Petrol price hits parties in the polls

120 comments on “Petrol price hits parties in the polls ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dad4justice 1

   17 June 2008 at 7:34 am

   Looks like the Liarbour oil barrel has a hole in the bottom and polluting everything. Oh dear Helen.
2. Lew 2

   17 June 2008 at 7:59 am

   D4J: you’re like a Natural Language Programming experiment.

   L
3. Bryan Spondre 3

   17 June 2008 at 8:19 am

   Labours polling was dropping long before the oil price crisis. To be fair so was Bush’s.

   [That’s not what the graphs show. SP]
4. Monty 4

   17 June 2008 at 8:24 am

   Ohh so that explains it all – Silly me – I thought Labour pending slaughter was due to a host of other factors. You lefties can obviously breath a sigh of releif it has nothing to do with arrogance, fraud, theft, speeding, the EFA, inflation, high taxes, antismacking laws,electricity crisis, health, drugs, nanny state and Benson-Pope.

   There are obviously a whole bunch of other reasons why Labour have sliced their polling, and fuel prices are but one small component. But believe your delusions as the Labour slump in the polls will continue right up to election day when your support will drop below 25%
5. Steve Withers 5

   17 June 2008 at 8:26 am

   Interesting correlation but not sure it demonstrates causation.

   The funny thing about all this is that there really is only one government responsible for causing the present situation and that same government has the power to address it: the United States government.

   No one can blame the NZ (or the Australian or take-your-pick) government for global commodity prices. Drought, monster US budget deficits and the US-imposed instability in the Middle East, where most oil is produced, are all big factors.

   NZ voters should be focusing on local issues like industries evaporating and workers being thrown on the scrap heap or leaving for Australia. Low and lowering wages for a huge and growing segment of the work force. The near total lack of any support for retraining people who have seen their jobs of 10 or 20 years or more evaporate thanks to liberalised trade policies that failed to deal with the inevitable consequences of liberalisation. Need skilled workers? Don’t retrain our own – just import others.

   Those are things you CAN blame Labour for.
6. dad4justice 6

   17 June 2008 at 8:27 am

   Monty; Don’t forget fatty Field and his slave master antics while a Liarbour Minister. What a case study in cumulative corruption.

   [lprent: you’re starting to look like a rogue program again]
7. Steve Withers 7

   17 June 2008 at 8:34 am

   Monty: Your list of “issues” is uniformly highly debateable AND where there is any subtance to them, utterly trivial alongside the policy settings that REALLY matter like the fate of ACC, health, education, labour law and whether our armed forces will find their lives being whored somewhere for better trade arrangements – as National wold certainly have done in Iraq in 2003. The same people are running that party today. They can’t be trusted with the lives of loyal Kiwis. They would waste them for profit. That is REAL evil.

   National is currently attempting to conceal their policies from voters because they know voters won’t like them.

   If you want to talk “fraud”, let’s look at the National party conning Kiwi voters by not telling them what they are actually planning to do if they win government later this year.

   That’s the fraud that matters most to me as a voter.

   I couldn’t give a rat’s arse who signed a painting for a kids’ charity or what some teacher did with a tennis ball in a classroom 25 years ago.
8. travellerev 8

   17 June 2008 at 8:34 am

   At the risk of once again being labelled a “conspiracy” nut, I would like to tell you about “hydrogen on demand”.

   This little video was published last weekend on the Reuter News agency news site available to all who are subscribing to it.

   http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/water-fuel-car-unveiled-in-japan/

   This means our main stream media had access to it. This of course should be on every front page, on every TV sender, shouted of every street corner and yet this did not happen.

   Why should this be on every front page?

   Because this car drives on water.

   More specifically; it drives on H2O meaning two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule gas. What is even more spectacular is that you don’t need to go to a tank station to get your fill of this gas, you just fill the tank with any old reasonably clean water. You can use tap water, well water, salt water, hell even cold tea.

   The hydrogen/oxygen gets produced on demand. In other words if you buy the car you never have to buy a litre of fossil fuel again. What is even more amazing is that the H/O gas returns back to its more stable form: Water. In other words it is a more or less an infinite resource.

   So why was this not on the front page of every bloody news paper?
   Let me give you a hint: George Bush(Big Oil) and Murdoch(Big media) were sharing a cosy dinner at Downing street courtesy of prime minister Gordon Brown last monday. With a bunch of historians by the way, no doubt talking about how to falsify history.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/16/antiwar.georgebush

   Now before you bin this water fuelled car idea because you still think that we have a free and independent media and they would surely tell us about something that would obviously benefit mankind like nothing has ever done before therefore this car must be a hoax, I suggest you Google “hydrogen on demand” and be amazed at what is out there.

   My husband is an industrial electrician/engineer. As this news came out this weekend he was installing our first “Hydrogen on demand” booster in our old Honda Civic. It is the first step to a complete “Hydrogen on demand” driven vehicle. The booster produces enough Hydrogen/Oxygen to save up to 40% on Fossil fuel and we hope with a few minor adaptations it will save up to 80%. That is this weekends job.
   Did I believe that this was possible when he showed me what a couple of Google searches yielded? Shit no, it took a long time before he convinced me.
   But there you have it: I have seen water burn ladies and gentlemen.
   Well actually more correctly I have seen water explode rather violently.

   Don’t believe me: Google and ye shall find. You’ll also find some pretty out there ideas, so be careful about those. Use your common sense.

   And then perhaps you will finally realise that we are deliberately kept in the dark about some truly amazing inventions that could liberate all of us from the tyranny of big oil and allow this planet to clean up and rebalance itself without a cent of carbon tax.

   Why is this not suppressed seeing as “they” control everything you ask?
   Well it started very small, via e-mail and then via free forums that spread like wild fire around the globe making control impossible.
   This knowledge is already quit old and a lot of patents were freed up and put into the public domain online recently. In fact my 82 year old father-in-law knew about this way back in the sixties.
   People then made the mistake of patenting it and trying to earn lots of money with it. Now everybody just seeds this knowledge on all kinds of sites in order to get the knowledge out. It is ironic that the one thing that can save this planet and us is the only thing that
   cannot be monopolised. Perhaps someone out there is trying to tell us something.
9. travellerev 9

   17 June 2008 at 8:49 am

   Oh, more on the subject of “Hydrogen on demand” there are people who converted conventional generators for H/O use.
   Just imagine; running a house on free energy. No more ugly inefficient windmill parks, no more coal, no more gas, no more oil. Paradise.

   Captcha: takes Bulgarians?
10. expat 10

    17 June 2008 at 8:59 am

    Alternative fuels? Like what? Thats why OPEC are as rich as sin, there isnt an alternative yet.

    Public transport is nice idea until you have to use it in NZ to get to work on time then it starts to fall apart.

    The decline in Labours fortunes is probably, at best, mildly positively correlate dto gas price rises. More positively correlated to significant deficiencies in top table leadership and strategy.
11. bill brown 11

    17 June 2008 at 9:02 am

    Sorry travellerev but you have been suckered, I can’t believe that I’m using the same line on this blog in less than two weeks:

    You canna change the laws of physics
12. travellerev 12

    17 June 2008 at 9:08 am

    BB,

    Amazing. The power of denial is mindboggingly awesome.

    We are actually driving a vehicle with H2O booster and saving money how do you call that suckered?

    Captcha: Flagg $18.000,-. Now we’re talking.
13. travellerev 13

    17 June 2008 at 9:17 am

    I have been forbidden to talk about the day that “changed” the laws of physics, but that remark alone should mean you should revisit the events of 911. Sorry Irish Bill it was just too tempting. I will stay on topic from now on.
14. Rocket Boy 14

    17 June 2008 at 9:20 am

    You have ‘Energy for Free’ travellerev and ‘brain dead and angry’ dad4justice in a discussion about petrol prices.

    Sad really, it seems like it is impossible to have anything like an intelligent debate on a political blog site, Kiwiblog long ago descended into a cesspit for right wing nutters and it looks like The Standard is picking up some of that overflow.

    What is the expression about the internet proving that ‘a 1000 monkeys typing for a 1000 years’ would never write Shakespeare…..?
15. Felix 15

    17 June 2008 at 9:27 am

    travellerev:

    It always takes Bulgarians. Always.
16. Felix 16

    17 June 2008 at 9:30 am

    Rocket Boy:

    Heh. Another saying comes to mind about arguing on the internet and the special olympics…
17. travellerev 17

    17 June 2008 at 9:33 am

    BB

    Reuters is a widely respected source of News. I doubt that would allow themselves open to the: you’re suckered remark.

    By the way Hydrogen on demand does not violate any laws of physics.
    You still need energy input to get energy output.
    But it takes surprisingly little energy to split water into the perfect fuel ratio of H2 and O which is extremely explosive.

    My husband uses a test model which still has huge room for improvement and uses 20 amps from the car battery. So you could use solar powered batteries for the initial start up of gas production.

    Also the car recharges the battery at a faster rate that he is using the power for gas production. Additionally the H2O gas explodes instantly and Fossil fuel takes some time so you have to set the car timing a little different to have the gas explode on the down turn point of the pistons (this is only with the 100% cell and we’re not there yet) so there is less wear and tear on the motor.
18. travellerev 18

    17 June 2008 at 9:34 am

    Felix you’re a champ. LOL
19. Tane 19

    17 June 2008 at 9:40 am

    travellerev, I like you, but please don’t ruin any more threads like you’ve ruined this one.
20. vto 20

    17 June 2008 at 9:58 am

    interesting interesting mrs travellerev. It makes sense re the physics of h2o.

    Re this thread – I suspect few people will believe that the price of oil is the cause of this govt’s demise. But the premise is certainly in line with many other threads on here – self-delusion mashed up with good intent.
21. Steve Pierson 21

    17 June 2008 at 9:59 am

    I showed that Bush and Labour have both had a decline in support that largely correlates with the rise in petrol prices – coincidence? that would seem strange, more likely people take out dissatisfaction over oil prices on their governments. We’re seeing governments lose support worldwide and riots because of oil prices, and Labour is suffering too.

    It would be foolish to attribute the entire decline in support for a party to oil prices, which is why I didn’t do it. There are obviously other factors that influence a government’s support level.
22. burt 22

    17 June 2008 at 9:59 am

    So no more posts about Bush being unpopulat because of invading Iraq then ?

    I guess the war had nothing to do with his popularity decline since it’s all petrol price related – right ?
23. Steve Pierson 23

    17 June 2008 at 10:01 am

    burt.

    “I guess the war had nothing to do with his popularity decline since it’s all petrol price related – right ?”

    no-one said it’s all petrol price related. I said the price of petrol is hurting support for governments.
24. Joker 24

    17 June 2008 at 10:12 am

    There is an interesting article in the DomPost this morning about a gentically modified bacteria (ecoli I think) that when feed sugars excretes crude oil.

    They have managed to produce 1000 litres so far and aim for commercialisation in 2010. They reckon with a big enough Lab they could produce U.S oil needs at $50 a barrel.

    This is why we need to be more optimistic and discount the peak oil and Global warming rhetoric a little. You never know what kind of solution may be round the corner.

    [to supply the US alone, you would need 500 square kilometres of fermentors. I’m a tech optimist but you can’t just hope that something will come along in time. SP]
25. vto 25

    17 June 2008 at 10:18 am

    Mr Pierson, you are of course correct to a certain extent. If labour had had no slump prior to the petrol price onslaught a slump would have no doubt followed at that point. That is the nature of any downturn’s effect on any govt.

    In fact, throughout this entire govts term I have always cynically maintained that Clark would control the immigration taps in order to keep the economy growing (or more precisly, keep house prices going up. The instant they turn down the incumbent is in for it. If they keep rising the opposition struggles). It has surprised me that this was not done 6-12 months ago for this reason.

    The fact this slump has been effectively allowed to occur unmolested by immigration or other govt intrusion to try to keep house prices level or rising supports my long-held contention that Wgtn is always a bit behind the 8-ball as to what is really going on in NZ. Did Clark not see this coming? Why were no manoeuvres manoeuvred?

    Bit of a ramble post..
26. travellerev 26

    17 June 2008 at 10:19 am

    Tane, I like you to and I honestly did not intend to ruin any thread, and if I have done so it was very much unwittingly and I apologise.

    I honestly thought all I did was bring some good news for all of us who are struggling with the cost of fuel. What is the sense of discussing fossil fuel prices if there are amazing alternatives.

    What is the sense of discussing the relation between local politicians and oil prices when there is an alternative which once again shows that no matter who we vote for we will be ruled by international oil companies and their corporate thugs. And what is so wrong about pointing that out in this discussion by showing how our information for alternatives is limited by the same powers that be?

    We really are driving a H2O fuel cell and saving money, we really are part of a world wide group of dedicated researchers and inventors, that car really is driving on water, and I really do wonder why we don’t get that news out in the open.

    We are talking about Reuters, one of the world biggest and most respected news agencies, not some derelict honky tonk nutty website spouting rubbish.

    So what did I do wrong? is it because I have a consistent tendency to think outside the kiwi box? I’m from a different part of the world so I come with different but widely available information.

    Is this wrong because it pushes people outside their comfort zone of safe ignorance from what is really happening out there and whether we like it or not are very much part of?

    You say you like me so you must have some sympathy for what I write.

    I honestly invite your thoughts, and I am really confused.
27. Joker 27

    17 June 2008 at 10:20 am

    A link to the article about the fuel bacteria in the Times.

    Bug that excretes petrol
28. David Farrar 28

    17 June 2008 at 10:23 am

    Have you done a regression analysis to see the degree of correlation?
29. Joker 29

    17 June 2008 at 10:28 am

    I screwed up the link. Here is the long one

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

    [Tane: Odd, now you seem to be getting caught in the spam filter too…]
    [lprent: I can’t see why either. It must be something from the spam plugin and outside our system. It is a small price to pay for the relative spam peace we have been getting]
30. erikter 30

    17 June 2008 at 10:31 am

    Way to go travellerev!

    I’ve heard there is an engine that runs on compost (to the Green’s delight). Rumour has it the Australians are developing an engine that runs on eucalyptus leaves, while the Finns are working on one that does the same on ice.

    Human ingenuity knows no bounds.
31. bill brown 31

    17 June 2008 at 10:35 am

    Well we’ll all be saved when we work out how to run our cars on the farts of flying pigs.
32. Steve Withers 32

    17 June 2008 at 10:37 am

    expat: Public transport in NZ shouldn’t be the standard you judge it by. Done properly, public transit can be better than driving a car. But to do it properly, you can’t do it the way it is done in NZ. New Zealand’s infrastructure has been crippled by the same small-business mentality that is also its greatest strength. That needs to end.

    I could design a public transit system in a week that would get you and everyone else out of their cars and wouldn’t cost the earth.
33. MacDoctor 33

    17 June 2008 at 10:39 am

    DPF: Don’t be silly. Of course Steve hasn’t done any statistical analysis. That would have showed him that there is almost no correlation between Labour’s poll and the oil price. However, He’s clearly having much too good a time asserting there is…
    :-)
34. erikter 34

    17 June 2008 at 10:48 am

    “I could design a public transit system in a week that would get you and everyone else out of their cars and wouldn’t cost the earth.”

    What are you doing here, Steve Withers? What is stopping you? A man of your talents should be designing such system and collecting the Nobel prize in no time at all.

    Instead, you prefer to lecture us, poor New Zealanders, on the virtues of being Green.
35. T-rex 35

    17 June 2008 at 10:49 am

    I’ll agree that high prices of ANY commodity will hurt support for the governing body, but I’d be really interested in the actual correlation on your labour-vs-fuel plot. It looks to be well below the level at which you can reasonably draw any conclusion.

    That said, you’re probably right – people ARE hurting and they’re not necessarily very good at picking winners re: solutions. Under national people will hurt more, because National aren’t going to make fuel cheaper and they’re going to stifle investment in alternatives.

    Travellerev – as you say, reuters IS a big media group, which means your conspiracy theory about big oil and big media is rubbish. As to the technology, I’m looking at it now. Hydrogen on demand is nothing more than a storage medium. You still need to get energy from somewhere. It’s just another form of battery, and not a very efficient one at that.

    http://www.physorg.com/news122655117.html

    Go and have a read of that article. It’s not a ‘hoax’ as such, as you’re finding, but sooner or later you’re going to find yourself having to buy new electrodes or something and the true cost will become apparent.

    You’ve probably heard aluminium referred to as “solid electricity”? Well basically all your system is doing is “melting” it, releasing the electricity (oxidation potential).

    It’s not free energy, it’s not magic, it’s not a hoax, and it’s not a conspiracy. It’s just another method of storing energy, and an average one at best. Batteries are, generally speaking, better.
36. vto 36

    17 June 2008 at 10:51 am

    Hey Joker Man, I’m with you when it comes to optimism and having faith in finding solutions.

    Apparently, back in the late 1800s, at the then rate of growth in horse and cart numbers the entire surface of planet was going to be covered in 6 feet of horse shit within 50 years! The comparison with todays situation and the assocated ‘painc’ imo is telling..
37. T-rex 37

    17 June 2008 at 10:53 am

    500 sq km of fermenters is nothing – 22km x 22km out in the midwest? No one would even notice it.

    The issue is where you’ll get the sugar from.

    Just as travellerev’s problem is where they’ll get the aluminium from. At the end of the day, you’ve got to have an energy source, not an energy conversion.
38. travellerev 38

    17 June 2008 at 10:56 am

    erikter

    Reacting a bit hesitant because Tane’s reproach stings like hell.

    From your reaction I tentatively deduce that you thing I validate rumours and accept them as reality.
    Like some of those funky urban legends. Like every body knows someone who….

    I will spell it out for you: W.e. b.u.i.l.d. a. H.y.d.r.o.g.e.n. o.n. d.e.m.a.n.d. c.e.l.l. It really produces H2O gas which really mixes with the fossil fuel and boosts the motors capacity.

    It is in its testing phase but we now drive up the hill in third gear instead of in first and we really save money already.

    By the way some of the most formidable pioneers in this technology are Australians.
39. travellerev 39

    17 June 2008 at 11:10 am

    T-rex

    I haven’t got a clue were the aluminium thing comes from. Our cell is from stainless steel.

    About the “conspiracy” part the following. To believe that extremely powerful people will not hob nob together in order to keep their wealth and power is not a theory. It would be naive to assume anything other then that. There is no “conspiracy theory” necessary in order to understand that. Hob nobbing is a much more accurate way to describe this mechanism.

    The argument that aluminium is pure energy is true but this statement applies to everything we see. Everything is pure energy in one form or an other. The question is, is it accessible.

    I will go to the link and read it.
40. T-rex 40

    17 June 2008 at 11:24 am

    Yes, the CASE is stainless steel i presume.

    Sigh. Read the link and let me know.

    A couple of basic rules to remember.
    1) You can’t get energy from nothing
    2) You still can’t get energy from nothing.
    3) Water -> hydrogen + oxygen -> water is not a method of generating energy.
    4) If you’re getting energy from a reaction, at some point in the past that energy had to be put their by something else.
41. travellerev 41

    17 June 2008 at 11:45 am

    T-rex,

    I read the page and I can see why that would function as an inefficient battery and also a finite resource. Our cell does not operate along those lines. It is based on a form of electrolysis. That in it self is also fairly inefficient but in the last few years people infinitely more suited to explaining this then me have come up with added technologies that make this technique extremely efficient.

    It took my very smart husband months of learning every thing he could so excuse me if I don’t go into detail. I don’t want to screw it up.

    I will post a few links under the water car post on my aotearoa blog tonight for those of you ready to jump down the rabbit hole
42. travellerev 42

    17 June 2008 at 11:47 am

    T-rex

    No the entire cell with everything in it is from stainless steel and please don’t patronise me with sighs that indicate you think of me as a silly female.
43. travellerev 43

    17 June 2008 at 11:49 am

    I agree,
    You can not generate energy from nothing. Sigh
44. erikter 44

    17 June 2008 at 11:52 am

    “I will post a few links under the water car post on my blog tonight for those of you ready to jump down….”

    Way to go travellerev!

    I look forward to the prize-giving ceremony in Stockholm next year when you (and your very smart husband) receive the Nobel Prize of Physics for the discovery of the millennium.

    Even Sir Isaac Newton, who you now have dwarfed, would be jealous.
45. T-rex 45

    17 June 2008 at 11:59 am

    I don’t think of you as a silly female, I just think that you don’t really understand the technology, and I sigh because of phrases like “down the rabbit hole”, which are have been the dwelling of conspiracy theorists for many a year.

    Electrolysis using your battery as the energy source won’t do anything to improve your cars MPG, in fact it will make it worse. This would be true even if you somehow found a way to make the electrolysis 100% efficient.

