Another Buzz of Nuclear Weapon and America... General Discussion - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 02:18:32 am
content: while Area 51 only exists in movies. but if its somewhere else, it will go buzz everywhere...China assisting N.Korean missile program - Panettahttp://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-assisting-n-korean-missile-program-panetta-223930416.htmlnow i'm talking US Government here, NOT American's people. The people, the citizens are just normal people like you and me, regardless.now it buggers my head, whats with US govn? are they good or bad? are they trying to save the world sacrificying their economy or what? now i dont want to say bad or good to US govn. i'm saying... whats with them?they are the only country who have dropped an atom to other country (maybe for good, surely of course according to history). declaring other who have nuclear weapon as "threat". do they want to control the world? to become "world police"? thats fine with me, as long as they implement "the real police" act. you see, our economy pretty much tied to their economy (somehow), so if they are going down, we are going down? our govn will start another buzz saying our economy collapsing, and we can now increase the price or our ration food... so whats good in there? i dont know?perharps i'm just an ignorant citizen. but more and more, i will trust on more powerfull channel, ie the internet!, but as you can see from the above news, they are using it too, to build "broad international condemnation". so, i dont know what to say, its just this kind of news keep buggering my head. sorry, no offense intended.

author: TerminalJack505
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 02:43:26 am
content: This is from the farewell speech of American President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 1961...http://youtu.be/_bqr5DVx3dwThe thing everyone needs to understand about the US is that politicians haven't been in control for decades.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 05:56:16 am
content: Quote from: TerminalJack505 on April 21, 2012, 02:43:26 amYes, wasn't Eisenhower a party pooper! The powers that be were happy to see him go, he clearly wasn't "with the program".Carter was another party pooper. His farewell address mentioned nuclear weapons extensively:http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/speeches/farewell.phtmlBushI, Clinton, BushII - all zero mention of nuclear weapons. Can't do that of course, because they MIC gravy train had a stranglehold by this time.Regan mentioned them briefly, but of course is also infamous as the goofball who screwed up the golden opportunity to disarm the planet at Reykjavik, all for the sake of the pursuit of Star Wars.Dave.

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 09:34:39 am
content: MIC yeh Eisenhower did warn people, I think that America is not run by the people or the politicians, the strings are pulled from powerful Banks and elitists.The Federal Reserve is not a government Institution, its a private bank that prints its own funny money, and lends it to the Government with political collusion.You will never know the truth. I read that the "Black budget" is bigger than Education, maybe wrong though.Space exploration just the minimum, no real goals, unless its election time then we are going to the moon, next Mars (Bush II). After election no show.Kennedy I was reading started to print Silver Certificate Dollars at no interest to the banks straight from the Government, no Bankers needed, Thats what finished him off.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 10:26:18 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on April 21, 2012, 02:18:32 amAre you sure you feel fine ?Now, read this with the recent "improvement" for our European fellows->http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/air-passenger-data-deal-european-parliament_n_1438194.htmlor this which is actually old newshttp://www.securitydirectornews.com/general-news/tsa-reaches-air-cargo-screening-agreement-european-union-0Partly quoted from 2nd link :"....<snip>......This agreement is one of several initiatives with foreign allies to increase aviation security includingcollaborative airport inspections, exploring new security technologiesand enforcing common limitations on liquids, gels and aerosols."Although I haven't read the details, it seems like even you're not flying to US, say like only within European countries, this agreement still applies.I think we all aware the already "common" practice when flying within US, that passanger needs to take off their shoes for xray scanning before boarding the plane. This is because there was an incident way back that an explosive was smuggled inside the shoes.Now the funny part, just "imagine" there is a new terrorist incident that involved smuggling an explosive thru arse hole, and it is very possible TSA will invent the new "airport inspection" rule which is called Butt Hole Inspection nickname "BHI"procedure to be applied as the standard including US's allies.Again, are you sure you still feel fine with this even you're Malaysian that have nothing to do with that European agreement, but happened to fly within European countries and standing in the queue waiting to get the "BHI" treatment at the airport ?

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 11:43:37 am
content: Actually both Singapore and Malaysia both have the Liquids / Gels / Aerosols Restrictions

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 02:15:58 pm
content: Quote from: quantumfall on April 21, 2012, 09:34:39 amEven the stuff you know about is scary enough.I'm reading Richard Rhodes Twilight of the Bomb at the moment, and just read that as of 2008 the US declared budget for nuclear weapons exceeded all government spending diplomacy and foreign aid ($39.5B), natural resources and the environment ($33B), and is nearly double the entire budget for science, space, and technologycombined.And is14 timesmore than what is spent on energy related R&D.It is madness of biblical proportions.Everyone should watch Countdown to Zero.Dave.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 03:14:13 pm
content: On the other hand, there is a school of thought that asks people to consider the possibility that Nuclear Weapons do not really exist, being just another one of the countless scare tactics used to manipulate the flock:Can anyonefactuallysupport or refute these assertions, above?-George

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 04:13:01 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 21, 2012, 02:15:58 pmI hope its just a way to take public tax money and spend it with their mates, when we bought trident in the UK it was publicized that a set of Allen wrenches to do a job for the system was billed in thousands of dollars. Its pretty much unaccounted money, like our EU budgets.May also be funding big electronic spy programs, in the UK we are all monitored many ways.Worst case they think there are too many of us and are looking at a human cull, Neutron weapons do little damage to infrastructure, It sounds like paranoia but I would not put it past these people.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 09:43:26 pm
content: The reason nuclear bombs work as a deterrent (and therefore in my opinion the best invention ever) is not that joe public is scared that in the next war their city will destroyed (as the man argues in the video above destroying cities does not win wars) it is the certain knowledge of the politicians that if it came to a major war with another nuclear armed state they would be the first to die as the bombs would be aimed at the capital and seats of government and any bolt holes they might have, this is a state of affairs that before the advent of nuclear bombs did not exist.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2012, 11:34:47 pm
content: Maybe. It is obvious, though, that the infamous governmental "Duck and Cover" propaganda film as well as the rest of the Atomic Disaster fear-mongering films and the recurring in an ad-nauseum rate relevantschool drillswere clearly targeting no one else but the general public. For years and years...Along with the 'overhappy' and 'overjolly' 1950's government propaganda (the imbecile "musicals" and all the other "recreational" films that contributed to the dumbing down of and the lying to the public), acting as an antipode to those fear-mongering tactics: The winning recipe of thegood cop / bad copdisorientation psychological technique...-George

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 01:48:01 am
content: Quote from: A Hellene on April 21, 2012, 03:14:13 pmYes, they are nutters, FACT.Dave.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 05:10:03 am
content: Quote from: TerminalJack505 on April 21, 2012, 02:43:26 amok i thought it was a funny joke. then who actual the "military industrial complex is/are?" or are they who should not be named? and then what US Nation/govt/politicians are going to do about it? keep yourself low profiled?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 06:28:20 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on April 22, 2012, 05:10:03 amThey are too many to actually name.But you might like to start here:http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/contracts-leaderboard.asphttp://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/what-is-the-military-industrial-complex.aspDave.

author: TerminalJack505
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 07:09:52 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on April 22, 2012, 05:10:03 amNo, unfortunately that wasn't a joke. That was a heavily decorated World War II general that then became the 34th president of the United States. He was warning everyone about exactly what we see today--collusion between the military, industry and congress. Eisenhower originally used the term Military Industrial Congressional Complex.Essentially, it is a conspiracy between these three entities to pump money into (what typically turn out to be) boondoggle projects. Billions of dollars are wasted because of it. Hundreds of thousands of lives are lost because of it.This is why the US isalwayswarmongering. If it isn't wasting hundreds of billions of dollars fighting wars with no end then it is instilling fear into its citizens with the likes of the story you originally linked. All to serve the singular purpose of lining the conspirator's pockets.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 07:21:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 22, 2012, 01:48:01 amRubber room candidates!!For a start,such a conspiracy would need the collusion of multiple nations,some of which had no interest inhelping their major opponents in pulling off a hoax of these proportions.Even the people directly involved would number in the hundreds of thousands,maybe millions.The UK tested a number of Nuclear weapons in Australia----the sites are still "hot" for radiation.On one of the Monte Bello Islands,there are pieces of steel wreckage,which are still strongly radioactive.No country ,even now has the technology( apart from Nuclear weapons) to induce radioactivity in large steel objects,let alone a portable device to do so,or are we to believe that these bits were "treated" elsewhere,& transported to North West Australia in the mid 1950s?Loonies!!

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 01:58:59 pm
content: Even if one provided facts in buckets, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.Quote from: EEVblog on April 22, 2012, 01:48:01 am

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 02:15:20 pm
content: The US government learned after WWII that they better ALWAYS have an enemy. Because always having an enemy keeps the populace afraid and always willing to allow big defense expenditures.If you allow disarmament, why that just leads to...PEACE! Can't have that. That's why nutball Bush II was told to pull out of the pact we had with Russia. Russia was never our enemy, but we were certainly told they were. Gotta have an enemy, you know.So, why the need for big defense budgets? Because if you don't, the people start getting what they want...like benefits and shares of profits and such...and that's no good for the rich ruling class, they don't want to give up any of their greenbacks.Look at the lies they keep perpetuating....Lower the taxes on the rich!...It creates jobs! Uhhh, bullshit. Look at what the tax structure used to be like in America. We've had upper tax rates over 80%. Look at the tax rates while FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression. I think the top tax rate was even over 90%. Most people aren't aware of it. But, yep, we did. And the upper class STILL made money.[Roll the closing scene from Dr. Strangelove.]

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 02:54:30 pm
content: 1940~1950 We need nucks to defend against Germany/Japan.1950~1990 We need nucks to defend against USSR.1990~2000 We need nucks to maintain the peace around the world.2000~2010 We need nucks to fight terrorists.2010~2020 We need nucks to defend against China/N. Korea e.t.c.2020~2050 We need nucks to defend against meteorites.2050~2100 We need nucks to defend against Aliens.Alexander.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2012, 10:20:35 pm
content: Quote from: firewalker on April 22, 2012, 02:54:30 pmso i see. its a propaganda made by the "military industrial" (and maybe partially the govn itself?) but the good thing maybe is... it keeps US on top of the military force?(try to)

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 02:00:04 pm
content: I would like to thank everyone who took the time to answer my question about the validity of the nuclear weapons existence, in the previous page. I have recently got myself in the business of questioning anything I have a hard time to swallow, since I realise thatthe burden of proofis laid upon the side that initially makes a statement; especially if that statement contradicts itself or the common sense. If, for example, I assert that there is a green horse standing on the second floor of the building, and you have an objection on that since it sounds to be absurd,it is my responsibility to prove my claim; not yours to disprove it. Do never forget that a lot oflogical fallaciesare based on the wrong interpretation, or on attempts to shift, the burden of proof.You see, I used to ignore almost any absurdity I would read or hear; and I was ostensively doing that up to the point when I was informed by the mass media that airplanes could be absolutely vaporised (along with all their titanium and steel components) in free burning kerosine fires, and that steel buildings, strong enough to be surviving the rage of nature for decades without the need of any reinforcements, could not only be pulverised by airplanes falling on them but they could also literally swallow those poor airplanes that were claimed to hit them without even spitting out a bolt. Twice; in the same day; and with the accuracy ofcopy & paste...It was a few years later that I watched the best documentary about the 9/11 events, called "September Clues" (part oneandpart two), from Simon Shack who proved beyond any doubt that everything that had been released by the media corporations about those events that changed the face of the world were literally2D computer generated graphics.QuotingSimon Shack'swords: "Please realize that the 'plane-crash shots' were not isolated, fake video clips: The (approx) 102-min-long TV-programme broadcast on the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001 was but a fully pre-fabricated movie designed to replace the real-life events in Manhattan. Why was it done? 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme - the scale of which is beyond most people's imagination. Please read on."During those years I begun searching for everything I could find that did non follow common sense patterns. And my discoveries were breathtaking: From thePseudo-Holocaust (TM)to the impossible even todaymannedmoon landings (Part 1: The heroes never die and the "Shooting Stars",Part 2: The on-board magic air-conditioning unitandPart 3: The Earth-Moon-Earth distance radio waves 2.50 sec minimum delay); from the ancient banking usury scam (Part 1andPart 2) to the 2,500 years oldpopulace indoctrination machine; from thereligions scamto the older than two and a half millennia timeNoble Lie; and the list can go on for pages...I enjoyed, though, the 3D computer-generated Batman-City!-George

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 05:07:25 pm
content: Shafri, though I concur with almost everything Quantumfall has written, let me tell you that the situation is even worse; and Eisenhower (the "Terrible Swedish Jew" according to his West Point yearbook), who is also suspected for the murder of General Patton, was not a saint himself --just search for theEisenhower death camps, where he murdered 1.1 to 1.7 million surrendered German soldiers without the need for any "mass murdering technology" by just declaring the German prisoners of war as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" (read the "Other Losses (1991)" by James Bacque) and keeping them in open space without shelter, food or water to die rapidly from typhus...But this sad situation goes further back in time, even before the Barbary Wars of 1800. The WWI Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, wrote about the war machine in his famous book titled "War is a Racket".If you have the courage to investigate theU.S. war machine(which has nothing to do with the American citizens) any further, just read the Congressional report "U.S. Military Actions Overseas, from 1798 to 2008" directly from the officialCongressional Research Serviceat crs.gov. Tell me please, can you count up to 329?-George

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 05:29:58 pm
content: sorry for my poor english understanding. but are you saying hiroshima tragedy is a 2D cynematic effect?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 05:30:13 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on April 23, 2012, 02:00:04 pmI don't know what you have been taking, But steel frame buildings are fairly easy to collapse if enough heat is applied to them and several hundreds of kilos of kerosene will do the job nicely, All steel frame buildings are only safe from fire as long as the foam heat protecting cover that is spayed onto the beams remains intact, once that is gone the heat does not have to burn the steel just soften it heat the steel to red heat and it bends easily, once the beams bend the concrete floors collapse and when that hits the floor below the next goes down its then a chain reaction each fool will only take a certain load once exceeded it breaks. The shock of the plane hitting the building will knock a large amount of heat protection off as it is quite brittle the sheer weight of the plane is also an overload for the floor heat the beams and its gone. The only conspiracy was that of Bin Laden's.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 05:59:23 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on April 23, 2012, 05:29:58 pmNo, of course not. I do not know what happened in Japan, other than what I have read. And we all know how badly History can be distorted.But after watching the "September Clues" over and over I am convinced that the 9/11 televised events were absolutely staged and the whole "show" was created in studios. Watch that documentary yourself and you will see what I am talking about. I will also quote Robert Grassi's very interesting view, who claims that:"There is no 'victims of the 9/11.' The City of New York official site does NOT provide a list of the victims; only CNN does, which means that it is NOT a political mater but a mediatic matter only."__________Quote from: G7PSK on April 23, 2012, 05:30:13 pmI do not know if your assertion about kerosene being able to bring down steel buildings is valid on not; my gut feeling says that it is probably impossible. But I am sure that whatever magic powers kerosene has, it cannot bring down steel structures in a speed faster than free falling.-George

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 06:24:22 pm
content: 9/11 afaik is real, not a 2d cynematic. but the cause and effect maybe a conspiracy.edit: so anybody live downtown New York to say something about it?and btw, you dont need to melt a steel to make it collapse. just a little bit of heat below melt temp or above ambient temp will ve able to make it bends. you know what happen to heavy object when it bends? it collapse. but it can be quite a task to make it collapse as nice as the twin tower was (or maybe it just tv influence i got watching "building demolition team" do their job).

author: Time
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 06:45:46 pm
content: I think all the conspiracy theories and their theorists are so cute.Their little ideas that a society has the ability to orchestrate huge hoaxes and cover them up for all the world. It really is truly optimistic and idealistic. It takes a true whimsical romantic. The notions are just so undeniably James Bond sexy.I wish I was so optimistic so as to believe any one person or group of people actually have such precise control over the economics and events of modern society to pull off such large scale fraud. Modern day politics/economics/events seem to be more analogous to a bus careening down hill with no brakes. The control mechanisms implemented by the driver (leaders of society) simply steer the bus in a general direction rather than completely changing its course all together.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 07:28:05 pm
content: Ah, let me please quote the late George Carlin, on Conspiracies:QuoteI will just insist on Carlin's last point:"Something that shouldn't even be entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. DOESN'T HAPPEN!"Now, as I have written previously, the term "coincidence" does not really exist for me: Everything that happens has a cause and an effect; and it does not matter whether we are able to see the connections between or not. Coincidence: There is no such thing, as long as somebody is able to see what has caused the action in question and to speculate --or, even better, to calculate-- the trailing effects of the aforementioned action. The explanation and demystification of this trail of actions and reactions can easily be deduced by asking a simple question: Who benefits? (aka, Follow the money). Anyway, I can understand that I may sound to be quite inflexible on this matter, since people are conditioned NOT to combine information; this is what makes them be quite gullible and, thus,controllable.On the other hand, every coin has two faces: If someone can talk aboutConspiracy Theories, someone else would rightfully point at the other side of the same subject matter, talking ofCoincidence Theories!Question: Why, really, are we constantly listening from authoritative sources about the first of the two previous phrases and NEVER ever about the second one? I have writtensomething really interestingabout that in another EE discussions board a few years ago.-George

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 08:19:10 pm
content: Quote from: Time on April 23, 2012, 06:45:46 pm

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 08:25:51 pm
content: Well having been a metal basher for the past forty years Including structural steel work I have first hand experience of heating and bending large beams and Universal beam or column will warm a lot at relatively low temperature and at red heat will bend under its own weight. Kerosene easily burns hot enough to attain red heat in steel especially if there is a drought any burning oil does which is why engines need to be cooled. A simple experiment for you, get a tin can and punch a few holes around it put a piece of rag or paper in it and a small amount of kerosene or diesel fuel in it and light it the can will soon get to red heat then put a large stone on top or just push it with a stick and see how easily it collapses compared to a can at room temperature. The buildings in question can be considered a tube with high loading's already on it. The other thing is the bolts holding the structure together they have been heat treated to attain their strength heat them up and they loose that and will shear very easily. If anything untoward went on in the US regarding those buildings it was during construction such as using the wrong grade of bolts or other out of spec materials but from what I have read in the relevant trade papers at the time there is nothing that cannot be explained by a large plane crashing into the building and triggering the collapse.

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2012, 09:12:34 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 23, 2012, 05:30:13 pmAll evidence contradicting the "theory" is part of the conspiracy against it. So how much did the US government pay you?

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 12:08:38 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 23, 2012, 05:30:13 pmQuote from: G7PSK on April 23, 2012, 08:25:51 pmAlright, I'll play...I am not going to doubt your experience, which does not seem to include controlled demolition techniques, but:Actually it is military-grade explosives (thermite/thermate) those that are used in the steel buildings controlled demolition industry, and not the dirt-cheap JP-4 or any other kerosine-based Jet Propellant. That is because you needa high power blastto cut such massive steel beams in a controlled manner; you cannot use free-burning kerosine to warm enough such huge "heatsinks" those massive steel frames really are. But the cost of a controlled demolition extends well beyond the cost of these exotic explosives since it requires a few months' study, preparations and finally the installation of the explosives on every beam at precisely precalculated points to bring down safely such buildings.Butmy question you skipped or failed to addresswas about thefaster than free-fallingtelevised collapse of both those gigantic steel buildings; buildings that were designed to survive such airplane collisions because that fear was alive sincethe Empire State Building had received a direct hit from a B-52 in 1945and survived it with fires much worse and longer that the televised fires of the Twins. The misleading 9/11 FEMA report conceded that the "jet-fuel" was totally burned and exhausted within the first few minutes of the alleged "collisions." The televised large black holes left at the so-called "impact zones" indicated that the fires were already dead, or were dying of oxygen starvation --hence the thick black soot that was being released since the first minutes instead of those points having a bright orange color from the vivid live flames they supposedly had to have until collapse.Another question: Can this kerosine induced (according to the official position) absolutely smooth, even and replicable collapse (sinceit was seen on TVhappening twice in the same day with a surgical incision precision, despite the fact that no other steel building in the whole world has ever collapsed due to fire before or after the 9/11 televised events) be modeled to the actual proportions of the 110 stories high ex-Twin Towers? Of course it cannot because it was NOT kerosine what brought the Twins down!Why haven't they modeled the kerosine demolition technique to be used for any further controlled demolitions on demand, since it results in such an inexpensive, clean, precise and fast collapse? Because this can only happen in the TV and cinema studios!Yet another question: What is the theory behind the collapse of WTC-7, since there was no plane for that building? By the way, WTC-7 was built with a massivesolid beamssteel frame --I repeat, solid beams steel frame-- in order to become an electric station hosting large and vibrating diesel generators and transformers. But, according to the televised events, it collapsed the same exactly way the Twins did. Why, also, this worthless report from FEMA, announcing that they had no idea what brought down WTC-7 after seven months of investigation? Is this a sample of Federal Incompetence or Federal Cover-Up Conspiracy & Treason?So, there is the impossibility of the televised official fairy-tale I am talking about.If you are really interested you can download the September Clues documentary, I mentioned previously, to see with your own eyes the official contradictions, like bridges walking, impossible angles/focus/reflections, no sky visible despite the clear weather of that day, different background of the same shots, and most importantly, a VHS-quality footage despite the fact it was shot with the most expensive professional cameras in the world, which suggests that it was either heavily edited or it was computer generated.To see what happened to the WTC, you will just have tofollow the money. Try to find who benefited from those events; directly and indirectly. As Simon Shack said, 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme, the scale of which is beyond most people's comprehension. But, in order to begin seeing an adequate part of the whole picture, you should also consider the political gains of the 9/11 fabricated events, one of which was the instigation ofyet another undeclared war, liquifying among other things American youth and Afghan citizen blood into the pockets of the puppets that were running the show.-George

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 12:38:17 pm
content: It is a physical impassibility for any thing to fall faster than free fall and from what I saw on film those buildings fell slightly slower than free fall. they went down petty much as I would expect considering the overall catastrophic failure that occurred. No beams needed to be cut for what happened just the beams and bolts to reach a high enough temperature. For many years the US has been using oil in blast furnaces which of course archive the melting point of iron which is higher than that of steel. To use explosives to demolish a building like that would require days of drilling to place the charges and miles of det cord to link the charges in order to set them of in the required sequence.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 02:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 24, 2012, 12:38:17 pmMy point, exactly! Or, to be more precise, the first of my points.What about my other points, including the one about WTC-7?Without trying to associate me with Dr. Judy Woods or her theories, let the pictures she maintains ather sitetalk:"Jet-fuel" fires that could allegedly melt steel and pulverise concrete --but unable to burn the paperwork inside the buildings they allegedly brought down? Nah...What about theangle-cut columnsevidence (#2), which is an indisputable proof of controlled demolition?Theselittle detailsis what makes the official position a fairy tale!Unfortunately, the vast majority is conditioned since birth to believe in fairy-tales...-George

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 03:00:05 pm
content: Not all paper would burn even if you applied a cutting torch to it paper carbonizes and forms an heat insulating layer if you have ever tried to burn old documents or telephone directory you will know how hard it is to get complete destruction any way many of the lower and some of the upper floors did not burn they just collapsed. As for the deflected columns that were forced outwards they were at the base of the building where the sheer weight of the rest of the falling building bent them outwards. There are loony toons out there that would cite US government conspiracy for any disaster that befalls any where in the world, I guess they can no longer look for reds under their beds. Some of the people out there promulgating these conspiracies are really dangerous and deceitful frauds and doing it for the money not because they believe it.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 03:42:07 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on April 24, 2012, 02:36:41 pmWhat about the oxygen bottle at the background which appears to be almost the same width as the alleged "columns" despite being quite some distance away?Doesn't this constitute evidence that these are not columns but light beams which were cut using oxy-fuel in order to get them out of the way? If looking for evidence why disregard what is in plain sight?

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 03:58:42 pm
content: Thank you, HAL, for pointing this detail I missed out.On the other hand, why would someone choose to manually cut those beams in such an angle, since this way the time and effort required would be greater than cutting them in a straight right angle?-George

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 04:08:39 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on April 24, 2012, 03:58:42 pmGuarantees that the cut column would fall in a certain direction without kicking back. They cut trees in a stepped fashion for the same reason - to form a sort of hinge that prevents the falling tree from kicking back causing injuries.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 04:09:54 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on April 24, 2012, 03:58:42 pmMost likely at the time of cutting it was not possible to get at the beams very easily due to the tangle of beams and other debris. Also if you had ever used an oxyfuel cutting torch you would know that it is easier to cut in such a way that the slag and molten metal flows out of the cut so it is quite logical to cut at an angle The effort with thermal cutting of any kind is in keeping it tidy and neat, for demolition this is not a requirement it is just a case of hack and slash and get the job done as easily and quickly as possible.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 04:16:32 pm
content: Thank you, both, for the explanation.-George

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 04:49:51 pm
content: I have a funny feeling the government doesn't use an Arduino to control the detonators for their nukes

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 06:20:44 pm
content: As we are keen on conspiracy theories I thought I present one of mine, here goes:Suppose you are the head of a very big corporation like say a petroleum giant or a defense company. Suppose that your company screwed up something so badly that its entire reputation and worth went and hid into a dog's ass. Your failure is on the news every hour, people recognize you and throw road kills at you, politicians that you bribed for years avoid you like a plague, your stock is falling so fast that your ears are bleeding.Who do you go to in this situation?Why, to a PR company of course. But can a PR company really save your ass from this mess?You ask for some references - the PR guys kindly decline and refuse to disclose even the name of any of their customers let alone what they did for them.All they say is that they absolutely guarantee to get you out of this mess for a measly few billion quid.You as a seasoned manager ask them to produce some tangible evidence showing that they know their business or to fuck off.Then some guy who looks something like a used car salesman asks you politely:- Mr. president what do you think is the percentage of people who believe in UFO's?- Why, you answer, two thirds of the nation, at lest.- Do YOU believe in UFO's?- Well there are so many stars and so many galaxies - it is possible.- Do you believe that they came to Earth to observe us?- Possible..- What if I told you that this entire UFO story is the creation of our PR firm?- Bullshit !!!- We are manipulating the public opinion since that meteorological balloon crashed in Roswell in 1947. This is how we show our prowess to our customers. We convinced two thirds of the Ameriacan public that this is the hidden truth. All the world believes our little lie. Even you say it is possible. This is our business card of sorts.- But how?The PR guy stands in front of the projector screen and opens up a powerpoint.- We plant a story here and a story there, a gossip in a bar, we buy some guy from the radio, we push a movie plot to a hollywood guy... That's how we start myths and conspiracy theories. That's our job and we know how to do it well. What do you think about ChemTrails ?- Your job?- Sure. Ever heard of HAARP?- No way!- We form public opinion about many issues Mr. president, and some times we form issues with the sole purpose of channeling the public interest away from the actual issues and this is exactly what your company needs at the moment, don't you agree?- Certainly.- Shall we talk money?This is what I believe to happen on a regular basis in the US and most anywhere.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 24, 2012, 07:42:29 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--It was Gorbachev that turned down Reagan's offer to ban all ballistic missiles, and not the other way round. Gorbachev wanted SDI banned as well.--If you like your facts precooked, full of misdirection, deceptions and outright falsehoods, then you will probably enjoy "Countdown to Zero" every bit as much as you enjoyed "An Inconvenient Truth, also produced by Lawrence Bender.--Indeed, I have my doubts that Nuclear Weapons are being promoted by the same secretive cabal that conspired with Bush, Israel and the Arabs to destroy the WTC. Just like I have my doubts that the Evil Energy Companies murdered the inventor of the 600 MGP carburetor, and destroyed all traces of his research. Still it is nice to hear from the "Loose Change" folks. There is a certain amount of overlap among "Inconvenient Truthers" and regular Truthers.--The folks who want to ban Nuclear Weapons, overlap somewhat with the folks who want people living in poor neighborhoods to be disarmed, and at the mercy of the street yobs. The people who want to ban guns have even gone so far as to say that not disarming honest folks is fascist, and that the German National Socialist Workers Party members were conservatives.--Still I will have to give the folks who are against the Military credit for having, at long last, found something they want the Government to fund less vigorously.““I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."Rosie O'Donnell 1962 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 12:24:24 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on April 24, 2012, 07:42:29 pmNope, it was Regan who would not compromise on SDI that ruined the Reykjavik deal.Read Richard Rhodes's books.Of course Gorby didn't want SDI. He knew SDI was an MIC wet dream and it was stupid and they couldn't afford it, just more cold war money down the hole, and he turned out to be right.Dave.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 12:55:25 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Other than the word "nope", I am unable to find anything in the latest post by our esteemed host, which contradicts my contention that in 1986 Reagan proposed banning all ballistic missiles, and that Gorbachev refused unless SDI was abandoned. An analogous situation would be: I propose to my neighbor that we both quit carrying guns in the street, but he refuses, unless I agree not to wear a bullet proof vest, and leave myself vulnerable to pot shots by any street thug.--I have read Rhodes' histories of the fission bomb, and the thermonuclear bomb, but I have not yet obtained "Twilight". I shall get it and read it. In my opinion Mr. Rhodes is an honest scholar of history, who leaves political conclusions to the reader. I am not expecting this kind of objective scholarly history, from Lawrence Bender's "Countdown to Zero", but I would welcome it, if it happens.“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."W. C. Fields (William Claude Dunkenfield) 1880 - 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 01:06:45 am
content: From wikipedia:"On January 15, 1986, Gorbachev announced a Soviet proposal for a ban on all nuclear weapons by 2000, which included INF missiles in Europe. This was dismissed by the US and countered with a phased reduction of INF launchers in Europe and Asia to none by 1989."Of course, if one is determined to believe wikipedia is a communist plot to rewrite history there's nothing anyone can say.The Nazi socialist/conservative argument is trivial:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Nazi_party_socialists

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 01:16:27 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on April 25, 2012, 12:55:25 amThere is also Arsenals of Folly, his third work on the subject, that has a lot of Regan/Gorby era stuff.QuoteGorby is the one who actually made the proposal to eliminateallnuclear weapons within 10 years, entirely, with the (very generous IMO) proviso that SDI research be confined to laboratories for the ten year period in question.Reagan did want to get rid of nuclear weapons too (one of his saving graces), but it was his pigheadedness (or possibly being politically forced?) on the SDI crap that ruined everything. Gorby offered it all on a silver platter, and Reagan screwed it for humanity for the sake of the vested interests in SDI.It's even in the Wiki for what it's worth:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_SummitI'm not going to wade through all of Rhodes work or other stuff to find actual references.Dave.

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 01:40:51 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 25, 2012, 12:24:24 amAnd actually, this was US policy. Push Russia into an expensive cold war to bankrupt them.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 02:09:32 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Submitted for your perusal; some quotes from the above cited Wiki article, which occur before the above citations:"In 1986 Reagan had proposed banning all ballistic missiles, but wanted to continue research on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that could potentially be shared with the Soviets. Yet Soviet suspicion of SDI continued,""The Soviets acceded to the "double-zero" proposal for eliminating INF weapons from Europe, as initially proposed by President Reagan in November 1981 (INF denoting "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces" as distinct from ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles). The Russians also proposed to eliminate 50% of all strategic arms, including ICBMs, and agreed not to include British or French weapons in the count. All this was proposed in exchange for an American pledge not to implement strategic defences for the next ten years, in accordance with SALT I." [note the words "as initially proposed"]--In this case I believe that the Wiki article has been well vetted enough, that it can be trusted. However, given the provenance of Wiki articles, I do not think that one should blithely assume the "absolute objective accuracy" of Wiki articles on controversial matters, unless they are confirmed by multiple sources. There have been multiple examples of people of various political ilks attempting to assume facts which are not in evidence, into the record, by editing Wiki articles. Wiki is kind of like the NY times, in that, there is a lot therein that is true.--I agree that SDI ,or rather the threat of it, was instrumental in causing the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And so, the left hates it forever, as it supplanted the effort to impose a unilateral "Nuclear Freeze" in order to leave Europe vulnerable to Soviet nuclear bullying, the better to prolong the life of the "Sick Man of Eastern Europe" This was an interesting period in History, with a covert PR War between the KGB, who were secretly funding the European "Peace Movement", and the CIA and MI6, who were secretly funding the more conservative elements of the European Trade Unions. Remember it was the USSR and not Britain, France and the USA that, after WWII, kept all conquered territory under the jack booted heel.--I want to thank Dave for making me aware of yet another Rhodes' book that I was unaware of. Dave and I, sometimes reach somewhat different conclusions based on the same facts, but I will readily admit, that he does do his homework.“The main difference for the history of the world if I had been shot rather than Kennedy, is that Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev.”Nikita Sergeyevich Krushchev 1894 - 1971Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 03:26:08 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on April 25, 2012, 02:09:32 amBanning all ballistic missiles is not banning all nukes, which is what I was talking about. Gorby is the one who proposed to eliminateallnuclear weapons, as the Wiki articles states.QuoteIt was a massively generous offer that could have changed the course of human history. But Reagan flushed it down the toilet for some vested interests. It's a screw up of biblical proportions, arguably the greatest lost opportunity in human history, given that destruction of the human race is the worst case scenario. Which of course is still possible by the time you wake up tomorrow.QuoteNo I don't do my homework before posting. I'm only going by memory of books and other stuff I have read, which the Wiki articles seems to back up in this case.You may be talking about about ballistic missiles, but I'm talking aboutallnukes.Dave.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 05:46:14 am
content: Dear Dave:--I take your point about "all nukes" vs ballistic missiles. I am not at all sure that history will ever be able to nail down just what the exact calculus of either camp was with regard to these negotiations. I do know that the history of the USSR in keeping their Treaty obligations, was not good. Not good in general, and not good with regard to the SALT Treaty. Also, it is rather more easy to confirm that a nation has no ballistic missile program, than it is to prove that is has no Bombs or Small Pox Virus.--End of life as we know it? Yes. Fifty to seventy percent casualties? Very possibly. End of Humanity? Even calling upon the dreaded "Nuclear Winter"; Probably not, in my humble opinion.--Destroying petroleum refining capacity, taking out of infrastructure, and use of EMP, is by far the most effective way to create mass casualties. Blast damage and radiation are much less significant in this regard. But large numbers starving and freezing to death, because of a massive energy shortage, as would happen in a real Nuclear War is not the way the Media like to portray it, so everyone believes that they are going to either be blown to atoms or die of radiation poisoning. This vision has more propaganda bang for the buck, and makes for much more interesting movies and television.--Almost all of the Post Nuclear Apocalypse Science Fiction Scenarios take the above approach. A case in point would be "A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter M. Miller, Jr., 1960, wherein an order of monks has to re-invent all of science and engineering, completely from scratch, because that nasty old Nuclear War has destroyed every city, village and town along with every book, every junk yard, and every metal artifact in existence, except for one metal lunch box containing a set of blueprints which were formerly the property of one Engineer Leibowitz. I loved this book, but the scenario is laughable.--Thanks again for mentioning the Richard Rhodes books. I now resolve to acquire and read everything he has written."Had we not pursued the hydrogen bomb, there is a very real threat that we would now all be speaking Russian. I have no regrets."Edward Teller 1908 - 2003Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 06:20:19 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on April 25, 2012, 05:46:14 amOf course, the exact details would all be pretty moot.Maybe I'd become Mad Dave The Road WarriorI have Carl SagansA path Where No Man Thoughton my shelf, can't wait to read that. (Sagan and co-author Turco discovered the concept of nuclear winter)Dave.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 07:23:57 am
content: I read that Reagan was quoted as telling Gorbachev that he and the US would spend Russia under the table, In the end that is exactly what he did. Most likewise the best president the US has ever had it is a pity that the ones who came after have squandered hi legacy and used the US monopoly of power to become WORLD BULLY, it was better as it turned out to have a balance of power but that is solely down to the two Bushes.

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 12:12:01 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 25, 2012, 07:23:57 amThe best US president was FDR. And, yes, all presidents since have squandered his legacy. Although I can't complain all that much about Eisenhower. But Reagan was one of the worst (stock market crash, HUGE debt increase, getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine, redefining "unemployed", starting the assault on the middle class via the stupid idea of trickle-down economics, the nukes issue Dave mentioned, IRAN/CONTRA!, war in Central America, Grenada, etc, etc). People just have a huge hardon for doddering old men for some reason.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 02:33:14 pm
content: Well as an English person I cant really criticize as we have persistently elected governments who could not run a piss up in a brewery.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 03:16:15 pm
content: Mike, wasn't it FDR the one who ratified the Federal Reserve Act that was enacted by a few monkeys in the midnight of the 1913 Christmas eve, if I remember correctly? Wasn't he also the one who applied the fraudulentKeynesianism theory(which advocates the borrowing like there is no tomorrow --especially when you already are heavily indebted) right after he gave unlimited power to the international bankers?Ah, this is an excellent opportunity for me to express yet another one of my heretical views:Keynesianism! I truly recognise that this is part of the official (governmental) economic theory, which is also a part of the government-regulated educational institutions curriculum. My objection to all the theories of this kind is very, very simple:Indisputable fact is that fiat currenciespredatedKeynesianism; which makes Keynesianism yet anotherintellectual coverfor the governmental thieving; yet another sugar-coating of the massive theft governments so blatantly enforce on their subjects. Because, another fact is thatgovernments do NOT produce anything of value; they just print money (or borrow them from the central banks, if it sounds better) since they cannot print gold, they use that money for anything they like (e.g. for bribes, wars, etc.) and finally they return these vast monetary amounts back (with interest, of course) to their lenders through taxing (meaning,stealing at gunpoint) their subjects.There is a whole bunch of othereuphemisticalterms like "Keynesianism" that intellectually cover the brutal government theft; some of them sound ominous (e.g "Inflation") and some other ones beneficial (e.g. "Business Cycle"). So, there are manyexplanationsinvented to hide the most obvious. Unfortunately, it is up to the observer to keep the mind open and makeeducated decisionswhether what he is being told through the governmental propaganda channels is factual or yet another euphemism...My rant on Eisenhower was because the conventional history totally "forgot" his brutal inhumanities, which even the highly biased non-encyclopedia Wikipedia nowconfirms(inhumanities that were surpassed in bestiality only by Stalin and Mao), along with the brutality of Stalin (the second greatest murdered in our recorded history, right after Mao --search for "democide," a term coined by Dr. Rudolph J. Rummel and meaning "Death by Government"), while demonising ONLY Hitler for things he had done and for other things he had not, while "forgetting" his major contribution to Zionism:Though Jewish immigration to Palestine begun under British rule in 1882 with 65,000 European Jews, it was increased when Britain implemented theBalfour Declaration of 1917, a letter from Arthur Balfour toLord Walter Rothchild(please, read that letter to see who really controls the politicians). Some historians rightfully call Hitler "The Father of Israel," since he was responsible for flooding Palestine with Jewish people: During 1932-1936 more than 175,000 additional Jewish "settlers" were sent to Palestine, actually doubling the Jewish population of that place. During 1937-1945 another 120,000 additional Jewish people were sent to Palestine by the NAZI regime.Adolf Eichmannwas running a Zionist (Rothchild) financed company, aimed to be shipping as much European Jewish people to Palestine as possible, first by giving them financial motives to migrate and then by terrorising them to leave Germany --see the Kristallnacht. Finally, in 1947 Britain forced the United Nations to divide the thousand years old state of Palestine into what it has become today...Zionism (this political cabal that emerged by the Rothchild created and fundedReform Judaism, which has its roots in the Hellenistic Era Maccabees revolt, it has nothing really to do with Judaism, since Zionism has international members of all the religions) is the worst enemy of the Jewish people: have you read whatI have writtenabout theso-called Holocaust?Once more, I will have to stress that I have absolutely nothing against the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/etc. people, or the American/British/Israeli/Greek/etc. people; it is their inhumane leaders I have the problem with, along with their polices.Anyway, regarding the American-Soviet events, many people are rightfully asking why did the one side not expose the other one, since both the sides have been keeping lots of skeletons in their closets. Well, the answer is very simple: Because the financiers of both the sides, the real string pullers behind the scenes, were the same "multicultural" stateless people, whose the wet dream had always been, since the seventeenth century they rose in power, what we are now beginning to see taking an ugly form: The so-called,globalization.-George

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 04:03:28 pm
content: In Europe and America we are up to our eye balls in debt. Its over 1 trillion pounds in the UK alone ( 1 British pound = 1.61 U.S. dollars) public debt, payed out of taxes.Thats 10's of thousands of pounds for every working person to pay interest on that never took out a loan personally.I do wonder who are these lenders ? Where did they get this money ? Is it illegal hidden printing ? , with political collusion ?I know its fake fractional banking scam / pyramid scheme.I do not know the exact figures but did read somewhere that 60% of all UK tax goes to pay interest on this money, to who ever they are.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 04:27:37 pm
content: I havealready writtenabout the history of usury, if you are interested to read it. The oldest proofs we have on these practices date back to ancient Babylon (Part 1andPart 2) and they were exactly what the mercenaries tried to eliminate in 2003, in an attempt of those who think their selves asour mastersto rewrite History. Please search for and watch the three and a half hours long historical documentary "The Money Masters (1998)" written by Patrick S.J. Carmack, to see how the private banks gained control of the global economy, step by step, as well as what happened to anyone who tried to oppose or to fight them.For a crash-course on the Debt-Based Economy we all suffer from (all, with the exception of a few hundred individuals we do not even know their names), I strongly recommend you to watch a lecture given by Gary Fielder at The University of Colorado School of Law on Dec. 4, 2008, called"The gig is up: Money, the Federal Reserve and You."Now, theEnglish Pound(might I aska pound of whatdoes this currency represent and was really named after? --Alright, it was silver:Sterling Silver, if it rings any bells; silver that cannot be bought today with any form offiat currency) is the oldest fiat currency in existence surviving today, being 317 years old and now worths less than 1/200 or 0.5% of its original value. Actually, the average life expectancy for a Fiat Currency is 27 years only...The Short, Unhappy Lives of Fiat Currencies-George

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 04:37:07 pm
content: A Hellene, Thanks for the links, I don't think I could face it, I've a jist of how it works. to read or take in any more of the shit that is being done now, just makes me too depressed.I know its out their if I want to find out more.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 05:06:30 pm
content: It is alright.I knowreality can be overwhelming...When you feel ready to investigate it further you will begin your research on your own and nothing will be able to stop you.Be well,-George

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 05:25:14 pm
content: That video link states the pound as being based on an original value of 12 ounces of silver so how can it be named after an equivalent weight as a pond has 16 ounces in it. The video is wrong in that one pound sterling goes back to Anglo Saxon days it was 240 silver pennies which weighed one pound in weight. By my way of thinking if the publishers of a video get somethig as basic as that wrong how can you believe any thing that they say.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 06:09:37 pm
content: I usually trust this man's research and views. Now, if he got something wrong, what can I say?Looking this up, I found out that he might not be wrong, because:Since 1 July 1959, the international avoirdupois pound has been defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg. An avoirdupois pound is equal to 16 avoirdupois ounces and to exactly 7,000 grains. The conversion factor between the kilogram and the international pound was therefore chosen to be divisible by 7, and an (international) grain is thus equal to exactly 64.79891 milligrams.SourceAs you wrote,The pound was a unit of account in Anglo-Saxon England, equal to 240 silverpenniesand equivalent to onepound weightof silver. It evolved into the modern British currency, the pound sterling.Source-George

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 06:33:53 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 25, 2012, 05:25:14 pmNot sure if this has any meaning to the discrepancy but precious metal is weighed in troy ounces which a pound has 14. It seems these things can get confusing and genuine mistakes can be made without trying to deceive just an error.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 07:12:51 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--After having discussed the Reykjavík talks last night, while drinking iced tea and eating popcorn, I fell into a fitful sleep an dreamed about Mad Dave Rockatansky-Jones, Road Warrior, also known as the other man with no name. In the dream Mad Dave is forced into battle with a motley murderous gang of Post Apocalyptic Anarchic Nihilist bikers and gearheads who kidnap a beautiful strawberry blond and the world's handsomest boy child. These villains had a taste in attire and grooming, that would cause even The Village People, Madonna, and Boy George to start biting the furniture, showing a pronounced preference for Viking Helmets, Hockey Masks and those fringed chaps where the seat is missing. They drove an even more unlikely fleet of high compression gas guzzling tricycles, halftracks and wheeled fubars, using fuel obtained from a gasoline well or flatulent hogs, I cannot remember exactly. In any case, after an seemingly endless high speed chase through the dusty arid outback, Mad Dave manages to escape in his solar powered automobile. He finds an old Ipad with some mysterious and peculiar apps that allows him to establish an astral connection with the long departed Obi Wan Sagani. With Sagani's help, Mad Dave is able to procure some Unobtanium and a Flux Resistor. Combining these with his trusty Fluke 87 and an old Didge he manages to construct a Snafu ray. He rescues the woman and child, and, high atop Ayers Rock, in an Armageddon like battle, he puts the quietus to the Motlies, using the Snafu ray in turbo mode. Then, they were off to Mullumbimby to search for the last maker space on Earth... At this point I was awakened by a screaming bladder, which was OK, because I do not think my poor old ticker could have stood any more."Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast."Chief Dan George 1899 - 1981Best RegardsClear Ether

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 08:14:58 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on April 25, 2012, 07:12:51 pmWhat is this carp ?

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2012, 08:46:25 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 25, 2012, 02:33:14 pmOur Governments are corrupted. look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airey_NeaveBlown up by who ? See the end of the page.Was he going to expose the shits that are controlling things now in the UK ?They would be the real terrorists would they not.Is it the people behind the New World to come ? The "New World Order"The ex prime minister Brown quoted that phrase many times, and Ex Blair before.Ex = redundant prime minister.If you are a british citizen and you know of lies and deceit you are duty bound to expose them, above your position in the military or any position at all.