Obama's Biography:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3545343528928314588


.

Presidential Candidate of what? Are you, by any chance, referring to a particular country or your local Lions Club?

See name of thread and name Obama.


.

Obama who? Don't you know what presidency this Obama is a candidate for?

About truth being a popularity contest? Or about the currently available evidence? If the former, I don't know what to say. If the latter then please provide something other than a 70 vid subtitled from German in which the interviewees posit straw man arguments about the impossibility of events that never happened (e.g. a passport being found on top of ruins of the collapsed towers). If there's something pertinent contained in that vid, give me a time offset, as I may miss it otherwise.

Funny thing about that passport is the guy wasn't on the flight log of passengers and was discovered to still be alive.

Really? Got any evidence for either of those points?

Have any evidence against those two points?

Round and round we go with no homework being done. Just the same old pointless short cuttings. Motive? Transparent.

You make the claim, you supply the evidence. As I have stated ad nauseum, it is not up to me to supply evidence against the claim of purple and green zebras in my zip code, and, to be absolutely honest, I couldn't, but as I'm not making the claim (one way or the other) I don't have to, see how that works? Did you watch any of the vids from Youtube I linked earlier in support of my position?

Your position is generic and full of holes you refuse to address on your own, for yourself. I don't care if you believe anything at all. I don't have to prove anything because those who do the research will know for themselves.

Arguing wastes time we don't have.

Ad Nauseum.

Opinion.

About truth being a popularity contest? Or about the currently available evidence? If the former, I don't know what to say. If the latter then please provide something other than a 70 vid subtitled from German in which the interviewees posit straw man arguments about the impossibility of events that never happened (e.g. a passport being found on top of ruins of the collapsed towers). If there's something pertinent contained in that vid, give me a time offset, as I may miss it otherwise.

Funny thing about that passport is the guy wasn't on the flight log of passengers and was discovered to still be alive.

Really? Got any evidence for either of those points?

Have any evidence against those two points?

Round and round we go with no homework being done. Just the same old pointless short cuttings. Motive? Transparent.

You make the claim, you supply the evidence. As I have stated ad nauseum, it is not up to me to supply evidence against the claim of purple and green zebras in my zip code, and, to be absolutely honest, I couldn't, but as I'm not making the claim (one way or the other) I don't have to, see how that works? Did you watch any of the vids from Youtube I linked earlier in support of my position?

About truth being a popularity contest? Or about the currently available evidence? If the former, I don't know what to say. If the latter then please provide something other than a 70 vid subtitled from German in which the interviewees posit straw man arguments about the impossibility of events that never happened (e.g. a passport being found on top of ruins of the collapsed towers). If there's something pertinent contained in that vid, give me a time offset, as I may miss it otherwise.

Funny thing about that passport is the guy wasn't on the flight log of passengers and was discovered to still be alive.

Really? Got any evidence for either of those points?

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

I'm an architect with 30+ years of experience. Are you an architect, engineer or scientist of any relevant field?

But surely the truth is out there.

Not sure who you are addressing but what is your position on the matter?

You don't need to be an engineer to share a link to a website created by a large group of architects and engineers.

Full house beats one of a kind.

Again with the idea of truth being a popularity contest. Just as it didn't matter how many people believed the Earth was at the center of the Solar System, it doesn't matter how many architects or engineers believe WTC 1, 2 or 7 fell due to a controlled demolition, the currently available evidence shows otherwise.

Opinion.

About truth being a popularity contest? Or about the currently available evidence? If the former, I don't know what to say. If the latter then please provide something other than a 70 vid subtitled from German in which the interviewees posit straw man arguments about the impossibility of events that never happened (e.g. a passport being found on top of ruins of the collapsed towers). If there's something pertinent contained in that vid, give me a time offset, as I may miss it otherwise.

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

I'm an architect with 30+ years of experience. Are you an architect, engineer or scientist of any relevant field?

But surely the truth is out there.

Not sure who you are addressing but what is your position on the matter?

You don't need to be an engineer to share a link to a website created by a large group of architects and engineers.

Full house beats one of a kind.

Again with the idea of truth being a popularity contest. Just as it didn't matter how many people believed the Earth was at the center of the Solar System, it doesn't matter how many architects or engineers believe WTC 1, 2 or 7 fell due to a controlled demolition, the currently available evidence shows otherwise.

Obama's Biography:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3545343528928314588


.

Presidential Candidate of what? Are you, by any chance, referring to a particular country or your local Lions Club?

Kucinich files articles of impeachment

Of who and where? Under which legislation?

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

I'm an architect with 30+ years of experience. Are you an architect, engineer or scientist of any relevant field?

But surely the truth is out there.

There was a conspiracy---- by those who planned the affair--Fundamentalist-extremists whom have been bombing us for years prior. Did we plan W trade center bombing ten years earlier--Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, our Embassies.

Quite a long conspiracy spanning three presidents or so --wouldn't you say ?

regards,

Bill

film making is not mystery solving, it is about telling stories to people, anykind of stories, they don´t have to be true.

Thanks everybody.......glad you enjoyed it.

I don't know what comes over me sometimes.....I just get these thoughts in my head and feel the need to express and share it...

Maybe that's something that comes with age too......

Thanks for listening and responding.

Well, you've clearly convinced each other . . . for what that is worth.

And have you surveyed the evidence presented on the two websites I linked to?

And do you have any honest opinions about it yourself, Qui Gon?
And that is an honest question, I am curious about your opinion Sir.

This might not exactly be a false flag op, but I just heard that the USA defense dept. has given congress notice that they intent to sell Israel 1000 bunker buster bombs. Congress has 30 days to say yea or na. I think it is a done deal on the yea side. I suppose the USA is selling them to Israel so Israel will be our stooge in starting a war with Iran.

About Charlie Wilson's War... Remember that the CIA guy said to beware of the blow back from supporting the Afghan rebels. The Taliban came out of Charlie Wilson's War. You reap what you sow.

A few real false flag ops may be going on in Boliva right now. The popular elected leader is not liked by the rich in that country nor by the USA. LINK TO ARTICLE

You should work for Fox news, Bobby,

You'd make a better side-kick to Rove than Chomsky.

;)

Was it a dream?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbgCttq8L_8

Heh, "better than Chomsky", I have close relatives that would be very happy to hear that said of me.

Friends,

As you may have heard, I've decided to make my new film, "Slacker Uprising," available for free to everyone in the United States and Canada. It is the first time ever that a major feature-length film is debuting as a free download on the internet -- legally. I am doing this for two reasons:

1. Next year it will be 20 years since my first film, "Roger & Me," so I'd like to give those of you who've supported my work over the years a thank you gift in the form of a brand new movie; and

2. I hope the release and wide distribution of this new movie will help to bring out millions of young and new voters on November 4th.

"Slacker Uprising" takes place in the wake of "Fahrenheit 9/11," during the run-up to the 2004 election, as I traveled for 42 days across America, visiting 62 cities in a failed attempt to remove George W. Bush from office. My goal was to help turn out a record number of young voters and others who had never voted before. (That part was a success. Young adults voted in greater numbers than in any election since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote. And the youth vote was the only age group that John Kerry won.)

What I encountered during the tour and the filming was both inspiring and frightening, so I thought, hey, this might make for a funny and enlightening movie! Each night, thousands would show up to volunteer in the Slacker Army against Bush. This drove local Republicans nuts. In one state they tried to have me arrested. At two colleges, rich donors offered to donate more money to the college if they would ban me from campus. Nearly a half-dozen universities kept the Slacker Uprising tour off their campuses. But there was no stopping this movement. By the time we got to Florida, 16,000 people a night were showing up.

It was clear that young people were the ones who were going to save the day -- just as they are in this year's election.

On Tuesday, September 23rd, you will be able to stream, download, or burn a DVD of "Slacker Uprising," free of charge. The distribution is being organized by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films (they're the great people behind "OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" and "WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price").

To sign up for the download of "Slacker Uprising," click here. You have my blanket permission to share the movie with your friends, to set up screenings in your communities or theaters, to show it on your campuses -- all at no charge. I encourage you to rally voters with it, to raise funds for your favorite candidates, to air it on your local cable access channels or web broadcasts. You can also click here to request a free DVD of "Slacker Uprising" for your school or university library.

As I said, this is a movie for you, my fans -- a little 97-minute digital treat that I think you'll really enjoy. I hope you'll check out SlackerUprising.com and download it a week from today, next Tuesday, September 23rd.

Thanks again for coming to my movies all these years. It's meant a lot to me. I feel very privileged and blessed, and I am honored to be in this "virtual" community with you as we try to reclaim our beloved country.

Yours,

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. The world premiere of "Slacker Uprising" will take place in one of the great slacker capitals of this country, Ann Arbor, Michigan, this Thursday at 5pm at the historic Michigan Theater. Admission is free on a first-come, first-served basis. If you're in the neighborhood, hope to see you there!

P.P.S. If you live outside the U.S. and Canada, I'm sorry that I don't own the rights to make this film available to you for free. But it will be coming to a theater, video store or television network near you soon.

P.P.P.S. If you are not part of the "downloadable" generation, I am making a low-cost DVD of "Slacker Uprising" available at Amazon, Netflix and your local stores in October.

Today's Los Angeles Times has an article "The Joneses and the Joads" which compares today's Wall Street failures and following loss of jobs and income for many people to the Great Depression, as portrayed by John Steinbeck's novel "The Grapes of Wrath", whose title incidentally is a reference to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and the following film by John Ford starring Henry Fonda as Tom Joads. Americans are lucky to have newspapers such as LA Times and NY Times, which I read every day.
Tullio

You'll need to ask some people from New Orleans about their thoughts on his efficiency. Of course those with the worst opinions about it are no longer able to speak.


.

I never said FEMA did a good job, they are about as effective as any other government agency. I would pin more of the blame on the state of Louisiana and Ray Nagin himself anyway.

How do you justify blaming a state official for a federal emergency? We all knew what was happening as it happened. Heck, even before it happened they had the Army Corp specs for the levies on the news. I watched it on TV from beginning to end! We got aid to other countries after disasters quicker than we did to our own!



.

I believe before it becomes a federal emergency the governor of the state needs to ask for help from the federal government, which did not happen until much later.

Sounds like finger pointing when everyone could see clearly on the local and national media what was happening.



.

Appearantly the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of the state did not see it as an emergency when they did not order an evacuation.

You'll need to ask some people from New Orleans about their thoughts on his efficiency. Of course those with the worst opinions about it are no longer able to speak.


.

I never said FEMA did a good job, they are about as effective as any other government agency. I would pin more of the blame on the state of Louisiana and Ray Nagin himself anyway.

How do you justify blaming a state official for a federal emergency? We all knew what was happening as it happened. Heck, even before it happened they had the Army Corp specs for the levies on the news. I watched it on TV from beginning to end! We got aid to other countries after disasters quicker than we did to our own!



.

I believe before it becomes a federal emergency the governor of the state needs to ask for help from the federal government, which did not happen until much later.

I have noticed that since I presented some new evidence nobody has had much to say.....

ARE YOU CONVINCED NOW??????

Just the fact that you say over 50% seems suspect. How much over? If it were really true I would suspect that we would not have heard the end of it from the media, and Bush would have been literally thrown out of office years ago.

If I decide not to prove it you'll have to disprove it,

Or forever wonder if you were wrong.


.

You made a statement and for anybody to believe it you need to prove it. With all of your other outrageous posts you have no credibility.

You cannot prove it, which is why you decided not to.

...and now back on topic.....

anyone how thinks that in the past we put two of every animal on a wooden boat is a fanatic.

Anyone who tries to tell others what to think and what not to think is a fanatic... ;)

You're right and it also goes for this thread!

I would like to see where MrGray came up with the 50% of americans think it was an inside job.

A hell created by some religious fanatics!

Once they became 'fanatics', they were no longer 'religious'... ;)

(And that holds true for Muslims, Christians, and Jews!)

Just my take on things ... anyone how thinks that in the past we put two of every animal on a wooden boat is a fanatic. Also anyone who believes the world is flat or only 12,000 years old. But those are only my takes. As for 9/11. I do not in anyway believe it was an inside job. Might there be some small details about it that we will never know yes. Maybe even an inside "cover up" if you will about how our failures in policy allowed it to happen. Personal, I don't like Bush, I think he has put this country in great danger. (banks failing, iraq war, so on and so on). But I will not blame him or the Govt for 9/11.

Chris.

[quote]The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking a passenger plane, sinking a U.S. ship, burning crops and blaming such actions on Cuba. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford.

That paragraph sort makes me believe that it just could be possible that 911 could have been helped/planned by someone in the USA government. If you want to get more power for the president, what better than a war to help that along. I wouldn't put much of anything past the people in power in the USA these days. The country is falling apart and they will do anything to save their own butts.

I suppose that 9/11, the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the assasination of Arch-duke Ferdinand and the invasion of Poland never happened or was cleverly crafted by a Government which you all believe couldn't find it ass with both hands. Why would we be eager to abide the deaths of thousands of our own citizens and destroy ourselves economically time and again?

Perhaps your concern should be turned into action: run for Congress or become a citizen of some other forthright country such as Russia, Korea and so on. I myself have joined the Vast right -wing Conspiracy--

The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking a passenger plane, sinking a U.S. ship, burning crops and blaming such actions on Cuba. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford.

That paragraph sort makes me believe that it just could be possible that 911 could have been helped/planned by someone in the USA government. If you want to get more power for the president, what better than a war to help that along. I wouldn't put much of anything past the people in power in the USA these days. The country is falling apart and they will do anything to save their own butts.

I suppose that 9/11, the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the assasination of Arch-duke Ferdinand and the invasion of Poland never happened or was cleverly crafted by a Government which you all believe couldn't find it ass with both hands. Why would we be eager to abide the deaths of thousands of our own citizens and destroy ourselves economically time and again?

Perhaps your concern should be turned into action: run for Congress or become a citizen of some other forthright country such as Russia, Korea and so on. I myself have joined the Vast right -wing Conspiracy--

If you look at the evidence there is just too many anomalies to ignore!

You nailed it there, buddy!!!

Too many to detail? Not sure we've found any yet that reasonably confirm anything other than what the "official" story tells us. Though MrGray has tried.

I am not a fan of Obama-but everyone involved in this is either ignorant, dishonest or thinks that the public is stupid and unsophisticated.

Sad to see the conservative talk hosts also showing that they are not fair and unbiased.

Obama clearly was referring to McCain's policies which he implied were the same old nonsense --the "lipstick on a pig" was referring to these policies being trotted out and renamed as change. The idea of the common expression was that you can dress up the old stuff but it is the same old stuff--lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a great beauty.

Most of the talk show folks are quite intelligent but in this instance they are also quite disingenuous.

Bill

Where was Ron Paul at the Rep. Convention? They really locked him out. I would have loved to hear him rock that convention.

I think it more likely that there will be glow in the dark states before there are no red or blue states.

I must say that I am very disappointed with Obama. He is nothing that I hoped he would be. He seems as pro war as McSame. He now says he will support the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Obama or McSame. What a dismal set of options. I'm going for Ralph Nader. Neither Obama nor McSame will do anything for the economy other than try to line their own and their friends pockets with the working man's taxes.

There always military first to get technology movement before commercial,i wonder where the technology level under secret development inside the mil-sector is look like,maybe far advanced than Iphone and vehicle that we own.

They do not do any basic research, only applied research. They did not discover nuclear fission, they did not assemble the first airplane, nor the first transistor nor the first microprocessor. Civilian research did all this, the military only made use of these discoveries.
Tullio

Downloading now!

Goes live tomorrow, or tonight at midnight???

:P


.

Anybody check out this website? JFK Murder Solved

A wealth of links and incriminating evidence.

And by the way folks, it WAS a conspiracy.

Thanks msattler!


.

You're welcome....enough to keep you busy there for quite a while.....

Anybody check out this website? JFK Murder Solved

A wealth of links and incriminating evidence.

And by the way folks, it WAS a conspiracy.

The motives of the Soviets in Afghanistan were two-fold. They needed a buffer state to keep the Islamic regions of their empire at bay. Also to free them from influences of what was happening in the Muslim world.

The second was to further their likelihood of obtaining warm water ports with less constricted access to the sea. The Soviet Navy can be easily bottled up. If you look at the map you can see that if they controlled Afghanistan they would only need to carve out a small section of Pakistan to have their warm-water ports.

Vladivostok is iced-in much of the year and the soviet navy could easily be bottled in in the black sea and Bosphorus . They have yearned for such a Port for decades.

Daddio

Howdy Mister Gray et al.

I think you all would enjoy seeing the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" starring Tom Hanks.

Based on a true story on covert ops in Afghanistan to help them drive out the Soviets.


Regards,

Bill

The Associated Press has reported on recorded statements made by Governor Sarah Palin at the Wasilla Assemby of God church in Wasilla, Alaska.

Governor Palin makes an appeal for prayer about troops in Iraq declaring, “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

I sincerely hope the Lord isn't offended by the statement that the United States' inept planning for the Iraq War was His doing.....

Governor Palin also made an appeal for students to pray for the implementation of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state.

I think this 4 minute video sums it up very well:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6bda020b0f


.

Thank you Mr Gray, absolutely fabulous and I am sending it on to all my liberal, baby booming, feminist friends with the odd granny thrown in...

Again many thanks.......

My pleasure, Hev,

Here's another you should enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8uGenNjOAI


Eye opening and embarrassing.



.

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc.

I think this 4 minute video sums it up very well:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6bda020b0f


.

Thank you Mr Gray, absolutely fabulous and I am sending it on to all my liberal, baby booming, feminist friends with the odd granny thrown in...

Again many thanks.......

Who knows? It might work yet again.

If anyone thinks there are enough voting 'liberals' to outvote the grannies, the boomers, the veterans, the christians, the mormons, the feminists, and all the goons these groups control... You are gonna be in for a very big surprise... ;)

(Even if there are enough votes, you'll be in for an even bigger surprise... and it won't be very 'christ-like'.)

Well, that's interesting. I fit three of the six labels. A boomer who is a christian and a veteran. I also registered Republican before changing to independent. But down here in the Bible belt, I'm considered a liberal. Like the song says, "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right."

So painful watching the RNC tonight,

They are really trying hard to hang on for dear life. Worst I've ever seen.


.

when a post gets hidden by a mod, why don't you get a pm about the subject? i just got trashed by a mod. i am not new to administrative justice but... why no info on the subject?

Former POW says McCain is "not cut out to be President"


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1780474418039262377

From: http://therealmccain.com/butler


John McCain has been exploiting his prisoner of war experience every chance he gets. He has used this story to justify everything from not knowing how many homes he has to his healthcare plan to his marital infidelities to his taste in music. The McCain campaign is even using his POW story in paid ads. But now a veteran who was a prisoner with McCain in Vietnam is explaining loud and clear that being a POW does not qualify McCain to lead our country.

Dr. Phillip Butler knew McCain as a fellow POW. Watch and listen!

We are sure this video will draw an onslaught of right-wing attacks, but we bring it to you because it is our job to continue to convey the truth together and give these issues national attention. As Dr. Butler has said, McCain does not have the temperament to have his finger near the red button. Get this video to everyone you know—friends, family members, coworkers, and especially those who don't share your political views. The video is designed to reach them. Get it on your social networking sites like Digg. And get it to every blog, newspaper, and TV station that has ever overplayed McCain's POW story. It is time to fight back with truth!

The mainstream press has already begun to call out McCain for overusing his POW story. And it's cut across all political persuasions. * "Whether he's deflecting criticism over his health-care plan or mocking a tribute to the Woodstock music festival, Senator John McCain has a trump card: the Hanoi Hilton. — Edwin Chen, Bloomberg * "Noun, Verb, POW" — Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Monthly * "The McCain campaign's constant invocation of the candidate's POW past is weird bordering on irrational..." — Ana Marie Cox, TIME * "I think they are going to it way too many times." — Howard Fineman, Newsweek

Remember how Joe Biden got the press to refer to Rudy Giuliani as "A noun, a verb, and 9/11"? Well, let's actually take Andrew Sullivan's lead here and get the media to boil McCain down to a similar phrase: "A noun, a verb, and POW." Considering how often the McCain campaign invokes his POW story, isn't that what they're already doing?

When it gets to a more finished state I might try it, although I am very satisfied with Firefox.

4 years Senate > 1.5 years Governor

Your only allowed to pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you are a performer in Cirque Dis Olay.

.

Speaking of senators... looks like we'll have another Cheney.

“Joe Biden is Barack Obama’s Dick Cheney. Biden’s age and experience stand in stark contrast to Obama’s lack of both. Like Cheney, Biden is unlikely after two terms as vice president to ever seek the presidency in his own right. That will give him the freedom to be the power behind the throne. And if (God forbid) Barack Obama is elected president, he is going to need a lot of guidance. His reckless, naive foreign policy initiatives at this crucial point in history could put the entire free world at risk. Neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden has ever run anything. Neither has served in an executive capacity, such as governor of a state or CEO of a major corporation. Both are bloviating legislators in the United States Congress, the ratings of which have hovered at or near single digits in most the recent public opinion polls. But hopefully... Biden will at least have the seasoning to keep Captain America from getting us all killed while he’s playing his big role on the world stage.” —Doug Patton

Still arguing over semantics I see... ;)

Right, guilty as charged. Just who was it that raised an issue of my use of the word "dust" and then failed to elaborate on what the objection was? (Clue: Not Jeffrey.)

I'll have to watch the vid to see if the "After Death" mistake is then used as evidence of some conspiracy or other. Don't know when I'll have the time (or the energy) for this as it requires "Deep Thought" (Answer: 42).

If you stick with the 911 False Flag video, you'll only invest just over an hour of your time. It shows the world wide view of the incident as well as a great historic time line of the USA,(and other countries.), FFOs* and movements around the world.

This really puts the last nails into the coffin of the "official story."


* False Flag Operations


.

What? By repeating the same old gumpf we've seen and debunked too many times already (freefall collapses, hijackers alive after 9/11, controlled demolition of WTC7, extravagent air maneuvers of AA77, etc, etc)? Good to see that it is a German Historian's opinion that Air Trafiic Control in the US has policies in place that were not adhered to, opinion's don't need evidence so he doesn't bother to present any, brilliant. Oh well I've only wasted 38 minutes so far watching the False Flag vid, is there anything new in this worth wasting another 34 on?

Still arguing over semantics I see... ;)

Right, guilty as charged. Just who was it that raised an issue of my use of the word "dust" and then failed to elaborate on what the objection was? (Clue: Not Jeffrey.)

I'll have to watch the vid to see if the "After Death" mistake is then used as evidence of some conspiracy or other. Don't know when I'll have the time (or the energy) for this as it requires "Deep Thought" (Answer: 42).

(New room for human next stage improvements method)

When the genetical engineering is arrived the top progress,human will extend

largely they youth and even the lifespan .The new human may get nutrient

direct from the sunlight or pills.Removed the unnecessarily organ,self repair &

replaced organ,stronger human bone and its structural,a skin that can withstand

very cool and hot temperature,more sensitive for tickling & touching (for

personal's need)and limited pain,very less(cause of the self-repaired and replacement organ
system available).Can breathe in water and stand for vacumn for longer.A
nanorobot
in body help clean the blood vessel and protect the body from invasion of the
virus.
The anything list about the future ways for human being to advanced into next stage of lifeform (superform-a form which haven't any threat from nature disease and have a perfect view of shape))with the help of technology currently under development.We must working hard to make it,it made perfect,so human included me are study hard in science and tech,politic and history also needs a care.

THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549


.

This one too:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4554312646243896758


.

THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549


.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJY0NuBC7vo

Quote:

This is beyond the pale, one of James Dobson's cronies asking their minions to pray for rain on August 28, the day of Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco stadium, not just rain, torrential rain.

Gustav set to hit Monday evening at midnight.


.

In a completely different state. If that is the result of the prayer, it kind of backfired.

JFK2 - The sequel to Oliver Stone's JFK, you won't see in the cinema.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4330031689287456187


.

Why is the GOV. putting show down notice to all the movies theaters in the U.S.?

Naked guy runs across America:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e1b87de335


.

Has someone found a female´s version???LOL
Cheers!

You'll need to ask some people from New Orleans about their thoughts on his efficiency. Of course those with the worst opinions about it are no longer able to speak.


.

I never said FEMA did a good job, they are about as effective as any other government agency. I would pin more of the blame on the state of Louisiana and Ray Nagin himself anyway.

Denial is SOP for these kind of situations,


I guess Alice Mahon, Deputy Labor Party, the MOD, and our own Marines got it wrong on MK77.

Whiskey Pappa


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


.

Denial? The letter from the MOD to Alice Mahon, says MK77 was used in 2003, nothing about it's use in Fallujah in 2005. I heard the marine mention the use of WP (White Phosphorus not MK77) in Fallujah, perhaps I missed the comment about MK77. Looks like StormKing got his facts right.

yea.

Here is an interesting thought that gets me laughing inside. When the huge, money grabing, power grabing agency of homelad security was formed people starting talking about putting them 8th in the presidential line of succession. I know it sounded like a great idea to me ... if the top seven people in America get killed lets put the guy who was in charge of protecting them in charge of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

The good news is that it didn't happen. They are at the bottom ... 16th in line. Right where they should be if they have to exist.

Chris.

You missed the photographic evidence. Parallel shadows and illumination in shadows. It was BUSTED with 3D typography and reflective surfaces.

the computer you are using comes directly from a desire to more accurately aim artillery shells.

I highly doubt that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs ever gave a crap about artillery shells... ;)

Probably true but my point was the basic hardware had to evolve and it was driven by the DOD.
Look at the history of early development of the computer --the ENIAC etc and you will see who funded the research and development and why.

The 60's saw huge improvement in Main memory from disc. to plated wire. to magnetic cores to solid state--all of it pushed by military and space applications.

Operating systems were part of the evolution as well--remember TRS-DOS and CPM. DOS was close clone of TRS-DOS. IBM also had their OS and DOS. The Macintosh operating system with it's GUI were modeled after Xerox's prior work. Unix was there as well. If Gates and Jobs were not there, there would have been others.

Regards,

Bill

Do I believe everything is being watched like in the will smith movie ... no. But is it out there, will it be one day ... yes.

I worked for an ISP for years before and many years after 9/11. After 9/11 the number of "search orders" and "secret subpoenas" that we got from the FBI was crazy. Most was for child porn ... nasty but I don't see why that was included on the patriot act ... not al queada. The worse part was that most of the data they wanted was guess work and turned out wrong. The people were not online at the times they wanted or said they were. Anyway most of thise requests were not signed by a judge. In some cases by another FBI office. That was their method of checks and balances ... one office had to get another office to sign the subpoena before they could send it to us. And I loved the notes that were on top of the 9/11 ones. We could not talk about the subpoena for 3 to 4 years (i forget which one). Not even to a lawyer.

Add this to the fact that we see that the telcos gave the government access to sniff and listen to calls without even using the FISA court ... that is crazy stuff. Only Qwest said no. This being the TSP program.

Crazy stuff.

Chris.

You'd have to ask the FBI and NSA.

I wouldn't expect an answer though.

:D

.

As you're the one that said it I'm asking you. What's the evidence?

Hi Tullio,

How much energy and chemicals and transportation energy does it take to make a gallon of gasoline? And how much energy to produce the chemicals used to make gasoline?

Thank you

I don't know. I pay 1.57 euro a liter of gasoline. Two thirds of this price is a state tax. Evidently ESSO, Shell, Agip etc. make a profit selling gasoline at 0.50 euro/liter, otherwise they would not make it. Since the cost of industrial electricity in Italy is the highest in Europe, because it is mostly of thermoelectric origin with methane as a fuel, I believe it does not cost much, in energy terms, to produce gasoline. AFAIK, photovoltaic electricity in Italy costs about ten times more that the current price. It is all dimes and dollars, like Arthur Miller writes in his "All my sons" play. Cheers.
Tullio

You need 5 kWh to make 1 cubic meter of hydrogen at standard conditions of pressure and temperature. Then you have to contain it in a suitable pressure vessel.
Tullio

How much energy is required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis of water?
The energy required to produce hydrogen at atmospheric pressure via electrolysis (assuming 1.23 V) is about 32.9 kWh/kg. A kilogram is about 2.2 lb. For 1 mole (2 g) of hydrogen the energy is about 0.0660 kWh/mole. Compressing or liquefying the hydrogen would take additional energy. One company produces hydrogen through electrolysis at about 7,000psi at an energy usage of about 60kWh/kg H (2).

Because a Watt is Voltage x Current, this is equivalent to Power x Rate x Time. The power in this case is the voltage required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen (1.23 V at 25?C). The rate is the current flow and relates directly to how fast hydrogen is produced. Time, of course, is how long the reaction runs. It turns out that voltage and current flow are interrelated. To run the water splitting reaction at a higher rate (generating more hydrogen in a given time), more voltage must be applied (similar to pushing down on the accelerator of a car; more gas is used to make the car go faster.) For commercial electrolysis systems that operate at about 1 A/cm2, a voltage of 1.75 V is required. This translates into about 46.8 kW-hr/kg, which corresponds to an energy efficiency of 70%.

Lowering the voltage for electrolysis, which will increase the energy efficiency of the process, is an important area for research.

Sources
U.S. Department of Energy
National Hydrogen Association

Mr Gray:

Sprechen Sie Deutsches ?

Einstein fled to a place where well over a million volunteers didn't refuse military service--my father among them---they wanted to rid the world of tyrants and those who would seek to destroy our way of life. My German ancestors still in Bavaria during WW-II didn't have the choice of refusal they were forced to serve at age 15 in a cause that they knew was insanity.

Wars are to be avoided but not at the cost of liberty or sanity.

Ironically, a good bit of civilization's progress comes from wars --the computer you are using comes directly from a desire to more accurately aim artillery shells. Nuclear power has the potential to help free us from drought and the tyranny of foreign oil.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"That's the trouble with you civilians; you don't enjoy a good scrap", General George Patton

The only hope.SPACE is FINAL FRONTIER for human race.

Mr Gray Wrote:

You make the hydrogen at home with the designs on the website I linked to, thus eliminating a big infrastructure redo, as well as being able to use the wind and/or solar energy in other ways, at your home.

My reply:

great ! where do I buy the equipment and where do I buy the car.

How much do they cost and how do I store the hydrogen ?

Regards,

Daddio

Yet no one looks at the data, no matter what reason is given for needing alt's.

GM makes this car --right?

They are most certainly looking at the data--And-the data must tell them that this car is not an answer to energy independence right now. This is probably due to excessively high costs to produce this vehicle and of very limited availability of hydrogen fill-up stations-especially outside of the Los Angeles area. This could change but I think that electric cars with batteries and a small engine to take over when the range is exceeded will win out over hydrogen. Sort of like the Chevy "Volt" only at lower cost and greater range than the Volt.

Forget batteries:

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

No sir --you see the infrastructure to deliver the energy source for electric cars is already in place. There is adequate spare capacity at night to recharge everyones car--also conversion to electric would take a decade or so time enough to add nuclear power to keep green, cheap energy available at the plug.

hydrogen requires a total redo of the fuel delivery infrastructure while all the energy you need is at the place where you plug in --may require a 220 volt dryer or stove type connection in your garage --maybe just a standard plug.

Yet no one looks at the data, no matter what reason is given for needing alt's.

GM makes this car --right?

They are most certainly looking at the data--And-the data must tell them that this car is not an answer to energy independence right now. This is probably due to excessively high costs to produce this vehicle and of very limited availability of hydrogen fill-up stations-especially outside of the Los Angeles area. This could change but I think that electric cars with batteries and a small engine to take over when the range is exceeded will win out over hydrogen. Sort of like the Chevy "Volt" only at lower cost and greater range than the Volt.

Missing the point here a little:

Hydrogen powered cars either via a fuel cell or direct combustion may turn out to be a good alternative-at least till battery technology takes a further evolutionary advantage. It seems to me the Hydrogen would have to be produced in bulk at massive plants and then distributed just like gasoline--the idea that we could carry around this apparatus in each vehicle will prove to be unsound thinking.

The real point here is ? where are we going to get the energy to produce the hydrogen in the first place. This will take massive amounts of electricity--and don't forget we will get back far less energy when we "Burn" the hydrogen to power our vehicles. In my opinion this should come from dozens of new nuclear plants that need to be brought on line in 5 years--not 10 or 20 years. TVA has raised their rates just now by 20% (how's that for inflation) they are paying more to transport coal and HYDRO is down due to less rain than usual.

A national project --a la the Interstate system needs to be undertaken NOW.

Bill

Sounds like you need to email the makers to be able to back up that claim.

Or you should do a little research...

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is total thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted minus the latent heat of vaporisation of the water. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more likely to be between 25% and 40%.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

I am not posting an article pertaining to the cost of solar cells and wind turbines; they are both very expensive (currently).

Problems?

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.

.

Sounds like a great idea but it will be a while before we can create hydrogen "at virtually no cost". It would be a good idea to make this a reality because of the cost and environmental savings.

The blue lettering indicates a hyperlink you can click to go to a website selling these units right this very moment.


.

Just because it is on a website, does not meat it is true. Creating hydrogen with electricity at this point is expensive an inefficient.

You underestimate the American people on both counts.

You are going to need academic proof; public opinion polls are not proof. Until then, your opinion is simply an unfounded theory.

Problems?

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.

.

Sounds like a great idea but it will be a while before we can create hydrogen "at virtually no cost". It would be a good idea to make this a reality because of the cost and environmental savings.

I began researching this book in 1979; however, my
desire to see an end to war arose much earlier in life, at
just about the age of eight. Back then, war movies were
very popular in my circle of friends. Our favorite game
was playing "army." I usually commanded one squad of
kids and my friend David led the opposition. We filled our
imaginary battles with the same glamor and altruism we saw
on television. We had no greater hero than the late actor Vic
Morrow who would gallantly lead his army squad to victory
every week on the television series, Combat!.

One Saturday afternoon I was watching a Hollywood war
movie on television. It was like any other war movie except
that it contained a short piece of numbing realism. For the
first time in my life, I found myself looking at documentary
film footage of an actual Nazi concentration camp. Long
after the images vanished off the television screen, I was
haunted by the pictures of skeleton-like bodies being thrown
into large pits. Like so many other people, I had trouble
fathoming the souls of the Nazis who could shove human
beings into brick ovens like loaves of bread and moments
later pulled out the charred remains. Within a minute, those
grainy black-and-white images presented a true picture of
war. Behind the curt salutes and stirring oratory, war is little
but a degraded psychosis. While war movies and games can
sometimes be fun, the real thing is unconscionable.

For centuries, scientists and thinkers have attempted
to solve the riddle of why people go to war. They
have observed that nearly all of Earth's creatures fight
among themselves at one time or another, usually over
food, territory, or mating. Aggression seems to be a
universal behavior related to survival. Other factors also
contribute to the creation of wars. The analyst must take
into consideration such variables as human psychology,
sociology, political leadership, economic conditions, and
the natural surroundings. Many thinkers, however, have
erroneously equated all human motives with motives found
in the animal kingdom. This is a mistake because intelligence
breeds complexity. As creatures rise in intelligence, thenmotivations
tend to become more elaborate. It is easy to
understand the mental stimuli in two alley cats squabbling
over a scrap of food, but it would be a mistake to attribute
as simple a state of mind to a terrorist planting a bomb in
an airport.

I began this study as the result of a single idea I had
encountered. The concept is certainly not a new one, and
at first it seems narrow in scope. The idea is nevertheless
quite important because it addresses a motivation which can
only be formulated by creatures of high intelligence:

War can be its own valuable commodity.

The simple existence of violent conflict between groups of
people can, in itself, be valuable to someone regardless of the
issues over which people are fighting. An obvious example
is an armaments manufacturer selling military hardware to
warring nations, or a lending institution making loans to
governments during wartime. Both can achieve an economic
benefit from the mere existence of war as long as the violence
does not directly touch them.

The value of war as a commodity extends well beyond
monetary gain:

War can be an effective tool for maintaining social and
political control over a large population.

In the sixteenth century, Italy consisted of numerous
independent principalities which were often at war with
one another. When a prince conquered a neighboring
city, he would sometimes breed internal conflicts among
the vanquished citizens. This was an effective way to
maintain political control over the people because the
endless squabbling prevented the vanquished people from
engaging in unified action against the conqueror. It did
not greatly matter over what issues the people bickered so
long as they valiantly struggled against one another and not
against the conquering prince.

A state of war can also be used to encourage populations
to think in ways that they would not otherwise do, and
to accept the formation of institutions that they would
normally reject The longer a nation involves itself in
wars, the more entrenched those, institutions and ways of
thinking will become.

Most comprehensive history books contain brief references
to this type of manipulative third party activity. It is
no secret, for example, that prior to the American Revolution,
France had sent intelligence agents to America to stir up
colonial discontent against the British Crown. It is also no
secret that the German military had aided Lenin and the
Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution of 1917. Throughout all
of history, people and nations have benefited from, and have
contributed to, the existence of other people's conflicts.
Intrigued by these concepts, I resolved to do a study to
determine just how important the third party factor has
been in human history. I wanted to discover what common
threads, if any, may have existed between various third
party influences in history. It was my hope that this study
would offer added insights into how and by whom history
has been made.

What resulted from this modest goal was one of the
most extraordinary odysseys I have ever taken. The trail of
investigation wove through a complex labyrinth of remarkable
facts, startling theories and everything in between.
As I dug ever deeper, a common thread did emerge. To
my chagrin, it was a thread so bizarre that on at least
two occasions I terminated my research in disgust. As I
pondered my predicament, I realized something important:
Rational minds tend to seek rational causes to explain
human problems.

As I probed deeper, however, I was compelled to face the
possibility that some human problems may be rooted in some
of the most utterly bizarre realities imaginable. Because such
realities are rarely acknowledged, let alone understood, they
are not dealt with. As a result, the problems those realities
generate are rarely resolved, and so the world seems to
stumble from one calamity to the next.

I will admit that when I began my research I had a
bias about what I was expecting to find: a human profit
motive as the common thread which links various thirdparty
influences in mankind's violent history.

The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.

I thought this was interesting was reading some of the things printed by the people that found this object. I searched the forums and did not come up with anything posted on the subject. Here are a few links describing the event. Feel free to post more informative links and discussions on this topic. If its been posted before please disregard this post.

Lets not forget the living heros that are there now. Unusual praise is given to those who die, and not enough attention given to those who were in the same circumstance, but live. Today, being killed as a subject of circumstance makes one more heroic than the person next to him who is lucky enough to live. This is not right. Many come home very disabled and disfigured, having to endure life, only a fraction of what they once were. Uncommon mental stress disables many that may not be diagnosed for long after they return. Having given 20 years to military service, I feel qualified to say that those who lost their lives would appretiate being thanked and remembered, but would want those who continue to suffer the effects of war to be given special attention and care.
I had a good buddy that was killed in the Gulf. Did he offer any more than my friend that lost part of a hand?

... Curious what people think of this?

Still impossible.

First, you still need to overcome two fundamental foundations of philosophy and science:

• Causality
  
• Energy can neither be created nor destroyed
  

You've also still got one hell of a fight with all of thermodynamics and entropy!

I think that adds up to "impossible".


It will work, but not for any useful net gain. At the very least it very likely will not work as advertised...

In your dreams?

Keep searchin',
Martin

. . . @ MrGray - ever heard Maya's Actual Voice - when she reads - exquisite to say the least

< here's some more of 'The Equation' (yet to be published - though 'relatively' soon) - by richard w lubrich jr



i don't know . . .


the colour
of the sky,

the taste
of the
sunshine
on Autumn
leaves,

the
openness
of the skies
above
with clouds
that
hide,

the rains
of winter in
times
that snow,

nor
the emptiness -
of being
away
from you
at these times ,

but the silence
of the
night -
as in dreams
that pass . . .

as i lie down -
by your
side . . .
and
this
is when
i know -

everything
will be alright . . .

As a sideline to the Search for ExtraTerestrial Intelligence, I like to search for other things too.

I have been reading many threads here even when not posting, and I am still trying to fill some gaps in my search for "the truth".

I have follwed many links and read a lot of what I found by following links off this site.

I don't have time for "flame wars", but I would like to know a little more of the history of things.

If anyone would like to help me in my search, please feel free to PM me.

Keith.

Standard Neo-Con tactic.

Call someone who disagrees a "liberal" and summarily dismiss their view as "wrong".

Don't forget to question his patriotism. That's next in Karl's play book.

Nice work bobby,

I didn't remember those bulges when I used to refueled them.


BSmasher: It would only matter if your aluminum "shattering" theory wasn't accurate.

It wasn't my theory it was yours.

I just have enough sense to know what happens to moving object when they slam into concrete instead of glass.

Interesting how the planes wings slice through the steel outer beams like butter while at the Pentagon they shatter into little bitty pieces. Magic!

No, not magic. Simple physics.

The WTC buildings were just skyscrapers, built to the normal construction specs for such things in the early 60s.

Conversely, the Pentagon was built as a military structure, designed and built to to be bomb-proof, with bomb-proof windows. That building was designed and built during WWII with the expectation that it may have to withstand direct, determined, and well-armed military attackers. So, of course the wings of a plane hitting such a thing would "shatter into little bitty pieces." Duh.

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

Seems you're eye sight might not be that good afterall, I specifically mentioned the still photo, that does not show any anomaly. Doesn't that count as one?

What's th message id?

Message 794469, follow the "this" link, scroll down to Appendix A.

the atomics bombs
fell on nagasaki and hirosima,
beause of the sneak japanese attack,
in pearl harbor , on a sunday !!!!!!!!!,
and because of some thousand dead american
sailors,
if the japanese acted like men,
the bombs wouldnt fell,

i am not american, no,
i am from greece,
and this is called war,
you kill, and you will be killed

Japanese targeted the naval vessels at Pearl Harbor.

We targeted cities of civilians.

As Rush has noted, the Japanese did target civilians (17 million of them).

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

Seems you're eye sight might not be that good afterall, I specifically mentioned the still photo, that does not show any anomaly. Doesn't that count as one?

the atomics bombs
fell on nagasaki and hirosima,
beause of the sneak japanese attack,
in pearl harbor , on a sunday !!!!!!!!!,
and because of some thousand dead american
sailors,
if the japanese acted like men,
the bombs wouldnt fell,

i am not american, no,
i am from greece,
and this is called war,
you kill, and you will be killed

Maybe you could find us a picture that doesn't show the anomaly, but does show the planes belly.


.

Does this really look like a shadow under the right, (Starboard), side of the fuselage?

Close-up video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN-0K7OhDzQ

Um, not, but this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs&feature=related which appears to use the same source video, makes the same effect look like the result of the plane moving out from under a shadow (presumably of the smoke from WTC 1) and catching a reflection of the sun where the wing meets the fuselage.

The contrast has been stripped away so much from the image in the link you posted that the "bright light bloom" looks very much like an appendage. Now why would the poster of this clip not provide details of the source and additional processing undertaken to make the image look as it does?

Dear Friends,

Last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich delivered a petition bearing more than 100,000 names to the Speaker of the House urging that impeachment proceedings begin into the conduct of President Bush. In a special video message, Dennis is asking for your help to deliver an even more powerful message to Congress when it reconvenes in September.

With new disclosures that the Administration tried to "cook the books at the CIA" by creating a phony, forged link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, "We cannot step back and let this President escape accountability."

If you have already signed the impeachment petition at www.kucinich.us, thank you. If you haven't, please do. And, in the next few weeks, please ask just one more person to sign so we can let the members of Congress hear our collective demand that they meet their obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Thank you.

The Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee

Circumstances we empowered him to attain,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159&q=en



A comedian...LOL

Hey, you have any rockstar or actor's opinions... because I REALLY care what they think too!!!!




The comedic presentation makes the history of oil bearable,

You should watch it. It's not opinions. It's history.

Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart also put their own spin on "the facts"...but they are STILL just entertainers.

Circumstances we empowered him to attain,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159&q=en

A comedian...LOL

Hey, you have any rockstar or actor's opinions... because I REALLY care what they think too!!!!

I don't know the title of the video but my favorite of all time is the one where the astronauts are on a space walk and somebody in mission control sees something strange on the camera. He asks the astronaut to check it out and without even turning around the astronaut says "I'm not sure what your talking about, am I missing something here?" at which point the guy in mission control says something like "your right forget about it".

yes, bush said so, but like most of the time, he does not understand what he was saying.

Yeah, no way in heck he just declared an end to major combat operations and the left trumped up the rest of the story. I mean keeping the peace and ousting a dictator are the same thing "in your opinion", right?

I'd trade the world for a life time supply of Guinness!

I would like to second that motion :o)

Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime, whether Japan was suing for peace or not.

I am feeling very old. I was born in World War 2 and the atrocities, under whatever guise, continue...

I just LOVE how liberals think we're supposed to win wars with both hands tied behind our back by rules no one else follows.

Are you actually PROUD of how this mentality has dragged out the War on Terror?

Right, it's the liberals fault that the War on Terror has latest this long. Just for the record, how long did the liberal President GW Bush say we should expect this war would last?

I don't understand people much of the time.

When I was younger, I didn't and wished that I did... I got that wish, and now that I do, I wish that I didn't... ;)

Point of order. Windmills have been in the Livermore Valley (California) for at least 25 years- They were probably in design and development long before that . They still haven't amounted to much here in the US even with huge incentives and tax breaks--Are they economical even now? --what is the cost per kilowatt hour? --how does it compare to coal or nuclear.

DADDIO

Can't help but wonder how things would be had we begun development 30 years ago when Jack was doing his thing.
.

The electric car is around 100 year old, the quest for a better battery had been going for years, fuel cells have been around for a long time but still are very costly and hydrogen is dangerous, costly and very hard to store. There was a show on the Discovery channel called "Connections" where they explored the fact that a series of inventions and ideas have to come together at the same time to make something new. It looks like we are reaching the point where that can happen in the automotive industry. To reply to your statement, development was going on 30 years ago or Jack would not have had his car.

When I say development I don't mean a prototype. I mean full on infrastructure logistics. Solar and wind electricity have been around for so long it's embarrassing we haven't implemented them before now. So much open land just sitting there doing nothing at all.

The modern auto is the results of over a 100 years of development. To produce something that will survive in the market place, the product must be at least as good as what is already out there. Prototypes and limited runs are the only way to prove if you have something that you will not go broke when produced in large numbers. The auto industry as already turned out Edsels and now days has been burned by the SUV. If the oil prices stay high, it will be worth the risk for the auto industry to introduce something better because people will be willing to risk new technology and a higher price tag to save a few bucks at the pump. If oil cost were low, the customers would never buy small cars and would stick with SUV's. The auto industry can only produce what people will buy. I don't know how old you are, but when the 1970 oil price spike happened, every one wanted a small car. This is when Japan took over the auto market place because they were the only one producing small cars. Within a few years, oil dropped in price and people moved back to bigger cars because the small cars didn't meet American needs(you just can't haul six kids and gear in an econobox). The real problem is getting people to want something like this, other wise you have to make something that meets there needs and wants.
You also appears you have not been around a wind farm. They can only be put in a few places and people don't like living near them. To be cost effective the U.S. could only provide a small percentage of it's power needs from wind. Also, the wind tends to blow mostly during the day. This makes wind good for day time power but useless at night.
As for Solar, you only get about 100 watts a square meter. If you looked at my first link, you would have found it takes more power to produce solar cells than they produce but this may change in the future. Other forms of solar power have also have problems when you want to go big. The only good replacement for Coal is Nuclear and as for the waste problems, we should be pushing development of Fast Neutron Reactors (also known as breeder reactors). They solve the waste problem by burning not only their waste products but the waste from old style reactors and produce waste that breaks down in a few hundred years instead of thousands of years. We can thank Jimmy Carter for banding fast neutron reactors in the U.S. and giving us a real waste disposal problem.
You may look at Arizona, California and New Mexico as waste land, but it's ecology is just as important as that of the east coast and far more fragile. Damage to it can take 100 years to recover because growth is much slower.

Rush knows so much about everything. It's amazing!

Nope. I don't comment if I don't know what I'm talking about.

So, did you deliberately mis-state my position, or was that just an "oops?"

Now... Do you have any idea what a single particle can do to a human?

Absolutely nothing because single particles (whatever that means) aren't enough to cause heavy metal poisoning and they're too small to contain enough radioactivity to cause radiation poisoning either. In fact, you'd have to eat enough of it to really poison you bad to get enough such that the radiation contained in it would cause you problems. But so what? You could do that with lead. Or iron. Both will kill you very very quickly if ingested as powder, far far faster than DU would. And they aren't radioactive at all.

Can't help but wonder how things would be had we begun development 30 years ago when Jack was doing his thing.
.

The electric car is around 100 year old, the quest for a better battery had been going for years, fuel cells have been around for a long time but still are very costly and hydrogen is dangerous, costly and very hard to store. There was a show on the Discovery channel called "Connections" where they explored the fact that a series of inventions and ideas have to come together at the same time to make something new. It looks like we are reaching the point where that can happen in the automotive industry. To reply to your statement, development was going on 30 years ago or Jack would not have had his car.

The problem is that most anything follows from a false premise.

If your statement is that hydrogen is simpler therefore it must be more efficient, then that has to be proved experimentally.

Let me give you a thought experiment, to ponder for just a bit.

Picture a refrigerator in a small room. There is one door into the room (closed), the room is well insulated and there is no ventilation. There is a refrigerator in the room. It is plugged in and the refrigerator door is open.

Does the room get warmer, colder, or stay the same?

If you said "electricity is flowing into the room to run the 'fridge, so the room is gaining energy, and getting warmer" then you're right. The refrigerator isn't even relevant.

Same with cars: you look at the hydrogen car as being the solution, and I want to look at the entire system (starting with the production of energy, through transport, and finally use in the car) before I decide.

I don't care that much about the efficiency (or the lack of emissions) of the car any more than I care about the refrigerator.

I understand your analogy. You must care about the efficiency and lack of emissions a little bit.

Hmmmm. Not sure you did.

If any of the hydrogen used to power that incredibly green emits-only-water combustion engine comes from a non-green source, then you have to consider the pollution caused at the coal-burning power plant (or natural-gas burning, or neutron-burning) before you can consider the whole system to be green.

From there, I have no real preference how we get from that great big windmill generating power, to me getting across town in my car. It can run on compressed air and I'm happy.

If you compress polluted air and bleed off the pressure to run the car, is it still zero emissions?

Your gripping that Silverstein point pretty hard,

Must mean something.


.

It's used in pretty much all of the Half Truthers theories, I just wondered if there's anything else to it. If it's based solely on his using one word twice in an interview, and that word does not have the meaning the Half Truthers believe it does, then it's not exactly damning. Oh, I know about the insurance thing, but come on, it was a condition of his purchase that he have that, which, I'd say, is pretty sensible on the part of his lenders given the previous attack on the WTC.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss other matters did you read the info on the plane that hit WTC 2? See the video on another BBC error during 9/11? Read how the Pilots may have made an error on their interpretation of the processed data from the FDR? In your time away from here I've been busy ...

You spoke of infrastructure earlier,

Do you think it better to have all auto manufacturers retool their factories and power plant compartments to compensate for a new auto power plant which facilitates an extra wasted step in energy conversion? Or is it easier and smarter to have a new carb system and fuel storage compartment implemented?

Do you think the flowchart of a hydrogen manufacturing plant is more complex and uses more chemicals and energy than a oil refinery does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

Of course an infrastructure needs to be set up for hydrogen distribution, but that's pretty standard ops for industrial revolutions. Isn't it?

The problem isn't that there aren't any stations yet. The problem is people saying it will never work because there are no stations.

The problem is that most anything follows from a false premise.

If your statement is that hydrogen is simpler therefore it must be more efficient, then that has to be proved experimentally.

Let me give you a thought experiment, to ponder for just a bit.

Picture a refrigerator in a small room. There is one door into the room (closed), the room is well insulated and there is no ventilation. There is a refrigerator in the room. It is plugged in and the refrigerator door is open.

Does the room get warmer, colder, or stay the same?

If you said "electricity is flowing into the room to run the 'fridge, so the room is gaining energy, and getting warmer" then you're right. The refrigerator isn't even relevant.

Same with cars: you look at the hydrogen car as being the solution, and I want to look at the entire system (starting with the production of energy, through transport, and finally use in the car) before I decide.

I don't care that much about the efficiency (or the lack of emissions) of the car any more than I care about the refrigerator.

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

:P

You're confusing DU with nuclear waste in the same way you're confusing Hydrogen with "Fuel."

"Depleted Uranium" is Uranium with all the "fun" isotopes removed -- U-235 can be used to generate power, while U-238 is just a typical heavy metal.

It is less toxic than some of the other heavy metals, and it is less radioactive than Uranium ore.

Of course, people hear "Uranium" and they get all scared about radiation, just like they hear "Hydrogen" and say "oooh! clean energy."

There are a few videos in that post that beg to differ on the DU rounds. Many of the victims are American military in these videos. You can hear it from them.

Whatever you want to call hydrogen, it can be put into a regular car engine with a modified carburetor to run that car.


.

The battlefield is a messy place. Lots of toxics that you don't want to be around -- enough so that picking any one toxin and saying "this did it!" is pretty hard to do.

My car can't use a modified carburetor because like most cars built in the last two decades, it does not have a carburetor.

Edit: you explain that you're too busy to type at length, and you think I have time to watch 40 minutes of video? Sorry.

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

:P

You're confusing DU with nuclear waste in the same way you're confusing Hydrogen with "Fuel."

"Depleted Uranium" is Uranium with all the "fun" isotopes removed -- U-235 can be used to generate power, while U-238 is just a typical heavy metal.

It is less toxic than some of the other heavy metals, and it is less radioactive than Uranium ore.

Of course, people hear "Uranium" and they get all scared about radiation, just like they hear "Hydrogen" and say "oooh! clean energy."

At the moment we're talking about Hydrogen as a method of storing and transporting energy.

... and your link specifically says "electrolysis" -- which is of course electricity.

When Mark suggested batteries might be a better use of that energy, you shot him down because it wasn't hydrogen.

LOL

I didn't shoot him down. I asked him what he meant and then assumed he was talking about batteries to store the electricity produced from the hydrogen going into the hydrogen cell and back into the "battery", as opposed to just burning the hydrogen in the engines we have in our cars right this very moment. Forgetting the new fangled cells!

Every time you do a conversion, energy is lost. Conversions are not 100% efficient.

It follows automatically that electricty -> hydrogen -> mechanical energy -> battery is three conversions, when electricity -> battery is one.

Storing power directly in batteries is more efficient than making hydrogen and converting the hydrogen to electricity to charge a battery.

Internal Combustion engines (on any fuel) are not terribly efficient. Toyota goes to great lengths to get to about 34%.

My entire point was to specifically show that solar and wind can be used to separate hydrogen from water!

Okay, great, we made some hydrogen. Are there better uses of that electricity?

... and you're critical of electricity as being a product of major corporations, but it is okay if it is from wind generation? (When the biggest single wind farm is owned by Florida Power and Light, and T. Boone Pickens is pushing wind -- Texas Oil Billionaire).

Wind power is fine.

T-bone is turning a new leaf. Takes money to build the infrastructure. Our government is too busy losing money and spending what's left on war. Doesn't help that "W" is in the oil business, either.

Either that, or he's investing money in these big corporate wind farms, and trying to convince the Government to "legislate" more favorable conditions, invest in infrastructure or somesuch.

I'm not opposed to a money-grab, especially if there are other good reasons.

If the goal is to find some source of electricity, then store it and transport it, hydrogen is one method.

I think I see what you mean now. Though water is Much easier to find and process than oil is. Much cleaner, too.

I refuse to believe your argument that the amount of energy exerted to transport and process petroleum into gasoline is less than the amount of electricity used to separate hydrogen from water. The electricity used could be created from solar and wind sources. Plenty of deserts and plains for solar panels. Plenty of mountains and sea shores for windmills.

I can see how you'd have a hard time believing it, since I did not make that argument.

That's okay, because I don't buy your argument that Oil is the only energy source worth fighting over.

If your goal is to stop the world dependence on Oil and reduce obscene corporate profits on Electricity, hydrogen may not be the answer.

Just deep six'ing oil would be good enough for now.

... and it would seem that you might be a little more open to anything that can convert wind, or hydro, or solar into power and use it efficiently.

LOL - The video that started this thread clearly shows solar being used to produce the electricity that is used to separate hydrogen from water.

Are we playing Twister?


.

I'm just trying to point out that Hydrogen is so frequently presented as the "magic bullet" and we invariably get this hydrogen powered car, and somebody (Jack Nicholson, Ed Begley, Jr., Daryl Hannah, etc.) is shown sticking his/her nose into the exhaust pipe because the emissions are "just water."

Solar is not without an environmental impact, cut down the sunlight reaching the ground and you change the ecology under the panels.

Nuclear should be low-impact, and it would be if we (at least in the U.S.) weren't afraid that reprocessed fuel would end up in terrorist bombs instead of back in the reactor and used again -- we're making 10 times the radioactive waste because the stuff gets used once.

People don't seem to want to live near big wind projects, and birds die when they hit the propellers.

Everything has some impact. That doesn't mean you don't do it. It just means that when something looks so wonderfully perfect, you need to make sure you look at the whole system -- the wonderfully clean hydrogen car and the source of that hydrogen as one example.

At the moment we're talking about Hydrogen as a method of storing and transporting energy.

... and your link specifically says "electrolysis" -- which is of course electricity.

When Mark suggested batteries might be a better use of that energy, you shot him down because it wasn't hydrogen.

... and you're critical of electricity as being a product of major corporations, but it is okay if it is from wind generation? (When the biggest single wind farm is owned by Florida Power and Light, and T. Boone Pickens is pushing wind -- Texas Oil Billionaire).

If the goal is to find some source of electricity, then store it and transport it, hydrogen is one method.

If your goal is to stop the world dependence on Oil and reduce obscene corporate profits on Electricity, hydrogen may not be the answer.

... and it would seem that you might be a little more open to anything that can convert wind, or hydro, or solar into power and use it efficiently.

It's telling that Abu Graib and other matters are included, the producer apparently has a beef with the current Administration, but fear not only 150 days, 7 hours and 14 mins to go ...

Apologies if I got your hopes up, my backwardsbush was incorrectly set, seems it's a little over 169 days ...

Wow! CBC's "Market Place" has a top A+ reputation for accurate news reporting.

If they said it, I believe it.

Obviously the auto industry has been blocking progress on this.



Somebody (mabye many of us?) should write CBC to ask for an update on this story.

http://www.cbc.ca/contact

The auto industry doesn't care. They're in the business of selling cars, and if the market would buy cars that ran on rubber bands they'd make 'em.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is not a fuel.

You can't "mine" hydrogen. You can't drill for it. Most of the hydrogen on this planet is already bound up with something else: oxygen (as water) or carbon (as methane or a longer hydrocarbon chain) or something like that.

You have to put energy into a system to "break up" whatever you use as feedstock (usually water) and then you have hydrogen.

You can build a power plant in a convenient spot, a nice big one, and either make hydrogen on-site and truck it around, or make electricity and transport that somewhere to break up the water.

Then you put it in your car and burn it, getting back (mostly) water.

But it isn't an energy source. The energy source is coal, or nuclear, or wind, or solar, or any of a half-dozen others....

-- Ned

But if we didn't like to kill people for oil and the energy expended, from whatever source, to separate hydrogen from water was equal to the amount of energy currently being used to transport and process oil, wouldn't it be a good thing for our species? Wouldn't it be nice for the planet if our cars exhaust was water vapor instead of a pollutants?

Could it be that oil companies don't like this?

You said car companies, now you're saying oil companies??

Johnny: Do you mean batteries to store the electricity that these hydrogen cells produce? This is what gets me: Why use power/electricity to make hydrogen just to turn that hydrogen back into electricity when hydrogen works in regular cars in the hydrogen form? Just need a new carburetor and your car is running!

Who the heck needs to turn hydrogen into electricity? Because corporations want to sell us new cars, maybe? The car industry likes it partnership with big oil more than it likes the planet and people of it?

Okay, since you asked:

Here is a Wikipedia article on Hydrogen production.

Steam reforming requires Methane (CH4) as a feedstock. While natural gas is common, it's finite -- and a lot of it is a byproduct of producing oil, so that isn't a whole lot better. It still yields Carbon and is therefore "bad" environmentally.

The water-gas shift reaction needs energy as an input (which comes from somewhere).

Coal gasification is somewhat attractive, but now we're potentially fighting wars for Coal instead of Oil (and we're still hauling it around, and we've still go that pesky Carbon).

Biological production is attractive. It isn't exactly available, so you can't run your car on Bio-hydrogen -- yet.

Electrolysis you don't like because it takes electricity, and "they" want us to use electricity and buy more stuff to make our hydrogen. Evil Capitalists.

There are some chemical methods that aren't promising, like the one which uses aluminum and acid (since purifying aluminum is a very energy-intensive process, and we're back to using lots of electricity).

So, it's really great to say "we should use hydrogen and stop fighting wars over oil" but unless you can make hydrogen, in commercial quantities, without using another fuel, then all you are really doing is moving the problem around.

I don't have a problem with hydrogen per se. I like the idea, but we've got to find more efficient ways to make it before we start converting to a hydrogen economy.

You said car companies, now you're saying oil companies??

But if we didn't like to kill people for oil and the energy expended, from whatever source, to separate hydrogen from water was equal to the amount of energy currently being used to transport and process oil, wouldn't it be a good thing for our species? Wouldn't it be nice for the planet if our cars exhaust was water vapor instead of a pollutants?

Its still not the solution. we still need to burn fossil fuels to power the power station. To top that off, we need to burn twice as much fossil fuels to store the energy as Hydrogen. So it just makes things worse.

John.

The real answer here I think, is solar power. Direct conversion of the sun's light to electricity. And instead of then using the energy to create and store hydrogen, just use it directly to charge and run electric vehicles.
The secret here is mostly getting battery technology to the point where the storage density is high enough to give acceptable range in a battery that is small and light enough to be practical.

Johnny: Do you mean batteries to store the electricity that these hydrogen cells produce? This is what gets me: Why use power/electricity to make hydrogen just to turn that hydrogen back into electricity when hydrogen works in regular cars in the hydrogen form? Just need a new carburetor and your car is running!

Who the heck needs to turn hydrogen into electricity? Because corporations want to sell us new cars, maybe? The car industry likes it partnership with big oil more than it likes the planet and people of it?

114 min
Last Minute Productions

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751298171535560228


.

And this proves what exactly? That there are other people that makes the same claims as the ones you've already posted? That Charlie Sheen is a subscriber to the Half Truth movement? That snippets of conversations and documents can make it seem that still others support the Half Truth movement (e.g. the family members with unanswered questions, what were those questions, watching this won't find out).

Well done MrGray, another 2 hour video and another sidestep. Oh, and the video again makes the "pull" claim that you said we'd get back to 4 weeks ago now. It's not just about the word, the implication is that Silverstein was a party to the demolition as a result of his using it. If the words not an alternative for controlled demolition by explosive, where does that leave Silverstein's involvement?

Wow! CBC's "Market Place" has a top A+ reputation for accurate news reporting.

If they said it, I believe it.

Obviously the auto industry has been blocking progress on this.



Somebody (mabye many of us?) should write CBC to ask for an update on this story.

http://www.cbc.ca/contact

The auto industry doesn't care. They're in the business of selling cars, and if the market would buy cars that ran on rubber bands they'd make 'em.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is not a fuel.

You can't "mine" hydrogen. You can't drill for it. Most of the hydrogen on this planet is already bound up with something else: oxygen (as water) or carbon (as methane or a longer hydrocarbon chain) or something like that.

You have to put energy into a system to "break up" whatever you use as feedstock (usually water) and then you have hydrogen.

You can build a power plant in a convenient spot, a nice big one, and either make hydrogen on-site and truck it around, or make electricity and transport that somewhere to break up the water.

Then you put it in your car and burn it, getting back (mostly) water.

But it isn't an energy source. The energy source is coal, or nuclear, or wind, or solar, or any of a half-dozen others....

-- Ned

Jack Nicholson's Hydrogen Car (30 years ago?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

hmmmm...


Thoughts?


.

It all sounds very simple when you state it, the way its stated in that video from 30 years ago.

This is the update on that video. This is why we are not all currently driving hydrogen cars right now.

Basic physics; Energy in = Energy out

But the loss of energy in creating Hydrogen in the first place is very large.
We loose energy in generating electrical energy to power the break down of water into its components, Hydrogen and Oxygen. So in effect, the pollutants come out of the power station instead of your car exhaust.

Today all the major companies are working to reduce the energy lost when splitting water into its basic elements. They are also looking at new ways of creating Hydrogen and storing it.

Another big problem with Hydrogen in its basic form is its extremely volatile, far more volatile than petroleum or natural gas. If something goes wrong with your hydrogen car, and the engine blows, you take out the whole neighbourhood in one big bang.

John.

And how much energy, in comparison, is used in shipping and processing petroleum? And the costs of world peace and our environment?

Little or no energy compared to the amount of energy you get when you burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are prestored energy that was made by plants, dinosaurs, fish, animals, etc.

Is this really a bad alternative in your opinion?

You are taking me up wrong, I'm very much in favor of Hydrogen powered vehicles, but I'm just pointing out why we don't have loads of them today when Jack Nicholson had the technology 30 years ago.

Instead of using the engines in our cars right now, corporations are pushing electricity to make hydrogen and then back into electricity cells so we all need to buy a new car?

The fix for volatility was covered in the last minutes of the video.

hmmm... I like Jack's idea better..

Its not a conspiracy with the auto manufacturers. The technology is not being released quickly because everybody See's the problem with this. Its still not the solution. we still need to burn fossil fuels to power the power station. To top that off, we need to burn twice as much fossil fuels to store the energy as Hydrogen. So it just makes things worse.

John.

Jack Nicholson's Hydrogen Car (30 years ago?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

hmmmm...


Thoughts?


.

It all sounds very simple when you state it, the way its stated in that video from 30 years ago.

This is the update on that video. This is why we are not all currently driving hydrogen cars right now.

Basic physics; Energy in = Energy out

But the loss of energy in creating Hydrogen in the first place is very large.
We loose energy in generating electrical energy to power the break down of water into its components, Hydrogen and Oxygen. So in effect, the pollutants come out of the power station instead of your car exhaust.

Today all the major companies are working to reduce the energy lost when splitting water into its basic elements. They are also looking at new ways of creating Hydrogen and storing it.

Another big problem with Hydrogen in its basic form is its extremely volatile, far more volatile than petroleum or natural gas. If something goes wrong with your hydrogen car, and the engine blows, you take out the whole neighbourhood in one big bang.

John.