9/11 ABL - Smoking Gun - This Is It

Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Sorry to interject here, yada yada..

TheBorg

I have looked into this subject already, I have seen this clip several times and also threads like it. I don''t have time to read 20 pages of posts right now and I just wanted to get my own personal opinion across, no offense I wasn't sure if people had acknowledged all the points I was raising.




[edit on 10-9-2007 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by jfj123
I guess what I'm saying is that because of the way the light moves, could the light be overlayed from something like a plane reflection??

No because then all cameras would see it.

HUH?? of course no other camera would see it... why would you think tampering with one camera video, would cause this on all camera?

Originally posted by jfj123
Tell me the make and model of the video camera and all other cameras so we can compare their uniqueness' . That is the only way you can state that the unique camera was indeed unique.

Are you suggesting that every single camera on 911 was the same? Thats ridiculous.

You're making the exact opposite claim which is just as ridiculous. As if there are an infinite number of makes and models and it's absolutely impossible that there weren't 2 of the same camera. In addition, because we don't know the make/model of the camera that took your video, we can't know for sure whether it had a cheap ICF filter. That is just a GUESS.

I don't know, that logic is a lot more clear to me than it is to you. I can not fix that unless I some how make you a genius (not possible). I mean, if its "debris" or "a bird" well, I have seen LOTS of video that show the same area the laser dot is, and nothing is there. So we have a mystery object that can only be seen on one camera. Why is that? What object on the face of the Earth could only be visible to one camera, yet not the others? Its simple. IR light.

I find it interesting that you would insult my intelligence and I have never once claimed I can perform JESUS like miracles. You don't need to make me anything, by the way.

Again, maybe the mystery dot was overlayed onto the video, compressed and uploaded to the internet for fun and excitement.

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

This is a great example of you people jumping to conclusions or shaping my words into some alternate meaning to fit your mindset.

I said "i have yet to see it", and you people think I said "it is impossible".

Thats pretty pathetic.

Aluminum at 500mph going through steel, LOL.

btw, straw and wood is not aluminum and steel.


[edit on 10-9-2007 by 11 11]

Don't be so presumptuous [snip] I KNOW EXACTLY what you said and read it verbatim. I ALSO KNOW WHAT ALUMINUM IS AND STEEL. [snip]you'd have seen my observation with the straw and 2x4 was just to illustrate some of the oddities we see with powerful kinetic energy.

What you think is pathetic is NONE of my business

Off the record,, saying I have yet to see it implies you either think it's impossible or that it is a lie. I suggest you don't sugarcoat your doubt with such semantics relying on all this verbal gymnastics you are playing here. If you say "YOU PEOPLE" that puts words in all our mouths.

You can show that same quote to a 1000 people and I would wager you that almost all would interpret your saying "I have yet to see" as either a lie or others thinking you are saying it is impossible. If you want to criticize anyone about your ambiguous answers which leave no choice but to have readers use there own interpretation, then don't complain about it when they do.

If you didn't think it is impossible then why did you say what you did? Why not just say you don't believe it or call them a liar.?

It wouldn't leave you looking so,,,how should we say,,,

pathetic.


By the way ,, If you think I would try to use ANYTHING you have said to "fit" my mindset,,

[snip - removed insulting remarks]

[snip]

HEY MODERATOR! If you are going to imply the words "don't flatter yourself are insulting, then I suggest you SNIP those by 11 11 calling me pathetic. I doubt seriously my words which were devoid of any expletives and only to say his calling me pathetic is none of my business.

It wasn't attacking him, it was attacking his argument and is integral to getting to the facts inspite hurting anyones witto feewings about the phrase "don't flatter yourself". If someone wishes to enhance ther ego by belittling others as pathetc ,, then I expect you snip it or let this thread have as much prejudice for 11 11 as it is looking.

Perhaps you are friends or family?



[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Conspiriology,

As it is late and I must sleep, I don't have much time to write a another repeat of what I have been answering this entire thread. So if you would kindly go over this thread from start to finish, you will most likely have a TON of your questions answered by the time I come back and reply to the questions that have already been asked. AGAIN.



[edit on 10-9-2007 by 11 11]

I would have no idea how late it is for you but had you answered my question when you are more awake, perhaps that wouldn't look like such a flimsy excuse to avoid a direct question which I won't ask again. I didn't have a "ton" of questions, just very specific direct questions. Questions that at 9:20 pm last night I had answers for I would say are a hell of a lot more concrete regarding that video then any you have.

I get it that that you don't know what you are talking about and rather then SHOW you why this "theory" of your is theoretically impossible and NOT technically feasible in the context you have presented it, Ill let you continue to spin yet another 911 conspiracy theory that any 5th grader could see on it's face is BUNK.

I HAVE read all the posts here and like mine,, you have managed to dance around answering them giving links which are "about" issues regarding the question in addition to those that fit your theory but have nothing to do with the reason I am asking YOU what YOU KNOW as FACT.

Like I said before, it is often introduced as evidence to impeach ones testimony to ask questions I may already have the answer for from the horses mouth but only AFTER you have answered me. I suspect you know I have something to do just that and wish to avoid such incriminations. Your entire theory can easily be corroborated contingent on your answering a few direct yes or no questions.

Those words "yes" or "no" would have taken less time to type then your explantions about being too tired to answer them.

If I ask you about the cam or the owner of the cam and you offer nothing but excuses,,

Ill take that as YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

It isn't OUR fault you are getting all this "grief" having to give additional information that just creates more questions for the reader. It isn't our fault you can't present a credible theory that can be understood by us "little people" with our limited intelligence.

YOU SAID THIS WAS THE SMOKING GUN I DIDN'T.

ALL THIS IS JUST MORE SMOKE

AND SOME MIRRORS,



[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]

The personal insults and attacks stop now !!

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



This is YOUR warning, post in a civil manner or get a 3 day time out, your choice...


Look, we understand that tensions might be running high given today's date and the fact that we're one day from another Tuesday September 11th, however that is no excuse to be uncivil towards each other in this discussion.

Please take a moment and stop to think about your posts and decide if you're posting in a civil manner.

Thanks.

Originally posted by jfj123
HUH?? of course no other camera would see it... why would you think tampering with one camera video, would cause this on all camera?

Please explain why someone would tamper a small little dot on a video that nobody cares about? Are you suggesting I tampered with it? You do know I have zero control over the video right?

Hey, wow, will you look at that... the video that shows the laser was posted on Google Video on November 1, 2001 which is about 1 month after 9/11. Yeah I'm really sure someone edited a laser on the building a month after 9/11.....thats believe able.

video.google.com...

Now read this web site:

www.cameraplanet.com...

What if I have footage from 9/11?

Contact Us. We will review your material, and consider its inclusion in the collection.

As you can see, they screen the videos before they ad them to the collection. I guarantee that the only modification to the video is the "CameraPlanet" logo.

Also, TheBorg, e-mails these days are hardly a sure way to get a hold of people, especially if they get lots of mail, or lots of spam. I would try calling them.

Originally posted by jfj123
You're making the exact opposite claim which is just as ridiculous. As if there are an infinite number of makes and models and it's absolutely impossible that there weren't 2 of the same camera. In addition, because we don't know the make/model of the camera that took your video, we can't know for sure whether it had a cheap ICF filter. That is just a GUESS.

You think it is ridiculous to think that different cameras were used? You think it's logical that every person that filmed 9/11 had the same camera?!? Wow these a probabilities of massive scale. b.t.w there are 1000's of different makes and models. Just because you are only aware of the name brands that brainwash with commercials like "Sony" and "Canon" and all that junk, then wow you got a lot of research to do. Go on ebay an put "video camera" you will see 1000's of cheap no name china imports. You would be supprized at the amount of camera manufactures.

Also, IT WAS NOT A GUESS. It was an educated conclusion based on evidence. Red and Green was the theme colors for the video which is a clear sign that some IR light was being let into the camera.

Originally posted by jfj123
I find it interesting that you would insult my intelligence and I have never once claimed I can perform JESUS like miracles.

Again, maybe the mystery dot was overlayed onto the video, compressed and uploaded to the internet for fun and excitement.

You know, I never insulted your intelligence. I simply said it would be impossible to teach you to be a genius, because it would. You don't seem to be the type that wants to learn.

Again, why would someone overlay a tiny little dot on this video 1 month after 9/11? Was there a major truth movement then? I think the video was submitted even earlier than a month, yet CameraPlanet didn't upload it until AFTER they previewed its legitimacy. I don't see the point of CameraPlanet, or ANYONE putting this small detail into a video to be ignored for 6 years.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Don't be so presumptuous [snip] I KNOW EXACTLY what you said and read it verbatim. I ALSO KNOW WHAT ALUMINUM IS AND STEEL. [snip]you'd have seen my observation with the straw and 2x4 was just to illustrate some of the oddities we see with powerful kinetic energy.

If you knew exactly what I said, then you would know that I never said it was impossible. I never even said the word "impossible". I have an extensive back ground in physics, after all I did study every theory from every corner of the globe.

I have seen a ping-pong ball canon shoot a ping-pong ball through multiple aluminum soda/beer cans. But, I have never seen aluminum go through steel. Maybe you could be kind enough to show me? Got a video? I would love to see it.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
What you think is pathetic is NONE of my business

Good then ignore I said it. That would help you.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Off the record,, saying I have yet to see it implies you either think it's impossible or that it is a lie.

NO THERE WAS NO "IMPLYING". I MEANT EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. "I have yet to see it." No hidden meaning, no implying, just straight forward talking.

I don't understand why would jump to conclusions and imply something I never said.

I said "you people" because the member hlesterjerome and you BOTH jumped to conclusions thinking I said it was "impossible". You people, meaning, you two people. I don't understand why you want to play this straw man game. Seriously.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I suggest you don't sugarcoat your doubt with such semantics relying on all this verbal gymnastics you are playing here. If you say "YOU PEOPLE" that puts words in all our mouths.

The only one relying on verbal gymnastics right now is YOU. YOU are the one arguing semantics right now. "You people" meant YOU and the member hlesterjerome. I figured that since two people thought that, then many more must have as well.... so I just said "you people" which is NOT directed at a specific entity.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You can show that same quote to a 1000 people and I would wager you that almost all would interpret your saying "I have yet to see" as either a lie or others thinking you are saying it is impossible.

Thats probably because 1000 people like to jump to conclusions. I said exactly what I meant. No hidden meanings. "I have yet to see it", does not mean "its impossible". Please, read what I say, not what you want me to say.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
If you didn't think it is impossible then why did you say what you did? Why not just say you don't believe it or call them a liar.?

Because I was seriously hoping for a knowledgeable person to show me an example of it, since I have never seen it before. The entire official 9/11 theory proposed by NIST and others relies on the very slim possibility that an aluminum jet could blow through an entire exterior steel structure, and still have enough kinetic energy to cut multiple core columns. Since the exterior steel structure took the most amount of the force from the jet on impact, you would think the majority of energy from the jet would be absorbed and used to break through the exterior steel, leaving very little energy to even harm the interior core columns.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
It wouldn't leave you looking so,,,how should we say,,,
pathetic.

You see, I never called you pathetic, I called "jumping to conclusions" pathetic. Since you did it yet again.....well....

Anyway thanks for your insult, I eat them for breakfast, they taste like fruit loops.

Since your gray matter is so well traveled...

Originally posted by 11 11
If you knew exactly what I said, then you would know that I never said it was impossible. I never even said the word "impossible". I have an extensive back ground in physics, after all I did study every theory from every corner of the globe.

I have seen a ping-pong ball canon shoot a ping-pong ball through multiple aluminum soda/beer cans. But, I have never seen aluminum go through steel. Maybe you could be kind enough to show me? Got a video? I would love to see it.

Please clarify something for me... Are you saying that aluminum will not penetrate steel? Is this assertion based on the hardness scale? Does this declaration extend to other metals like copper, brass, and lead?

What property allows for a ping pong ball to penetrate a beer can; that would not allow an aluminum (or for that matter copper, brass, or lead) object to penetrate steel?

Seems unfair

What about water? Can water penetrate steel?

Are you as big a fan of Sir Isaac Newton as I am?

Motion Monkeys, not just for laws of anymore...

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I would have no idea how late it is for you but had you answered my question when you are more awake, perhaps that wouldn't look like such a flimsy excuse to avoid a direct question which I won't ask again.

Excuse huh? So it must be really hard to look at the top of each post to see the date and time at which it was submitted? Well, here is a hint, I live in California. Now go look at the post at which I said it was late.

I wake up at 6:00am for work, and I was posting around 1:00am, 1:30am PST. Simple research gives you simple answers.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I HAVE read all the posts here and like mine,, you have managed to dance around answering them giving links which are "about" issues regarding the question in addition to those that fit your theory but have nothing to do with the reason I am asking YOU what YOU KNOW as FACT.

No, you haven't read all the post, or you wouldn't have asked a few questions that I have already answered. If you would have read all the posts, you probably wouldn't have even mentioned the ABL. I specifically said earlier in this thread that the only thing I truly support in my entire original post, is the video evidence of a laser.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Your entire theory can easily be corroborated contingent on your answering a few direct yes or no questions.

Those words "yes" or "no" would have taken less time to type then your explantions about being too tired to answer them.

LOL, ok I will take the time to answer all your questions with "yes" and "no".
If I would have known you wanted "yes" and "no" I would probably have answered you last night.

1: First question, Do you know who made the video?

No

2: Do you know the make of the camera?

No

3: Did the camera employ and distance measuring technology?

No

4: Do you think the settings on the camera alleged to have enabled it capturing the white UO could have also registerd seeing items, things etc, that the towers would have had in them or around them?

Yes

5: Do you know of anything typically seen by a camera like the one you describe that might be in an office building?

Yes

6: If so what are they ?

Yes

7: The Jet you suggest we take a closer look then show an enlarged picture of another jet, is that the SAME jet in the small picture only close up or?

No

8: you say this abl laser follows on a straight but downward line illustrating with narratives ,, according to scale,, how far a distance did that travel where you have the red lines indicating it's path?

Yes

9: How did you arrive at calculating "scale"?

Yes

10: If I were to ask the original creator of that video used in your first post,,if he did in fact use any other camera then say ohh a hitachi digital mini cam, Would he ask me why I am asking or would he tell me it was an IR cam?

No

Originally posted by Conspiriology
YOU SAID THIS WAS THE SMOKING GUN I DIDN'T.

I said the video evidence of a laser was the smoking gun. Not the theory.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Please clarify something for me... Are you saying that aluminum will not penetrate steel? Is this assertion based on the hardness scale? Does this declaration extend to other metals like copper, brass, and lead?

WOW, just..... WOW.

No, I never ever ever ever ever ever ever said it will not penetrate steel.

I simply said, and meant, exactly what I said and meant. "I have yet to see it".

See = to look with your eyes.

Although, I do think it may be impossible for an aluminum jet at 500mph to have enough power to cut core columns, AFTER it had used an exceptional amount of energy to bust through the exterior columns.

I figure, just a guess, that the speed of 500mph would have been reduced greatly upon impact of the exterior columns, leaving very little speed left to damage any core columns.

p.s. yes I enjoyed Isaac Newtons theories.


[edit on 10-9-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Being that this was daylight and a color video makes IR viewing impossible. UNLESS it just happens to either have two separate cameras a multiplexer OR incorporate "dual" imaging chipset technology. This one I am assuming by your insisting it is IR DID in fact have this capability. Having said that I have stated three HIGHLY UNLIKELY occurrence at a time in our nations history where such circumstances just happen to be just what the theorist needed.

Before you start to debate this subject, I highly suggest your read or "re-read" these following posts and educated yourself in the area where I describe the difference between an and IR camera and a Thermal Imaging camera.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or you can read and comprehend this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, you don't need a multiplexer or dual image sensor to give your camera the ability to see more infrared light. It all depends on the ICF.

Just so you are with us,:

ICF (IR Cut Filter)

A special filter used for blocking infrared rays. In-between the optical lens and the CCD, most modern camcorders and digital cameras have this filter to compensate the colorings and the tones of the information reaching from subjects.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by 11 11]

Yet another resource about ICF's that went unnoticed or unresearched:

www.cs.unc.edu...

Therefore, many lenses have different depth of focus for the visible and the infrared spectrum.

I don't see why it is so hard to believe the camera that filmed the laser was able to see slightly more IR light than the other cameras that filmed the same angle.

What we have here...

Originally posted by 11 11
No, I never ever ever ever ever ever ever said it will not penetrate steel.

I simply said, and meant, exactly what I said and meant. "I have yet to see it".

See = to look with your eyes.

Although, I do think it may be impossible for an aluminum jet at 500mph to have enough power to cut core columns, AFTER it had used an exceptional amount of energy to bust through the exterior columns.

Is a failure to extrapolate...

If a light, voluminous object made from plastic can penetrate a beer can, then why wouldn't a denser, harder object with much more mass driven at higher velocities not be able to accomplish more? Because you're unable to conceive/comprehend it? What calculations caused you to arrive at this impossibility?

I must confess, I was always amazed that the impacts didn't generate more immediate structural distress... It can only be attributed to the design redundancy that was incorporated into the WTC. I would also remind you that there are more than one event to calculate regarding the impact. The resultant shifts from the impact would cause additional stresses and loads on a structural members (the ones not damaged or completely destroyed). It would be interesting to see how many "cycles" it took to dissipate all the energy transmitted into each building, and what the total time involved was. Perhaps you could draw upon your worldly experience and provide such calculations?

Originally posted by 11 11
.

Good now that we have that cleared up,,

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MAKER OF THAT CAMERA WAS?

YES OR NO

HAVE YOU EVER ASKED HIM IF IT WAS AN IR CAM

YES OR NO?

THIS IS VERY SIMPLE 11 11

DO YOU KNOW THE PERSON WHO MADE THE VIDEO YES OR NO

HAVE YOU ASKED HIM IF HE USED THE IR CAM FOR THAT VIDEO

YES OR NO

why you continue to avoid this is obvious and as for my knowledge of ir

WHY SHOULD I GIVE YOU THAT WHEN I DON'T KNOW UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT IR IS EVEN AT ISSUE HERE YET UNTILL MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]

Edit: Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by intrepid

HEY intrepid! what exactly are you editing from my posts ! this is the second time you have given me this warning and this time it was for using the word fruit loops when THAT IS WHAT HE CALLED ME! I just made referance to it while he still has gone without one warning.

if you want him to win his argurment my using the rules as leverage in his favor then let us know. I am sure we will let him think his theory has credibility. He can be alone in that idea.


ILL SAY IT AGAIN YOUR WARNINGS MEAN NOTHING UNTIL YOU MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE ENFORCED WITHOUT BIAS FOR THE THREADS CREATOR WHO SEEMS TO HAVE IMMUNITY.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Conspiriology]

^You really can't compare a very thin aluminum can and a very strong ping pong ball with an aircraft running into steel columns imo.

A ping pong ball is very strong because of it's shape, not because of what it's made of. You can poke your finger through a tin can they're so thin.
If PP balls weren't strong they'd break as soon as you hit them with the bat.

How about taking a thin aluminum tube and see if you can shoot it through a sheet of steel. Then you might be closer to WTC reality.

How do you explain the difference in the impact at the towers and the pentagon for example. Supposedly the plane at the pentagon didn't even leave any wing marks on the concrete wall, and disintegrated into nothing. Yet we're supposed to believe the wings on the WTC planes managed to go through not one but two walls of construction steel. Both of these situations contradicts the other, so which one is the real event and which one was fake? You can't have it both ways.

What about the plane that hit WTC 2? That plane didn't even impact the central core. So where does that leave your theory?

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Good now that we have that cleared up,,

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MAKER OF THAT CAMERA WAS?

YES OR NO

He already said no to this in his previous post.

HAVE YOU EVER ASKED HIM IF IT WAS AN IR CAM

YES OR NO?

Kind of hard to do this when he doesn't know who made the camera/video.

Could we please stop with the suggestive insults? It's really detracting from the better portion of the debate here. There's better places to insult one another than here. Any IM service would suffice.

TheBorg

Let's concentrate on the main subject, again explained a few posts back by the OP :
His final position that there is an infrared laser dot visible in that video, dated 12 November 2001 by CameraPlanet, linked to by him, in his opening post.

All the rest has been discussed to smithereens at this forum and at the Physics.org 9/11 forum and some more online forums.

I repeat, he does a fairly good job of defending his position.
He singlehandedly keeps defending his ground, and I enjoy the TOTAL discussion.

So please be nice, and keep it civil, and don't sidestep the main subject, based on a few of his extraordinary statements which seem to hit some open nerves by the combatants.

I myself, would like to see some better footage from the same camera, which is available at CameraPlanet. The original footage I mean.
Like 11 11 said, there is a tel nr on their page.
212-450-1681.
His name is Rosenbaum. Ask him politely, and who knows, you can beat the agencies to it, if mr. 11 11 is right.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Like 11 11 said, there is a tel nr on their page.
212-450-1681.
His name is Rosenbaum. Ask him politely, and who knows, you can beat the agencies to it, if mr. 11 11 is right.

I just got done looking at their contacts page, and I don't see any telephone number. All I see is an email address. Could you please link me? I'd appreciate it.

TheBorg

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

If a light, voluminous object made from plastic can penetrate a beer can, then why wouldn't a denser, harder object with much more mass driven at higher velocities not be able to accomplish more? Because you're unable to conceive/comprehend it? What calculations caused you to arrive at this impossibility?

scitation.aip.org...

Though ping-pong balls are made of plastic, they are a quite hard. Also, they are made of the supreme shape of the universe, a sphere. Just like cylinder tubes have more load strength then square tubes, the sphere is quite a strong structural shape.

Also:

Given an atmospheric pressure of 105 N/m2 over its circular cross section, the ball is initially subject to a force of about 125 N, thus resulting in an initial acceleration approaching 5000 g's. In practice, for an ambient air implosion, balls are observed to leave the tube at between 260 to 310 m/s—depending on the tube/ball parameters.

Since the ball is pretty small, it can focus more energy in a smaller section. Thus giving it its aluminum can piercing abilities, while traveling between 581 to 693 MPH, which is faster than the jets.

I'm sure if the the ping-pong ball was larger, and the same speeds were used, it would have less effective results because of the amount of surface area making contact with the target, causing more friction upon impact, slowing it down.

Although, the jets have more mass than the ping-pong ball the jets also have more surface area to slow the jet down on impact, like the wings and vertical stablizer, and the very long body of aluminum.

WTC is not even close to being as thin as aluminum soda cans. Aluminum is more weak as well, and we know the WTC are not made of aluminum.

So, from that knowledge, and the fact that WTC is also made of concrete. I would say its not possible for an aluminum jet to pierce through multiple steel core columns after passing through exterior columns.

It may be possible for the jet to break welds or rivits, but not break pure solid steel.


Also, I used to work at a machine shop that used a high pressure water mill. So, yeah...

Originally posted by ANOK
^You really can't compare a very thin aluminum can and a very strong ping pong ball with an aircraft running into steel columns imo.

I didn't introduce this comparison, it was provided.

How about taking a thin aluminum tube and see if you can shoot it through a sheet of steel. Then you might be closer to WTC reality.

I'm sure it would go right through... Say an untipped arrow shaft and a sheet of steel of a thickness relative to the applied velocity/mass... Seems like a no contest match to me.

What about the plane that hit WTC 2? That plane didn't even impact the central core. So where does that leave your theory?

I didn't forward any theories, just cold hard facts. I've been watching kinetic displays most of my life, and between the "irresistible force" and the "immovable object," I'll bet force every time (history bears out this line of wagering). Joules, Newton Meters, Foot Pounds... It's all the same.

[edit on 10/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]