy]

You know how many of those damn videos I've seen? More then what you have been posting. Not to mention s.x already posted that it had NOT fallen at freefall speed.

at least one person listens

Yeah, when I came to these forums, I was hoping to get away from 9/11 conspiricies. But, oh well.

[s.xkitten]

i have to...they are using my cat to spy on me, i have to pretend that i like the government

[s.xkitten]

You know how many of those damn videos I've seen? More then what you have been posting. Not to mention s.x already posted that it had NOT fallen at freefall speed.

at least one person listens

Yeah, when I came to these forums, I was hoping to get away from 9/11 conspiricies. But, oh well.

yeah, i know...

[xtratabasco]

Sorry to have to break this to you but......






http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.





So if this government doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

lol

[Dancing Mustard]

Sorry to have to break this to you but......






http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.





So if this government doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

lol

But it still doesn't mean that if a bean falls in the forest it doesn't make a sound
























Where are the pictures of that sound??












Can this man find a picture of that sound?:

I've been taking a lot of public transportation lately because parking downtown is prohibitively expensive, and unlike some people i know, i don't feel like moving a vehicle every couple of hours to avoid a ticket. thus, i come into contact with an extraordinary number of people. it blows my fucking mind how easy it is for people to get in my way. sometimes i feel like there is a vendetta against me, explicitly stating that if i am walking behind you, you will suddenly halt suddenly and do something worthlessly random like check your purse, causing me to almost stumble over you. and you have the fucking nerve to give me an evil eye as i stare you down? f*ck you bitch. this happened today.


listen, i'm not racist. i have chinese friends -- which proves it. in fact, this example isn't even specifically about "chinese high school girls". you can replace "chinese" with "asian" because all asians act the same, just like how they all look the same. but mostly, it's girls. girls who wear a lot of make up, tight jeans with the pant cuffs tucked into UGG boots -- the ugliest fucking boots in the world. i don't understand how an entire demographic of people (asians) who are supposed to be the smartest people in the world (asians) can be so fucking unaware of other people in the same vacinity as them. you don't own the street bitch. next time you stop like that, i will absolutely crush you until you shit out of your mouth.


















lol lol lol





If he can't then where are your car keys?

[s.xkitten]

okay, so that whole thing was how the towers couldn't have fallen at free-fall speed without assistence...

but i'm contesting that the building didn't fall at free fall speed period. That the buildings fell slower then free-fall

[xtratabasco]

it means that 20 seconds ago your buddies said that the buildings came down the way this government says it did, but know there not so sure.



lol

[xtratabasco]

okay, so that whole thing was how the towers couldn't have fallen at free-fall speed without assistence...

but i'm contesting that the building didn't fall at free fall speed period. That the buildings fell slower then free-fall

Lets try this again for you only slower this time




http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

[2dimes]

We saw the baby elephant oneday and the little rascal was sooo cute. It's three hundred and some pounds but you wouldn't know it to see the critter. They let it walk along the fence and you can touch it. It came up and reached through the fence and tried to pick my daughter's pocket. You wouldn't believe how many people were eating icecream, sure it's pretty mild for fall but it was certainly jacket weather. So the elephant's like the size of a big dog. The handlers were wrestling around and grabing it's hind legs. Then they went a ways away and laid down in the grass, it freaked, I never heard a noise like that from an elephant. What a fine day at the zoo. So that left me kind of tired so I came home and had a nap. When my daughter woke me up to go to my mother inlaw's for dinner it took me a while to get out of bed. I figured I better shave and changed my shirt. We went over to visit my wife's step dad's sister and her husband are in for the weekend from Iowa City. We talked about the kids and such. xtra you should have been there, you could have been the life of the party with your tales of 911. Man that would have made everything perfect!

[s.xkitten]

my 'buddies' didn't use the NIST test though...

they did their own tests.

[Dancing Mustard]

it means that 20 seconds ago your buddies said that the buildings came down the way this government says it did, but know there not so sure.



lol

Aren't they? This man looks pretty sure:

Sorry to have to break this to you but......






http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.





So if this government doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

lol

But it still doesn't mean that if a bean falls in the forest it doesn't make a sound
























Where are the pictures of that sound??












Can this man find a picture of that sound?:

I've been taking a lot of public transportation lately because parking downtown is prohibitively expensive, and unlike some people i know, i don't feel like moving a vehicle every couple of hours to avoid a ticket. thus, i come into contact with an extraordinary number of people. it blows my fucking mind how easy it is for people to get in my way. sometimes i feel like there is a vendetta against me, explicitly stating that if i am walking behind you, you will suddenly halt suddenly and do something worthlessly random like check your purse, causing me to almost stumble over you. and you have the fucking nerve to give me an evil eye as i stare you down? f*ck you bitch. this happened today.


listen, i'm not racist. i have chinese friends -- which proves it. in fact, this example isn't even specifically about "chinese high school girls". you can replace "chinese" with "asian" because all asians act the same, just like how they all look the same. but mostly, it's girls. girls who wear a lot of make up, tight jeans with the pant cuffs tucked into UGG boots -- the ugliest fucking boots in the world. i don't understand how an entire demographic of people (asians) who are supposed to be the smartest people in the world (asians) can be so fucking unaware of other people in the same vacinity as them. you don't own the street bitch. next time you stop like that, i will absolutely crush you until you shit out of your mouth.


















lol lol lol





If he can't then where are your car keys?

What about this man, is he not sure?

Anyway lets move onto the review of T.I.'s latest album "Urban Legend". Last year T.I. dropped "Trap Muzik, which in my mind was a damn-near classic album. Featuring some hot azz beats, tight lyrics and some uplifting songs T.I. really impressed me. One knock on that album many people had is that at times he talked a little too much about drug dealing. However just because he's talking about hustlin' or the "trap" doesn't mean its all negative. He had songs telling others not to try and be like him, and choose education, as well as spitting introspective rhymes about being in the trap and the outside perception people have of hustlers as cold heartless @ssholes. Others have a problem with T.I.'s cockyness. He makes it clear that he thinks of himself as the king, and if you think otherwise you are liable to p!ss him off, which is the case in his beef with Lil' Flip. However since I think Lil' Flip can't rhymes for sh!t I am not gonna waste breath on that "beef".

This time around the Bankhead native lightens up his subject matter a bit. That is a good thing for the most part, but at times it can create problems, which is a case for a few songs here. Without wasting anymore time, let's get into T.I.'s latest album.

[xtratabasco]

my 'buddies' didn't use the NIST test though...

they did their own tests.

and thats why you wont get the million dollars.


lol

[s.xkitten]

my 'buddies' didn't use the NIST test though...

they did their own tests.

and thats why you wont get the million dollars.


lol

i don't give a f*ck about the million dollars

and obviously, neither does anyone else, since we're spending time arguing with people like you, instead of collecting

[Dancing Mustard]

it means that 20 seconds ago your buddies said that the buildings came down the way this government says it did, but know there not so sure.



lol

Aren't they? This man looks pretty sure:

Sorry to have to break this to you but......






http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.





So if this government doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

lol

But it still doesn't mean that if a bean falls in the forest it doesn't make a sound
























Where are the pictures of that sound??












Can this man find a picture of that sound?:

I've been taking a lot of public transportation lately because parking downtown is prohibitively expensive, and unlike some people i know, i don't feel like moving a vehicle every couple of hours to avoid a ticket. thus, i come into contact with an extraordinary number of people. it blows my fucking mind how easy it is for people to get in my way. sometimes i feel like there is a vendetta against me, explicitly stating that if i am walking behind you, you will suddenly halt suddenly and do something worthlessly random like check your purse, causing me to almost stumble over you. and you have the fucking nerve to give me an evil eye as i stare you down? f*ck you bitch. this happened today.


listen, i'm not racist. i have chinese friends -- which proves it. in fact, this example isn't even specifically about "chinese high school girls". you can replace "chinese" with "asian" because all asians act the same, just like how they all look the same. but mostly, it's girls. girls who wear a lot of make up, tight jeans with the pant cuffs tucked into UGG boots -- the ugliest fucking boots in the world. i don't understand how an entire demographic of people (asians) who are supposed to be the smartest people in the world (asians) can be so fucking unaware of other people in the same vacinity as them. you don't own the street bitch. next time you stop like that, i will absolutely crush you until you shit out of your mouth.


















lol lol lol





If he can't then where are your car keys?

What about this man, is he not sure?

Anyway lets move onto the review of T.I.'s latest album "Urban Legend". Last year T.I. dropped "Trap Muzik, which in my mind was a damn-near classic album. Featuring some hot azz beats, tight lyrics and some uplifting songs T.I. really impressed me. One knock on that album many people had is that at times he talked a little too much about drug dealing. However just because he's talking about hustlin' or the "trap" doesn't
mean its all negative. He had songs telling others not to try and be like him, and choose education, as well as spitting introspective rhymes about being in the trap and the outside perception people have of hustlers as cold heartless @ssholes. Others have a problem with T.I.'s cockyness. He makes it clear that he thinks of himself as the king, and if you think otherwise you are liable to p!ss him off, which is the case in his beef with Lil' Flip. However since I think Lil' Flip can't rhymes for sh!t I am not gonna waste breath on that "beef".

This time around the Bankhead native lightens up his subject matter a bit. That is a good thing for the most part, but at times it can create problems, which is a case for a few songs here. Without wasting anymore time, let's get into T.I.'s latest album.

Did this man do his own tests?





The compact fluorescent light bulb revolution nearly occurred back in the early 1990s. When CFLs first hit the market in force, consumers bought them in large numbers — but they hated them. The bulbs were too big for many fixtures, expensive (up to $25 each) and they threw a dim, antiseptic light that paled next to the warmth of good old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.

Now, a new CFL revolution is at hand. Retail giants are pushing hard for the bulbs — Wal-Mart hopes to sell 100 million CFLs by the end of the year. In California, a legislator recently proposed banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the state by 2012. All the old benefits of CFLs are still significant — more so, in fact. They can use less than one-third the electricity of incandescent bulbs of equivalent brightness and last up to nine years. The new bulbs are smaller and far cheaper (about $5 each) than their predecessors, and more powerful than ever. Top-end 24-watt bulbs promise brightness equivalent to that of a 150-watt incandescent.

Still, when it comes to illuminating your home, brightness isn’t everything. Can CFLs match the light quality of the energy-wasting incandescents we know and love?

Popular Mechanics designed a test pitting seven common CFLs against a 75-watt incandescent bulb. To gather objective data, we used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness, and a Watts up? Pro ammeter to track power consumption. Our subjective data came from a double-blind test with three PM staffers and Jesse Smith, a lighting expert from Parsons The New School for Design, in Manhattan. We put our participants in a color-neutral room and asked them to examine colorful objects, faces and reading material, then rate the bulbs’ performance.

The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn’t see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren’t just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.



Where's your Ron Paul now? Is he going back and re-reading?

[xtratabasco]

my 'buddies' didn't use the NIST test though...

they did their own tests.

and thats why you wont get the million dollars.


lol

i don't give a f*ck about the million dollars

yeah, we know, we know


lol

[s.xkitten]

DANCING MUSTARD, WOULD YOU KNOCK IT OFF?!

its bad enough having to read one format like that, much less yours too

[s.xkitten]

my 'buddies' didn't use the NIST test though...

they did their own tests.

and thats why you wont get the million dollars.

i don't give a f*ck about the million dollars

yeah, we know, we know

Have you even read what i've been posting?

[Dancing Mustard]

it means that 20 seconds ago your buddies said that the buildings came down the way this government says it did, but know there not so sure.



lol

Aren't they? This man looks pretty sure:

Sorry to have to break this to you but......






http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.





So if this government doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

lol

But it still doesn't mean that if a bean falls in the forest it doesn't make a sound
























Where are the pictures of that sound??












Can this man find a picture of that sound?:

I've been taking a lot of public transportation lately because parking downtown is prohibitively expensive, and unlike some people i know, i don't feel like moving a vehicle every couple of hours to avoid a ticket. thus, i come into contact with an extraordinary number of people. it blows my fucking mind how easy it is for people to get in my way. sometimes i feel like there is a vendetta against me, explicitly stating that if i am walking behind you, you will suddenly halt suddenly and do something worthlessly random like check your purse, causing me to almost stumble over you. and you have the fucking nerve to give me an evil eye as i stare you down? f*ck you bitch. this happened today.


listen, i'm not racist. i have chinese friends -- which proves it. in fact, this example isn't even specifically about "chinese high school girls". you can replace "chinese" with "asian" because all asians act the same, just like how they all look the same. but mostly, it's girls. girls who wear a lot of make up, tight jeans with the pant cuffs tucked into UGG boots -- the ugliest fucking boots in the world. i don't understand how an entire demographic of people (asians) who are supposed to be the smartest people in the world (asians) can be so fucking unaware of other people in the same vacinity as them. you don't own the street bitch. next time you stop like that, i will absolutely crush you until you shit out of your mouth.


















lol lol lol





If he can't then where are your car keys?

What about this man, is he not sure?

Anyway lets move onto the review of T.I.'s latest album "Urban Legend". Last year T.I. dropped "Trap Muzik, which in my mind was a damn-near classic album. Featuring some hot azz beats, tight lyrics and some uplifting songs T.I. really impressed me. One knock on that album many people had is that at times he talked a little too much about drug dealing. However just because he's talking about hustlin' or the "trap" doesn't
mean its all negative. He had songs telling others not to try and be like him, and choose education, as well as spitting introspective rhymes about being in the trap and the outside perception people have of hustlers as cold heartless @ssholes. Others have a problem with T.I.'s cockyness. He makes it clear that he thinks of himself as the king, and if you think otherwise you are liable to p!ss him off, which is the case in his beef with Lil' Flip. However since I think Lil' Flip can't rhymes for sh!t I am not gonna waste breath on that "beef".

This time around the Bankhead native lightens up his subject matter a bit. That is a good thing for the most part, but at times it can create problems, which is a case for a few songs here. Without wasting anymore time, let's get into T.I.'s latest album.

Did this man do his own tests?





The compact fluorescent light bulb revolution nearly occurred back in the early 1990s. When CFLs first hit the market in force, consumers bought them in large numbers — but they hated them. The bulbs were too big for many fixtures, expensive (up to $25 each) and they threw a dim, antiseptic light that paled next to the warmth of good old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.

Now, a new CFL revolution is at hand. Retail giants are pushing hard for the bulbs — Wal-Mart hopes to sell 100 million CFLs by the end of the year. In California, a legislator recently proposed banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the state by 2012. All the old benefits of CFLs are still significant — more so, in fact. They can use less than one-third the electricity of incandescent bulbs of equivalent brightness and last up to nine years. The new bulbs are smaller and far cheaper (about $5 each) than their predecessors, and more powerful than ever. Top-end 24-watt bulbs promise brightness equivalent to that of a 150-watt incandescent.

Still, when it comes to illuminating your home, brightness isn’t everything. Can CFLs match the light quality of the energy-wasting incandescents we know and love?

Popular Mechanics designed a test pitting seven common CFLs against a 75-watt incandescent bulb. To gather objective data, we used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness, and a Watts up? Pro ammeter to track power consumption. Our subjective data came from a double-blind test with three PM staffers and Jesse Smith, a lighting expert from Parsons The New School for Design, in Manhattan. We put our participants in a color-neutral room and asked them to examine colorful objects, faces and reading material, then rate the bulbs’ performance.

The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn’t see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren’t just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.



Where's your Ron Paul now? Is he going back and re-reading?

my 'buddies' didn't use the NIST test though...

they did their own tests.

and thats why you wont get the million dollars.


lol

i don't give a f*ck about the million dollars

yeah, we know, we know


lol

I don't see a little elf in your home yet?




















Will the money buy you one of those Xtra?




































































They're hungry. For love.

[Dancing Mustard]

my 'buddies' didn't use the NIST test though...

they did their own tests.

and thats why you wont get the million dollars.

i don't give a f*ck about the million dollars

yeah, we know, we know

Have you even read what i've been posting?

You know he hasn't.





He's just spamming random copy paste off-point gumph to keep his propaganda spam at the top of the page.






Whenever somebody feeds his trollish antics I'm going to spam-bomb the thread until they give up.







Eventually people will learn to stop attempting to reason with him, because all he's doing is trolling.









Ignore him, or I'll keep butchering your attempts to reason with him.

[s.xkitten]

No...you can f*ck off just as easily as trying to get me to f*ck off

[Dancing Mustard]

it means that 20 seconds ago your buddies said that the buildings came down the way this government says it did, but know there not so sure.



lol

Aren't they? This man looks pretty sure:

Sorry to have to break this to you but......






http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.





So if this government doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

lol

But it still doesn't mean that if a bean falls in the forest it doesn't make a sound
























Where are the pictures of that sound??












Can this man find a picture of that sound?:

I've been taking a lot of public transportation lately because parking downtown is prohibitively expensive, and unlike some people i know, i don't feel like moving a vehicle every couple of hours to avoid a ticket. thus, i come into contact with an extraordinary number of people. it blows my fucking mind how easy it is for people to get in my way. sometimes i feel like there is a vendetta against me, explicitly stating that if i am walking behind you, you will suddenly halt suddenly and do something worthlessly random like check your purse, causing me to almost stumble over you. and you have the fucking nerve to give me an evil eye as i stare you down? f*ck you bitch. this happened today.


listen, i'm not racist. i have chinese friends -- which proves it. in fact, this example isn't even specifically about "chinese high school girls". you can replace "chinese" with "asian" because all asians act the same, just like how they all look the same. but mostly, it's girls. girls who wear a lot of make up, tight jeans with the pant cuffs tucked into UGG boots -- the ugliest fucking boots in the world. i don't understand how an entire demographic of people (asians) who are supposed to be the smartest people in the world (asians) can be so fucking unaware of other people in the same vacinity as them. you don't own the street bitch. next time you stop like that, i will absolutely crush you until you shit out of your mouth.


















lol lol lol





If he can't then where are your car keys?

What about this man, is he not sure?

Anyway lets move onto the review of T.I.'s latest album "Urban Legend". Last year T.I. dropped "Trap Muzik, which in my mind was a damn-near classic album. Featuring some hot azz beats, tight lyrics and some uplifting songs T.I. really impressed me. One knock on that album many people had is that at times he talked a little too much about drug dealing. However just because he's talking about hustlin' or the "trap" doesn't
mean its all negative. He had songs telling others not to try and be like him, and choose education, as well as spitting introspective rhymes about being in the trap and the outside perception people have of hustlers as cold heartless @ssholes. Others have a problem with T.I.'s cockyness. He makes it clear that he thinks of himself as the king, and if you think otherwise you are liable to p!ss him off, which is the case in his beef with Lil' Flip. However since I think Lil' Flip can't rhymes for sh!t I am not gonna waste breath on that "beef".

This time around the Bankhead native lightens up his subject matter a bit. That is a good thing for the most part, but at times it can create problems, which is a case for a few songs here. Without wasting anymore time, let's get into T.I.'s latest album.

Did this man do his own tests?





The compact fluorescent light bulb revolution nearly occurred back in the early 1990s. When CFLs first hit the market in force, consumers bought them in large numbers — but they hated them. The bulbs were too big for many fixtures, expensive (up to $25 each) and they threw a dim, antiseptic light that paled next to the warmth of good old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.

Now, a new CFL revolution is at hand. Retail giants are pushing hard for the bulbs — Wal-Mart hopes to sell 100 million CFLs by the end of the year. In California, a legislator recently proposed banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the state by 2012. All the old benefits of CFLs are still significant — more so, in fact. They can use less than one-third the electricity of incandescent bulbs of equivalent brightness and last up to nine years. The new bulbs are smaller and far cheaper (about $5 each) than their predecessors, and more powerful than ever. Top-end 24-watt bulbs promise brightness equivalent to that of a 150-watt incandescent.

Still, when it comes to illuminating your home, brightness isn’t everything. Can CFLs match the light quality of the energy-wasting incandescents we know and love?

Popular Mechanics designed a test pitting seven common CFLs against a 75-watt incandescent bulb. To gather objective data, we used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness, and a Watts up? Pro ammeter to track power consumption. Our subjective data came from a double-blind test with three PM staffers and Jesse Smith, a lighting expert from Parsons The New School for Design, in Manhattan. We put our participants in a color-neutral room and asked them to examine colorful objects, faces and reading material, then rate the bulbs’ performance.

The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn’t see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren’t just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.



Where's your Ron Paul now? Is he going back and re-reading?

WHAT?









I can't hear you over the noise of this thread choking in its own pointlessness.

[suggs]

Get over it. Who gives a flying cunt what happened to the buildings and how they collapsed? Just get over it. Fucking hell.

See Bill Hicks.
"Quit talikng about the Kennedy assassination, Bill, get over it, just drop it will you"
"Yeah, sto taliking about the taking over of a democracy by at totalitarian dictatorship, yeah"...

to be honest, i dont buy the "inside job" theory.
But you must question, you must doubt, otherwise you'll get another Bush and we'll get another Blair, with further erosion of personal freedoms.
Liberalism, baby...

[xtratabasco]

Have you even read what i've been posting?

yes but here was the way the thread was presented, you were supposed to watch the video then debate that, and then, if you can prove this governments story you get some money.




This government says that the hijacked boeing planes hit the towers, which weakend the steel and caused a pancake effect.

But if you check out the facts at which steel melts or gets compromised and the way the twin towers were built youll understand that this government is not only lying to us they are insane.


after you watch this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1483512003
and if this video gets removed, like the others do, just google
911 mysteries




how can you say that the 911 attacks were done by some kids with boxcutters? with a sane smile anyway?



Let me remind you that, just like the "pentagon story" there is over a million dollar reward if you can prove this governments story about 911 actually happend with highjackers and such.