Activism Discussion: The Election - Out Of The Frying Pan, Into The Fire!

The Election - Out Of The Frying Pan, Into The Fire!
Posts: 9

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Freedom Man
2010-11-04 16:16:27 EST
Interesting election. We The Sheeple, angry that economic recovery under the
democrats is going so slowly, voted for the party that got us into the whole
mess in the first place!



Of course neither party lets on to the fact that if the unnecessary wars
were ended the standard of living in America could be raised considerably
with the money saved. But the politicians would rather go on with their
costly killing and Holy wars - good business for the already wealthy
warmongers that pay them off!



I suppose that if the Sheeple woke up and demanded an end to unnecessary
war, the warmongers would resort to another 9/11 style false-flag attack to
convince them otherwise. For now, fear-inducing terrorism hoaxes seem to be
sufficient. The Sheeple have not the wits to ask why the alleged
sophisticated terrorists in Yemen could not construct anything effective.
NOT EVEN ONE supposedly explosive parcel actually exploded! Given their
alleged success on 9/11, one would think these terrorists more capable and
competent.



But the brainwashed Sheeple believe only what they feel comfortable with,
unquestioningly accept government-controlled media lies, and reject all
else. It's sad, really. And so, so tragic.



Dick Moore
2010-11-04 18:28:53 EST

"Freedom Man" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
news:iav4au$61a$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Interesting election. We The Sheeple, angry that economic recovery under
> the democrats is going so slowly, voted for the party that got us into the
> whole mess in the first place!

Serial lying is all you people have, isn't it? Why do you hate America?

"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains."

"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"

"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is
resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more
loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."

"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."

http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"

"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS
learned from the letter shown in full text below."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973

Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the
distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in
the entire congress, even in his short stint there.

Bill Clinton himself said it best:

"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

-Bill Clinton

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''



MACK DADDY
2010-11-05 00:40:33 EST
On Nov 4, 1:16 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
> Interesting election. We The Sheeple, angry that economic recovery under the
> democrats is going so slowly, voted for the party that got us into the whole
> mess in the first place!
>
> Of course neither party lets on to the fact that if the unnecessary wars
> were ended the standard of living in America could be raised considerably
> with the money saved. But the politicians would rather go on with their
> costly killing and Holy wars - good business for the already wealthy
> warmongers that pay them off!
>
> I suppose that if the Sheeple woke up and demanded an end to unnecessary
> war, the warmongers would resort to another 9/11 style false-flag attack to
> convince them otherwise. For now, fear-inducing terrorism hoaxes seem to be
> sufficient. The Sheeple have not the wits to ask why the alleged
> sophisticated terrorists in Yemen could not construct anything effective.
> NOT EVEN ONE supposedly explosive parcel actually exploded! Given their
> alleged success on 9/11, one would think these terrorists more capable and
> competent.
>
> But the brainwashed Sheeple believe only what they feel comfortable with,
> unquestioningly accept government-controlled media lies, and reject all
> else. It's sad, really. And so, so tragic.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The wars should have ended 9 years ago.

John Smith
2010-11-05 01:03:10 EST
On 11/4/2010 1:16 PM, Freedom Man wrote:
> Interesting election. We The Sheeple, angry that economic recovery under the
> democrats is going so slowly, voted for the party that got us into the whole
> mess in the first place!
>> ...

Ron Paul for president, audit the fed, tally the gold in Ft. Knox, find
out who owns it, investigate 9/11 with independent citizens/experts,
toss out the criminally-treasonous-puppets who have gotten into public
servant positions and arrest their puppet masters and imprison them
along side of the puppets, etc.

Republi-crats = demo-cans = puppets

Regards,
JS


MANFRED The Heat Seeking OBOE
2010-11-05 12:50:09 EST
John Smith
> On 11/4/2010 1:16 PM, Freedom Man wrote:
>> Interesting election. We The Sheeple, angry that economic recovery
>> under the democrats is going so slowly, voted for the party that got us
>> into the whole mess in the first place!
> >> ...
>
> Ron Paul for president, audit the fed, tally the gold in Ft. Knox, find
> out who owns it, investigate 9/11 with independent citizens/experts,
> toss out the criminally-treasonous-puppets who have gotten into public
> servant positions and arrest their puppet masters and imprison them
> along side of the puppets, etc.
>
> Republi-crats = demo-cans = puppets


DESERVE FREEDOM.
RECLAIM YOUR NATION.
DEFEAT OBAMA'S DRESDEN WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
OR YOU CAN KISS YOUR WAGES, PENSIONS AND 401k's GOODBYE. PERIOD.

http://www.backseatblogger.com/funny/clown_atomic_bomb001.jpg



Even as wave after wave of Terror appear over the Horizon
as did so many Luftwaffe during WW ][, precisely HOW WILL
Punishing the Innocent apprehend the Guilty?
do anything whatsoever to the Guilty?


A: It is not meant to; it is meant to cause you FEAR.
To live in FEAR for having abandoned your only means of survival.
To Live in GUILT for knowing that you have done so willingly.
To accept every aspect of your life to an Inventory.



"Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory"
-- Shameless Politico THUG, Nancy Pelosi'09



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yhxqkJiAQ&feature=player_embedded
You Life and your Assets as administered by the LIBs
LIBs are the ones wearing the masks.



LIBs and their Strategic Insanity.
Doing unto their own people PRECISELY
what the Desperate and Deliberately Evil can only lust of achieving.



"it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced,
liberty is sacrificed."
Janet Napolitano'10


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Opt-Out-of-a-Body-Scan-Then-nytimes-
3016411705.html?x=0
Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

http://www.infowars.com/tsa-fondles-women-and-children-refusing-airport-
naked-body-scanners/
TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanners

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Security-Agent-Arrested-at-
LAX-80858482.html
TSA AGENT: "I am god, I\ufffdm in charge."



"the system worked"
Janet Napolitano'09


Who could imagine so many CLOWNS without a sense of Humor?

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/163419.jpg
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/160688.jpg
http://www.paragraph11.com/images/all/Paragraph11-Clinton-Joker.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/michelle_obama_joker.jpg
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/random/mo_ugly.jpg





WON'T *YOU* FEEL OBAMA's PAIN?

http://www.backseatblogger.com/funny/clown_atomic_bomb001.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yhxqkJiAQ&feature=player_embedded

SOON, YOU WILL
AS ECONOMIC WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ARE DEPLOYED TO
TAKE THINGS FROM YOU IN THE NAME OF THE COMMON GOOD.
TO DESTROY YOUR SAVINGS, PENSIONS, AND 401k's.



http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255
The Roots of Obama's Rage


The real Obama is a man shaped by experiences far different from those
of most Americans; he is a much stranger, more determined, and
exponentially more dangerous man than you\ufffdd ever imagined. He is not
motivated by the civil rights struggles of African Americans in the
1960s\ufffdthose battles leave him wholly untouched. He is not motivated by the
socialist or Marxist propaganda that hypnotized a whole generation of
wooly\ufffdminded academics and condescending liberals\ufffdthose concepts also
leave him cold.

What really motivates Barack Obama is an inherited rage\ufffdan often
masked, but profound rage that comes from his African father; an
anticolonialist rage against Western dominance, and most especially
against the wealth and power of the very nation Barack Obama now leads. It
is this rage that explains the previously inexplicable, and that gives us
a startling look at what might lie ahead.

In The Roots of Obama\ufffds Rage you\ufffdll learn: Why Obama\ufffds economic
policies are actually designed to make America poorer compared to the rest
of the world Why Obama will welcome a nuclear Iran Why Obama sees America
as a rogue nation\ufffdworse than North Korea The real reason Obama banished a
bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and ordered NASA to praise
the scientific contributions of Muslims Why Obama would like to make
America\ufffds superpower status a thing of the past

Stunning, provocative, original, and telling\ufffdno one has better
diagnosed who Obama is, what he intends to do, and why he poses an
existential threat to America than Dinesh D\ufffdSouza in The Roots of Obama\ufffds
Rage.




http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-
private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html
How Obama Thinks



OBAMA's got the look:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01750/Obama_
1750276c.jpg


Precisely where have we seen that 'look' before?

http://data.tumblr.com/BfKbAKBGR3zxx3k98SrPdNew_400.jpg
http://media.independent.com/img/photos/2008/01/17/Hillary_Clinton4.jpg


DESERVE FREEDOM
DEFEAT OBAMA'S DRESDEN.


Freedom Man
2010-11-05 14:30:23 EST
"Dick Moore" <iuiui@sss.com> wrote in message
news:EsGAo.70952$Ab6.64104@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Freedom Man" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
> news:iav4au$61a$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Interesting election. We The Sheeple, angry that economic recovery under
>> the democrats is going so slowly, voted for the party that got us into
>> the whole mess in the first place!
>
> Serial lying is all you people have, isn't it? Why do you hate America?

You fascists assume that anyone that utters one word of criticism about
politics hates America. Funny how haters see hatred in everyone else; never
themselves. And anything you disagree with must be a lie, right?



Freedom Man
2010-11-05 14:32:01 EST
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A female homo sapiens walked by, attracting the attention of
a male. The male stepped forward and smacked her over the head with
his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious female into his
cave for sex.

One day there were two males standing in front of a cave when a
female walked by. The first raised his arm to club the female, but
the second male communicated to him that clubbing females over the
head to have sex was not nice. WHACK! WHACK! The first male stepped
over the unconscious second male and proceeded to rape the female.
On that day the first liberal paid the price for expressing a new
idea.

Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent
of projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the David and
Goliath story in the Bible, where the big strong brute was laid
flat by the small but smarter boy. Once brute strength was no
longer the controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas
slowly gained a foothold in human culture, and civilization began.

Throughout human history, the price for advocating tolerance and
progressive change has been paid in threats, beatings,
excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder, assassination, and
execution. Countless liberals have paid the ultimate price for
their humanity. Though Jesus Christ is the most famous, names in
recent history that come to mind are Gandhi, Martin Luther King
Jr., John Lennon, and Robert Kennedy.

Today there are many conservatives - individuals, groups, and
nations - who use threats and violence to silence the voices of
reason, tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in
racists and homophobes beating blacks and gays, sometimes to death,
not for money or out of anger generated by interactive cause, but
because of religious or racial intolerance and secular bigotry.

Alan Berg on talk radio was a strong voice against a conservative
organization called the Aryan Nation. For thus exercising his
freedom of speech, he was shot dead while walking his dog in front
of his house.

David Rice is a man on death row in Washington State who has no
remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and
carving out their living hearts only because he heard they were
"liberals." He got their names from a Democratic Party membership
list.

Right-wingers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 men,
women, and children as an act of protest. What liberals have ever
committed such an abominable atrocity?

The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11
terrorist attacks in which thousands of innocent civilians were
murdered. The alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and the al
Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the right-wing religious
fundamentalist mentality.

Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen,
exacerbated, or even perpetrated by radical right-wing elements within
our own government to further their fascistic agenda. Two buildings
were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three
collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in
place BEFORE the attacks is very strong.

Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or
that they are not done primarily by conservatives is utter
nonsense. Look back:

Who nailed who to a cross?

Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?

Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?

Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their
sovereignty over their own bodies in the freedom to choose
abortion?

Who fought against child labor statutes?

Who fought against the concept of free public education?

Who fought against the right of women to vote?

Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?

Who fought against workers organizing?

Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars
"unsafe at any speed?"

Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11
terrorist attacks?

Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40
million more?

Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?

Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security,
health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?

Who fights against environmental protection statutes?

Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle
minorities?

Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering,
terminally ill patients soon to die anyway?

Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our
other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?

Who are the moralizing hypocrites forcing their puritanical
inhibitions and prohibitions on ALL Americans via legislation and
draconian, police-state enforcement practices?

Who always puts personal gain and corporate wealth and power above
the common good?

CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?

The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE
OF THE CONSERVATIVE BEAST!

Conservatives have distorted and demonized the word "liberal,"
whose true political meaning is favoring progressive change,
humanistic values, and opposition to authoritarianism. They
identify it with governmental waste and tolerance of criminality,
when in fact they themselves are guilty of abuses such as corporate
welfare bail-outs and tax evasion, fraud against investors, and
other white-collar crime. Conservatives fear and oppose all change
and progress beyond "what's in it for me?"

At the core of conservatism is the Machiavellian bully - the
despotic practitioner of "might makes right," craving wealth and
power, and willing to use any and all means to get them.
Conservatism is the philosophy of the caveman wearing a business
suit.

AND THE CAVEMENS' CLUBS CAN NOW DESTROY OUR EARTH!




MANFRED The Heat Seeking OBOE
2010-11-05 15:23:59 EST
"Freedom Man"
> CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST



You need only take seriously
the words of those whom LIBs both Sponsor and Defend.


It would be wrong to cut off contact with the terror group just because
they may have killed people "in a way that we hate."
-- Bill Clinton'06




If I'm given 1,000 lives I will sacrifice them all
...
we are proud terrorists and we will keep on terrorizing you,
We do not accept your democracy or your freedom

-- Last words of the Time Square Wanna-bomber
before being sponsored for 'life' at Club FED.





You are on an island that is inhabited by only two tribes.
One of the tribes always tells the truth, and one of the tribes always lies.

You have two doors in front of you -- one opens up to great treasure
and the other opens up to certain death.

You need to open up one of the doors.
Only the tribes know what is behind the doors,
but you don't know which tribe is which.

You can only ask one question of one of the tribes.
What question do you ask?


A:The question is: "Which door would the other tribe tell me to open?"
And then you open up the opposite door.



This will work because the answer is independent of the tribe you are asking,
and it gives you information about the door.

For example, if you end up asking the truth telling tribe,
they will tell you the truth - that the other tribe would lie
to you about which door you should open.

On the other hand if you happen to ask the lie telling tribe,
they will lie to you about what the other tribe would tell you
- which would have been the truth.

Q: Which Policy would the Liberals claim
that the other side should have chosen on Terror?

Knowing this, what is the real Consequence to Liberal Policy on Terror?


DO NOTHING. GET BURKA.
IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.


DESERVE FREEDOM.
HALT OBAMA'S DRESDEN WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
OR KISS YOUR WAGES, PENSIONS AND 401k's. GOODBYE.
http://www.backseatblogger.com/funny/clown_atomic_bomb001.jpg


LIBs, what price their vision?
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/14028.JPG
---
LIB's plead for a Morality which holds COMPROMISE as it's standard of
Value, making it possible to judge Virtue on the basis of the number of
Values which one is willing to Betray.


DESERVE FREEDOM.
DEFEAT LIB STRATEGIC INSANITY.
EVIL HAS NO POWER WHEN THE GOOD REMAIN UNAFRAID.


http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255
THE ROOTS OF OBAMA's RAGE

The real Obama is a man shaped by experiences far different from those
of most Americans; he is a much stranger, more determined, and
exponentially more dangerous man than you\ufffdd ever imagined. He is not
motivated by the civil rights struggles of African Americans in the
1960s those battles leave him wholly untouched. He is not motivated by
the socialist or Marxist propaganda that hypnotized a whole generation
of wooly minded academics and condescending liberals those concepts
also leave him cold.

What really motivates Barack Obama is an inherited rage an often
masked, but profound rage that comes from his African father; an
anticolonialist rage against Western dominance, and most especially
against the wealth and power of the very nation Barack Obama now leads.
It is this rage that explains the previously inexplicable, and that
gives us a startling look at what might lie ahead.

In The Roots of Obama\ufffds Rage you\ufffdll learn: Why Obama\ufffds economic
policies are actually designed to make America poorer compared to the
rest of the world Why Obama will welcome a nuclear Iran Why Obama sees
America as a rogue nation worse than North Korea The real reason Obama
banished a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and ordered
NASA to praise the scientific contributions of Muslims Why Obama would
like to make America\ufffds superpower status a thing of the past

Stunning, provocative, original, and telling no one has better
diagnosed who Obama is, what he intends to do, and why he poses an
existential threat to America than Dinesh D\ufffdSouza in The Roots of
Obama\ufffds Rage.


http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-
private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html
HOW OBAMA THINKS




Freedom Man
2010-11-06 15:03:48 EST
"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" <ExPresident@au.revoir.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9E277E212C542ExPresidentaurevoirg@69.16.185.247...
> "Freedom Man"
>> CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST
>
> You need only take seriously
> the words of those whom LIBs both Sponsor and Defend.
>
> It would be wrong to cut off contact with the terror group just because
> they may have killed people "in a way that we hate."
> -- Bill Clinton'06
>
> If I'm given 1,000 lives I will sacrifice them all
> ...
> we are proud terrorists and we will keep on terrorizing you,
> We do not accept your democracy or your freedom
>
> -- Last words of the Time Square Wanna-bomber
> before being sponsored for 'life' at Club FED.
>
> You are on an island that is inhabited by only two tribes.
> One of the tribes always tells the truth, and one of the tribes always
> lies.
>
> You have two doors in front of you -- one opens up to great treasure
> and the other opens up to certain death.
>
> You need to open up one of the doors.
> Only the tribes know what is behind the doors,
> but you don't know which tribe is which.
>
> You can only ask one question of one of the tribes.
> What question do you ask?
>
> A:The question is: "Which door would the other tribe tell me to open?"
> And then you open up the opposite door.
>
> This will work because the answer is independent of the tribe you are
> asking,
> and it gives you information about the door.
>
> For example, if you end up asking the truth telling tribe,
> they will tell you the truth - that the other tribe would lie
> to you about which door you should open.
>
> On the other hand if you happen to ask the lie telling tribe,
> they will lie to you about what the other tribe would tell you
> - which would have been the truth.

< snip >

Once again, you hypothesize a fictional, unrealistic situation and use it to
rationalize your biases and hatreds.

Yes, there are murderous terrorists. Too bad that some of them are in power
within "our own" government - the government that at the very least ALLOWED
9/11 to happen. And in my opinion, these traitors actively participated in
making it happen!

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale"!

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.

Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.

How Gravity Acts:

Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.

Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.

So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.

Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
high-school physics book:

* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)

And

* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
x G x T x T)

So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

Checking Our Work:

We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
conservation of energy.

We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.

In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.

So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.

The equation for potential energy is:

* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)

The equation for kinetic energy is:

* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
= 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
x 9216 = 4608

So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:

The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.

This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.

A Quick Recap:

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.

Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)

With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)

Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)

Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.

Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
200 mph.

But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.

Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.

Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.

Observations from 9/11:

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.

But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!

Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions:

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.

* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.

* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.

* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.

* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.

The Bottom Line:

The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.

It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.

Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.

---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation



Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron