deceit « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Al Gore Created The Internet ... Well, He Said He Did Anyway ...

steve — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:51:01 +0000

Cartoon By: Lisa Benson

The bear “mis-spoke” … Al Gore created ‘climate change‘; he didn’t invent it.

Climategate Criminals, and Getting Our Money Back

steve — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:54:51 +0000

By Jim O’Neill Friday, November 27, 2009

“They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.” —Lord Christopher Monckton November 23, 2009

In a recent article, Lord Monckton pointed out that, far from suffering from global warming, the planet has experienced “rapid and significant cooling” over the past nine years.

That bears repeating. Over the past nine years the world has experienced “rapid and significant cooling.” There has been no global warming—it is a Big Lie.

The whole “global warming” myth is a scam, a fraud, and most significantly, a crime.

Click the link below for more:

Climategate Criminals, and Getting Our Money Back.

Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

steve — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:16:17 +0000

By JB Williams Saturday, November 28, 2009
On June 10, 2009 I wrote about formal treason charges filed against Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, in – Is Obama Guilty of Treason? I followed that column up with – Why Commander Fitzpatrick Is NOT Guilty of Mutiny! on June 13. Since then, numerous others have filed similar treason charges against Obama/Soetoro with little or no fanfare…

If Obama is indeed guilty of treason – then we have a growing list of folks who are also committing treason. Namely, every member of law enforcement and the justice system who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – along with every individual in Washington DC and beyond who has chosen to look the other way while denying American citizens their day in court – claiming that no citizen has the “legal standing” to ask who in the hell Barack Hussein Obama really is…

On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

The road to justice has been bumpy, to say the least. Commander Fitzpatrick has been ridiculed, blocked in court house halls, threatened, accused of mutiny and labeled a “crackpot” by Obama supporters who see no need for a standard background check for the most powerful office in the world.

Fitzpatrick had to go so far as to file criminal obstruction charges against Grand Jury Foreman Pettway before he would gain access to the court.¬† Despite it all, Commander Fitzpatrick forged ahead and on December 1st, his complaint will be heard by his local Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury.

Click below to read more:

Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury.

I’m wondering just how long Obama and company will continue to avoid these legitimate claims, and intimidate those whose desire is to get to the bottom of the apparent lies and cover up that’s been taking place. The way I look at it, why avoid anything if there’s nothing to hide? Why has Obama and his band of thugs blocked any and every
inquiry, kept his birth, educational, and past records secret, spending a million dollars plus to do so? It seems logical that someone should be able to pass a background check when applying for a job, maybe even if the job is say, oh, for the presidency of the United States…
None of the American people know who Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, really is.

An Inquiry, Please?

pavanvan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:50:54 +0000

You’ve got to hand it to the British. Unlike their cowed counterparts across the Atlantic, they refuse to forget the Iraq War, and demand – gasp! – answers as to why their government was led into such a brutal, misbegotten, and ultimately futile endeavor, one for which there has been almost no positive outcome. The official inquiry began last Thursday, and not only will it decisively conclude who was for the war when, it will also be free to apportion blame where it sees fit.

Given our American squeamishness for “political” proceedings, it is difficult to foresee any analogous proceedings over here. After all, we can’t even find the stomach to investigate the 100 deaths by torture that apparently occurred at our secret detention centers. These were outright murders no matter how one looks at it; most of those held illegally by the US turned out to be totally innocent, which, of course, is the inevitable outcome when one offers large sums of cash in exchange for turning in your neighbors. The Obama Administration as well as the American Bar Association have made it abundantly clear that no prosecutions for these murders will be forthcoming, and, in essence, “we must look forward, not back” (whatever that means).

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, our island fore-bearers have apparently retained some semblance of governmental accountability. Thus far the proceedings have confirmed what we already knew: that the US was “hell bent” on invading Iraq, that we didn’t care about getting UN support, and that we “actively undermined” British efforts to gain international authorization for the war.

According to British UN Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock,

Grumbling from Washington “included noises about ‘this is a waste of time, what we need is regime change, why are we bothering with this, we must sweep this aside and do what’s going to have to be done anyway — and deal with this with the use of force,’”

“This”, of course, means proof of Saddam’s connection to Al-Qaeda, UN authorization of the war (without which the war would be illegal), international support; you know, wastes of time like that.

Also from The Guardian:

Tony Blair’s government knew that prominent members of the Bush administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein years before the invasion but initially distanced itself from the prospect knowing it would be unlawful, it was disclosed at the Iraq inquiry today.

And:

The government had intelligence days before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that Saddam Hussein might not be able to use chemical weapons, the inquiry into the war was told today.

So that’s interesting. The British government knew both that the Bush Administration was “hell bent” on invading Iraq before 9/11, and that allegations of “chemical weapons” were, to say it charitably, overblown. Then why would they agree, in spite of that, to this lunatic war? For those answers we must wait for Tony Blair’s testimony, which is scheduled for early next year.

But I think we should take it as a sign of our democracy’s health that any proceedings even remotely similar to Britain’s Iraq War inquiry would be all but unthinkable.

Lying, Cheating and Deceiving!

anonomous1 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:45:32 +0000

What is everything coming to? People say its ok to lie, which then those lies lead to bigger things like cheating which leads onto a whole other road full of deceiving!!! I know that everyone lies, but I think it depends what you’re choosing to lie about! Your little white lie may not hurt you, but may kill someone in the future! you never know how it will effect everyone around you! Life is full of cause and effect! So next time you’re about to lie think about how it will effect you and others later in life! Will it make you have to lie more and more to a point where you can never get out? If the person you’re lying to finds out how much will it hurt them and your relationship? Next time, think…just think first!!!!

x_X Anonomous1

Obama And Company Find The Loop-Hole To Continue Funding ACORN

steve — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:35:05 +0000

This article is from the New York Times and anyone (well, except those on the left) can easily see the biased so-called “reporting”. I’ll put a few excerpts here, and the link to make the entire article available.
Okay, here we go:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress enacted a law banning the government from providing funds to the group.

Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer funds — including funds authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

Founded in Arkansas in 1970, Acorn describes itself as the nation’s largest grass-roots community organizing group. It provides financial services to poor and middle-income families, conducts voter registration drives, and advocates for higher minimum wages and more affordable housing.

Conservatives have long complained about Acorn’s voter drives in poor neighborhoods, citing instances in which workers fraudulently registered imaginary voters like “Mickey Mouse.”

Criticism of the group escalated last September, when two conservative activists made public footage they had recorded using secret cameras of Acorn workers in several cities. The activists had posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking financial advice. Instead of raising objections, the Acorn employees counseled the couple on how to hide their illicit activities and avoid paying taxes.

Conservatives seized on the videos to further criticize the group, highlighting that the Obama campaign had paid an Acorn affiliate for get-out-the-vote efforts. Congress then enacted the ban on providing funds to it.

Of course the New York Times doesn’t mention the fact that the ‘conservative activists’ were requesting help to cover underage smuggling and prostitution of minors, or the recent uncovering of ACORN dumping thousands of incriminating documents, etc., etc.
The Obama cronies have figured out a way to get around stopping the tax-payer funding of Obama’s pet, ACORN.

Link here

A Political Who’s Who of Global Warming Liars

steve — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:07:34 +0000

By Alan Caruba Thursday, November 26, 2009 Canada Free Press

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Boxer, Markey, Waxman

As the global warming fraud unravels, it’s a good time to look at the politicians who have been some of the most outspoken advocates, using global warming/climate change to advance “Cap-and-Trade” legislation and other related laws and regulations.

Top of the list is President Barack Obama who has made many references to “climate change” and “global warming” to further this national and international fraud. He’ll pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in December; the same one given to Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a few years back. Further proof of his mendacity will be his attendance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Denmark.

Speaking on World Environment Day last June, Obama said of global warming, “We’re going to have to make some tough decisions and take concrete actions if we are going to deal with a potentially cataclysmic disaster.” This mirrors years of similar doomsday statements by former Vice President Al Gore.

This is the kind of drivel Americans and others around the world have heard from their supposed “leaders” for far too long.

As we move through the congressional hierarchy, one of the biggest prevaricators about global warming/climate change has been Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-C) and her counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), manages to wheeze about it from time to time.

Former presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA) has been leading the fight for “Cap-and-Trade” but after much reflection former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) concluded his support of global warming was a mistake.

Sen. Kerry said that failure to pass the Senate version of “Cap-and-Trade” (of greenhouse gas emission credits) would be comparable to another 9/11. He also has blamed tornadoes on global warming. The man is a complete idiot.

Click the link below for more:
A Political Who’s Who of Global Warming Liars.

Cheater | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:15:55 +0000

This is RODNEY HOLUM JR.Working as a web development agent. Now a days I have started cheating My client as well as my vendors all over the world. I have collected payments of schedule work from my client’s but instate of paying my vendors in right time, i have been using that money in different illegal sector.
Please contact me PH:608-790-2229,EMAIL ID: rholum@couleetechlink.com and website www.couleetechlink.com For further details.

Fraud company | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:14:44 +0000

RODNEY HOLUM JR.

fraudusa1000 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:10:24 +0000

My name is RODNEY HOLUM JR. I’m very popular in USA as Fraud. My bloody tradition is to Cheat others to gain profit. I used to cheat lots of companies. With this process I have completed my website: http://www.couleetechlink.com/. I have been slapped directly by various people ALL OVER THE WORLD.
I’m a part of a big FRAUD racket. So be aware from me or a bloody like me. So for all kinds of FRAUD information or technique. call– 608-790-2229.or contact me by mail : rholum@couleetechlink.com

bluff IT Cheater | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:07:42 +0000

duplicitous Fraud company | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:06:22 +0000

bluff fraud website | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:05:11 +0000

Political Cartoons

steve — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:25:41 +0000

By: Steve Breen

By: Steve Kelley

By: Eric Allie

duplicitous | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:50:34 +0000

bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:49:02 +0000

fraud website | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:47:18 +0000

IT Cheater | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:44:40 +0000

IT Cheater company in us | bloody chiter

fraudusa1000 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:42:11 +0000

The Devil in You is the Devil in Me

sidewalkbends — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:17:29 +0000

He sees division and he smiles. He sees confusion and he smiles. He sees the lost and he smiles. He is who he is and we call him enemy. He is who is and we call him friend. He is who is and we call him God’s equal. He craves faith and devotion and we have given it to him. He craves power, and our minds are more than willing.

Wars are fought, people are murdered, women and children are raped, the innocent are defiled, and we blame God. We make poor choices, and reap the results of our own doing, and we blame God. We blame God for all the woes of our lives, and yet when life blesses us with good health, or good fortune, we forget His existence. The ungrateful ask for more and there is confusion. The angry forget who they are and there is confusion. The devil smiles and there is confusion.

Open up your heart. Open up your mind. Open up your spirit. Listen!

Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie

steve — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:25:06 +0000

Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check

On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapsed. People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated ad nauseam on television for days.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, Robert Gates, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current Secretary of Defense stated (cached), “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.”

Well, first of all, the American people saw things not with their own eyes but on television, which is comprised nowadays of digital information, which can be manipulated by computers. So, right off the top, Gates’ premise is flawed. And while the towers are gone, people have, both with their own eyes and on TV, seen magic performed before; eyes can be deceived. So let’s just examine his other premise: whether or not it is true that people know what they saw.

(The following must be said before we can get to the physics.)

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’s, and PBS’s, and Popular Mechanics’, and Scientific American’s theory, airplane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil; jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was significantly weakened, which is already very difficult to believe, nevermind repeat in an experiment. According to their “pancake theory”, this imagined purported (all the evidence was subsequently 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 lower floors, sequentially, one at a time, yielding to and becoming incorporated into a growing stack of floors 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 core columns, nor the too-rapid-to-blame-it-all-on-gravity collapse times, nor the huge energy surplus, nor the nanosizes of the ‘dust’ particles. This article focuses on the second of these mentioned discrepancies, and just scratches the surface of the third.

The scientists who’ve concocted the popularized “pancake theory” made a fatal error: they forgot to check their work! Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists — that incredible pancake theory of theirs — using simple, high-school physics!

And that’s what we’re about to do here. We’re going to check the work — something every grade-schooler is taught to do — of those “scientists”.

We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11.

How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never up…) from trees. Lots of others, before him, 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 comes from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon mass and separation. (That doesn’t mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty — gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.)

Of course, people didn’t figure this stuff out immediately. According to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fell faster (much the way mankind had long assumed that the Earth was flat!).

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything which is supporting it against gravity’s pull (ie, it’s heavier), it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity’s pull is not opposed (ie, when it’s falling). Earth’s gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago.

The Simplest Case

From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth’s gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 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 it’s falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

Velocity = Gravity x Time

and

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

So if we want to know how far the 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

OK, we’ve just solved a simple physics problem! Now let’s check our work, using conservation of energy.

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car’s engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine’s not 100% efficient). When we use our car’s brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever’s holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity’s pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

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, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We’ve checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of 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, 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 potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity’s maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object’s potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object’s downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity’s potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

That’s why you may have heard the term “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 air’s resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

A Quick Recap

Earth’s gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity’s potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward — even just having to push air out of the way — there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object’s downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object’s downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

Free-falling from WTC heights
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let’s start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers’ former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers’ former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 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 at sea level, in Earth’s atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers’ former height.

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government’s “complete and final report” of 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. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we’ve just determined, that’s free-fall time. That’s close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the “collapse” proceeded “through” the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can’t do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a gravitational collapse through the path of maximum resistance should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways and even upward ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized — actually disintegrated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns…!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

Conclusions

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

The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a “pancake collapse” cannot account for what happened. The “pancake collapse theory” explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

It is utterly impossible for a “gravitational collapse” to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive 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” explanation, Gates’ other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The purported “gravitational collapse” (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for 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 reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

link here

Enemy Combatants on American Soil – by Jamie Glazov

steve — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:26:46 +0000

From Front Page Mag by: Jamie Glazov

FP: Dave Gaubatz, congrats on Muslim Mafia.

I would like to talk to you today about Enemy Combatants on U.S. territory.

Let’s begin with what you have found being preached throughout the United States within Islamic mosques and centers etc.

Gaubatz: Jamie, I have reviewed over 5000 books, DVDs, pamphlets, videos, magazines and other literature provided at Islamic Centers and/or recommended by Muslims living throughout America. The material is distributed/sold to Muslims to assist them in fulfilling their faith to Allah and adhere to “Pure Islam”. There are many who choose not to abide by all aspects of Sharia law, but Imams and Islamic scholars I have talked with will be the first to say these people are Muslims in name only.

FP: Ok, so are there Enemy Combatants on American Soil?

Gaubatz: The young innocent 17 year former Muslim girl (Rifqa Bary) tried to answer this question but her warnings were ignored. Also Major Hasan (Ft. Hood) did answer this question and our military found out – in the most tragic way — that we are very vulnerable to attack from within.

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, from Brooklyn, NY, clarified our current situation with a statement he made in one of his numerous anti-American and Jihadist lectures during the late 1990s. “The Muslims in America are the most strategically placed Muslims in the whole world. America can’t bomb them like they can in Iraq.”

I have listened to hundreds of hours of Wahhaj lectures, have conducted first-hand research at his mosque in Brooklyn, have attended his lectures in Atlanta, GA, and in VA. I am very confident Wahhaj and anyone who supports him (CAIR) is involved in supporting Islamic terror groups. Wahhaj laughs behind the backs of our politicians and law enforcement because they are so easy to manipulate.

Of course many news organizations and politicians are still ignoring the threats, but I ask people: Do you love our country and put allegiance to our country first? If you ignore the truth and put innocent people’s lives in jeopardy, and jeopardize the security of our country, where do you really stand on your love of this nation? News journalists and politicians can only have two reasons for ignoring the realities of Ft. Hood:

1. They are naïve and do not understand the Islamic terrorist ideology of using violence against innocent people.

2. They care more about political correctness and winning the next election than they do about our children’s future and our country.

read more here concerning this very real danger in America

Drinking With Bob on Global Warming

DangerB — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:55:45 +0000

emails have been intercepted that prove scientists have been lying to you all along about Global Warming.

It is and always was a SCAM!!!

See more of Bob’s rants: At His YouTube Account

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times

steve — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:40:29 +0000

The Washington Times reports:

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”

click below to read more about the fraud of ‘climate change’

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling – Washington Times.

Yet, at the same time we have his ‘lowness’ turning over the sovereignty of America using one of the biggest lies in history.

The AP reports:

Obama to outline US climate goals at Copenhagen

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will commit the United States to a goal of substantial cuts in greenhouse gas pollution over the next decade when he travels to a widely anticipated climate conference in Copenhagen next month.

The president will take part in the conference Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. The White House announcement Wednesday ended heavy speculation about whether Obama would attend the summit amid expectations that it likely will not produce a binding climate agreement.

The White House called Obama’s decision “a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change.”

More here

But you know, when you can walk around carrying a GQ magazine with your picture on it so you can look at yourself, doing something like selling out America isn’t any big deal…

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents

steve — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:33:29 +0000

I will say this for him, EVERYTHING he does IS historical! Even his spending. (I should start putting any blog posts about Obama here in the “history” catagory). It’s hillarious to visit some of my left-leaning friends blogs here … nearly all continue to blame Bush and yeah, even Reagan (because Reagan didn’t tax enough, if you can believe that) for all the woes we’re facing. Un-freaking-believable, but funny at the same time.

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents — spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion — $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush’s for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

That’s a big increase. But compared with other presidents’ first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.

Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.

The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam’s tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.

Obama’s first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton’s eight years in office — Clinton’s spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents – FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis