Where can we get statistics of which BIKES pass the California DMVriding test?

What did I write that you "think" is nutty, and why do you "think"
it's nutty, exactly?
Ray got very quiet when I asked him to point out the glaring
differences he imagines between the two demolitions shown in
the video. Can you help him out, or are you as deluded, confused,
helpless, and nutty as Ray? Sure can be fun to challenge you
nut jobs to read and think.... <chuckle>

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

So, Bush successfully used 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, but you
"think" 9-11 almost prevented him from attacking Iraq. Good "thinking"
Veto. By the way do you know what WTC7 was yet? Do you agree with Ray

So far, you and the older clown are the only kooks I've seen who
have suggested that Bush blew up the WTC. That's pretty stupid - even
for you and the clown.. ;-)


Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

So how it the whole "raving asshole" routine working for you?

 

Yes, he did, among others. Your ignorance seems to have
no limits. As always, here's proof.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/bush-continues-to-link-ir_n_92321.html

You don't know that at all. You're spewing kook drivel again.




--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Ray Fischer spewed:

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

What did I write that you "think" is nutty, and why do you "think"
it's nutty, exactly?
Ray got very quiet when I asked him to point out the glaring
differences he imagines between the two demolitions shown in
the video. Can you help him out, or are you as deluded, confused,
helpless, and nutty as Ray? Sure can be fun to challenge you
nut jobs to read and think.... <chuckle>

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

What?
Tell us which one of the demolitions shown in the video
linked below does not display the characteristics of a controlled
demolition, and why. Then tell us why you think planes had anything
to do with WTC7's free fall and symmetric drop.



http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Kook

 

Ray Fischer spewed:

You babbled about airplanes during a discussion WTC7's demolition
because you're a kook? Finally, something we can agree on.. ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Claiming that the Bush regime didn't use the 9-11 attacks to get the
frightened and ignroant sheeple behind his plan to invade Iraq reveals
extreme ignroance. If you know anyone you trust who can read, ask them
to help you read and understand the information in the links above.

Yes, they date back to when the Bush regime used 9-11 to "justify"
invading Iraq...




--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Raving assholes write "what?"

Kook.

 

It was incredibly kooky for you to claim that the
demolitions shown in the video don't display the
characteristics of controlled demolitions, or that
planes had something to do with WTC7's free fall and
symmetric drop. That's why you come undone and become
even more stupid when you're asked to clarify and defend
your kooky "thoughts". Thanks for proving my point, but
you'd be much better off if you just admitted that your
emotions trumped your "thought" process again, and
that you were dead wrong on both points - as usual.... <chuckle>


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Hey Ray, how long did it take you to learn to slither on your
back so quickly? I've seen many kooks go tits up when they're
challenged to defend their nutty kook rants and 9-11 fairy
tale, but slithering off so quickly while you're on your back
must have taken some practice... <chuckle>



Ray Fischer spewed:

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Twitbull timidly chirped:

And of course, if someone had ridden a bike through WTC7's
massive steel frame, according to Tim, twitbull, and the clown,
it would have felt no different than riding through air. <g>
This is where Tim, twitbull, and the clown get even sillier,
or very, very quiet - they've been challenged to read, think,
and defend their blind faith and ignorance based 9-11 fairy
tale. ;-)

Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

So, Bush successfully used 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, but you
"think" 9-11 almost prevented him from attacking Iraq. Good "thinking"
Veto. By the way do you know what WTC7 was yet? Do you agree with Ray

So far, you and the older clown are the only kooks I've seen who
have suggested that Bush blew up the WTC. That's pretty stupid - even
for you and the clown.. ;-)


Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Again you lie about what I write, prving that your'e just some crazy
asshole.

 

Why do you need to lie about people, asshole? Is it because you have
no facts?

 

You definitely denied that the demolitions shown in the video both
display the characteristics of controlled demolition. Why are you
lying about, and hiding from what you wrote? When I ask you to
elaborate on these imagined differences, you become even more
stupid, spew more lies, or babble about planes, which have nothing
to do with WTC7's demolition.
When will you be able to stop lying hiding from your own idiocy, and
tell us which one you "think" doesn't look like a demolition, and why?
You kooks sure do get stupid when you're challenged to address the
evidence and defend your insane beliefs. <chuckle>

Here's the link again.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4




--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Just what the hell does this have to do with rec.autos.tech????? Quit cross
posting this crap!!!!

 

Repeating a lie just makes you look more crazy.