A shocking fact to me is, how easy it has been to convince people that:
- Monero is now in the situation where Bitcoin was in 2010
- Monero fixes Bitcoin's worst flaw, lack of privacy.
People who have never owned Bitcoin are flocking into Monero starting about now. I am helping them by accepting fiat as payment.
How is Monero like Bitcoin in 2010? were you around at that time or is that from third party sources? Feels nothing like it to me, (Cryptonote itself, a somewhat different story) Not sure how much of that is attributed to the fact the concept of p2p decentralized crypto cash is already embedded into our consciousness however. I think I was essentially saying the same thing in my post above (regarding opportunity). Quite simply, we are extremely early adopters in Monero, or even BTC for that matter at this time. Back in 2010, BTC was around .08 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin and it was essentially unknown. Looking at Monero now (a bit over $2 I believe), the opportunity for returns in is there. (In general, people looking into Anonymous coins now are about as rare as people looking into BTC in 2010 I'd say.) In the next few years this space will blow up. If BTC does indeed hit $10,000-$100,000 in 5-15 years, I can easily see Monero being in the hundreds. That, in a sense, would be like getting into Bitcoin in 2011 sometime (if Monero blows up in the next 4 or 5 years.) Ok, so I'd go with we are where BTC was in 2011, but Rpietila can jump in... |
|
|
|
|
I really think Lawsky trying to pass those crazy laws in NY is REALLY going to drive more people into Anonymous coins.
Once one realizes how young this entire field is, they will realize what bargains current prices are (if you can "guess" the right crypto.)
Once the Crypto space is really large, the 2nd and 3rd "place" coins will probably have a larger market cap than BTC has right now, much larger.
That is something to chew on.
IAS
|
|
|
|
Things are starting to turn north again I'm expecting an exciting month   Pull up a daily chart and notice the move up from August 16 to 20, the volume, was progressively increasing. (great sign) However, since that time the move up has occurred on decreasing volume. This is not a good sign. If I was trading I would get out on that divergence. That said, I am and have been long Monero for a few months now. IAS |
|
|
|
Reversion to the trendline:
Once the bubble comes, it will be the more ferocious, the longer we've had to wait for it.
Price is only the market's gauge of the underlying economy. Bitcoin economy, including also the prospective investors in the pipeline, is now in 2-5 times better shape than in last December. Yet price is halved. Do your math.
There is probably some pent up energy being created, but when I look at the chart it seems we are still just coming out of the last bubble. (Prior moves up came after long sideways action, we are not there yet.) My greater concern is that it looks like there is going to be a substantial stock market adjustment (DOWN) in the next few months. Many are in agreement. The relevance here is that at this point, a lot of money, perhaps most, in BTC is speculative and I'm afraid that will come back out and we will go down with the markets. But how much is up in the air. Now, all bets are off if we see another repeat of Cypress somewhere in the world. Then BTC is not only speculative again, but protective. TBH - I see this delay as great for the overall "common people" economy. It is giving more people more time to get involved at a reasonable price. It is giving people more time in those 3rd world countries to get in before the next big move up. The world GREATLY needs some wealth redistribution and this is a great way, perhaps the only way these days. IAS |
|
|
|
|
Slipperyslope - If the volume gets huge by the end of the week (as it is key), then I will believe a reversal is possible. It is a great indicator, though I'm not sure I've seen many on BTC's recent charts. It often seems to engulfing candles, but I'm hopeful here. (edit - I was looking at the green ones, have been 2 red hammers that were at least bottoms, so I stand corrected).
IAS
|
|
|
|
|
First, thanks for the weekly Monero updates. I am most excited by the new GUI.
Regarding the renaming of wallets to accounts, going against the grain here is probably going to do more harm than good. All of Bitcoins advertising (terms) is basically industry standard, not to mention Paypal using the term wallet as well. I strongly suggest against rebranding the term to account.
Unless you plan on spending more money and resouces getting the word out there about Monero accounts, than BTC wallets, you are waging a losing battle. Perhaps later, when Monero is well known, but doing it at this juncture is like putting both the cart before the horse and creating an uphill battle, at a minimum. TBH, I would prefer to put this rebranding, waaaay on the backburner.
Further, account does sound a bit centralized in that it sounds connected to an institution or company.
Please rethink this expenditure of energy that imo is going to come back and bite us.
Much respect to the devs however. I am just bringing up a concern.
IAS
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin, Saturday, 16 August 2014 - Your Week Ahead
How do normal currencies lead their lives? You often wonder this because, although there are many things that you are not especially sure of, one thing you can say is that little that is 'normal' about you. After they made you, they broke the mold - assuming that is, that they used a mold in the first place. Not surprisingly, given that you have turned out to be such an exceptional character, you are surrounded by other eccentrics. An arrangement that wouldn't work well for most people suits you (and those around you) well, this week.
The week ahead in general
Many shop assistants conclude their transactions by saying, 'Have a nice day.' Normally, that is more of a pleasantry than a prediction, but the annual conjunction of Venus and Jupiter takes place this week and that's an auspicious event. This year, both planets are bright and they align unusually close to each other. The celestial spectacle happens just before dawn, but it is worth getting out of bed for. Even those who don't rise early to view it may discover that this week brings us all a better chance of having a genuinely nice day. Have a nice week!
I just checked where that Venus Jupiter conjunction is taking place on BTC's chart. And get this, it is EXACTLY on the ascendant. They hang out in the vicinity for a bit, and the sun is transiting BTC's 2nd house, often related to finance. Note, BTC's rising sign is Leo, which is ruled by he sun... |
|
|
|
I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!
If you know any pilots, ask them what's the chance that an amateur pilot (hijacker), would crash the plane HORIZONTALLY on the pentagon, like he was landing or something... This is a very difficult maneuver to perform, especially in a city environment with poles, trees etc (unlike an airport which has much horizontal clearance in most directions). If you go too slow, you'll stall the plane and crash. If you go too fast, you can't maneuver it as you like through the terrain (which is still mighty difficult in itself with a huge passenger plane, unlike a fighter jet). Normally an amateur hijacker would fly higher than the pentagon, spot it, then dive into the pentagon with an angle and crash the plane in this manner. And on top of that, the maneuver that pilot did was pretty impossible. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htmU.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11
by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)
September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.
Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.
Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.
Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.
Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!
He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces? |
|
|
|
Look here's the problem im comfronting when I talk about Bitcoin to people:
1) They do not want to spend FIAT on it to access it. The see this as a waste of time, and they actually lose money due fee's.
2) They don't understand how something has volatile can be used as a currency.
3) People tend to hold BTC and use it as a store of value like Gold. They feel paying with BTC is as dumb as paying with a piece of Gold because anything you can buy with BTC, is available easier with cash/transaction.
4) They feel they are just serving the lucky early adopters while they get shit nothing.
5) The ATM machines are shit as demonstrated by the Tested video
How does that get solved so we can reach mass adoption? Unless legitimate jobs where you get paid good amounts of BTC arise, I dont see any other way to get legit amounts of BTC beyond risking FIAT into it in the first place. But of course, im not sure if people is going to want risking getting paid in BTC.
1) They don't understand FIAT and how their wealth is being stolen. Each year their buying power goes down. They do not also understand BTC. If they understood money and BTC, they would look deeply in BTC. There is the whole inflation for war understanding as well. 2) Bitpay. But the reason for volatility is that we are finding the market. At this point I see BTC as an investment and a statement against corrupt governments and their money. 3) Sounds like they are missing the bigger picture. To each his own. 4) They are early adopters at this point. Only risk what you can. 5) Have not played with the ATM's but have heard mostly good things. This process will play out, if you truly understand BTC you can probably easily answer the above questions, in depth of course. I was just giving short statements. This is an experiment, as is government FIAT. Just make sure you yourself are not doing more harm than good because if you are asking the above question it
sounds like you really don't understand BTC and perhaps should not be a major spokesperson for it. I don't mean that in a bad way but stay within you abilities.Its about sharing |
|
|
|
Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids. Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs. Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything. Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.
Truth does not matter. The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads that supposedly flew 2 planes towards WTC 1 and 2. (Note that the number of buildings demolished exceeds the number of planes by 1.) As a consequence, billions of security searches are now conducted throughout the world annually, with the main goal of conditioning people to accept ridiculous and unfounded orders as a part of their job, and ridiculous and unfounded procedures as a condition of exercising a very basic human right - to travel around the world. (And this was just an example, the real atrocities are found in other parts of Patriot Act, nicely prepared before the event.) even without the evidence of planes, and the fact that a single planestrike does not make a tower collapse, the main point of evidence is this: It is a very hard science to make a tall building explode in a controlled demolition in such a way that it does not damage anything near it. (Or at least does minimal collateral damage). The only way to make a building collapse in a controlled way is by many small timed explosions. It takes a team of highly specialized engineers weeks if not months of preparation to get it right. Apparently two planes managed to do it just like that. Quite odd, isn't it? If you don't buy my story about controlled demolition, why don't you check out videos on youtube and see how often it goes wrong? Note that those jobs are always done only by experts, and even they get it wrong sometimes. The odds of having a plane strike cause a perfect collapse (or any kind of collapse at all) is highly unlikely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgcnote especially the second building, this is what happens VERY OFTEN, and this is what you would expect to happen when only the top part of the building is severely damaged, the top will just slide off, and do no damage to the bottom. Especially if the top part is not nearly as heavy as the bottom part (which is always the case, because the bottom has much more support, and is therefore heavier, not to mention the top part only a few stories, it did not have nearly enough mass to destroy the complete tower beneath it). Trust me i'm an engineer. The top part would need to be at least 40 times heavier to be able to crush the bottom part like it did, unless all the support was blown away at precisely timed intervals with small explosions starting at the bottom of the tower. Regarding the bolded point, did you notice how the top part of the S. Tower falling over and then suddenly the building starts to fall straight down? This made no sense to me, as clearly the least resistance would be to continue falling over and not go straight down. Looks like I wasn't the only one to notice that. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tilting-south-tower-gives-away-demolition-of-trade-center-towers/snippet: When the South Tower started to collapse at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.
The only way we didn’t have the top 34-floor section lying in a heap beside the tower is that it fell apart – or more likely blew apart – at the beginning of the collapse. The reason we’ve let this fact slip by most of us is that the top of the building is quickly disappears amid all the smoke and debris. We never see it again.
But here’s the most important point: Newton wouldn’t be able to reconcile this tilting top with the symmetrical collapse that followed. With the top tilting at approximately 23 degrees, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? In fact, how could it exert any force at all? And how could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the collapse wasn’t symmetrical when it started. Further: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htmsnippet - therefore the energy from the structure above would – in theory - be adequately diverted so as NOT to induce a continued - and total - vertical collapse of the remainder of the structure, below. In theory, the “cap” should have torn loose and independently fallen. However, if there had been an independent - and nearly simultaneous - collapse of the core, the collapse would continue - vertically. The “cap” tilted by approximately 22 degrees, but did not fall off; it collapsed – "in formation” - with the rest of the structure. The simultaneous "fall" of the two sections tells a story, by itself. The 'center of gravity' of the "cap" abruptly found a vertical path to the ground! The most probable reality being that the core collapsed, inducing the tilt of the "cap."
If the "cap" had tilted first, the mechanical tilt of the “cap” should have relieved a major portion of the purely vertical stress from above; alleviating any tendency for the immediate lower structure to “pancake;” as was witnessed. It is not difficult to imagine the floors collapsing over a period of time - but NOT simultaneously!  |
|
|
|
|
I'd bet that 1 BTC could be worth $25,000 - $100,000 in 5-6 years (At todays USD value of course). So, do the math from there.
Those numbers will be MUCH higher if the banking system goes as it looks like it might. (If it goes, start multiplying those number by 10 for a start.)
A big IF is if these criminals don't start another big war. Sure looks like they are trying...
Anything more than I need to live relatively simply, is going to be given away (for helping /and/ further distruption),
After all,
Its about sharing
|
|
|
|
Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background?
I discount my own testimony as a witness. I would never ask anyone to take my single version as truth as I am human and fallible. Do you believe yourself? In case you haven't noticed people believe things that they did not partake in so seriously, that they die to prove their sincerity (in honestly believing a lie). Like skyscraper collision assisted group suicide... You are avoiding a witness who was in a key location. Other witnesses btw have verified his claims. Your argument is making very little sense. It is like a combination of more logical fallacies than I care to look up. This is not a matter of believing what anyone says, per say. Rather it is about investigating their claims, and OPENLY. That was not done. The biggest crime in our history had no investigation until the families forced the administration into doing so and then they put Henry Kissinger in as the head! Until of course his conflict of interests forced him to resign (or be removed.) So many people were murdered that day and the investigation was avoided at all costs. We should have an open investigation, still. pa - It certainly appears so. The amount of money spent on defense, intelligence, etc. really makes one wonder where it is spent. And controlling public opinion is of paramount importance. I just hope those duped into being shills/trolls start to look at the bigger picture. Thanks for the links. IAS |
|
|
|
An interesting discussion concerning 9/11 was moderated away from my thread. I never intended to have a discussion, it is a disgusting subject. So many people still believe the lie that is touted by the administration that murdered those people there, the same one trying to kill enough people in Ukraine to make it believable that Putin would be provoked by it to start a war that only the banksters want.  Maranata! +1 Great points. Keep the reminder going... LOL at the cognitive dissonance you are creating in people who respect and follow you, suddenly having to face a truth they had avoided. And what about those using constant logical fallacies in their arguments suddenly. Hmmm, sounds like an important forum to control... Its about sharing |
|
|
|
Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.
Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out... In the first reports I heard on the radio an eyewitness said a DC3 flew into the first tower. It's About Sharing, the construction of the towers was unlike anything that had ever been built. They did survive the impacts of the plane which most buildings would not have. The way the floors were attached to the uprights was such that once the first floors lost the integrity of their attachments due to the heat, physical damage and added weight of the plane, the weight/ momentum of those floors caused the failure of the floors below in rapid succession. Again the construction of the towers was unique. The second tower that was hit came down first because of the way the plane hit it which caused more physical damage to the structure. That damage was obvious to see. But you know all this. I'm not sure what your intent is, but basically you ignored my replies and then bring up Red Herrings. Are you trained to avoid discussion? The towers had an inner steel core, an incredibly large one. That building was designed to withstand multiple hits as it did. How many theories has the government now put down regarding the collapse? They must be up to 4 or 5 I believe. And few are buying it. Again, buildings don't just fall down on themselves. Perhaps one can fall over given enough force, but not implode upon itself at free fall speed. There is a reason architects, engineers and professionals all over the world are involved in this. There is a reason that most people don't believe the governments story. Your mind is made up and is not open to discussion. Your job here is apparently served. Its about sharing |
|
|
|
Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.
Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out... Are you serious? Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background? Is this just another Ad Hominem attack? The guy toured the world telling his story and the so called government committee didn't even include his first hand testimony. |
|
|
|
Did the CIA also hire a bad programmer to do the code? Did they find one who excelled in economics and writing white papers? I guess it is possible but I just don't find it likely. I do wonder if Satoshi is more than one person. Will be interesting to see if he ever starts sending his coins to "causes" in need once the price is up there. (After all, he can't easily spend them.)  |
|
|
|
I remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.)
Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question.
The fire from jet fuel ignited everything within the building such as furniture, plastic and paper as well as the airplane itself. Maybe this is what you saw? The next day the resulting ash and smell was drifting in the air in my neighborhood 15 miles away. How hot was the fire? I was trained in putting out jet fuel fires. You couldn't just light it as it had a high ignition temperature. You could put out a cigarette in it. We had to pour gasoline over the jet fuel and light that which would then ignite the jet fuel. I also have experience with welding so I know how steel conducts heat. The red glow will stay localized.
The fire wasn't hot, there were people standing around up there. Clearly things were cooling off. I think we are all aware that there were other materials burning but again, that was not a hot fire. Steel transmits heat. The fires were cooling off as well as the heat being dissipated. I am not sure how you can argue basic physics. If anyone is interested (snippet): On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.htmlThat building was mangled but never came down. Steel reinforced concrete. Different material and totally different construction methods. Also the fire wasn't at the base of the building which supports the rest of the building. Then there is the difference in the temperature of the fire.
So, the top of the WTC's was heavy enough to flatten the entire building? And it did so in such extreme fashion that the concrete was pulverized? Explain to me how the upper portion of the building had enough energy to flatten the rest and WHILE it was falling over. Explain why all of the computer simulations couldn't duplicate what happened that day. Explain how a building falls at free fall speed? Wouldn't all the steel and concrete slow things down? You are simplifying things. The Spain fire was apparently a hotter burning fire. Regarding the base of the building. You are aware that the lobby was blown out? Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit. Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. SnippetScott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.
Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.
“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/ I bolded in red the parts you skipped over. |
|
|
|
no offense, but my point is, keep an open mind and don't let emotions keep you distracted
in other words whatever they did or do at any forum is not relevant, are you capable of getting some or all of your money back.
that's the first question? second; can you find them?
third; are they willing, or can they be forced legally to pay back.
that's how i look at this case and try to help with an idea, and if it's not workable so be it.
regards
No offense taken. But I see you joined July 28, roughly 2 weeks ago. You should perhaps have a look at my older posts where I was trying to keep a bit of the order here. I wasn't so much defending AT but trying to keep things going in a more business direction and not so much personal (e.g. Against Fiaz). I was attacked by a few posters but nothing too bad and in hindsight it was understandable as I was giving AT the benefit of the doubt. Suffice to say, at this point in time, after all we have been through, the only thing left is doubt. I don't mean to discount your words, what I'm rather saying is AT should not have an out at our expense. They should not profit at our expense. Let's just keep that in mind. If we are going to be running a loss from this venture, I expect the exact same thing of AT. IAS |
|
|
|
WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.
Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature 2,500 K ( 2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F) Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F) Do you guys even Wikipedia?! Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel. Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion. Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it. http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdfSteel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?  Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others. Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around. Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOroI remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.) Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question. If anyone is interested (snippet): On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.htmlThat building was mangled but never came down. Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. Snippet Scott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.
Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.
“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/ |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
Been following you for some time now.
I have filed 2 complaints with paypal so far - no luck.
Talked to my bank about this - they said that the chance of getting any money back is pretty low as a lot of time has passed.
In the meantime i also wrote some mails to Alpha.First i got also the standard reply etc, but after my last mail in which i explained that they are in breach of contract they said they are willing to refund 50% - 70pounds from my 30% deposit.
Should i take this? It would be only 132.5 pounds from the 405 pounds deposit.
Not saying this is your intention, but this is your first post and it seems to benefit AT. They get to keep 50% of our deposits due to their negligence. If they do or don't end up selling these units, they should refund deposits to anyone who requests it. I can't imagine gifting them our money. Yes i'm aware of how my post seems but under no circumstances i said to just let the money go. I was interested more in some opinions regarding what can i do if i accept their offer (they refund 132 pounds ) but also want the rest of my money. Are there any other means to recover the difference because it seems that if i agree to this i would waive my right to get a full refund on my deposit true , this is his first post and to the benefit of alpha, but i also see that they are still willing to communicate and make some kind of a deal good or bad from costumers point of view. point is they are still present some where , so let's try and find them with all means legally available . @forceflow i'm glad to hear from you again , because you have experience in lawsuits and your advice is needed here. regards Still willing to communicate? They have deleted all of their posts here, deleted posts on their forum and deleted users accounts as well as IP Banned them for good measure. Seems a bit extreme. They have ignored ALL questions here since the post deletion. Their forum is basically dead because they delete everything. I just don't trust AT right now. At this point, I think you lawsuit question has more relevance and I'm excited to hear more on this front. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
