> Hi Tobias
>
> How do you feel about Occams razor ?
> ( Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle
> attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar
> William of Ockham )
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor>
>
> The U.S. is indeed controlled by a facist regime.
> see definition
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
>
> It really matters very little if the WTC disaster was an exclusive
> Osama Bin Laden production or whether there was U.S. Government
> help. The net result was that the sheeple population of America fell
> over themselves to give away more of their natural rights to their
> glorious leaders. I would say the politicians in Washington should
> send a "thank you" letter to Osama.
>
> cc
> disclaimer: { the above comments are the opinion of Cedric Chang and
> while he believes that they reflect reality, more mature and
> reflective intellects may take Cedric to task for being too many
> sigmas away from the mean on the bell curve. }
>
> >
> > On Apr 5, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Tobias Gogolin wrote:
> > thats what fascist regimes always count on, that the reality is
> > just too
> > outrageous to buy at the level of what is considered normal
> > citizenry... its
> > the 'lie big' paradigm!
> >
> > Anyhow, you would be bored to death if you where to wait for any
> > building to
> > collapse because of fire!
> > Engineers know that rolled metal has something that is called a
> > 'benign mode
> > of failure'! that is things bend before they fail! that takes
> > energy and
> > time! Haven't seen other building fires that burned much longer?
> > And now the
> > worlds first 3 highrises that fail just like controlled demolitions
> > do! And
> > with so many benefits for the regime; but of course I understand,
> > there are
> > so many that depend on economic structures (corporations) that are
> > involved
> > and extract their wellbeing during hard times from the war that was
> > sold!
> >
> > Who really is interested to understand how all this works should
> > watch the 3
> > hour documentary 'How Bankers control America' for example on
> > youtube...
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Peter Todd <
.....petespam_OUT
petertodd.org> wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:48:07PM -0400, Rich wrote:
> >>> WOW!! And I though only Rosie O'Donnell and her pack of political
> >> eccentrics
> >>> were the only ones who exceeded the present knowledge of
> >>> thermodynamics.
> >>
> >> And the whole point of that
http://www.debunking911.com/ was a nice
> >> insanely detailed step by step debunking of all of that stuff...
> >>
> >> Actually I thought their debunking of the molten metal hotspots left
> >> well after the collapse was really interesting. Basically, not
> >> only can
> >> iron burn in oxygen, which is how cutting torches work after all,
> >> but in
> >> the right conditions iron can burn in *air* and be self-
> >> sustaining. The
> >> conditions being a lot of rods with enough surface area, yet being
> >> well
> >> insulated enough to keep in heat, and a source of air. As the iron
> >> oxidizes, forming iron oxide it literally sucks in more air as the
> >> oxygen is used up by being bound to the iron. The reaction is
> >> exothermic
> >> of course, and if the heat loss is low enough it's self-sustaining
> >> until
> >> the supply of iron runs out. Since there is no CO(2) that needs to
> >> escape, the ventilation requierments are a fair bit less stringent
> >> than
> >> a typical fire. The debunking site doesn't mention it specificly
> >> IIRC,
> >> but I guess you'd just have to let the remaining nitrogen content
> >> diffuse outwards, or make-up oxygen diffuse inwards depending on your
> >> point of view.
> >>
> >> Iron can't bind to nitrogen correct?
> >>
> >>>> One must quite desperately want to protect ones trust in
> >>>> politicians
> >> and
> >>>> the
> >>>> military industrial complex to overrule so many hints that
> >>>> something
> >> was
> >>>> big
> >>>> time wrong on 911!
> >>>> And I'm not talking about foreign terrorists...
> >>>>
> >>>> I am surprised when otherwise pretty intelligent people start
> >> believing in
> >>>> so many firsts...
> >>>> Like the worlds first 3 steal frame buildings collapsing
> >>>> 'controlled
> >>>> demolition style' leaving hot spots of molten metal at their base,
> >> which
> >>>> doesn't even happen in cases of controlled demolition! And then
> >>>> they
> >> say
> >>>> that magic jet fuel did it... I mean really they should do their
> >>>> math,
> >>>> even
> >>>> if all of the energy contained in the provided fuel could have
> >>>> somehow
> >>>> been
> >>>> aspired to create temperatures hot enough to melt steel, how
> >>>> much of
> >> the
> >>>> steel required to bring down these towers could have been affected?
> >>>> I recommend to those that can fathom deep skull and bones like
> >>>> conspiracies
> >>>> to google ore Youtube 'Nuclear WTC' !
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Peter Todd <
TakeThisOuTpete.....TakeThisOuTpetertodd.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 08:01:51PM -0300, Enki wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4 Apr 2008 at 17:24,
TakeThisOuTpiclistKILLspamspamian.org wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for the collapse not due to being structually damaged by the
> >>>>>>> planes
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> then set on fire, I don't know what else would have caused it.
> >>>>> Earthquake?
> >>>>>>> Gravity waves? Again, it seems pretty simple to me. Big
> >>>>>>> impact,
> >>>>> explosion,
> >>>>>>> and intense fire caused a collapse.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's because you are not an Engineer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
http://www.debunking911.com/ is the best site I've seen
> >>>>> debunking 911
> >>>>> conspiracy theories. Their front page photo is of a highly tilted
> >> south
> >>>>> tower coming down...
> >>
> >>
> > --
