Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59

Thread: Water Fuel

  1. #1
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m...=WaterFuel.flv



    Why is it that we have not heard more about this fuel source?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    Holy Crap that is so cool!!! I want to invest in that Company.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Not too quick. Unless he has a new process, it supposedly takes more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water than you get when you burn the hydrogen.

    There were recent media reports of someone getting the hydrogen and oxygen to separate using radio waves. The report was something to the effect that you could seem to get water to burn by focusing radio frequency energy on the water. Of course it would have to have been the liberated hydrogen just above the surface of the water that was burning.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m...=WaterFuel.flv



    Why is it that we have not heard more about this fuel source?
    Because there is no magic fuel that will replace petroleum. There is no conspiracy here, move along.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    It's BS, and fitting for Faux News. TANSTAAFL.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    SNIP TANSTAAFL.
    Iraquoiscurse word?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    No one's posted a "That 70's Show" clip yet? http://youtube.com/watch?v=tOqtozYlkXU



    Though I'm having a hard time finding the relevance to open carrying...

  8. #8
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    You want to mass produce what? A horseless carriage? Now why would anyone want something like that? And spend so much money no less? What do you feed it? Gasoline? Now what is wrong with a perfectly good horse and some alfalfa and oats?



    Man, I love the naysayers. History is often too kind to them.

    Check this out. BMW is road testing a hydrogen/gasoline flexfuel sedan.

    http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2006/11/72100

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...9005/1024/FREE

    Now by no means, is this perfect- But at the same time its not a fraud or some effort to dupe the mouthbreathing-believe-everything-you-read types.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    You want to mass produce what? A horseless carriage? Now why would anyone want something like that? And spend so much money no less? What do you feed it? Gasoline? Now what is wrong with a perfectly good horse and some alfalfa and oats?



    Man, I love the naysayers. History is often too kind to them.

    Check this out. BMW is road testing a hydrogen/gasoline flexfuel sedan.

    http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2006/11/72100

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...9005/1024/FREE

    Now by no means, is this perfect- But at the same time its not a fraud or some effort to dupe the mouthbreathing-believe-everything-you-read types.
    Not trying to say we don't need something else besides gasoline, or that hydrogen will never work. I am just surrounded by people that pick up every new fad and tout it as the cure for all our ails, and it gets old. Every couple of years someone discovers hydrogen burns, and claims it will fix all our problems in the next few months.
    Didn't mean to snap on anyone.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m...=WaterFuel.flv



    Why is it that we have not heard more about this fuel source?
    Because it's trying to be passed off as unlimited energy, AKA "perpetual motion". You will never get out as much energy as you put in, see "Thermodynamics, Laws of, each, three".

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    SNIP TANSTAAFL.
    Iraquoiscurse word?

    You need to read more Robert Heinlein, a liberty activist such as you. And google is your friend:

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


    EDIT: And you can call me a "naysayer", but the fact is you lose energy by first splitting water into H2 and O2 and then combining the two back together in a fuel cell or by burning it. It's a law of thermodynamics, and Mother Nature grants no exceptions. Gasoline, on the other hand, yields more energy than it took to pump the oil and refine it, which is why we still use it. Also, in terms of energy density (ie. joules per square meter) gasoline is hard to beat. Uranium is much better, but nuclear fission autos are a bit too dangerous.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    Kelly J wrote:
    http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m...=WaterFuel.flv



    Why is it that we have not heard more about this fuel source?
    Because there is no magic fuel that will replace petroleum. There is no conspiracy here, move along.
    I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

    I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.



  13. #13
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    People I'm not trying to start a Pi**in' contest here, and no, you are correct, this has nothing at all to do with open carry, but then, nor do a lot of other subjects, posted here.



    Counting on page one only there are 23 post that have nothing to do with open carry!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

    I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.

    "We" have heard about this process. Many times. Usually by someone referring to it as some sort of "miracle fuel source". I realy didn't mean to offend, I just tabbed over from a Fark.com gun discussion, and replied with the same annoyed attitude I had over there.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    Kelly J wrote:
    I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

    I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.

    "We" have heard about this process. Many times. Usually by someone referring to it as some sort of "miracle fuel source". I realy didn't mean to offend, I just tabbed over from a Fark.com gun discussion, and replied with the same annoyed attitude I had over there.
    I can understand that, but it just hit wrong, I asked what I thought was a inquiring question, and it sounded like I was asking to sleep with someones wife, from some of the responces. Civility goes a long way!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    FogRider wrote:
    Kelly J wrote:
    I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

    I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.

    "We" have heard about this process. Many times. Usually by someone referring to it as some sort of "miracle fuel source". I realy didn't mean to offend, I just tabbed over from a Fark.com gun discussion, and replied with the same annoyed attitude I had over there.
    I can understand that, but it just hit wrong, I asked what I thought was a inquiring question, and it sounded like I was asking to sleep with someones wife, from some of the responces. Civility goes a long way!
    Yeah. It does. The snarkyness wasn't deliberate, just reflex. We cool brah?

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    SNIP TANSTAAFL.
    Iraquoiscurse word?

    You need to read more Robert Heinlein, a liberty activist such as you. And google is your friend:

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


    EDIT: And you can call me a "naysayer", but the fact is you lose energy by first splitting water into H2 and O2 and then combining the two back together in a fuel cell or by burning it. It's a law of thermodynamics, and Mother Nature grants no exceptions. Gasoline, on the other hand, yields more energy than it took to pump the oil and refine it, which is why we still use it. Also, in terms of energy density (ie. joules per square meter) gasoline is hard to beat. Uranium is much better, but nuclear fission autos are a bit too dangerous.
    All "laws" had to be discovered at some point....are you POSITIVE that no new laws may be found?....or new understanding of some of the laws we "know" today.......it was thought that the Earth was the center of the universe for many years....guess what happened when someone questioned that idea.....hmmmm

    We use gasoline because of $...nothing else.....Please do some research....hydrogen is MUCH higher in energy output than gasoline could ever be...even if we "used" all that went through our IC engines.
    There are technologies that would be far better to use.....

    http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html .....in his last prototype, this guy burned water in his vehicle WITHOUT converting it into hydrogen first....he died mysteriously just as production facilities were "in the works"

    Nikola Tesla....why was all his research/knowledge confiscated by the government?........
    maybe this had something to do with it..... http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html
    I encourage you to research Tesla and his work.....I guarantee it will raise questions in your mind.

    Here are a few other things that might have you asking questions.... http://www.panaceauniversity.org/

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html .....in his last prototype, this guy burned water in his vehicle WITHOUT converting it into hydrogen first....he died mysteriously just as production facilities were "in the works"
    Link is broke. Government must be covering it up. Ok, I googled and found that article. So he built a hydrogen car, big whoop, been done. The concept is actually pretty simple. Getting fuel efficiently is the problem. I don't care how efficiently the car runs, if it costs me $50/Gal. to get the fuel. That and hydrogen is hard to store.

    Nikola Tesla....why was all his research/knowledge confiscated by the government?........
    Sooo, how do we have his research?

    http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html I encourage you to research Tesla and his work.....I guarantee it will raise questions in your mind.

    Ahem...

    ELECTRICITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!

    The only question that I have is why people beleive some of this stuff. Tessla had some good ideas, but he also made up A LOT of crap. For instance, transmitting large amounts of electricity through the air. Look at high-tension power lines some time. Thats a huge amount of voltage running through them, but they cant even arc to the ground, a relatively short distance.


    By the way, heal the ozone? Flying saucer tech? Top notch site that is.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html .....in his last prototype, this guy burned water in his vehicle WITHOUT converting it into hydrogen first....he died mysteriously just as production facilities were "in the works"
    Link is broke. Government must be covering it up. Ok, I googled and found that article. So he built a hydrogen car, big whoop, been done. The concept is actually pretty simple. Getting fuel efficiently is the problem. I don't care how efficiently the car runs, if it costs me $50/Gal. to get the fuel. That and hydrogen is hard to store.

    Back out the "%C2%A0" after .html....not sure why the added characters are there.......
    If you had actually taken the time to READ, you would have understood that Mr. Meyers system CREATED the hydrogen onboard as he drove, "on the go", as it were. His system converted water into fuel AS IT RAN....it was NOT STORED. 100 mpg using WATER.


    Nikola Tesla....why was all his research/knowledge confiscated by the government?........
    Sooo, how do we have his research?

    Good question....maybe read the patents? There is a great deal of his research/patents available.
    The bigger problem is understanding the technology with our limited intelect.

    http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html I encourage you to research Tesla and his work.....I guarantee it will raise questions in your mind.


    The only question that I have is why people beleive some of this stuff. Tessla had some good ideas, but he also made up A LOT of crap. For instance, transmitting large amounts of electricity through the air. Look at high-tension power lines some time. Thats a huge amount of voltage running through them, but they cant even arc to the ground, a relatively short distance.

    I challenge you to PROVE that he "made up" anything. Transmitting electricity is a COMMON occurance...ever hear of microwaves?, radio?, radar?
    True, electricity can't be transmitted at the frequency that we commonly use (60hz) but Tesla WAS transmitting electricity at extremely HF ranges and made several PUBLIC displays while doing so.


    By the way, heal the ozone? Flying saucer tech? Top notch site that is.

    Research "lifters".....very simple electric devices that defy gravity....I've built a couple and have been amazed.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    SNIP TANSTAAFL.
    Iraquoiscurse word?

    You need to read more Robert Heinlein, a liberty activist such as you. And google is your friend:

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


    EDIT: And you can call me a "naysayer", but the fact is you lose energy by first splitting water into H2 and O2 and then combining the two back together in a fuel cell or by burning it. It's a law of thermodynamics, and Mother Nature grants no exceptions. Gasoline, on the other hand, yields more energy than it took to pump the oil and refine it, which is why we still use it. Also, in terms of energy density (ie. joules per square meter) gasoline is hard to beat. Uranium is much better, but nuclear fission autos are a bit too dangerous.
    Exactly. This is why for current hydrogen cars, the main source of hydrogen is... *drum roll* fossil fuels!

    If anyone wants a solution, it's a two-fold approach: electric cars and nuclear power. The electric car half is now the easy one, as batteries now have the size and capacity to provide decent power over a decent range, comparable or exceeding gasoline vehicles. However, to get that electric in a plug-in capacity, one is deriving power from fossil fuel power plants, which make up the vast majority of power sources in the US. Nuclear power is the answer: clean, cheap, and safe. But everyone's so irrationally scared of it (ah! an open carry analogy!) that I doubt any more nulcear power plants will ever be built in this country before we collapse economically.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Back out the "%C2%A0" after .html....not sure why the added characters are there....... If you had actually taken the time to READ, you would have understood that Mr. Meyers system CREATED the hydrogen onboard as he drove, "on the go", as it were. His system converted water into fuel AS IT RAN....it was NOT STORED. 100 mpg using WATER.

    I did get to that page, and I am still not convinced what he did was anything special. Why hasn't it been re-created? The scientific method says that for a fact to be proven, it must be reproducible. I can show you a gold brick and say I crapped it out, but unless I can do it again, you are going to call me a liar.

    Good question....maybe read the patents? There is a great deal of his research/patents available. The bigger problem is understanding the technology with our limited intelect.

    See the above for scientific method. Unless his stuff can be re-created, I have to call BS.

    I challenge you to PROVE that he "made up" anything. Transmitting electricity is a COMMON occurance...ever hear of microwaves?, radio?, radar? True, electricity can't be transmitted at the frequency that we commonly use (60hz) but Tesla WAS transmitting electricity at extremely HF ranges and made several PUBLIC displays while doing so.

    Look up Tessla's Death Ray, hor his machine capable of demolishing a building, or try to prove his electric car operated the way he said it did. When people doubted his tiny "power source" could power a car, he got pissed and took all his research away. Why would he do that? Either he was an ass, or he was making stuff up again. As for the microwave etc., sure there is alot of energy there, but its not usable energy. Also, you have to generate the energy somewhere. If I burn 2Gal. of fuel to make enough electricity to go 2 miles, I am only getting 1mpg! Repeat after me: "There is NO such thing as free enegy. Not all energy is useful."

    Research "lifters".....very simple electric devices that defy gravity....I've built a couple and have been amazed.

    Those tinfoil and string contraptions? Again, nothing special. They ionize the air, causing it to flow down, creating lift. They don't work in a vacuum.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    Back out the "%C2%A0" after .html....not sure why the added characters are there....... If you had actually taken the time to READ, you would have understood that Mr. Meyers system CREATED the hydrogen onboard as he drove, "on the go", as it were. His system converted water into fuel AS IT RAN....it was NOT STORED. 100 mpg using WATER.

    I did get to that page, and I am still not convinced what he did was anything special. Why hasn't it been re-created? The scientific method says that for a fact to be proven, it must be reproducible. I can show you a gold brick and say I crapped it out, but unless I can do it again, you are going to call me a liar.

    I really don't care about "scientific method".....this is all documented....the car exists and it worked...all the patents are available.
    Again...READ...the man DIED...how the hell can he do it again? Contact his brother, maybe you could go see the vehicle for yourself.....just because it hasn't been mass produced, dosen't mean it isn't real.

    Good question....maybe read the patents? There is a great deal of his research/patents available. The bigger problem is understanding the technology with our limited intelect.

    See the above for scientific method. Unless his stuff can be re-created, I have to call BS.

    You can call it whatever you like.....MANY of Teslas experiments have been reproduced and I have no doupt that many more will be.

    I challenge you to PROVE that he "made up" anything. Transmitting electricity is a COMMON occurance...ever hear of microwaves?, radio?, radar? True, electricity can't be transmitted at the frequency that we commonly use (60hz) but Tesla WAS transmitting electricity at extremely HF ranges and made several PUBLIC displays while doing so.

    Look up Tessla's Death Ray, hor his machine capable of demolishing a building, or try to prove his electric car operated the way he said it did. When people doubted his tiny "power source" could power a car, he got pissed and took all his research away. Why would he do that? Either he was an ass, or he was making stuff up again. As for the microwave etc., sure there is alot of energy there, but its not usable energy. Also, you have to generate the energy somewhere. If I burn 2Gal. of fuel to make enough electricity to go 2 miles, I am only getting 1mpg! Repeat after me: "There is NO such thing as free enegy. Not all energy is useful."

    I don't need to "look up" Teslas Death Ray....focus high energy microwaves and see what happens...ever put metal into a microwave oven? The machine that could destroy a building was a documented incident as was his car.....he didn't "get pissed" and take away all his research, J.P. Morgan got greedy and pulled funding when he found out that Tesla could broadcast free electricity to everyone.
    As far as free energy....there are several overunity devices as well as devices that tap into ZPE.
    If you'd like to see one that even YOU can reproduce, check out the "Bidini School Girl Motor" here....

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG
    Also see http://www.cheniere.org/ and http://www.icehouse.net/john34/bedinibearden.html regarding ZPE.
    Just because some/most people aren't capable of understanding something, doesn't mean that it isn't true....there has always been and will always be, a select few that know/understand far more than the rest of us.
    Really?...could you tell me where/how WE PRODUCE the energy that causes lightning? Just because we haven't figured out how to utilize some form of energy doesn't make it useless.

    Research "lifters".....very simple electric devices that defy gravity....I've built a couple and have been amazed.

    Those tinfoil and string contraptions? Again, nothing special. They ionize the air, causing it to flow down, creating lift. They don't work in a vacuum.

    First, we don't live in a vacum....nothing special?....NASA seems to disagree........
    http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...004-213312.pdf

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Wow... just...wow. Either you are trolling me or you are just... I don't know what. The laws of thermodynamics say the over unity is impossible. And zpe is not a usable source of energy, it's just the lowest amount of energy a system can have. If you want to go against the laws of physics, go for it.

    Who said the car didn't work? It obviously did, just not the was Tesla said it did. Of course high energy microwaves exist, but thats not what Tesla was trying to use. Of course there will be people that understand things better than most, but the difference between them and Tesla is that they can then explain these theorys, and they can be reproduced. Tesla was a genius in many ways, but he also was a crackpot. It's no coincidence that the only inventions that cannot be recreated are the ones that he was just making up, and never proved worked the way he said did. He made the tesla coil. Anyone can make a tesla coil. The tesla turbine can be built. The radio car, the death ray, these were based on very little fact, and exaggerated by Tesla. You can get power from radio waves, not enough to run a car. You can generate and fire charged particles, but not enough for a large scale weapon.

    No free energy. Nothing works like that. Never has, never will. The burden of proof is on the person making the wild claims. The tesla car was never proven to work the way he said, I don't have any need to prove that it did. Again, I can claim to crap gold, but it's not up to you to prove I can't.

    The water car? If it works as well as claimed, no-one would be able to cover that up. Car companies certainly wouldn't, they want the next big thing. If oil is running out, why would they want to kill themselves by destroying their future product. The conspiracy theorys hold no water.


    If you haven't gotten this yet, I am not going to convince you. I am willing to believe in new and unusual inventions, put you need to prove they will work well. I don't have the patience for trolls or crackpots. Good day, and good luck.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    FogRider, you're right on the mark there. But...

    I have a game called "Degrees of Relevance". Here, we try to see how many steps, or degrees, it takes to get from a thread topic to the topic of Open Carry.

    1) Cars might possibly run on water
    2) Water is used to make a little bit of electricity in this country.
    3) Gun factories use electricity.
    4) People carry handguns.
    5) Some do it openly.

    So, 5 degrees of relevance, then. :celebrate



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Yeah. Science and conspiracy theorys are some of my hot buttons, and when I see stuff like that it sets me off. I'm done now though.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •