In article <8C%Hf.20410$Dn4.4526@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, 
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:dspjvp$ni1$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> typed:

In article <nCPHf.40017$494.11849@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:dso80f$5ih$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> typed:

In that television program - it mentioned about the Odometer that
the Romans used to put milestones down on their roads - that this
device could not be reconstructed into a working model. da Vinci
tried to solve
how did it work? But couldn't. Someone who did solve the riddle
found out that the cogs used, had sharp points, instead of square
teeth to the gearing.

Intersting, probably more accurate with sharp points.

I'm not an engineer or mechanically minded to know what is the
difference between square and sharp teeth? With cogs...

Well no neither am I, I was just thinking there might be less play, but I
doubt that would make a lot of difference, unless they wanted to measure to
the inch.

You can download any kind of television programme you like, via file
sharing programs such as eMule or Xolox, if you have a cheap
broadband connection, unlimited download option (I have one only at
256K speed - it usually takes days of leaving your computer online,
to download the one programme, so it's best to download several
together. I have been downloading various UFO programmes and ones
about Free Energy are interesting too.) Having the fastest broadband
speed doesn't help because most downloads occur at very slow
broadband speeds.

Yes I should probaly do that. I have 2 mbs unlimited cable broadband
now. I used to download the occassional film when I had 600k I
should download more stuff really make it worth the money I spend on
it :)

With those filesharing programs, you're dependent on how fast is the
connection with the computer you're downloading from, and I would
guess most are from slow access points, so that's why it takes days
to download the one programme.

It depends how popular something is, I have found with some files if a lot
of people have it it can come in at 2mb then it only takes a few seconds to
download the avearge mp3 or 15mins for a video. I find Sharaza to be about
the best file sharing program I've used it uses about 3 different networks,
and seems to be good at finding stuff and pulling in connections so you can
download bit of the file from about 50 different people at the same time. I
think I had to do some adjustments in the preferences to make it do that
though

I've managed to locate 4 programs about Nikola Tesla - who is a very
interesting person to know more about. The unsung genius, more
brilliant than Einstein or Edison, etc. Whom we depend everyday of
our lives on.

Yes I've read some stuff about Tesla

I like to see a major hollywood movie about Tesla - maybe
several movies, as I don't think we can ever see enough of Tesla's
inventions and visions.
It would spark childrens' imaginations more than the Harry Potter
books, perhaps raising some young Tesla enthusiasts for tomorrow...

You have to be realistic. That the US Government has spent millions
on a secure radar network, which says it can track foreign objects
in it's airspace - and in todays electronic world, that must mean
it can track
it's domestic air traffic even more easily.
What is little known about 9-11 is that there were simulation
exercises
going on with the military at that time, which suggest even more the
whole 9-11 was rigged by the US government. And when someone rung up
the authorities about this 9-11 event, they asked "Real World or
simulation?" It is mentioned in detail in that 9-11 news that you
never saw.
A reasonable person cannot believe that the US President got the
immediate news via the television news feed. Why do they have a
military? And their security forces for? You can't say they don't
have a fast and efficient communications system, that keeps track of
everything.

Well when the first plane hit people tended to think it was simply an
accident, I mean terrorism was being mentioned but generally it was
uncertain, of course when the second plane hit, there could be no
doubt it was a terrorist attack. But I don't suppose it was deemed
necessary to tell the president right away although I dare say he
would have been vaguely aware that something had happened. Of course
considering how long it took the Bush administration to respond to
Hurricane Katrina and the near total destruction of New Orleans back
last year the fact it took a few hours to respond to 9/11 wasn't
particularly unusual. Actually the World news media has better
resources and more personnel available on the ground than the
military, and to some extent is part of military intelligence.

John Lear said on one of those Art Bell radio programs, that even he,
an experienced airline pilot couldn't have hit so precisely the twin
towers - and for someone to do it, who never had previous experience
on
a jetliner, would be unheard of, unless they have clocked up enough
hours on one of the official training simulators for that particular
jet.

Well it is difficult to comment on that really I've never flown a real
aircraft. But there is the issue that all pilots learn how to land a plane
on a very small runway, but I dare say modern jets have aids which help
pilots do that. My only experience of piloting if one can call it that has
been on WarBirds III and obviously with that only being a computer game
flight sim it is difficult to know how accurately it simulates the real
thing. I must admit I'm not very good at landing the small fighter aircraft
Spitfires and such like that, but I don't have much problems landing the big
stuff B27s and such like, and if that's anything to go by I don't think a
novice pilot would have had any great difficulty crashing into the twin
towers. Of course one thing one doesn't have the advantage of in a computer
flight simulator is any real physical sense of inertia, gravity, g-forces
acting on the body itself, which if anything makes flying a Sim quite
difficult, of course it's easy in some ways because you can have spectacular
crashes and live to fly another day LOL Of course I suppose one could argue
flight simulators are actually better at teaching people how to crash than
they are at teaching people how to fly, so are perhaps the ideal terrorist
Kamikaze pilot training tool.

And on hindsight, when you really look at it, the precision of both
planes is truly uncanny. You would have expected part of the plane
and debris to have split apart and fallen down the building, or some
such catastrophic crash effect.
And the Pentagon strike is even more harder to believe, and harder too
for the pilot to have scored a direct accurate strike, as it did.
For the 3 strikes to be so accurate, looks beyond the capabilities
and accuracy of Bin Laden's terrorists.

Well planes may look solid but they are mainly constructed out of relatively
thin aluminium, they are also full of fuel, you hit a building at 300 to 400
mph or even at 100mph for that matter, the plane is going to explode in a
fireball and the wings are most likely going to completely disintegrate and
more or less vaporise because aluminium melts at a relatively low
temperature. Of course at the WTC there was a plane shaped hole almost like
something out of a cartoon, but then the WTC facade was built of glass and
concrete. OTOH in a building like the Pentagon which is built of stone and
concrete you wouldn't really expect the wings to make much of a dent before
they disintegrated and they would disintegrate and burn so quickly I would
doubt one would see much scorching on the grass either. Personally I think
the hole was totally consistent with what is supposed to have happened. The
missile theory is IMO nonsense. Missiles are generally made to pierce armour
and a missile would have created a very small entry hole but more
destruction inside. That said I don't have much direct experience of this
stuff, but then neither do most of these conspiracy theorists LOL

The Pentagon strike would be much more difficult to achieve, being at
ground level.
Maybe a conspiracy game that recreates these incidents would illustrate
how difficult it would be? With forcefeedback to illustrate how much you
have to fight the controls. And giving you the options of several aircraft
to illustrate the effectiveness or noneffectiveness of a small to light
aircraft versus the passenger jetliners used. And testing the missile idea,
of how a missile would explode in the same circumstances.
No doubt the would be and wannabe terrorists would also purchase the game,
as a training device. The FBI could trace all purchasers of the game, so as to 
build up a database of likely suspects in future?

why didn't he excuse himself, to deal with this catastrophe of the
highest order, but no, he continued on with reading from a
children's book, as
if nothing momentous had just happened.

True, but shock is like that, I don't think anyone can take in and
assimilate shocking events like 9/11 in the first second of being
told or seeing it happen. I don't think George Bush's immediate
reaction was in the slightest bit unusual under the circumstances.
You can look at something like that and be so over awed by it you
think it's all fantasy and you might even laugh, but when the shock
actually hits it makes you cry.

What was going through President Bush's mind, as he was reading a
children's story to children?
Maybe he wasn't playing dumb, and he was really dumb or struck dumb?
After his aide gave him some unexpected news?
He appears to be more of a puppet, than a player in the events.

Well a President is a head of state, someone who signs bits of
paper, and makes the occassional speech in order to create the
illussion that democracy is a reality. It's the government itself
that does all the work and of course that never really changes.

I think most of the conspiracy theories are being spread by
traitors and Islamic-Fascist apologists, it's called revisionism
and of course people try to do it in regard to the Holocaust as
well. Such people are traitors. --
Amanda

Conspiracy theories will only take hold, if there is some substance
and reason to them. If they add up to something sensible.
If Kuwait had no oil - the first gulf war would not have happened...
Iraq would not have been invaded, if they had no oil.
Just look at Afghanistan - which has nothing for the US to profit
from,
and how long did it take before they came to the aid of that
country. If there is no truth to the conspiracy theories, there
would be no fuel
for them to burn with.

Well but OTOH people really do strange things. I mean I was reading
an article the other day about the theory the Hitler was actually a
British agent set in place by the Illuminatie to destroy most of
Europe and thin the population down a bit. Of course if one looks at
the events. Hitler did some very strange things and of course it is
mind blowing that the Nazis actually thought they could win, when
the whole thing was an absolute suicide mission. But it's easy to
reinterpret events with the advantage of hindsight. Fanaticism does
make people do crazy things almost as an act of faith and I think
the reality is he was just a fanatic.

You may not place much creditability upon the source of the Plejarens,
the ETs who have contact with Billy Meier.
They said that Hitler was 'used' and his inner circle controlled, ie.
he was a puppet. There isn't any kind of evidence to back this up,
unlike the hoaxing of moon landings.

They also mention about the hoaxing of Apollo 11.
There is certainly a lot which weighs in favour of Nasa hoaxing
Apollo 11. I guess we'll have to wait until Man goes to the moon
again?
We may be in for a very long wait on this one?
I guess no one thinks of sending a rover to the moon, to see if Nasa
did hoax the moon landings?

What I can't understand with space exploration is why does it need cost so
much these days. I mean my PDA mobile phone has more computing technology in
it than the entire Apollo 11 moon mission and yet will fit easily into a
pocket. It is feasible therefore that we could be sending robots to the moon
quite cheaply and with the miniaturisation of technology today one could do
quite a lot with a space ship little larger than a plastic 2lt Coke bottle.
In fact it is getting to the point where private companies are talking about
space tourism and yet NASA seems to go out of it's way to make it all sound
so incredibly difficult and hideously expensive, but it isn't hideously
expensive to send small payloads into space.

Maybe someone can convince the European space agency to do something
interesting for once - or foot their bill for sending something to the
moon.. can they do it? I don't really know about their capabilities...
But the Russians will do anything for a price, no doubt they'll send something
to the moon for us, if we would foot the bill for it all.

OK it is expensive to develop new cutting edge technology, but I don't think
we actually need new cutting edge technology. Why don't we have live Webcams
on the moon? I mean one can buy a Webcam for less than 20USD and you only
need a digital camera a satellite dish and some solar panels and one could
have a camera on the moon for like less than 1000USD at that price they
could afford to lose the occasional craft and we could literally be sending
hundreds of then up there. So why aren't they? If there is something in the
conspiracy theories this is the one that really does make me wonder, because
the arguments simply don't hold water.
-- 

NASA of course, doesn't see the marketing opportunity to exploit, with
interest in the face on Mars, and martian cities waiting to be explored
(as detailed in www.enterprisemission.com) and likewise with the possibility
of alien moon bases on the far side of the moon - why not? let people
become explorers themselves as they search through the raw data feeds from
rovers which can deliver extremely high resolution pictures, which can 
convince people of what they'll find there.
But we have only very limited censored photographic material with which to
work with, which serves only to illustrate that the moon and mars are off 
limits to mankind because NASA doesn't encourage any kind of lateral thinking 
of whatever experiments and missions designed by individuals here on earth.
The Russians should know if NASA is being honest with us or not?
Maybe it will be up to the Chinese to prove that NASA was right all along,
and the doubters wrong...

Harvey

Amanda