    You’re either putting the energy into the cell, or it’s already in there (probably as chemical potential).

    Out of interest – Do you think the world trade centre fell down because of jet aircraft flying into it, or because it was blown up deliberately and the jets were a cunning ruse. I’m sure a once sentence answer won’t drive Irish crazy.
46. burt 46

    17 June 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Just out of interest, if we all reduce our consumption of petrol what will the govt pounce on to replace the lost tax revenue?

    According to ‘the standard’ mentality if govt revenue reduces the sky falls in, so any suggestions about what will be taxed beyond affordability to keep yourn ideology alive once it’s no longer fosill fuels ?
47. dave 47

    17 June 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Have you done a regression analysis to see the degree of correlation?
    What do you think? Analysis…..!……?
48. T-rex 48

    17 June 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Burt – I’ve done a fair bit of work on electric vehicle rollout scenarios – all of the ones that make sense just go straight for RUC based systems such as those you were discussing the other day. These would make far more sense anyway, it’s just getting someone with the brains to implement them.

    Simultaneous initiatives would include transferrable registration able to be assigned to vehicle in use.

    Cost of administration would be lower than present systems if vehicle networking was enabled (which it will be, only a matter of time).
49. burt 49

    17 June 2008 at 12:18 pm

    T-rex

    Electric vehicles are an obvious answer, however how do we pull the wool over peoples eyes about carbon emissions if we need to burn tons of coal to generate the electricity….

    I can imagine the typical NZ govt approach, easier to have car-less electric car days then to build new infrastructure.
50. burt 50

    17 June 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Perhaps we could have a test for the next few weeks to see how realistic a wholesale rollout of eletric cars would be in NZ.

    If every household in NZ switches on a 1kw heater overnight to simulate the power required to charge their car for the following day, we can see how our electricity infrastructure and supply are placed to deal with the extra load.
51. T-rex 51

    17 June 2008 at 12:30 pm

    burt – there’s actually enough off peak capacity in the thermal stations to meet forecast demand with no trouble. Weird but true. To use your 1 heater/house example – lets say 1 million houses = 1GW. That’s significantly less than our available offpeak capacity.

    As to the carbon from the source, obviously burning coal isn’t ideal but the emissions/km travelled are still better than you get from petrol, and in any event it’s only a transitional solution while renewable generation comes online.

    Cue long argument with rogernome about whether that’s realistic 🙂
52. burt 52

    17 June 2008 at 12:45 pm

    T-rex

    I guess it’s obvious I didn’t think through the “off peak’ scenario in terms of load on the grid. Clearly some form of ‘cheaper night rate’ and a tiny amount of smarts in the chargers would take care of ensuring that the bulk of the ‘re-charge load’ occurs at times that other usage is low.

    However the issue I’m thinking about ( and some will call it a dry year problem because it’s an election year and bad news must be spun in a positive way ) is what would happen to the likes of the lake levels when we add the additional overall load to the daily consumption statistics. Clearly ‘night pricing’ would be a very viable carrot to dictate when the load occurs, but overall power consumption will still be elevated by charging powerful batteries on a regular basis.
53. T-rex 53

    17 June 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Burt – It wouldn’t affect the lake levels. The reason power is so cheap overnight is that it’s all coming from what is, essentially, must run generation. From the perspective of the hydro plants this is whatever their minimum flows are – they’re not allowed to just stop water going through all together coz it’d f*ck the rivers.

    Even now, in the middle of the “Crisis”, overnight power is dirt cheap, because it’s there and there’s more of it than we really know what to do with. If you had a big battery bank with a grid connect system, you could charge it overnight and sell it during the day and you would be making a killing (not to mention helping out our supply/demand issues). Instead of this, you could use it to charge cars – either way the energy shortage wouldn’t get noticeably worse.
54. travellerev 54

    17 June 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Eriker,

    We will not be anywhere near Stockholm because we did not invent anything. Not a saugage. We are only two of tens of thousands of people doing this stuff and we just took an awful long time to learn everything there is to learn.
    And then some.

    T rex,

    The rabbit hole remark is a sentence from the Matrix film. When whatsitsname offers Neo the red pill which will take him from blissfull ignorance to the cruel reality.

    I respect Irish Bill as this site is his site and of his fellow bloggers. And as such I wish to respect the limitations they put on commenters, but I am sure that he will allow me to answer a direct question provided I will not answer the avalanche of baiters that is sure to follow.

    I suggest you do your own research on the subject and allow science to enlighten you.I suggest you start with the third tower that collapsed that day: WTC 7. 47 stories high (about the hight of the sky tower in Auckland)collapsed 6 hours after the Twin Towers in 6.5 seconds into it’s own footprint in classic controlled demolition. Free fall speed. It was not hit by a plane, had only small office fires and is the third of only three steel frame buildings to have ever collapsed as a result of fire. It was announced on the BBC 20 minutes before it collapsed. Still visible in the background. its only six minutes long and English subtitled. It is from an Italian documentary. I hate to bring it to you but around the whole world people are allowed to watch documentaries which ask real questions. Only America Australia and New Zealand are kept in the dark.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

    I hope this will be the end of the shit you guys give me about 911.
    I want to partake on this blog and I feel I’m entitled to hold opinions that may not be conform yours without having to defend myself or be ridiculed all the time. If you wish to confront me over this then I suggest you become a member of http://911truthaotearoaawiderpespective.myfreeforum.org
    We have a special debunkers forum were you can give us all the shit you can throw at us.
    Let’s all respect this forum and it’s owners and try to make it as good as it gets without baiting on subjects you’re to scared to go into real discussion about.
55. T-rex 55

    17 June 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Yes, I caught the rabbit hole reference, my irritation stems from the fact that you use it to give an air of mystique and wonder to something that’s completely ordinary.

    I’m not scared to get into a real discussion, but agree this isn’t the forum for it. I was just checking.

    I went and watched that movie.

    You might want to have a look at these when you get a chance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse
    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

    Only America Australia and New Zealand are kept in the dark.

    How are we kept in the dark? What with how our government is blocking youtube clips such as these? Oh wait, they’re not.

    I should allow science to enlighten me eh? I could say the same to you. Given I’ve supported my arguments on hydrogen-on-demand with actual scientific evidence, and you’ve admitted you don’t actually understand the technology properly, I’d say the burden of proof rests with you.

    You’re absolutely entitled to hold opinions that don’t conform with mine, but you’re absolutely NOT entitled to express them without having them questioned. I’m not questioning them because I’m being mean and I want you to go away, I’m questioning them because I think you’re wrong and I’m after evidence to the contrary.
56. travellerev 56

    17 June 2008 at 2:31 pm

    T-rex

    I did not intend to give it an air of mystique. Sorry if that is how it came across. I hope you don’t mind if I don’t respond to you here. with regards to 911. I hope to see you at the forum for a good debate. And I will watch the videos but I will not respond on them here either.

    I will however take everything you’ve got on the forum.
    I agree that if you express these views you should expect criticism and questions. So hit me on the 911 forum.

    Yes, I am happy to admit to deep holes in my knowledge about many issues. And I will get back to you on the Hydrogen thing after I have checked a few things.

    What I meant was that TVNZ is not allowed to show documentaries on the 911 subject. This has been confirmed by TVNZ insiders. So this means that the main stream media are not allowed to ask hard questions about the events of that day. You and I both know that a low percentage of the kiwi populations has access to broadband, So this words as a bottleneck. In countries were these mainstream documentaries are shown there is much more of a real debate going on.

    Hope this is the last of this on this blog, and hope to see you on the forum, because trust me if you could help us find evidence to support the official theory you would make a whole lot of people very happy
57. T-rex 57

    17 June 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Fair enough – can you check and repost the link to the forum, I tried the one you have above and it didn’t work.
58. travellerev 58

    17 June 2008 at 2:42 pm

    T-rex
    Very funny page but not really evidence.
    The wiki page is interesting and offers a great start for debate
    Hope to see you on the forum
59. travellerev 59

    17 June 2008 at 2:48 pm

    T-rex,
    Oops my bad, this is the correct one
    http://911truthaotearoa.myfreeforum.org/
60. T-rex 60

    17 June 2008 at 3:02 pm

    travellerev – I had a look, don’t think it will help for me to become involved, but thanks.

    Yup, that maddox page is mostly just a joke, but if you look right at the bottom there are a number of links to analytical debunking of the conspiracy theories.
61. vto 61

    17 June 2008 at 3:14 pm

    and jfk was shot by a lone gunman in the book building… (insert tui ad here)

    The only reason so-called conspiracy theories dont get much traction is because everybody is just completely overloaded with information today. There is simply too much to take in, especially when you’re trying to get the washing in, feed the kids, keep the taxman at bay, mow the lawns and catch the next south swell.

    Combine that a pile of scorn and ridicule and it is a simple struggle to get traction..
62. T-rex 62

    17 June 2008 at 3:18 pm

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

    Travellerev – genepax (above link) are the company who make the fuel cell in the video you linked to earlier. As you can see, they’re basically deceiving people. I suspect the electrochemical reaction described as the probable source of the energy in the wikipedia article is the same as what’s happening in your car – assuming you actually are noticing improved efficiency.

    vto – The other reason is that many “so-called conspiracy theories” are, in actuality, a complete load of shit, and even a small amount of research can reveal them as such. Having completed said research, people proceed to ignore them.
63. vto 63

    17 June 2008 at 3:38 pm

    T-rex, of course some of that too.

    It will be interesting to see how some of them play out over a longer period of time. For example, the jfk theory has many many ‘sane’ people now questioning the original official explanation. Will that happen with other theories over the longer period? Well, it will be interesting to see thats for sure.
64. T-rex 64

    17 June 2008 at 4:14 pm

    True – I’m not saying the official story is always, or even usually, the full truth, but there’s certainly a long history of conspiracy crackpots who’ve wound up proven to be just wrong.

    Moon landings springs to mind as a prime example. The thing that bugs me the most is when the just flat out ignore facts that don’t fit their theorems, and instead cling to some stupid experiment they performed in the backyard.
    e.g. “I don’t care that there really is a big corner reflector on the moon that lasers can be bounced off, because this thing I did in my backyard shows that it’s really hard to press a small button with a thick rubber glove in a vacumn. This means that astronauts can’t have taken photos on the moon, which proves they didn’t go to the moon… ummm… despite the fact that their camera was specially engineered for the moon (with big buttons), and their gloves were specially made. And despite the big corner reflector”.

    Your comment above re: southerly swells is well made however 🙂
65. erikter 65

    17 June 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Way to go travellerev!

    I know for a fact the moon landings are a hoax, Area 51 houses a number of dead aliens, and the Earth is flat.
    I’m convinced that with your inquisitive mind you’ll find life on Pluto, Io and Ganimedes.

    A smart girl like yourself is destined for greatness. Move on Marie Curie.
66. T-Rex 66

    17 June 2008 at 7:05 pm

    erikter, stop being a prick.
67. expat 67

    17 June 2008 at 8:20 pm

    Steve.

    New Zealands biggest strength to date has been as a primary producer, not a nation of great small businessmen.

    Great, you design a public transport system and let me know when its implemented and ready to go. Oh, and putting in massive disencentivising schemes doesnt form part of it ok, the transport system itself has to be good.

    In the mean time people have to go to work and be there on time.
68. zANavAShi 68

    19 June 2008 at 12:40 am

    (((mumble fuck mumble fuck mumble))) OK, I’m gonna jump in here and make some observations cos this recurring theme I see is starting to really piss me off.

    Tane: You are one of my top 5 male NZ bloggers and a truly decent guy who I would have no hesitation to meet with IRL for a chat over coffee… heck I love all of you Standard blogger boyz (some more than others, admittedly) and would have the entire bunch of you round for dinner if I didn’t have such a pokey little flat with only a toaster oven to cook for y’all.

    So please don’t feel defensive Tane when I say that I don’t feel Eve has ruined this thread and I hope you are not just singling her out in the hopes that if she will STFU up then the jerks who take so much pleasure in baiting her will STFU up too. Eve’s participation in threads like this makes them more enjoyable and I don’t want to see her voice silenced here because she’s been scapegoated as a conspiracy nutter.

    Eve: You are a breath of fresh air to me, not only because you are a woman whom I admire for speaking her truth, and not only because I am so enjoying more of a female presence here on my fave NZ political blog, but also because I share many of the same concerns you bring to the fore on your own blog and I think that kiwi’s have been sleep-walking for way too long when it comes to blindly following the official media sources that come out of the US. There is also a personal affinity I have to women whom I perceive that (like myself) are afflicted by the Cassandra curse… but that’s another conversation for another day OK 😉

    So please don’t you be offended either Eve when I say you are giving a certain element of sport-trolls here more oxygen than they deserve. Please stop defending yourself, because there is nothing you need to defend and it irks and saddens me to see how needlessly responsive you are to these jerks who are attacking you as being a conspiracy theorist – cos like who the fuck really cares anyway if you are or are not. If anybody is sincerely interested in what you have to share then just leave them to go do their own research and if the ones who disagree can’t back it up with anything other than marginalising you off into the “conspiracy theorist” box then fuck’em. OK?

    To the other commentators in this thread whom I have affectionately referred to as the sport-trolls (and you know who you are with your shooting-fish-in-a-barrel ever-so-subtley-sexist-tinged snipes which you KNOW you would not be delivering in this kind of a way if this was a male commentator with the same post content) will you please just STFU and leave her to speak “her own truth”, despite the fact the staff here (bless their little cotton sox) are not holding you to account for the part you have to play in accelerating this so that it does actually end up taking the thread too far off track.

    Here’s a challenge to both parties in this boringly-recurring so-called-conspiracy-theorist theme:

    Eve, I challenge you to go for one week without responding to any personal crap these sport-troll jerks slide your way (I am sure this might drive you nuts to ignore, but trust me the potential rewards are worth it LOL)… And to the sport-trolls how about you try and go for one week without calling anybody a conspiracy theorist (or any similar kinda bait) so that those of us who actually ARE interested in Eve’s contributions can enjoy them for their content.

    I dunno about the rest of you here, but I am NUTS about alternative technologies. I am a complete and utter geeky type person who excelled at subjects like physics and math and I am feeling pre-orgasmic at the idea that somebody I get to yak to here in the NZ blogosphere is experimenting with something like this hydrogen/water/energy thing. I yak to friends overseas who play with this stuff, but yanno it’s just not the quite the same at such a distance.

    I can even remember playing with stuff like thjis hygrogen/oxygen splitting in 3rd form chemistry – so I’m not joking when I say that “it’s not rocket science”. And I’m not being a conspiracy theorist looney when I echo the very same question “WTF isn’t news like this which is very topical right now and comes from a source with the credibility of Reuters NOT being disseminated in our own news outlets?”

    God-damned useless SOB NZ mainstream media (((mumble fuck mumble fuck mumble)))
69. travellerev 69

    19 June 2008 at 7:48 am

    T-rex,

    You’re not the only debunker to loose their balls when confronted with the forum. It’s one thing to ridicule and patronise me here with you baiter mates. Its an entirely different situation when having to engage in the science that proves that 3 steel framed (the only ones in the history of lots of huge fires in steel framed buildings, one of which in a WTC Twin Tower it self) colossal buildings could not have exploded into a pyroclastic flow and flow down into their own footprints within free fall speed. In 10,11 and 6.5 sec to be precise. All in one place, from the same complex and on the same day!
    It is even more disturbing when you learn that four independent laboratories have found the chemical footprint of thermate and millions of minute spheres of Iron in the dust that some people have had the forethought of collecting. Not steel, Iron plus manganese and other chemicals consistent with the use of an army demolition compound called thermate. It gets really creepy when you learn that actual thermate particles have been found in that same dust.
    They could not clear the bases of the buildings for months because of huge pools of molten metal, Kerosene does not burn without oxygen and most certainly does not burn for months causing huge pools of molten metal.

    Now go home and do your own research Mr. scientist. Look at the collapses again and tell me how two planes with marginal amounts of a carbon based fossil fuel slamming into buildings designed to absorb just such an impact could have done that. To date NIST has not been able to explain what caused WTC 7 the third building to pulverise into dust like it did. And the FEMA rapport only goes as far as the moment of collapse and says nothing about the collapses themselves.

    Is the thought of an inside job horrifying for it’s ramifications? hell yeah, it would mean that the world is hijacked by an insane powerful cabal, and judging by the two genocidal wars that have been destroying Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 7 and five years as a result of the attacks the crazies in Washington really are running the madhouse.

    Start to engage your brain (of which you seem to possess enough) instead of quoting crappy easily debunked debunk sites.

    Anyway back to our hydrogen booster:

    First of all, let me explain that my husband and I are both very much what you might call “shed blokes”. We used to run a SFX company together in Europe (Not the computer SFX but the real world kind)for 20 years and are both very hands on people. Him being very smart and me being a member of Mensa also helps. So we are very much in this together. In fact we are with thousands of people from all over the world working on this. We are not isolated geniuses but very much only just (comparatively) beginners in a dedicated online community working like hell to find a way to break loose from Big Oil.

    And again T-rex, there is NO aluminium alloy in our cell, no electrochemical reaction. That’s just another unsustainable corporate “were can I put the meter” solution . So just stainless steel. get it?

    So here goes: Update on first test with Hydrogen booster:

    The booster is placed in an old Honda Civic which means we did not have to bypass any computer stuff that keeps the motor running lean etc. Although that is relatively simple to do too but for test purposes this little car rocks.

    The first two days only 15% better fuel economy on 30 amps.
    A bit disappointing but when my husband checked he found that something was shorting out and he changed some bits around and he told me yesterday that the fuel gauge barely showed a difference after driving some 100 km.
    He keeps to 80-100 km per hour and this gives him optimum use of the generated hydrogen. So we are now on app. 40% fuel economy using 10 amps. Not bad.
    I did the same distance with my car, drove 110-120 and burned through a quarter tank. Granted it is not as efficient as the HC is to start with but it is still a fairly efficient vehicle compared to some of the gas guzzlers you see on the road.
    This weekend it’s of to the shed again for some more improvements.

    We are hoping to get to 80% but 60% would still be awesome too.

    One of his assistants at work has started to build his own design booster in the hopes of beating the master (fat chance) and about 10 work mates want to know everything there is to know. It is the topic of the day and they are all very jazzed about the whole thing.

    I suppose seeing is believing.

    I hope to place some photo’s of the cell and the flow meter and amps meter etc. on my site this weekend.

    zANavAShi It’s people like you that make it all worth while.
    Even if Irish Bill bans me for writing about 911 after this.

    I think that the fact that it is so simple is what gets people, it really isn’t rocket science.
    We’ve been brain washed into believing you can’t get something for nothing but the Dutch knew that if you make the effort to build a windmill you get lot’s of energy for absolutely nothing.
    While windmills for electricity are only 18% efficient because you only get electricity if there is wind since it is impossible to store electricity unless you have equally big and impossible batteries, using the wind power directly to mill grain, pigments and saw trees into planks etc. is as free and useful an energy as you will ever get.

    I hear you about the baiting trolls and I accept your challenge.

    Cassandra curse eh? Hadn’t thought of that, thanks for pointing that out. She got killed didn’t she for predicting the future to accurately?

    Oooops.
70. T-rex 70

    19 June 2008 at 8:18 am

    Dear christ.

    Travellerev, almost every single paragraph you’ve written above is evidence that you’re not qualified or capable of having a valid opinion on anything scientific. I’ll decide later if I can be bothered pointing out why.

    The reason I didn’t come to your blog is not because I “loosed my balls” (I assume you meant “lose”, but with you it’s hard to be sure), but that it was:
    a) Almost derelict, and
    b) The few comments from people who were there were people like you, and I’ve no interest in arguing with a wall.

    Actually I think I will reply later. It’ll be fun. Elegant work on wussing out though: “I’m not going to argue with you because I’m above you”.

    Yeah. That’s the reason.

    I don’t suppose you actually have a link to the plans you used for this magical electrolyser?

    Laughed out loud that you bought out Mensa to try and support your argument!
71. T-rex 71

    19 June 2008 at 9:03 am

    Having thought about it on the way to work, I’ve decided to leave you to it. Everyone else here already has their own views, and your personal beliefs are based on faith rather than reason, hence it’s a waste of my time using reason to try to change your mind.

    Still interested in those plans though. PLANS, not the link to a site where some liar/moron tries to convince me to buy his book.

    Oh, you should probably call the dutch and tell them windmills get energy for nothing. Those fools think they get it from the wind!

    As for you zANavAShi: “There is also a personal affinity I have to women whom I perceive that (like myself) are afflicted by the Cassandra curse.”

    Yeah. You can see the future and that’s why you’re misunderstood.

    Carry on.

    Interesting that you accuse me of being sexist by the way. You see what you want to see I guess.

    Tell you what – I’ll try being nicer if you’ll try being smarter. Though I’ve gotta say my challenge is a lot more difficult to acheive than yours.
72. T-rex 72

    19 June 2008 at 9:08 am

    Also:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/genepax-water-powered-car-japan-debunking.php

    Looks like Big Oil and Newscorp have got to Treehugger as well – is nothing sacred?!?
73. travellerev 73

    19 June 2008 at 10:27 am

    T-rex

    English is my second language what is your excuse, “acheive”? And did you mean bought like in “I paid Mensa to become a member” or perhaps “brought”. It’s so hard to understand you sometimes.

    I am Dutch, you Moron, I bought the most magnificent paint pigments from a windmill several hundreds of years old and still in mint condition with huge milling stones that had another couple of aeons of milling in them and I bought my organic flour from another Windmill equally old and majestic. Oh, and I remember the most amazing windmill pressed mustard, hot and spicy and… but I digress.

    Have a look at them, they are awesome: http://www.travelsignposts.com/Destination/v/Netherlands/ZaanseSchans/IMG_5316.jpg.html
    Seeing these makes me all sentimental, I used to love visiting this place and picking out some new and exiting pigments to make paints with. I actually brought them with me, but I digress again.

    You are absolutely right it is the wind. But I’m sure you will agree with me that you don’t have to pay for it once you have build your windmill. Free see.

    It is not like someone can monopolise it and say you can only use so much wind. It is there for the taking with a windmill that allows you to translate it into an energy form that you can use.
    And if you put say a hundred windmills in a row one after the other as they did in Holland those windmills all have enough easily accessible wind for them to work.

    The same happens with this cell. Of course you have to use energy to break the water molecules apart to form hydrogen and oxygen, but how much and what kind of energy.

    This is were you have start learning how to think outside the box. Something you’re clearly not prepared to do.

    10 amps from a recharging car battery is relatively free energy when compared to the price of 40% of a tank of gas.

    We don’t make energy out of nothing, we utilise different and free energy forms that can not be monopolised. Not something big oil appreciates I reckon.

    I bet you would love to see how it works and I have to prove that our cell works otherwise you can ridicule what I’m saying again. But you know what FY and do what you want.

    I tell you what: I will post links this weekend on my site to the Forums we have been visiting and if you put in the same amount of effort into it as we have done you might get there because quit frankly I think that I’m not the one living in a faith based reality it’s you. And it is all there, all free and you don’t have to pay for “the book”.

    I will also post photo’s of our cell this weekend.
    And for those of you who who are genuinely interested I intend to keep posting our progress and our failures if and when they happen and if you want to get in touch with us leave an email address or telephone number on my blog site and I will get back to you.
    Remember it is a work in progress but so far so good.

    By the way my blog allows for comments. Only the first one is moderated and after that you are free to comment. I will only start moderating if the level of discourse starts to go downhill too much.
    Outright trolling, flaming and baiting will mean instant banning as I want to create a save environment for people to intelligently play around with new ideas. Dismissing with anger rather than with arguments is another reason for moderation.

    About Genepax and the water fuelled car.

    The job of journalists is to bring issues to their readers, not to protect them from information that might prove to be a hoax.
    It is also their job to expose hoaxes and in doing so help us make our own choices and judgements.
    If Reuters deems the water car news worthy then I think it should have been picked up by journalists around the world, not as gospel but as something that might be of interest to the oil starved masses. If it turns out to be a hoax we will all have learned something. I get nervous if something like this is ignored by the mainstream media and within hours a wikipedia article calls it a hoax. Remember anyone can add articles to Wikipedia.
    Unlike you I would like to make those decisions for myself and not get them force fed by manipulating media and open source encyclopaedias.

    Unlike you I like to engage my own brain rather then mindlessly accepting the crap you get fed but then I guess that is why I have been accepted by Mensa and you can only fume about it. LOL

    Just imagine me getting under your skin to the point that you have to think about me on your way to work, I must be touching a raw nerve.

    The 911 forum is only a few weeks old and we get hundreds of hits already without having it advertised once.
    Not bad for three people who haven’t even met in the real world yet. Nope mate, you lost you balls alright.

    And I wish I could but I cannot predict the future, I can deduct it somewhat though after processing a lot of information.
74. travellerev 74

    19 June 2008 at 10:41 am

    Or they took wikipedia’s article for granted.

    As I said I would like to see it for myself and make up my own mind.
    I don’t know how the car runs because our media choose not to expose us to it. We only have an open source wiki page telling us this.

    If it is an aluminium alloy that is used to make this car run then yes the alloy is the fuel, another way to keep the car metered. Unsustainable and monopolisable. Same old same old.

    It also prevents us to do our own maths. Like how much aluminium alloy
    is needed and how long will the car run on it and is it less polluting then gasoline with all of it’s carcinogenic additives etc.

    All we have is big media silence and one wikipage telling us what to think which is: dismiss it.
75. T-rex 75

    19 June 2008 at 11:03 am

    Travellerev – It’s pretty hard to critically evaluate your views when in one breath you say “I’m a member of mensa and so I have seen past all the BS” and then the next you say “It’s all just really really hard and I don’t understand it so you’ll have to ask my husband”.

    I will wait until I see the plan you’re using.

    Your windmill analogy is flawed – windmills take energy out of the wind, meaning there is less energy in the wind for further windmills downstream. Hence the time and effort that goes into accurate wake modelling in wind parks.

    Something to ponder in the meantime – Why is everyone spending so much time and energy developing improved battery technology if your thing works? The battery technology poses just as much risk to big oils stranglehold on transport, so it can’t be that big oil is suppressing your electrolysis thing and not batteries.

    explanation 1:
    None of the employees at Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Aptera, GM, Renault, A123, EEStor etc etc have heard of it because they have never heard of Google. Neither have any of the students at any of the hundreds of universities worldwide studying energy storage and generation.

    explanation 2:
    Some of the people mentioned above HAVE heard of it, but they don’t understand it because they’re all so much stupider than you are.

    explanation 3:
    Many of the people mentioned about have heard of it, and do understand it, but actually have enough of a background in the field to analyse it in a little more detail than your “the needle on the gas tank didn’t move as far as it did in my other car that’s not even the same model” experimental method, deduced it was just a big loss making entity, and got back to something that showed real promise. Which they’re doing. Despite the best efforts of big oil.

    Which is the most likely do you think?

    Of course you have to use energy to break the water molecules apart to form hydrogen and oxygen, but how much and what kind of energy.

    Just to clarify something – do you think your cell violates the first law of thermodynamics?

    Or do you just think you’ve developed some method by which 100% of the energy you’re putting in is converted to some form that you can use in your engine?

    Declaring Mensa membership is the refuge of the inadequate. The fact that you’re a mensa member doesn’t mean you understand electrolysis, and the fact that I refuse to join a vanity society doesn’t mean I don’t.
76. bill brown 76

    19 June 2008 at 11:15 am

    T-Rex, will you please stop picking that scab – just leave it alone or it will never heal.
77. T-rex 77

    19 June 2008 at 11:25 am

    I know. I just always cling to hope that eventually logic will deliver enlightenment. I’ll give up for now.
78. travellerev 78

    19 June 2008 at 1:18 pm

    T-rex

    just to piss you off. we just did a quick calculation of our savings based on mileage and amount of fuel used.

    He has been driving 53.33333333333333333333 miles to the Gallon this week.
    The car used to drive 31 miles to the gallon.

    We had to use Miles and Gallons because we use a conversion model from an US forum on the subject of H/O booster cells.

    His first goal was to achieve 50 miles to the gallon so it seems he has achieved just that.

    Yep you could call Mensa a vanity club or also a support club, which at the time I really needed. It explained a lot to me.
    By the way I met a lot of people like you there as well, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a closet case genius using your brain power to stifle you emotional insecurities.
79. T-rex 79

    19 June 2008 at 1:30 pm

    By the way I met a lot of people like you there as well, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a closet case genius using your brain power to stifle you emotional insecurities.
    It’s possible. I don’t mind that you joined Mensa, but I do mind if you use the fact to try and win arguments.

    I’m not saying hydrogen doesn’t come out of your cell, I’m just saying you haven’t created a free energy machine. Will wait to see the plans.

    Have you decided which of my three possible explanations above you like? Or do you have a fourth hypothesis you’d like to present? Because at the moment it really is one of those three – and I think it’s pretty obvious that the first two are ridiculous.
80. bill browne 80

    19 June 2008 at 1:46 pm

    T-Rex:
81. T-rex 81

    19 June 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Ha! Beautiful delivery 🙂

    Everyone else can just stop reading, but presently leaving it alone would annoy me more than continuing does. When the differential annoyance changes I’ll stop.
82. travellerev 82

    19 June 2008 at 2:00 pm

    There is no such thing as a free energy machine, but I’m beginning to see where you are coming from.

    If you thought I was telling you that we are making a magical free energy machine than you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

    It would be more accurate to describe it as an unmonopolisable source of energy. You will always need a battery for instance. But you can load batteries with solar energy which is again free once you have a solar panel.

    There are powerful interests who would not be happy to see that happen.

    But I also believe that nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.

    While it was perhaps possible to silence or buy out isolated inventors at the time, the internet has made it virtually impossible to stifle the current developments. The forums my husband visits register thousands of members. With hundreds more joining every day. Some knowledgeable some just keen to learn. That’s all we have done in the last year or so. Learn, we did not invent anything we learned.

    I am a firm believer in all kinds of laws of physics. Especially Newtons laws of Physics. It is the laws of physics which finally convinced me that 19 young Arab man even if hell bend on the destruction of the USA would have been unable to collapse those buildings the way they did. They would have violated firmly established laws of physics that day, and I have to reject that. Based on science.
83. T-rex 83

    19 June 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Ok, lets leave september 11 for now.

    I’m glad you don’t think you’ve made a free energy machine.

    So do you accept that, barring the action of some oxidation element within your hydrogen cell, you’re only ever going to get out energy (as hydrogen) equal to that which you put in from your battery? I’m taking a few liberties here, but can we agree that battery energy in = hydrogen energy out is the best case outcome?
84. T-rex 84

    19 June 2008 at 2:08 pm

    You still haven’t picked which of my 3 examples you think is most likely by the way…
85. zANavAShi 85

    19 June 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Ay caramba, this wasn’t exactly what I had in mind with my suggestions last night. I should know better than to try and articulate in the midst of a hissy fit in the wee hours of the morning when I’m going stir crazy at my 20th day without a cigarette (((sigh)))

    Still toooooooo much personal stuff you two (whom I shall henceforth refer to as T&T if you don’t chill out). Please don’t make me have to tell you to get a room!

    I am interested in your content but the personal stuff (who’s smarter, who means well, who doesn’t, who makes the best double shot soya fairtrade latte etc etc) just bores me to tears and when I try and scroll quickly through those parts I often end up missing some snippets that I really do want to read.

    Eve, I am very interested in what you and your loverly fella are doing here and I would love to see you start a blog about this, set out in the way of a journal. I have several fave blogs I visit where some person(s) is trying some practical experiment in alterative living or alternative energy – hell I even thought of starting a mini-blog to document my successes and failures growing a wild yeast sourdough starter earlier this year – and they are very inspiring to follow with all their ups and downs.

    That would also be good for the regular Standard readers who might not have any personal interest in what you are doing, and for those of us who do it is all in one central place where we don’t miss bits cos they got lost in the threads here on this blog – plus when it becomes relevant during our regular posts it saves you heaps of duplicate typing to just flick us a link.

    So, what say you (and your very loverly fella)? How about HOG Blog? (hydrogen oxygen generation?) 😀 😀 😀

    Captcha: seizure of (ROFL!)
86. Lew 86

    19 June 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Ev already has a blog. That’s mostly why I don’t get the obsession with the same three issues on this one.

    L
87. travellerev 87

    19 June 2008 at 6:37 pm

    zANavAShi

    Awesome. I am glad I never started to smoke. I lived for most of my life in Amsterdam so I managed to do other stupid things galore. But I think that to stop with smoking is the hardest addiction to get rid of.

    I agree with you about the personal stuff but sometimes you go through something personal in order to get somewhere.

    Interesting discussions sometimes get somewhat shrill but I agree with T-rex: Everyone else can just stop reading, but presently leaving it alone would annoy me more than continuing does. When the differential annoyance changes I’ll stop.

    T-rex is not baiting me, he is trying to find out what the hell I’m talking about, and I am happy to acknowledge arguments when he makes good ones. The baiting seems to have stopped.

    Lew it is one thing to have a blog that is geared to give information and another to find people of intelligence that are actually ready for some debate. That is why I like this blog. Lot’s of smart people to talk to exchange ideas with and yes perhaps I can get a few of them have a second look at the events of 911.

    I get plenty of hit’s a day. In fact John Key’s official site went down 4 places in the blogosphere to 43 and I went up 10 places to 44. Not bad for a Cheesehead who only arrived here three years ago.

    T-rex I posted a PDF on my site for you. The post is called: for T-rex. It’s a PDF of one of hubbies hero’s see what you can make of it.
    http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/
88. lprent 88

    19 June 2008 at 6:42 pm

    But I think that to stop with smoking is the hardest addiction to get rid of.

    Haven’t tried giving up any other additions, but I’m giving up smoking at present. It is a bit irritating, as Z says. Probably explains my sharing the irritation with the whale, and dave, and……. (evil grin)
89. T-rex 89

    19 June 2008 at 7:06 pm

    travellerev – Thanks very much for the pdf. Is this what you’ve made? At least we’re now both talking about the same thing!

    We’re now down to two issues. The total energy your electrolyser can deliver, and the source of the power.

    What are you using to supply it? Just the car battery? Or do you have an external battery bank?

    I need to know:
    1) The total battery voltage (I’m assuming 12V)
    2) Whether you charge it at home from a wall socket, or whether it’s just charged as you drive by the alternator.

    Thanks

    Lew – Because it’s convenient, I can’t be bothered posting over there. Besides, that hairyarmpitface person might yell at me, and she’s clearly wildly unstable.
90. travellerev 90

    20 June 2008 at 5:32 am

    T-rex,

    Good that you found it. My husband based his design on this principle. It is more efficient.

    We only use the car battery as it recharges in the car by the car’s alternator. The battery is 13.8V.
    Currently the cell uses 10 amps.
    Its first test run this week showed the figures I gave earlier.

    53.3333333333333333333333333333333333 miles to the Gallon
    up from 31 miles to the Gallon. Ching, ching, $$$$$$$$$$$$$

    This site is from the excellent Patrick Kelly: http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk Be prepared to go back to school though this will rock your world. (I mean that in a good way)
    Enjoy.
91. travellerev 91

    20 June 2008 at 5:49 am

    Uuuh, I like hairyarmpit.
    Wild, shocking and outrageous? absolutely but also very smart and funny.

    We don’t know yet how much energy the cell will ultimately deliver but we are over the moon with the first results, as you can imagine.

    Iprint I did a lot of experimenting but didn’t need to feel what would happen to me beyond that because I could see it around me and it didn’t look good. We had our P epidemic in the seventies and eighties for example. Ugly stuff, really ugly stuff.

    captcha: lending pressure. subprime anyone
92. travellerev 92

    20 June 2008 at 5:58 am

    zANavAShi

    I will probably post about it on my blog with the tag free energy )as in unmonopolisable versus monopolisable)
    Running one blog takes already a fair bit of my time and I have just begun an info blog on depleted uranium. I do try to have a life in the real world as well believe it or not.
93. travellerev 93

    20 June 2008 at 9:08 am

    T-rex

    I just realised something.
    You were trying to point out to me that under no circumstances you can get more energy out of something than you put in.

    I was just writing a post for my blog and revisited the wiki page on the Newton’s laws of motion.

    Traditional brief statements of the three laws:

    1. A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity along a straight path, unless an external net force acts upon it.
    2. Rate of change of momentum is proportional to the resultant force producing it and takes place in the direction of that force.[2][3][4][5][6]
    3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

    Have a look at the second law.

    By your own reasoning you should be reinvestigating 911

    How can an inert building change from its inert state into a pyroclastic flow in 10 seconds flat without the required energy to make that happen. In order to make this happen according to your own reasoning you should have to add a humongous amount of energy.
94. T-rex 94

    20 June 2008 at 9:38 am

    Hi Travellev.

    I’m composing a response to your stuff on (what is actually) hydrogen augmented combustion. It may take a while because I want to structure it properly. I’ll post it here because it may be of interest to a number of people.

    As to your point about around 911 though…

    Go and read up on gravitational potential energy.

    E = mgh

    It’s called “falling”.
95. travellerev 95

    20 June 2008 at 11:43 am

    Hi T-rex

    Yes, it is Hydrogen Oxygen augmented (just a difficult word for boosting mate) combustion. Still with the patronising. I think you could actually be a nice intelligent guy if you could kick that.

    It is not intended (for now)to replace fossil fuel. It is just a way to escape the worst consequences of the fuel price rises.

    I don’t need a response because I did not give it to you for that reason. I gave it to you for your information and enjoyment. Feel free to write about it all you want. I’ll be around to read it I’m sure.
    I’m happy with my fuel savings and encourage everybody to study this information. I hope that with the second test update I can announce 60% or perhaps 80% fuel saving.
    I don’t want to sell anything to anybody or make money of this. I just hope that people will research this as we did.

    As far as 911 is concerned read up on Newtons three laws of motion

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

    E = mgh doesn’t just happen, it needs Newton’s laws to be obeyed.
96. bill brown 96

    20 June 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Oh it’s so hard not to type
97. T-rex 97

    20 June 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Hydrogen/Oxygen augmented combustion is completely different to what you were presenting initially. It’s not a difficult word, it’s an accurate description.

    Yes, it will escape a very small degree of the consequences of the price rise. The fuel savings you have reported are already outrageous for the power levels you are putting in. You said 10 amps at about 14V… that is 140W. So even assuming you’ve made a 100% efficient cell (something that no one, anywhere, has ever done, ever, despite considerable effort) all you’re going to be delivering is perfect efficiency, i.e. 2.16W/Liter-per-hour of gas. So your system would create 64.8LPH. That is nothing like “running your car partially on hydrogen” (running a 2L engine at 2500rpm for an hour would take, at optimum air mix, would take around 43,000 LPG of oxyhydrogen), it is just using oxyhydrogen to improve the burn quality of your fuel.

    Your engine will burn more cleanly, and you might notice a marginal improvement in fuel efficiency. Most of that will be if your car had been very poorly tuned previously. In lab test conditions, with an already clean and well tuned engine, the brake specific fuel consumption reduced by 2.1% (a fancy way of saying a 2.1% improvement in efficiency) (http://www.ntpefs.com/idaho_national_laboratory_hydrogen_study.html).

    The hydrogen is not being used as fuel. It it being used to improve the thermodynamic performance of an engine which is using a conventional fuel.

    The figures you quote are likely either a) resulting from poor measurements or b) resulting from errors in your experimental method. You could probably doubly your MPG just by changing the way you drive your car for example.

    You have not and nor are you on the path to escape from the “monopoly of big oil”. Your system is nothing but an emissions improvement system that will make your petrol engine work slightly better.

    There are far better options, and they don’t involve hydrogen boosters. Electric engines are way more efficient than internal combustion, and don’t need oil at all. Just a decent battery, many of which are in late development – and in fact being delivered.

    You mentioned a while back that you’re going to escape from monopoly sources of energy by using solar. Really? What, with the backyard system you have producing 100% pure silicon? You still need to buy the solar panels off someone. And the electric engine. And the inverter to drive it. Energy security will be greatly improved by solar technology, but it won’t mean you can live out some isolationist backyard garden self sufficient fantasy.

    I can’t be bothered with this anymore if you’re going to continue to be this close minded about it.

    I notice you still haven’t picked an explanation from my list of three.

    —

    In closing, a brief word on 911, which has got to be the dumbest conspiracy ever. I don’t even mind conspiracies – I’ll happily entertain notions that the terrorists on the planes were lackeys of some OPEC cartel. Anyway…

    F*cking hell, I don’t need to read up on newtons laws of motion, I taught university level physics. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    When the twin towers were built, they started at ground level. All the parts were raised up by cranes etc. Ground level was their equilibrium point. The cranes were converting either electrical energy or chemical potential energy into gravitational potential energy. When the towers were weakened, they succumbed to GRAVITY (the force acting on them) and fell. Perfect consistency with laws of physics.

    Where does the energy for them to collapse come from in your “demolition theory”? The explosives at the base of the tower?!?!?! You really aren’t grasping the basic concepts here.

    Have you even watched the videos of the collapses with an open mind?

    you can PLAINLY see that the floors ABOVE the impact point falling ONTO the floors below, and collapsing them as they go. This is totally inconsistent with demolition charges at the base of the tower.
98. T-rex 98

    20 June 2008 at 12:28 pm

    With you Bill, I’m out.

    Was interesting to look into the hydrogen augmentation stuff though, seems like it does considerably reduce emissions.

    Will barely do anything to improve fuel economy, but would mean cleaner air which is always nice.
99. T-rex 99

    20 June 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Hey look Travellerev – It’s big media at it again not giving any coverage to alternative vehicle technologies!

    Damn you, Big Media, and your cheap whoring of your principles to Big Oil!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4590788a30.html
100. travellerev 100

     20 June 2008 at 2:42 pm

     T-rex, Bill, whatever.

     I’ll count my blessings. 40% less gas in my tank suits me just fine.
     I’ll continue to post test results and you are free to ignore them.

     T-rex As far as 911 is concerned, I’ve spoken with physics teachers about it and maybe you should too.

     Kia ora
101. T-rex 101

     20 June 2008 at 2:44 pm

     Bye travellerev, I’ll wave when I pass you in my electric car.

     Go easy on the koolaid.
102. travellerev 102

     20 June 2008 at 3:19 pm

     You just pulled the “I’m a teacher therefore I know better”. Must have run out of arguments. I have met some pretty stupid teachers in my time guess you’re just one of them. In fact I can’t remember you giving one sound argument to proof your theses that graffiti could have pulled those buildings down. Only cheap shots and patronising.

     I’m beginning to understand hairyarmpits antipathy towards you.

     For those of you who actually want to find out why graffiti could not have collapsed the buildings they way they collapsed
     http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200703%2FSudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf&images=yes

     They can’t even get it right
     -While some experts say that cars fueled by hydrogen fuel cells, which rely on the conversion of hydrogen and oxygen into water and which don’t have harmful emissions, are promising, the technology is still in its infancy.-
103. T-rex 103

     20 June 2008 at 3:28 pm

     LOL! Graffiti? I assume you mean gravity, but that’s ok, second language, fair enough.

     I’m really losing interest here, but have a think about this.

     Your theory is that thermite charges at the base of the building bought it down right? Well by your own logic above, all that would have happened if the bottom storey HAD been blown out is that the building would have become shorter by a storey.

     You’ve still completely failed to address the fact that the collapse clearly happens from halfway down, not the bottom. Have you even watched the video?

     Why don’t you go and read this

     http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

     and then go and get a new hobby.
104. T-rex 104

     20 June 2008 at 3:30 pm

     “While some experts say that cars fueled by hydrogen fuel cells, which rely on the conversion of hydrogen and oxygen into water and which don’t have harmful emissions, are promising, the technology is still in its infancy.”

     It is – fuel cells remain expensive and largely underpowered.

     Everything they say in the section you quote is completely accurate.
105. T-rex 105

     20 June 2008 at 3:33 pm

     Also, I didn’t pull “I’m a teacher, therefore I know better”. I pulled “I am intimately familiar with this topic, and therefore I don’t need to spend time looking up something as fundamental as newtons laws to check I’ve got them right”.

     I then went on to explain exactly where the energy came from which you once again have either failed to understand or have ignored.
106. travellerev 106

     20 June 2008 at 6:04 pm

     See this is were you get it wrong. We don’t theorise, all we try to do is to analyse.

     It is not about understanding, I don’t agree with you, there is a difference.

     If you can find it in you hart to watch this I would really appreciate it. This is a presentation from Greame MacQueen he address the very issues we disagree on.

     http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/graeme-macqueen-3192008-university-of-waterloo/

     Sorry that is the only link I have, ignore my comment. It is only 50 minutes long so what can it hurt. If I’m wrong I’m wrong and you can point it out to me.

     The problem is that there are a multitude of witnesses describing explosions at the base of the buildings. They are well documented and it cost the New York times some four years to get them released. Just google and you will find them. Not only at the base of the buildings but around the top of the buildings as well.
     http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/prominent-structural-engineers-say-official-version-of-911-impossible-defies-common-logic-violates-the-law-of-physics/

     These are two engineers who also question the official version and this is the site of http://www.ae911truth.org/ architects and engineers who request a new investigation. That’s all we want, a new and independent investigation.

     You know, we are a bit like those people who get into a life or dead discussion on a party and after every body has moved on we are still trying to get that annoying difference sorted out. LOL

     By the way graffiti, very embarrassing. I should have caught that one.

     Captcha: Capacity twirler hummmm
107. T-rex 107

     20 June 2008 at 8:39 pm

     Hi Travellerev,

     I appreciate the link, but I’m not going to spend 50 minutes watching it. I think we might as well agree to differ here, I actually quite like you but we’re coming at it from totally different angles.

     If the link I sent you to the nist FAQS hasn’t convinced you then nothing I say will, and everything I’ve read so far from you (and I really have read all of it) just drives me nuts due to what I and the vast majority of international experts see as fundamentally flawed reasoning.

     We’re not going to agree, we’re just going to get pissed at each other. I have the luxury that my perspective is the generally accepted one. If you think something’s being hidden though, good luck on the hunt 🙂

     Shall we leave it at that?
108. travellerev 108

     23 June 2008 at 10:33 am

     Hi T-rex,

     Sorry I could not respond earlier.
     I’m happy to let you of the hook. You are what you say you are an old dinosaur. What made this fun for me though is the fact that a lot of people actually are interested in what I have to say.

     So I would like to leave this thread with some more facts about 911 for those who do want to learn.

     Fact- Contrary to what T-rex is suggesting People who question the official Conspiracy theory study everything there is to know about that day. We read every rapport, we watch every frame of film made on that day, we talk to scientists, architects, pilots yu name it we do it because it is all relevant and all we have left of that day. So analysing the NIST report is sort of compulsory for people like me.

     Let’s start by mentioning that the NIST is not an independent institute. It is government funded and highly politicised.

     Here are all the relevant reports

     http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

     Fact- No CSI investigation was performed on the ground zero crime scene. Avery thing was shipped of in the quickest way with the conveniently sized steel from the inner core and outer core shipped of to China to be recycled.

     Fact- the NIST report T-rex refers to examined the collapse of the buildings up until the moment of it’s collapse. It never describes or investigated the actual collapses. IN FACT NIST EVEN HAS HAD TO ADMIT THAT THEY HAD NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS.

     You can find the letter here:

     http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911proof.com%2FNIST.pdf&images=yes

     Fact- Until today no official explanation has been given about the 6.5 free fall speed collapse of WTC 7 which collapsed 6 hours after the Twin towers into it’s own footprint. It is expected sometime in the Next two months but don’t hold your breath.

     http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

     Fact- The NIST report has been rejected by James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
     He demands a new and independent review of the NIST report and of the official conspiracy theory. Pretty damning wouldn’t you say?

     http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

     Gordon Ross a Scottish Mechanical and Manufacturing engineer tears the NIST report and Dr. Bazant to bits in his analysis:

     http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200704%2FNISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf&images=yes

     Don’t believe me, do you own research.

     I’ve enjoyed this and onto different subjects
109. T-rex 109

     23 June 2008 at 11:25 am

     Travellerev – I think you have completely misunderstood the points made in that letter. Do you have experience in multivariate system modelling? I do. They don’t say “we don’t have any indication as to why the building collapsed”. They say “we’ve modelled the building to the point of global instability”. Modelling beyond that point would be theoretically possible, but irrelevant as the system is completely non-linear and the results would be meaningless. NIST know this, but you and the writer of the letter appear to miss their point.

     As to Gordon Ross, some of his points are valid, but his general understanding is not. NIST has already discounted the pancake collapse he’s describing – that was the first explanation which they rejected in the course of their analysis.

     A couple of things to consider:
     1) The video shows that the failure was progressive from the periphery to the core. This is consistent with both the NIST’s analysis AND Gordon Ross’s.
     2) After the majority of the tower had collapsed there was still a significant, but hugely damaged, remnant of the core structure standing. I’ll grant you that there was nothing less to fall down on it, the falling stuff had already passed it. But what to you think happened to the energy in the falling material when it hit the ground? Some foundation damage maybe? Perhaps sufficient to collapse the remainder. You obviously believe some ludicrously small quantity of explosives could do the job.
     Just to inject some real science into our discussion…

     The towers were hit at (bottom level of damage) the 93rd and 77th floors respectively. They were 110 stories totalling 417m high. This means they points above the impact fell, on average, 384m and 354m respectively.

     The towers weighed 500,000T each. So, roughly, the sections above the failure points weighed 80,000T and 150,000T respectively. So by the time they’ve hit the ground, they’d have:

     E1 = m1.g.h1 = ~3×10^11 J = 300GJ
     E2 = m2.g.h2 = ~5×10^11 J = 500GJ

     For reference, the energy within 1 ton of TNT is 4.25×10^9 J. (4.25GJ).

     So, the energy from tower 1 falling is equivalent to 70 tons of TNT. Tower 2, 117 tons of TNT.

     Here is some data on the largest of americas mk80 munitions types, the 2000lb bomb.

     The Mark 84 is capable of forming a crater 50 ft (15.2 m) wide and 36 ft (11 m) deep. It can penetrate up to 15 in (380 mm) of metal or 11 ft (3.3 m) of concrete, depending on the height from which it is dropped, and causes lethal fragmentation to a radius of 400 yards (366 m).

     It has a 430kg high explosive warhead.

     So, the collapse energy from just the top levels was equivalent to the base of the tower being hit by…

     T1 – 162 bombs
     T2 – 272 bombs

     Think that might do the trick? You don’t need to think, because you can watch a video of it.

     I hope this doesn’t look overly scientific, it’s a disgusting oversimplification of all the events, but I thought it might put things in perspective.

     —

     For anyone thinking about buying into the demolitions bullsh*t, and who doesn’t believe the patently obvious explanations of the NIST OR the video evidence, have a look at http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

     Especially the sentence at the bottom:

     As scientists and engineers, we must not succumb to speculative thinking when a tragedy such as this occurs. Quantitative reasoning can help sort fact from fiction, and can help us learn from this unfortunate disaster.

     Much like with climate change, sometimes it’s worth paying attention to scientists. Just not necessarily the really fringy ones with hazy reasoning.
110. T-rex 110

     23 June 2008 at 11:43 am

     Sorry mods – feel free to delete the second of those two posts.

     [lprent: done]
111. travellerev 111

     23 June 2008 at 3:10 pm

     T-rex

     You can’t leave well enough alone can you?
     It’s fine with me, the more people read this thread the more people want to know who is right on this one.
     That means more people will start to do their own research.

     In this letter: http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911proof.com%2FNIST.pdf&images=yes
     NIST states unequivocally:

     WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE OF THE TOTAL COLLAPSE.

     So NIST can’t but you can?

     You arrogant prick.

     They didn’t even start with WTC 7. This building collapsed in 6.5 sec. on the same day and in the same complex 6 hours after the Twin towers, is as high as the sky tower in Auckland and housed local CIA head quarters, Giuliani’s bunker and other assorted squirrelly organisations and nobody bothers to investigate it? NIST still has given no explanation for the collapse of this building.

     Have look and tell me this is not a controlled demolition:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A it is 9 sec long

     If you want to hear the explosions directly preceding the demolition watch this:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 this is 6.5 minutes long.
     Wait for the big kabooms at the end.

     Be very careful about what you come up with because a Dutch demolition expert has already confirmed that this can be nothing but a controlled demolition.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

     Weeks after the collapse of the buildings pools of molten metal made work on the pile very dangerous. Carbon fires do not melt metal so how do you explain that one Einstein.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7HI4kjtvA&feature=related

     According to the scientists who wrote this paper, the sudden collapse was impossible:
     http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200703%2FSudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf&images=yes
     This is an analysis of the mass and potential of the Twin Towers
     The very subject of T-rex’s expertise.

     http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200703%2FGUrich%2FMassAndPeWtc.pdf&images=yes

     This is a paper written by

     1 Steven E. Jones S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
     2 Jeffrey Farrer Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
     3 Gregory S. Jenkins Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
     4 Frank Legge Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
     James Gourley, Kevin Ryan,
     5 Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

     Actually it’s the fringy scientists who usually come up with the goods.
     If you want to have a good laugh about what accepted wisdom had to say about the courageous individuals who dared to ask questions throughout history go to this link. it’s hilarious:
     http://world.std.com/~mica/cfskeptic.html

     And lastly the 911 Ommision report did not even mention WTC 7.
     So we are to believe that a 47 story skyscraper, the only other steel framed building to ever collapse due to fire next to the Twin Towers, was part of the same complex falls into it’s own footprint like a house of cards in 6.5 seconds wasn’t worth mentioning in what was supposed to be the real and independent investigation?

     Hello? Folks.

     Is somebody else beginning to smell a rat here?

     Captcha: Eleventh power hmmm, very mysterious. LOL
112. travellerev 112

     23 June 2008 at 3:12 pm

     Does the post not appearing mean I am in moderation

     [lprent: Not this time. The spam system didn’t like you – probably thought that there were too many links would be my guess]
113. T-rex 113

     23 June 2008 at 3:14 pm

     Probably just that it’s long – mine took a while to come through too, don’t sweat it… and don’t post it again or you’ll get a doubleup like I did and Lynn will have to delete one 🙂
114. travellerev 114

     23 June 2008 at 3:41 pm

     T-rex

     My post just disappeared or did not show up. so either I’m not allowed to respond any more or I had the same bug as you happen to my post. I’ll assume it was just a bug and try again.

     NIST states unequivocally a response for a correction of their rapport

     WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE OF THE TOTAL COLLAPSE.

     So they can’t but you can?
     Pompous fool

     WTC 7 collapsed into it’s own footprint in 6.5 sec. You watch this and make up your own mind
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

     Not quit convinced?

     You need to hear the actual explosions preceding the freefall collapse? Here you go:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

     Now about the pools of molten metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7HI4kjtvA&feature=related
     No carbon fire has ever produced polls of molten metal let alone for weeks and weeks.

     Don’t believe me do you own research and don’t let pompous fools
     bully you with a whole heap of pompous crap.

     http://www.journalof911studies.com/
     http://www.ae911truth.org/
     http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
     http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
115. travellerev 115

     23 June 2008 at 3:44 pm

     Yep that would do it.
     Any chance of retrieving it?
     If you use askimet you should be able too.
     I have had to do it a couple of times on on my blog.
     one of these links has anything malicious attached to it.

     I prefer the second one in hind sight.
116. travellerev 116

     23 June 2008 at 4:22 pm

     Cheers Iprent sorry for the trouble
117. T-rex 117

     23 June 2008 at 4:37 pm

     Haha!

     You’re the one who feels qualified to DISAGREE with the conclusions of the NIST despite still struggling to grasp basic conservation of energy and Newtons laws.

     You’re the one who thinks she knows more about hydrogen augmented combustion than all the leading research institutes despite having only a vague grasp of the basics – for example not even knowing what the hydrogen was doing to improve performance.

     And I’M the fool.

     Is it cold up there on your cloud?

     Since you’ve suddenly become obnoxious again, I’m going to rip a few of your more retarded comments apart. Earlier you said

     that proves that 3 steel framed (the only ones in the history of lots of huge fires in steel framed buildings, one of which in a WTC Twin Tower it self) colossal buildings could not have exploded into a pyroclastic flow and flow down into their own footprints within free fall speed. In 10,11 and 6.5 sec to be precise. All in one place, from the same complex and on the same day!

     OHHH MYYY GODDD! All in the same place, and all on the same day!!! It’s almost as though there was some big destructive event on that day that was common to two of the collapses, and the third was in a position to be affected by the aftermath!.

     So NIST can’t but you can?

     Yup, as I predicted, you’ve completely failed to understand their point. What they’re saying is that they can’t model a collapsing building, so they don’t know what was happening as it fell down, only what the points of failure were most likely to be at the moment just prior to falling.

     Be very careful about what you come up with because a Dutch demolition expert has already confirmed that this can be nothing but a controlled demolition.

     HAHA!! Well if he’s Dutch I guess he must be right, just like you eh? May I suggest that perhaps a controlled demolition expert will tend to see signs of controlled demolition in any building collapse… given that all the building collapses he’s seen were almost certainly controlled demolitions?

     Now about the pools of molten metal: No carbon fire has ever produced polls of molten metal let alone for weeks and weeks.

     Well obviously it’s not jet fuel that was burning, considering there wasn’t enough of it to burn anything like that long. Weird. It’s almost like there was something else acting as the fuel source. Like… I dunno… maybe two entire sky scrapers full of stuff or something. That’d need an ignition source though… hmmm… wonder if perhaps the 2TJ of gravitational potental energy from the collapse alone would do. Well since that’s equivalent to about 5% of the energy released by the nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima, I’m picking the answer is probably yes.

     COINCIDENCE???

     I just thought I’d throw that in because conspiracy people love saying “COINCIDENCE” on a regular basis, to suggest that clearly it’s not a coincidende, and is in fact a conspiracy and really Robert Murdoch chewed through the foundations with his teeth. Either that or the buildings were actually destroyed by 5% of the hiroshima bombs destructive force travelling forwards through time.

     You say I can’t leave well enough alone – I’m just not going to let you bully me into keeping quiet with insults.

     I have torn every single one of your stupid arguments to shreds, and you’ve totally failed to address almost every single one of my points. I’m now bored with it – so there you go, consider “well enough” let alone.

     So what’s next? Oooh, I know!!! MOON LANDINGS!

     Was the 1969 Apollo 11 landing on the moon faked travellerev?

     Of course it was! Mumble mumble telescope crosshairs right?

     Ok, now I’m baiting.

     Could have ended gracefully, but noooo, you had to keep stirring. Hope you’re happy with the outcome 🙂

     I commit to never again posting in response to you on this thread.
118. T-rex 118

     23 June 2008 at 6:31 pm

     Final qualifier (and not in response to you, so I’m still holding to my commitment) – I await with interest the outcome of the WTC-7 investigation. At least that one isn’t quite so painfully obvious as the others (to me anyway). Although even if it turns out to be a controlled demolition that won’t in any way colour my perceptions of the cause of collapse of the main towers.

     Adios!
119. travellerev 119

     23 June 2008 at 6:43 pm

     Hallelujah,

     You have not touched upon anything mate.
     You just defended a thoroughly debunked theory.

     You see after it became clear that the pancake theory was untenable NIST had to come up with something else and they did. We call it the the “Wham” theory.
     You would have known about it if you had actually watched the 50 minute presentation, and then you wouldn’t have answered so shrilly and silly.

     This is the theory ladies and gentlemen:

     After the fires from the planes heated the steel beams to, let’s call it buckle point, the floors above acted like a hammer on the floors under it, pulverising the buildings as the hammer pounded on the floors below. This is an astounding theory since it violates at least two laws of Physics.
     One being: Material falling will always take the path of least resistance but this bloody great big lump of concrete follows until the very end; The path of most resistance.
     And not only that it violates the third law of Newton: For every force there is an equal force opposing it.

     This means that when this bloody great big lump hurdles in free fall speed into the path of most resistance it seems not to meet any of this opposing force.

     However this theory is moot because in order to even come close to validating this theory you have to have this bloody great big lump in the first place. You have to have a Wham moment after which it can go Kaboem, Kaboem, Kaboem.
     But you see there is no bloody great big lump of Concrete and steel. There is no Wham moment. Because the top explodes at the same time as the rest of the building.
     In fact the roof of the North tower comes down faster as the floor of the block that allegedly pummelled the rest of the building in a fin dust with objects no bigger than a telephone keypad to be found, indicating it is disintegrating before it can do the damage T-rex claimed it did.

     This is the very moment I’m speaking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btftaMMav4I&feature=related

     Watch the interesting wobble of the camera moments before the radio mast starts to fall toward the floors beneath it. This indicates that a fairly large event took place moments before the collapse. People in the towers testified to huge explosions at the bottom of the towers.

     This is the 50 minute presentation that does away with the Wham theory much more eloquent than I could.
     http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/graeme-macqueen-3192008-university-of-waterloo/

     And last but not least: For this theory to become possible the steel really has to become very hot but steel has this niggly quality of acting like a heat sink. The heat gets transferred to the other parts of the steel. This means that none of the steel could have become hot enough to buckle. In fact this is what happened after the planes burned all their Kerosene off, most of it outside the buildings.

     http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/911-and-the-twin-towers-sudden-collapse-initiation-was-impossible/

     How come a woman could stand in the gaping hole were the plane impacted and not be burned to cinders while the steel was so hot it would buckle and allow for a free fall speed collapse of the building? In fact how could this woman hold on to the steel with bare hands if the steel was so hot.
120. T-rex 120

     24 June 2008 at 11:19 am

     Again, not in response to you – I retract my last comment. Having done a bit of further research, it’s bloody obvious that WTC7 wasn’t a controlled demolition.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS