Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 3,590,000 for anywho Results 1 - 10 of about 149,000 for anyhoo i guess some of us have traded tens of millions of shares and others wish they had. LOL LOL LOL how are those 5 lots "workin" out for you? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=anywho
lol... well, you said it, not I. "phrase most commonly used in the American animation series 'The Simpsons' " Yep... it's easy to own you when you constantly hand me the ammo LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Tens of millions, huh? Isn't it funny how these guys inevitably start talking about how much weight they swing? You and Pabst, two birds of a feather. I always think that whenever someone starts talking about how much money they make without being prompted... it really means that they don't trade at all. Batgirl Mitty, a daydreaming comic book writer with an overprotective mother, likes to imagine himself as a hero experiencing great adventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Walter_Mitty Anyhoo, batgirl, you're owned again. Let's get back to the topic at hand - the tinfoil-hat brigade vs. the rest of us.
see, this is where your inner nerd comes out.. you actually thought that was funny. you make it way too easy nicole. now everyone knows you're also a comic book nerd. i am rethinking the granola stereotype now in favor of "pocket protector boy." Nicole trading 100 shares of home depot... HIT THE BID NIKKI !!!!
Yup. And it's even worse than that for the `squibs.' Video of some of these `squibs' is around which shows that the period during which the maximum amount of material is ejected occurs towards the end of the duration of the `squib.' They appear to be born small and then later grow large. This is completely the wrong picture for the demolition theory, since high explosives create shock waves having a large overpressure, followed quickly by relative vacuum. So `squibs' that are associated with high explosive cutting charges should eject all of the material that they are going to eject right away. That is to say nothing of the very clear photographic and video evidence that the columns of the perimeter tube buckled inward sharply in the moments immediately before collapse, without the appearance of any `squibs' whatsoever. I seem to recall reading a newspaper article a few years ago in which it was described how a helicopter pilot had reported witnessing this effect on the morning of 9/11, and concluded correctly on seeing it that it would not be long before the towers would collapse. The more I consider the idea, the harder I think it is to make the demolition theory mesh with the detailed observations in the moments before the initiation of the global collapse. Consider for example, the collapse of WTC 1. A conspiracy theorist who knew his stuff might propose that, at the moment of collapse initiation, thermite acting on the core columns near the impact level had finally weakened the core sufficiently for it to begin to unload via the action of the hat truss, onto the south perimeter wall. And it could then be argued, I suppose, that this event is what led to the visible bowing and eventual collapse of all of the south perimeter columns: so there are no `squibs' visible at that point, simply because the main action was at that moment in the core, and didn't involve any high explosives. But there are very serious problems with such a scenario I think, among others that the bowing was progressive and had been visible on the south wall for some time. Remember that the failure region on the south wall is opposite to the impact region for Flight 77, on the north wall, and that this makes perfect sense if the fires were what was driving the bowing of the perimeter tube columns. Remember the fires moved over time from their initial major locations near the impact region on the north, and that they headed through the tenant spaces towards the south side over time. They ended up mainly on the south side in the moments just before collapse. But thermite burns very unpredictably. So how could the fiendishly clever conspirators possibly arrange for the core to unload onto the south wall? In any case, in the actual collapse, it is quite clearly the south wall that unloads onto the core, not vice versa. The load from the south wall is transferred to the core and the east and west walls via the hat truss, at the point when the instability of the south columns has progressed across the south face. We can tell that this is the case, because the next event is that the perimeter columns become unstable right across the east and west faces, and then the whole upper section of the building tilts rigidly to the south, with all four faces moving at once, until finally it falls downward. And that's all she wrote. I'm going to be taking a short break from this thread due to time constraints, but I will be back with further comments for Bitstream, and hopefully some of the other posters. Best of trading to all!
dood, drop it, u were wrong before and u are wrong now. u had the balls to patronize me earlier, now, go ahead show us some coherence and and follow your own advice... fold it. bs, the only 2 faggots attacking us is karhaoke and u. i shall remind u that cnn has conducted a poll and found that 84% of americans think that there's a massive cover up while only 16% think the official story is truth. u belong to the tiny minority from the neocons denial association.
Hey Bitstream. Thanks for your informative posts. I have learnt a lot about what really happened 9/11 from you , Ratboy and the others who post with honest common sense. It seems to me those other 2-3 guys might be professionals. What do you think? Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney < (Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits) 1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility. 2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well. 3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason. 4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. 5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do. 6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up. 7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it. 8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
There you have it. You found me out. I am one of the conspirators sent here by Conspiracy HQ to post disinfoirmation about 9/11; the moon landing; Bush being really a lizard; and numerous other truths. I just hope no one mentions alien abductions. You guys are good.
Oops, I made a mistake and gave the page number given to the doc by Adobe. 01-16-07 08:20 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Bitstream: I am an ignorant dumb fuck, full of crap and hatred. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To summarize for WTC 1 - On pg 71/298, final report, just below figure 2-2: On floors 95-96, 15-18 perimeter columns were severed and 5-6 core columns were severed, with 1-3 core columns heavily damaged. WTC 2- On pg90/278, final report, just below figure 3-3 : On floors79-81, 15 perimeter columns were severed and 9-10 core columns were severed. And actually, reading down a bit, you get a better summary than I gave - WTC 1- pg 22-23 -35 exterior columns severed -6 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged -43 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors -insulation strippedfrom trusses covering 60k sq ft of floor area WTC 2- pg 41 -33 exterior columns severed -10 core columns severed, 1 heavily damaged -39 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors -insulation stripped from trusses covering 80k sq ft of floor area So Bitstream, given these quotes from the NIST, care to retract this statement? Bitstream 01-16-07 08:00 PM go read the nist report clueless piece of junk, it is obvious that the bdg supports weren't damaged by the impact. Hmmmmm?
Alien abductions? Where do you think all those people who saw alien spacecraft landings are? They're certainly not on earth any more.