What's Better To Cellibriate New Years
But With A Bunch Of Drunk Girls?
Wally OOT.
Take Care In da New Year
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Beyonce FAKE'N her pregnancy! Bikini pics fake! Beyonce NOT pregnant! PROOF!
"She was brought in from outside the United States. She only speaks Spanish (or Portuguese?), and has a child who is approximately Kindergarten age. She is fairly attractive, looks like she is in her late twenties, and has thick, dark brown hair and medium-colored skin. You probably wouldn't notice her if she was walking down the street. However, it doesn't really matter what she looks like, as she is simply the Surrogate for a baby that is a genetic combination of the soon-to-be Mom and Dad. The Surrogate is currently living on the Lower West Side of Manhattan with her first child in a very nice apartment. She is not married, and does not really know anyone in New York, but she does want to stay here once the birth is over. The apartment is being paid for by the Couple. The Surrogate is well-cared for by a full-time staff person and there is always a doctor or nurse on call. She looks like she is approximately eight months pregnant, and is clearly much bigger than the Mom, who is simply playing pregnant. By the way, the Mom was physically capable of bearing her own child, but she didn't want to 'ruin' her body."
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Sex, Lies and Joe Paterno: The Disgusting Cover-Up
 |
| Yup You Are "Touched"! |
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Stefano DiPietro first heard about the rally on Facebook around 2 p.m. Fellow Penn State students were heading to Joe Paterno's house at dusk to show support for the coach when he returned from practice. "From there, I just tried to relay it to as many people as possible on text, Facebook, Twitter, whatever," said DiPietro, an 18-year-old freshman. "None of us want to see Joe leave. We all love Joe."
WHY?There's no doubt that Joe Paterno is a successful NCAA football coach. Maybe the best of all time? I understand he would have a following, but if he had any knowledge of da child molestation offences that have been charged against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky and did not report them to authorities, or even worse helped sweep these offences under the rug? He not only should be fired, he and the Penn State authorities should also be charged with obstruction of justice. Law suits will be filed, I'm sure. Some of these young boys, now young men, have already been paid-off. In his own words Joe Paterno was quoted as saying, "...it's a tough life when people do certain things to you." Yes it is Joe, yes it is. And you Joe knew about those "certain things" and you chose not to mention those "things"!
Over twenty offences... TWENTY!
Da Nittany Lions fans are warped. Their morals have been dulled by a football game. Are these the type of personalities that Penn State are nurturing?
I do understand fan worship. When I was a youth I was a huge fan of O.J. Simpson. After he was charged with double murder?... Not so much.
After the sexual molestations that took place at Maple Leaf Gardens and how the Leaf organization not only denied it? But called the victims lairs? Da result was one young man committing suicide because of what they did to him in the press. I personally will never go to a Leaf game again. Da Leaf organization makes me sick!
This man, Jerry Sandusky, used the Penn State football team to lure in young boys to sexually molest them... Joe Paterno knew about these offenses, in fact according to grand jury documents, Paterno told athletic director Tim Curley about an eyewitness account of Sandusky allegedly raping a boy in a locker room shower in 2002. But as far as we know? Paterno did nothing. Let's face it Joe helped him get away with it. That is a crime anyway you look at it. Good-Bye Joe. Don't let da door hit ya in da ass. Hey Joe while on your way out? Strike all those wins off da board... You don't deserve 'em!
One female student sat at da steps of da Penn State library with a placard... Da new edition at da library is named after Joe Paterno. He himself said "The Libray is the Heart of the University"... On her protest sign had da following quote:
"All That Is Necessary For Evil To Triumph Is For Good Men To Do Nothing"
Exactly!
 |
| Ya Joe. Fuck You Too! And That's Where You're Go'n. |
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Steve Jobs Was A Slave Master!
Before We Crown Steve Jobs As da "Apple Messiah", Let's Call A Spade A Spade:
What Everyone Is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs.
From Gwaker
By Ryan Tate
In the days after Steve Jobs' death, friends and colleagues have, in customary fashion, been sharing their fondest memories of the Apple co-founder. He's been hailed as "a genius" and "the greatest CEO of his generation" by pundits and tech journalists. But a great man's reputation can withstand a full accounting. And, truth be told, Jobs could be terrible to people, and his impact on the world was not uniformly positive.
We mentioned much of the good Jobs did during his career earlier. His accomplishments were far-reaching and impossible to easily summarize. But here's one way of looking at the scope of his achievement: It's the dream of any entrepreneur to affect change in one industry. Jobs transformed half a dozen of them forever, from personal computers to phones to animation to music to publishing to video games. He was a polymath, a skilled motivator, a decisive judge, a farsighted tastemaker, an excellent showman, and a gifted strategist.
One thing he wasn't, though, was perfect. Indeed there were things Jobs did while at Apple that were deeply disturbing. Rude, dismissive, hostile, spiteful: Apple employees—the ones not bound by confidentiality agreements—have had a different story to tell over the years about Jobs and the bullying, manipulation and fear that followed him around Apple. Jobs contributed to global problems, too. Apple's success has been built literally on the backs of Chinese workers, many of them children and all of them enduring long shifts and the specter of brutal penalties for mistakes. And, for all his talk of enabling individual expression, Jobs imposed paranoid rules that centralized control of who could say what on his devices and in his company.
It's particularly important to take stock of Jobs' flaws right now. His successor, Tim Cook, has the opportunity to set a new course for the company, and to establish his own style of leadership. And, thanks to Apple's success, students of Jobs' approach to leadership have never been so numerous in Silicon Valley. He was worshipped and emulated plenty when he was alive; in death, Jobs will be even more of an icon.
After celebrating Jobs' achievements, we should talk freely about the dark side of Jobs and the company he co-founded. Here, then, is a catalog of lowlights:
By Ryan Tate
In the days after Steve Jobs' death, friends and colleagues have, in customary fashion, been sharing their fondest memories of the Apple co-founder. He's been hailed as "a genius" and "the greatest CEO of his generation" by pundits and tech journalists. But a great man's reputation can withstand a full accounting. And, truth be told, Jobs could be terrible to people, and his impact on the world was not uniformly positive.
We mentioned much of the good Jobs did during his career earlier. His accomplishments were far-reaching and impossible to easily summarize. But here's one way of looking at the scope of his achievement: It's the dream of any entrepreneur to affect change in one industry. Jobs transformed half a dozen of them forever, from personal computers to phones to animation to music to publishing to video games. He was a polymath, a skilled motivator, a decisive judge, a farsighted tastemaker, an excellent showman, and a gifted strategist.
One thing he wasn't, though, was perfect. Indeed there were things Jobs did while at Apple that were deeply disturbing. Rude, dismissive, hostile, spiteful: Apple employees—the ones not bound by confidentiality agreements—have had a different story to tell over the years about Jobs and the bullying, manipulation and fear that followed him around Apple. Jobs contributed to global problems, too. Apple's success has been built literally on the backs of Chinese workers, many of them children and all of them enduring long shifts and the specter of brutal penalties for mistakes. And, for all his talk of enabling individual expression, Jobs imposed paranoid rules that centralized control of who could say what on his devices and in his company.
It's particularly important to take stock of Jobs' flaws right now. His successor, Tim Cook, has the opportunity to set a new course for the company, and to establish his own style of leadership. And, thanks to Apple's success, students of Jobs' approach to leadership have never been so numerous in Silicon Valley. He was worshipped and emulated plenty when he was alive; in death, Jobs will be even more of an icon.
After celebrating Jobs' achievements, we should talk freely about the dark side of Jobs and the company he co-founded. Here, then, is a catalog of lowlights:
Censorship and AuthoritarianismThe internet allowed people around the world to express themselves more freely and more easily. With the App Store, Apple reversed that progress. The iPhone and iPad constitute the most popular platform for handheld computerizing in America, key venues for media and software. But to put anything on the devices, you need Apple's permission. And the company wields its power aggressively.
But Apple doesn't stop there. It has a fearsome legal team that is not above annihilating smaller prey. In 2005, for example, the company sued 19-year-old blogger Nick Ciarelli for correctly reporting, prior to launch, the existence of the Mac Mini. The company did not back down until Ciarelli agreed to close his blog ThinkSecret forever. Last year, after our sister blog Gizmodo ran a video of a prototype iPhone 4, Apple complained to law enforcement, who promptly raided an editor's home.
Sweatshops, Child Labor and Human Rights:
Apple's factories in China have regularly employed young teenagers and people below the legal work age of 16, made people work grueling hours, and have tried to cover all this up. That's according to Apple's own 2010 report about its factories in China. In 2011, Apple reported that its child labor problem had worsened.
In 2010, the Daily Mail managed to get a reporter inside a facility in China that manufactures products for Apple and the paper shared a bit about what life is like:
With the complex at peak production, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week to meet the global demand for Apple phones and computers, a typical day begins with the Chinese national anthem being played over loudspeakers, with the words: 'Arise, arise, arise, millions of hearts with one mind.'
As part of this Orwellian control, the public address system constantly relays propaganda, such as how many products have been made; how a new basketball court has been built for the workers; and why workers should 'value efficiency every minute, every second'.
With other company slogans painted on workshop walls - including exhortations to 'achieve goals unless the sun no longer rises' and to 'gather all of the elite and Foxconn will get stronger and stronger' - the employees work up to 15-hour shifts.
Down narrow, prison-like corridors, they sleep in cramped rooms in triple-decked bunk beds to save space, with simple bamboo mats for mattresses.
Despite summer temperatures hitting 35 degrees, with 90 per cent humidity, there is no air-conditioning. Workers say some dormitories house more than 40 people and are infested with ants and cockroaches, with the noise and stench making it difficult to sleep.
A company can be judged by how it treats its lowliest workers. It sets an example for the rest of the company or in Apple's case, the world.
"Wally: This isn't da half of it!"
In Person and At Home;
Before he was deposed from Apple the first time around, Jobs already had a reputation internally for acting like a tyrant. Jobs regularly belittled people, swore at them, and pressured them until they reached their breaking point. In the pursuit of greatness he cast aside politeness and empathy. His verbal abuse never stopped. Just last month Fortune reported about a half-hour "public humiliation" Jobs doled out to one Apple team:
"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?" Having received a satisfactory answer, he continued, "So why the fuck doesn't it do that?"
"You've tarnished Apple's reputation," he told them. "You should hate each other for having let each other down."
Jobs ended by replacing the head of the group, on the spot.
In his book about Jobs' time at NeXT and return to Apple, The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, Alan Deutschman described Jobs' rough treatment of underlings:
He would praise and inspire them, often in very creative ways, but he would also resort to intimidating, goading, berating, belittling, and even humiliating them... When he was Bad Steve, he didn't seem to care about the severe damage he caused to egos or emotions... suddenly and unexpectedly, he would look at something they were working on say that it "sucked," it was "shit."Jobs had his share of personal shortcomings, too. He has no public record of giving to charity over the years, despite the fact he became wealthy after Apple's 1980 IPO and had accumulated an estimated $7 billion net worth by the time of his death. After closing Apple's philanthropic programs on his return to Apple in 1997, he never reinstated them, despite the company's gusher of profits.
It's possible Jobs has given to charity anonymously, or that he will posthumously, but he has hardly embraced or encouraged philanthropy in the manner of, say, Bill Gates, who pledged $60 billion to charity and who joined with Warren Buffet to push fellow billionaires to give even more.
"He clearly didn't have the time," is what the director of Jobs' short-lived charitable foundation told the New York Times. That sounds about right. Jobs did not lead a balanced life. He was professionally relentless. He worked long hours, and remained CEO of Apple through his illness until six weeks before he died. The result was amazing products the world appreciates. But that doesn't mean Jobs' workaholic regimen is one to emulate.
There was a time when Jobs actively fought the idea of becoming a family man. He had his daughter Lisa out of wedlock at age 23 and, according to Fortune, spent two years denying paternity, even declaring in court papers "that he couldn't be Lisa's father because he was 'sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child.'" Jobs eventually acknowledged paternity, met and married his wife, now widow, Laurene Powell, and had three more children. Lisa went to Harvard and is now a writer.
Steve Jobs created many beautiful objects. He made digital devices more elegant and easier to use. He made a lot of money for Apple Inc. after people wrote it off for dead. He will undoubtedly serve as a role model for generations of entrepreneurs and business leaders. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on how honestly his life is appraised.
"He clearly didn't have the time," is what the director of Jobs' short-lived charitable foundation told the New York Times.
As Far As I'm Concerned He Could Have Been A Huge Contributor... Instead He Became A Corporate Bully & A Slave Trader. Fuck'em!
Wally OOT.
Friday, October 07, 2011
Da Toyota Prius Aint Enviromentaly Sound: BIG SURPISE!
This is the article I promised to write about two years ago, but forgot... Whoops!
Now I'm just gonna cut and paste it. Ho-hum...Ahhh...? It's better written than anything I can do anyway.
Just another story of how we are being conned daily by media to give up another manufacturing
industry. All on pure hype and bullshit! Just another "fact" we are told is "environmentally friendly" is actually just a fable. Much like everything you get out'a da corporate media.
Article from Connecticut State University:
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage By Chris Demorro Staff
Writer
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our
society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a
premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them,
their ultimate 'green car' is the source of some of the worst
pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to
produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first
understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular
hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76
horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a
battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping
295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially,
the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car
from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of
gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more
energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is
recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline
engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great
energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates,
which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city
and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the
government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which
consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only
3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a
much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and
acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius's EPA down
by 25 per cent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within
spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then
half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn't be
writing this article. It gets much worse.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer
that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already
noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel.
The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This
plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding
environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to
test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for
miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery
and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the
plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario,
becoming every en vironmentalist's nightmare. "The acid rain around
Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down
off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David
Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey
to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this
disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest
nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China
to produce 'nickel foam.' From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the
completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the
around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery.
Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars
and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and
build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes
almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch
nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That
means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use
less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius.
Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota
Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the
road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo
and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium
price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any
money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
Now I'm just gonna cut and paste it. Ho-hum...Ahhh...? It's better written than anything I can do anyway.
Just another story of how we are being conned daily by media to give up another manufacturing
industry. All on pure hype and bullshit! Just another "fact" we are told is "environmentally friendly" is actually just a fable. Much like everything you get out'a da corporate media.
 |
| I'll Get To That! |
Article from Connecticut State University:
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage By Chris Demorro Staff
Writer
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our
society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a
premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them,
their ultimate 'green car' is the source of some of the worst
pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to
produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first
understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular
hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76
horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a
battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping
295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially,
the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car
from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of
gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more
energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is
recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline
engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great
energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates,
which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city
and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the
government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which
consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only
3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a
much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and
acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius's EPA down
by 25 per cent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within
spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then
half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn't be
writing this article. It gets much worse.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer
that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already
noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel.
The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This
plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding
environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to
test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for
miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery
and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the
plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario,
becoming every en vironmentalist's nightmare. "The acid rain around
Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down
off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David
Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey
to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this
disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest
nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China
to produce 'nickel foam.' From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the
completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the
around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery.
Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars
and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and
build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes
almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch
nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That
means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use
less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius.
Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota
Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the
road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo
and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium
price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any
money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
|
| That brings me to the Prius's braking problems.... In fact all Hybrids braking problems. After high speeds are obtained. The cars do not stop! |
Why? Because of da sheer weight of da vehicle. This car weights the same as a F150 Pick-up
... or more! With the braking system of a E-Car.
Why buy a Hybrid? Really there's no reason to. Unless you wanna help destroy da environment
& get scammed.
Wally OOT!
... or more! With the braking system of a E-Car.
Why buy a Hybrid? Really there's no reason to. Unless you wanna help destroy da environment
& get scammed.
Wally OOT!
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Friday, September 09, 2011
9/11: Follow da Money
Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.
The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.
Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.
Heightened WTC Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY NewsDay]
Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down
On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."
Marvin Bush was in New York on 9/11
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-revisited/
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?
March 9, 2010
You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.
This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies , published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:
Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.
Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.” [i]
Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to pointout the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”
Monday, August 08, 2011
Friday, August 05, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
"I don't wish to be everythin' to everyone, but I would like to be somethin' to someone?"
 |
| He's Not Who I'm Talk'n About. But He'll Do! Same Diff. |
Will never really get that? They are truly doomed in this life... & the next... if there is any!
Wally Way OOT There Today!
Thursday, July 07, 2011
One Third Of Sharks Being Threatened With Extinction: Stop Shark Finning!
Byline by Ryan Naquin
Swimmers fear sharks, but are they really the predators we should be worrying about?
If you were keeping score last year, it was 6 to 73 million. The International Shark Attack File says in 2010 six people were killed by sharks.
Now compare that to the estimated 73 million sharks conservation groups say are killed by fishermen each year.
"Shark populations have been declining for 2 decades," says Coastal Carolina University Marine Biologist Rob Young.
He says sharks are killed for their meat, but the majority are being killed in a process called finning.
In parts of China the shark fin is worth a hundred times more than the shark meat itself, which is the driving force why fishermen keep only the fins. "They just catch them, remove the fins and just throw them back in the water. It's illegal in this country."
Though the majority of shark killings happen in other countries, it's still effecting our coastal ecosystems.
"A lot of sharks are what they call highly migratory species," says Young. "Which makes them harder to manage because they cross state or national boundaries."
While it may seem like our population would be better off without sharks, Young says not having sharks would have a negative effect on our lives.
"Sharks are top predators and top predators help keep the balance and help keep in check the top competitors in the level below them. So if you remove those predators you lose a lot of diversity in the ecosystem and your whole community starts to look and act very different."
Wally:What Ryan failed to mention is the staggering statistics against ever being touched by a shark, let alone eat'n by one. In fact read below.
"Vending machines kill, sharks don't, according to a July 4, 2003 Reuters headline. The article quotes an L.A. lifeguard who asserts that in spite of the ubiquitous fear of shark attacks in this country, "more people are killed in the United States each year by vending machines," which smacks of an urban legend, but isn't!
...statistics pertaining to vending machine deaths aren't as easy to come by as data on shark attack fatalities, so it's difficult to draw a direct comparison. But if we look at 1995, for example — the most recent year for which I was able to find an accounting of deaths due to vending machine tipovers — two people died as a result of being crushed by falling soda machines in the U.S., as compared to zero shark-related deaths in the same twelve-month period.
Moreover, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission there were 37 known vending machine fatalities between 1978 and 1995, for an average of 2.18 deaths per year. Over the past decade there were a total of six recorded shark attack fatalities in the U.S., for an average of .6 deaths per year. Ergo, barring a drastic reduction in the frequency of vending machine accidents since 1995, vending machines are indeed more deadly than sharks by a factor of almost four."
By David Emery 2005.
Here are some additional facts from the guru of sharks, Dr. Samuel Gruber, interviewed on PBS’s NOVA:
"The chance of being killed by a shark is one in 300 million. The chance of being killed by airplane parts falling from the sky is one in 10 million."
"Most sharks are far too small to be vicious killers of men and women, and many sharks live in the deep sea where no humans swim. The fact remains that around 100 shark attacks do occur each year, but elephants are bigger killers; they do in 200-plus mahoots and trainers each year. Talk about vicious—dogs kill thousands. And get this: Soda machines killed more people last year than sharks did. People get angry at the machines when they steal the $0.75 the person honestly inserts for a cool, refreshing soda. But if no soda comes out, people often viciously attack the machine, trying to make it cough up the soda or the cash. The machines viciously retaliate by falling on and crushing their tormentors."
Wally: Of the over 375 different species of sharks found in the oceans, only about 30 have been reported to ever attack a human. The shark species responsible for most unprovoked attacks on humans are the Great White Shark, Tiger Shark and Bull Shark. These animals do not attack humans for sport. They misake them for seals. They have no interest in eating humans.
We Must In The Coming Year End Shark Finnig Forever! Wally
