Update: F-4 Phantom > 500mph > Solid Concrete Slab
http://www.911researchers.com/node/1126
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Mon, 2008-02-11 17:09.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwAhkRciO7k
F-4 > 500 mph > Solid Concrete Slab - Close Up Slow Motion.
Facts are Referenced AND Verifiable.
Like here, the wall was 12 ft thick, THE PLANE WAS NOT FILLED WITH WATER, but the tanks were to simulate fuel.
THIS IS A REFERENCED FACT FOR THOSE THAT DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.
But there was a test similar to what is described above. In 1988, an unmanned F-4 Phantom, ballasted with water and mounted on rails, was "flown" into a concrete wall at 480 MPH. As reported, the plane crumpled, and penetrated only about 2 inches of concrete. A very impressive test - except it wasn't meant to be a test of nuclear reactor safety. The wall the F-4 crashed into was not a simulation of a nuclear plant's wall. It was a 12-foot-thick wall mounted on an air cushion. The test was designed to study impact forces by measuring how far the impact would push the wall. Breaking through the concrete was the last thing any of the involved scientists wanted to achieve. Furthermore, the F-4 was ballasted with water to give it the same weight as a plane fully loaded with fuel, and its final weight was 42,000 pounds. Needless to say, crashing a 412,000 pound 767 loaded with fuel into a fixed wall would have slightly different results.
Big words, you say. Nice fearmongering, DM. But can you back it up with any facts? Well, actually I can. Because according to a 1982 study by the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois - a study which was conducted by request of the DOE and the NRC - the explosion from a 707 crashing into a containment dome at 466 MPH would probably overwhelm the reactor's shielding. Note - that's a 707, which weighs 336,000 pounds. In 1982 those were big jets. But we've "advanced" considerably since then. The 767s that were flown into the World Trade Center weighed 80,000 pounds more than that and carried a lot more fuel.
Other studies, again conducted for the NRC at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, found that a 125,000 pound jet had a 32 % chance of piercing a containment building's six-foot base and an 84 % chance of breaking through the dome.
Ramming a plane into the containment dome isn't the best way to attack a nuclear plant, either. There are other possibilities with much greater chances of success. I'm not going to discuss them, but the statement that "terrorists would be wasting their time messing with nuclear plants" is a gross misrepresentation. I'm not saying every nuclear reactor in the world should immediately be dismantled to prevent such an occurrence, but to claim that they are invulnerable is a disputed opinion, to say the least.
http://everything2.com/?node_id=507708
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key report, Sugano et al 1992, covers a rocket sled crash experiment using an F-4D Phantom jet fighter impacting into a 10 foot thick reinforced concrete block.
Sandia notes:
The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom -- including both engines -- onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.
With very minimal damage to the concrete target block, the plane and its engines were easily converted into small chunks of metal confetti and shrapnel at the physical interface of the two impact objects. Upon initial impact, the follow-on rear portions of the plane yet to make contact retained their shape integrity until their respective impact. (This seriously contradicts claims by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins that the wings of a 757 would have folded forward, as well as claims in the popular press that the wings folded back before entering the "too-small" hole.) The resulting shear caused debris being spread out to the left, right, and rear of the impact locus, having no ability to proceed in their original vector path, having grossly failed the test of strength with the concrete block. However, the wings are wider than the concrete block, so the wingtips are sheared off whole, and they tumble forward after being cleanly separated from the aircraft.
F4 aircraft impacting a solid concrete barrier. Note that the wings and tail do not fold as the nose impacts the concrete. (source: http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm)
Sugano (in itself) doesn't show that a 757 hitting the Pentagon would be turned into confetti and small chunks, but it does show that an F4 was completely destroyed in arguably similar circumstances. Furthermore, it wasn't anywhere close to an even contest between the wall and the F4. The F4 started with a speed of 215 m/sec -- and the tail was still traveling at 185 m/sec when it smashed into the wall. The F4 is a very strongly build aircraft, although at 18 meters long and 19 kg, it's about a third the length and a fifth the weight of the 757. In terms of comparing what would happen to a 757 versus what happened to the F4, it would be difficult to do an accurate calculation without detailed design information on both aircraft. In a preliminary analysis, the extra length of the 757 means that it has three times the distance to decelerate -- but the 757 is also much heavier, so it's more difficult for the crushing process to supply enough force to decelerate even as rapidly as the F4 did.
Proceeding cautiously to apply the Sugano results -- we believe that the Sugano experiment may present a possible counter-argument against two of the most widely cited arguments for the "no 757" theory at the Pentagon: the "too small" hole, and the "missing wings" and tail. According to our detailed analysis (presented below in Appendix I), the hole appears to be too small because the wing-tips and tail were not massive enough to penetrate the facade, and in some cases the columns were also strong enough to survive (or partially survive) the onslaught of the airplane's core. Furthermore, we should expect no recognizable remnants of the wings and tail because they should have been smashed into small pieces and spread all over the Pentagon lawn.
If the wings & tail of the 757 hit the Pentagon wall, why can't we see any clear signs of impact? The fuselage of the F4 crashing into the concrete block wall, left an indentation 2cm deep, while the engines (more heavily constructed than the 757 tail for sure) left indentations 6cm deep. But with all the smoke and foam in the photographs taken immediately after the crash, it is difficult to be confident that even this amount of damage would be clearly visible. It is also odd that the wings didn't do more damage to the windows, although without specific data, it is difficult to know whether the impact would have exceeded their blast resistance capabilities. Indeed, it is possible that the wings and tail might have missed the windows completely.
http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm
Ed Ward, MD http://www.911researchers.com/node/1126
Concrete and crashes
what was the density of the concrete?
sand/cement mix? 4:1?
Reinforced with what?
What's the density of the 'other' proven scammer's head...
Never any facts, just scam BS over and over -
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Mon, 2008-02-11 10:23.
Show the quote for what you are being told. I KNOW I DID NOT WRITE THAT, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE JUST HERE FOR BS.
(NOW THE LIAR SAYS HE DID NOT WRITE ...
"""""velocity and holes
Submitted by zark on Sat, 2008-02-09 08:44.
please explain it to me.
All i can gather is that """"""i am being told a 500,000 ton building, travelling at 400+ mph, smashed into an aeroplane."""""" The aeroplane sliced through the building and left an outline of its shape.
???????/?"""""""
First I'd suggest some review of basic mass x velocity insights. Investigation of basic examples of 'surely's' - a piece of straw driven deep inside tree trunks at only 200 mph, water cuts through steel at higher velocities, the characteristics of metals at high speed, will be a good start to your education.
especially since I know that high velocity x mass is a powerful projectile.
Water will cut a steel girder just needs enough velocity.
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/62277/Slicingsteelwithwaterandsand....
Metal at high velocity takes on the characteristics of a liquid.
How do tornadoes do some weird things, like drive straw into trees, strip road pavement and drive splinters into bricks? The list of bizarre things attributed to tornadoes is almost endless. Much of it is folklore; but there are some weird scenes in tornado damage. Asphalt pavement may strip when tornado winds sandblast the edges with gravel and other small detritus, eroding the edges and causing chunks to peel loose from the road base. Storm chasers and damage surveyors have observed this phenomenon often after the passage of a violent tornado. With a specially designed cannon, wind engineers at Texas Tech University have fired boards and other objects at over 100 mph into various types of construction materials, duplicating some of the kinds of "bizarre" effects, such as wood splinters embedded in bricks. Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/
From this quote of myth 61, sure seems to me they got straw to penetrate a 1/4 of an inch into a tree and a small reed 2 inches into a tree.
Mythbusters: Episode 61
Propelling a piece of straw at a palm tree at a distance of 50cm at 320mph (the world record for recorded wind speed at ground level), the straw only managed to penetrate the tree a quarter of an inch. Even firing at the tree while it was bent (to increase the size of the pores in the surface of the tree) at point blank range added no additional distance into the tree. A piece of reed was tested as the sturdiest organic object that might be mistaken for a piece of straw. At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree. Additionally, Jamie tried a piece of piano wire, and at 50 cm, it flew not only through the tree but through a sheet of plywood on the wall behind it, partially embedding itself into the cement wall.
Your 'shirleys' have been clearly shown as BS by numerous examples. Don't understand it, tough. I'm starting a basic physics class soon for people too stupid to research for themselves despite areas of reference. Tuition shouldn't be more than a couple hundred for a couple hours seminar. Please sign up, Please send your fee and I'll be glad to babysit you.
I'm available for lesser lazyness assistance, like to point you to work, etc, but travel time will be expensive.
The Scam BS continues. No time for ignorant unreferenced proven BS. And even less time for PROVEN LIARS HERE JUST TO SPOUT BS.
Let me spell it out for you ... FA Q. See Below Me (look for this post anytime your post here)
Ed Ward, MD
ed-ward is a chimp
you've got no idea about anything, have you?
Dont post stuff unless you got the background to it.
It is idiots like you that keep me returning to forums.
I laugh my arse off when reading your crap.
Jark - FA Q. See Below Me
Never any facts, just scam BS over and over -
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Mon, 2008-02-11 10:23.
Show the quote for what you are being told. I KNOW I DID NOT WRITE THAT, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE JUST HERE FOR BS.
(NOW THE LIAR SAYS HE DID NOT WRITE ...
"""""velocity and holes
Submitted by zark on Sat, 2008-02-09 08:44.
please explain it to me.
All i can gather is that """"""i am being told a 500,000 ton building, travelling at 400+ mph, smashed into an aeroplane."""""" The aeroplane sliced through the building and left an outline of its shape.???????/?"""""""
First I'd suggest some review of basic mass x velocity insights. Investigation of basic examples of 'surely's' - a piece of straw driven deep inside tree trunks at only 200 mph, water cuts through steel at higher velocities, the characteristics of metals at high speed, will be a good start to your education.
Especially since I know that high velocity x mass is a powerful projectile.
Water will cut a steel girder just needs enough velocity.
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/62277/Slicingsteelwithwaterandsand....
Metal at high velocity takes on the characteristics of a liquid.
How do tornadoes do some weird things, like drive straw into trees, strip road pavement and drive splinters into bricks? The list of bizarre things attributed to tornadoes is almost endless. Much of it is folklore; but there are some weird scenes in tornado damage. Asphalt pavement may strip when tornado winds sandblast the edges with gravel and other small detritus, eroding the edges and causing chunks to peel loose from the road base. Storm chasers and damage surveyors have observed this phenomenon often after the passage of a violent tornado. With a specially designed cannon, wind engineers at Texas Tech University have fired boards and other objects at over 100 mph into various types of construction materials, duplicating some of the kinds of "bizarre" effects, such as wood splinters embedded in bricks. Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/
From this quote of myth 61, sure seems to me they got straw to penetrate a 1/4 of an inch into a tree and a small reed 2 inches into a tree.
Mythbusters: Episode 61
Propelling a piece of straw at a palm tree at a distance of 50cm at 320mph (the world record for recorded wind speed at ground level), the straw only managed to penetrate the tree a quarter of an inch. Even firing at the tree while it was bent (to increase the size of the pores in the surface of the tree) at point blank range added no additional distance into the tree. A piece of reed was tested as the sturdiest organic object that might be mistaken for a piece of straw. At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree. Additionally, Jamie tried a piece of piano wire, and at 50 cm, it flew not only through the tree but through a sheet of plywood on the wall behind it, partially embedding itself into the cement wall.
Your 'shirleys' have been clearly shown as BS by numerous examples. Don't understand it, tough. I'm starting a basic physics class soon for people too stupid to research for themselves despite areas of reference. Tuition shouldn't be more than a couple hundred for a couple hours seminar. Please sign up, Please send your fee and I'll be glad to babysit you.
I'm available for lesser lazyness assistance, like to point you to work, etc, but travel time will be expensive.
The Scam BS continues. No time for ignorant unreferenced proven BS. And even less time for PROVEN LIARS HERE JUST TO SPOUT BS.
Let me spell it out for you ... FA Q. See Below Me (look for this post anytime your post here)
Ed Ward, MD
Bush and the Mormons ('The Other' Zionists - The UnNoted Threat)
By Suzan Mazur
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0410/S00296.htm
Religious Cultism Of The 'Chosen Peoples': The Big Picture Of Tyranny Since The Dawn Of Mankind
By Ed Ward, MD
http://www.rense.com/general80/religo.htm
simple maths
whats 2+2 ?
we'll start simple and build up to trigonomics. After that we'll tackle physics and chemistry problems.
Such stuff like
how can two blocks of concrete have a different density?
and
whats the difference between steel and concrete?
Simple Jark: FA Q: See Below Me
Bush and the Mormons (The 'Other' Zionists - The UnNoted Threat)
By Suzan Mazur
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0410/S00296.htm
Religious Cultism Of The 'Chosen Peoples': The Big Picture Of Tyranny Since The Dawn Of Mankind
By Ed Ward, MD
http://www.rense.com/general80/religo.htm
Joneses, 911 'Truth' Still Silent On Proven 'Anomalies'?
Will the Joneses and 911 'Truth' Orgs Ever Legitimately Address the Referenced, Verifiable, Proven Facts that Are, In Total, Only Consistent With Micro ThermoNuclear Usage and which Have Never Been Noted or Addressed on a Scientific Level?
Steven Jones, Alex Jones, 911 'Truthers' Orgs, Still Seem to Be Denying, Misrepresenting and Doing Their Best to Ignore the Following Facts and More. Why? This is a profound and crucial question.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/1077
Never any facts, just scam BS over and over -
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Mon, 2008-02-11 10:23.
Show the quote for what you are being told. I KNOW I DID NOT WRITE THAT, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE JUST HERE FOR BS.
(NOW THE LIAR SAYS HE DID NOT WRITE ...
"""""velocity and holes
Submitted by zark on Sat, 2008-02-09 08:44.
please explain it to me.
All i can gather is that """"""i am being told a 500,000 ton building, travelling at 400+ mph, smashed into an aeroplane."""""" The aeroplane sliced through the building and left an outline of its shape.???????/?"""""""
First I'd suggest some review of basic mass x velocity insights. Investigation of basic examples of 'surely's' - a piece of straw driven deep inside tree trunks at only 200 mph, water cuts through steel at higher velocities, the characteristics of metals at high speed, will be a good start to your education.
Especially since I know that high velocity x mass is a powerful projectile.
Water will cut a steel girder just needs enough velocity.
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/62277/Slicingsteelwithwaterandsand....
Metal at high velocity takes on the characteristics of a liquid.
How do tornadoes do some weird things, like drive straw into trees, strip road pavement and drive splinters into bricks? The list of bizarre things attributed to tornadoes is almost endless. Much of it is folklore; but there are some weird scenes in tornado damage. Asphalt pavement may strip when tornado winds sandblast the edges with gravel and other small detritus, eroding the edges and causing chunks to peel loose from the road base. Storm chasers and damage surveyors have observed this phenomenon often after the passage of a violent tornado. With a specially designed cannon, wind engineers at Texas Tech University have fired boards and other objects at over 100 mph into various types of construction materials, duplicating some of the kinds of "bizarre" effects, such as wood splinters embedded in bricks. Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/
From this quote of myth 61, sure seems to me they got straw to penetrate a 1/4 of an inch into a tree and a small reed 2 inches into a tree.
Mythbusters: Episode 61
Propelling a piece of straw at a palm tree at a distance of 50cm at 320mph (the world record for recorded wind speed at ground level), the straw only managed to penetrate the tree a quarter of an inch. Even firing at the tree while it was bent (to increase the size of the pores in the surface of the tree) at point blank range added no additional distance into the tree. A piece of reed was tested as the sturdiest organic object that might be mistaken for a piece of straw. At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree. Additionally, Jamie tried a piece of piano wire, and at 50 cm, it flew not only through the tree but through a sheet of plywood on the wall behind it, partially embedding itself into the cement wall.
Your 'shirleys' have been clearly shown as BS by numerous examples. Don't understand it, tough. I'm starting a basic physics class soon for people too stupid to research for themselves despite areas of reference. Tuition shouldn't be more than a couple hundred for a couple hours seminar. Please sign up, Please send your fee and I'll be glad to babysit you.
I'm available for lesser lazyness assistance, like to point you to work, etc, but travel time will be expensive.
The Scam BS continues. No time for ignorant unreferenced proven BS. And even less time for PROVEN LIARS HERE JUST TO SPOUT BS.
Let me spell it out for you ... FA Q. See Below Me (look for this post anytime your post here)
Ed Ward, MD
slicing steel with water was debunked too
I guess if you giggle cutting steel with diamond (abrasive)water you will get the answer. The "experiment" you read was tainted with abrasive materials in the water that did the cutting. The need for abrasives is clearly outlined.
In a million years the water alone may do the job if not oxidation first.
The link you gave does not work for that water cuts steel thingy. So I supplied one out of giggle.
The real important thing is to get people to realize the fraud of voting and the lack of authority for the corporation ruling the USA.
As your lark with Zark heats up the corporate honchos in DC have passed a law changing our sovereignty. They have re-defined (see what newspeak is) the words "Permanent domicile," "residence," and "temporary residence." I am not sure if you understand the significance but what they did was take away the right for natural born Americans to claim a permanent domicile. You can now only claim residence and temporary or not it is now your "permanent domicile. You can no longer have a "home" while you live or work somewhere else for a while or for a long while. It is very bad. Very bad indeed. All inflicted while baboons cajole each other to entice participation in a fraudulent vote to endorse these very shenanigans.
From One Scam BS Jark to the Next
From One Scam BS Jark to the Next
A water jet cutter is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure, or a mixture of water and an abrasive substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_jet_cutter
Abrasives are added so that massive pressures of water alone can be decreased to a more easily attainable functionality.
From one insignificant Scam BS to the Next
a piece of straw driven deep inside tree trunks
Submitted by rick on Sat, 2008-02-09 10:21.
This has been debunked Ed. No such animal. Wind bends tree, straw gets stuck as tree unbends. Mythbusters did it already it is an urban myth so to speak. Don't you wish they would show us the mass x velocity of an aluminum baseball bat cutting a steel girder? I am still trying to get that equation.
----------------------
I'd need to see some references for that straw thing
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Sat, 2008-02-09 11:04.
especially since I know that high velocity x mass is a powerful projectile.
Water will cut a steel girder just needs enough velocity.
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/62277/Slicingsteelwithwaterandsand....
Metal at high velocity takes on the characteristics of a liquid.
How do tornadoes do some weird things, like drive straw into trees, strip road pavement and drive splinters into bricks? The list of bizarre things attributed to tornadoes is almost endless. Much of it is folklore; but there are some weird scenes in tornado damage. Asphalt pavement may strip when tornado winds sandblast the edges with gravel and other small detritus, eroding the edges and causing chunks to peel loose from the road base. Storm chasers and damage surveyors have observed this phenomenon often after the passage of a violent tornado. With a specially designed cannon, wind engineers at Texas Tech University have fired boards and other objects at over 100 mph into various types of construction materials, duplicating some of the kinds of "bizarre" effects, such as wood splinters embedded in bricks. Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/
From this quote of myth 61, sure seems to me they got straw to penetrate a 1/4 of an inch into a tree and a small reed 2 inches into a tree.
Mythbusters: Episode 61
Propelling a piece of straw at a palm tree at a distance of 50cm at 320mph (the world record for recorded wind speed at ground level), the straw only managed to penetrate the tree a quarter of an inch. Even firing at the tree while it was bent (to increase the size of the pores in the surface of the tree) at point blank range added no additional distance into the tree. A piece of reed was tested as the sturdiest organic object that might be mistaken for a piece of straw. At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree. Additionally, Jamie tried a piece of piano wire, and at 50 cm, it flew not only through the tree but through a sheet of plywood on the wall behind it, partially embedding itself into the cement wall.
Ed Ward, MD
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by rick on Sun, 2008-02-10 09:45.
Your statement was "a piece of straw driven deep inside tree trunks at only 200 mph"
You have debunked yourself. At 350 mph an experiment showed that straw could only go 1/4 inch into one of the softest woods, palm. Notice that the experiment went to metal (steel) wire (not aluminium vs steel) which, I assume at that speed) went entirely though the tree proving that the density of the steel made a difference in the ability to either move through the wood or be rejected/stopped by it. Wonder why the experiment did not figure out how fast a piece of straw had to go to embed into steel?
The problem again Ed is how fast does a hollow aluminium baseball bat have to go to slice a girder of steel? Why not use aluminum saw blades for steel then? Further one might add huge massive floors of cement to that equation and wonder a bit more. There is a problem here that too many seem to brush aside.
-----------------------------------------------------
Scam BS
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Sun, 2008-02-10 21:05.
The lab has one small area vs acres of wind at 200 mph. So we have gone from it doesn't happen to it only went 1/4 inch WHICH SOMEHOW TRANSLATES TO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. The physics for what happens has been shown. AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE PASSED PROVEN PHYSICS (by deliberately misrepresenting what the information clearly states not 'debunks' FOR THE NEXT SCAM BS.
NOPE, THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT PHYSICS DOES NOT SUPPORT BS.
Ed Ward, MD
Bush and the Mormons (The 'Other' Zionists - The UnNoted Threat)
By Suzan Mazur
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0410/S00296.htm
Religious Cultism Of The 'Chosen Peoples': The Big Picture Of Tyranny Since The Dawn Of Mankind
By Ed Ward, MD
http://www.rense.com/general80/religo.htm
Joneses, 911 'Truth' Still Silent On Proven 'Anomalies'?
Will the Joneses and 911 'Truth' Orgs Ever Legitimately Address the Referenced, Verifiable, Proven Facts that Are, In Total, Only Consistent With Micro ThermoNuclear Usage and which Have Never Been Noted or Addressed on a Scientific Level?
Steven Jones, Alex Jones, 911 'Truthers' Orgs, Still Seem to Be Denying, Misrepresenting and Doing Their Best to Ignore the Following Facts and More. Why? This is a profound and crucial question.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/1077
ward answered
wow, rick, you actually received a reply to your post that wasnt entirely spam.
I am impressed.
Wards failure to accept the fact about abrasives in water was noted.
I read something yesterday about UK gov being able to tax US citizens working here and that the US gov will also tax them for working abroad.
I reckon the story is linked to this 'domicile' issue.
Ed Ward's Disinfo Spree
Ed is now consistantly quoting this resource:
Wiki
Yet from a known spoof site filled with myth and ambiguity he continues to obscure the posts that question his straw man assertions. Why he is here at this time doing this is the question.
I am, of course, in agreement to the fraud of the vote. In more ways it seems than Ward.
Yes, it seems that the rulers around the world are consolidating the ownership paper on their property (the working and reproducing slobs). The US, through its tax agents, has declared the beasts of burden born within its granted rule obligated to their taxes even if they are far away doing things entirely outside US claims. Through agreements with the precursors to divine right rule here in the EU (they as happy as pigs in mud over this) all are legally declared owned or subjects of home rule where you are born. They own their subjects and now America has done the same. It is a very tricky thing and sovereignty, permanent domain; vs. residence is something more than most understand. I live with these and if they are taken I am a slave too. There will be nowhere to be free anymore.
It is at the point where choice is no longer there. You get what you are born to and are enslaved to them forever. We have reverted to the dark ages though communisim. You will soon be an Euian and have your own national army to protect you. The frogs are all ready to lead it! It is not really funny.