Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #272351
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. |
| Date | 2015-08-12 22:41 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <llus9c-1kr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <hp6dnSWRO-Db_1fInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <q3aq9c-hr2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <EMSdncV6mZhiI1bInZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:q3aq9c-hr2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> If a jet fuel collapse can leave less of a building standing than a >>> Controlled Demolition then why don't they just use jet fuel to bring down >>> very tall skyscrapers instead of deep underground nukes? >> >> Well, because dystroying a building with jet fuel is not a controlled >> demolition > > Please use the 9/11 physics since we are talking about that day and it is > the media that claims jet fuel was used to control the demolition of both > the Twin Towers. <G> There is no such thing as "9/11 physics" and no one other than you and a few other kooks claim the destruction of the buildings was controlled. >> and would leave more of the building standing than would >> conventional explosives > > Ok, so then why was less of the Twin Towers left standing than would have > been if it had been a "Controlled Demolition?" You probably have no clue that you just contradicted yourself, do you, kook? <snip remaining insane babble> -- Jim Pennino
Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:59 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 22:38 +0000
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 16:47 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 22:41 +0000
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-13 09:05 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-14 10:36 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 20:10 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-14 16:41 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 20:10 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-15 18:47 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:19 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 17:02 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 04:36 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-14 16:38 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-14 10:49 -0500
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-14 17:13 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-15 09:21 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-15 18:49 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-15 20:34 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-15 18:48 +0100
Re: Needed info on a COLLAPSE vs CD vs NCD. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-16 09:29 +0100
csiph-web