Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #277013 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-29 17:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 325 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy
The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 13:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 18:23 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 17:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:17 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 05:02 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 08:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 15:21 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:55 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 13:25 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:20 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 09:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 12:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 16:03 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 05:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 03:47 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 06:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:42 -0500
Re: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-03 05:33 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 22:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 08:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 16:30 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 19:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 04:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:34 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 20:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-05 17:48 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 13:16 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 21:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 15:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 16:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 10:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 16:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 17:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:11 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 16:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:19 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-09 20:09 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 10:59 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 13:48 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 09:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 14:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:43 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-06 15:59 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 13:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-07 05:58 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 13:25 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-05 21:41 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 02:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 02:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 18:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 10:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:40 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 11:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 15:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 20:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 18:07 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 13:36 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:21 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 18:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 19:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:18 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:32 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:02 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 07:13 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 13:20 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 16:22 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 15:16 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 17:52 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 23:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 22:54 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 22:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-01 20:12 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 23:43 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 01:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 05:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:35 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 21:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-02 20:03 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 01:10 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 05:50 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 10:16 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 12:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 17:21 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 19:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 20:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 19:34 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:30 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 22:01 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 22:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 19:57 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 00:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 00:06 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 01:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 00:51 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 02:07 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 02:02 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 06:11 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW #10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-10-01 15:20 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 12:30 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW #10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-10-01 15:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 12:27 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 18:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW # 10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-10-01 15:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 12:26 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW and Checkmate #10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-10-01 15:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 13:05 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW #10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-10-01 16:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 13:18 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW # 10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-10-01 16:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 13:30 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 16:18 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 16:45 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 17:02 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 17:24 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 18:05 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 19:02 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 19:09 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 19:18 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 20:36 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 21:06 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 21:43 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 00:52 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-30 23:09 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2015-09-30 23:24 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 02:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 02:11 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 02:08 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-10-01 15:14 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 21:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. buZZard DoW #7 <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-02 21:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. S¡r¡ Crews <siri.cruise@imf.gov> - 2015-10-02 19:53 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. buZZard DoW #7 <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-02 22:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 22:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 16:48 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 02:25 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 18:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 19:07 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 23:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 21:09 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-10-01 21:44 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 01:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 15:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 18:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-30 22:34 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Ms Kitty DoW #6" <Kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-10-01 00:08 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-01 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 09:02 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:42 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 13:26 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 19:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:08 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 19:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 00:26 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 17:32 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 22:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 22:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 04:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:30 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:34 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 21:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 21:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 22:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 19:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 20:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:26 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 09:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 07:34 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 09:28 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 19:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-05 10:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 02:56 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-30 22:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-01 10:11 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 12:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-02 10:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 18:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 16:13 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:07 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 18:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 16:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 20:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 08:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:08 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:50 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 18:47 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:53 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 07:09 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 13:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 14:55 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 08:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:24 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 21:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 09:16 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:14 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 13:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 14:54 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 16:24 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:46 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 16:13 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:02 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:37 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 18:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 01:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 10:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-02 20:34 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:11 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:07 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:19 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 08:27 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 17:36 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 19:25 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 04:33 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:07 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:32 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:03 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 17:13 -0700
Page 13 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 17 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 02:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6vjudc-e32.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #277175 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> je suis charly wrote: >>>>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links >>>>>>> other than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US >>>>>>> Military already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable >>>>>>> of causing the 9/11 damage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>>>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >>>>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>>>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>>>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>>>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >>>>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >>>>> >>>>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >>>>> guided missile ??? >>>>> >>>>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of >>>>> their cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >>>>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >>>>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >>>>> window in the building. >>>>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >>>>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >>>> >>>> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >>>> >>>> Hahahahaha. >>> >>> >>> Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" >> >> "Anything" ? >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > > If you stuck a camera inside the front, sent the video signal back to your > computer at home, and told it to turn, accelerate, and brake, from your > computer, and even dump a dead body in the woods miles from your > home,.....YES it would be considered a drone. If you added wings so it could fly, it would be an RPV, but unless you added wings AND the smarts to make it autonomous, it would not be a drone. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 23:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ar8p0bp9stiv733aefgn21eic51sp4d0qr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277182 |
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:56:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> je suis charly wrote: >>>>>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links >>>>>>>> other than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US >>>>>>>> Military already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable >>>>>>>> of causing the 9/11 damage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>>>>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >>>>>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>>>>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>>>>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>>>>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >>>>>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >>>>>> guided missile ??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of >>>>>> their cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >>>>>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >>>>>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >>>>>> window in the building. >>>>>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >>>>>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >>>>> >>>>> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >>>>> >>>>> Hahahahaha. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" >>> >>> "Anything" ? >>> >>> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >>> >>> Is my Challenger a drone? >> >> If you stuck a camera inside the front, sent the video signal back to your >> computer at home, and told it to turn, accelerate, and brake, from your >> computer, and even dump a dead body in the woods miles from your >> home,.....YES it would be considered a drone. > >If you added wings so it could fly, it would be an RPV, but unless >you added wings AND the smarts to make it autonomous, it would not >be a drone. > ><snip remaining kook babble> Bast keeps digging deeper down into the hole she's standing in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 22:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.307666316422e21598c2fd@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277173 |
In article <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> je suis charly wrote: > >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" > >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other > >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military > >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing > >>>>> the 9/11 damage. > >>>> > >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are > >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on > >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced > >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily > >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel > >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from > >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. > >>> > >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a > >>> guided missile ??? > >>> > >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their > >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. > >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single > >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific > >>> window in the building. > >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and > >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. > >> > >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. > >> > >> Hahahahaha. > > > > > >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" > > "Anything" ? > > My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > > Is my Challenger a drone? To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about anything, so what else should we expect. Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 23:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <df7p0blff896skdf6fbgnm6cn6q1drhe5q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277178 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:36:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com>, >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> je suis charly wrote: >> >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >> >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >> >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >> >>>>> the 9/11 damage. >> >>>> >> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >> >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >> >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >> >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >> >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >> >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >> >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >> >>> >> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >> >>> guided missile ??? >> >>> >> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their >> >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >> >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >> >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >> >>> window in the building. >> >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >> >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >> >> >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >> >> >> >> Hahahahaha. >> > >> > >> >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" >> >> "Anything" ? >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about >anything, so what else should we expect. LOL. True. >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 10:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3077092ce641df4c98c2ff@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277181 |
In article <df7p0blff896skdf6fbgnm6cn6q1drhe5q@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:36:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > wrote: > > >In article <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com>, > >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> > >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> je suis charly wrote: > >> >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" > >> >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other > >> >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military > >> >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing > >> >>>>> the 9/11 damage. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are > >> >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on > >> >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced > >> >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily > >> >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel > >> >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from > >> >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. > >> >>> > >> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a > >> >>> guided missile ??? > >> >>> > >> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their > >> >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. > >> >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single > >> >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific > >> >>> window in the building. > >> >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and > >> >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. > >> >> > >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. > >> >> > >> >> Hahahahaha. > >> > > >> > > >> >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" > >> > >> "Anything" ? > >> > >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > >> > >> Is my Challenger a drone? > > > >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about > >anything, so what else should we expect. > > LOL. True. > > > >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? > > > A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. > Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on this PC.. https://www.google.com/url? sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= 0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% 2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= 1443794926555214 About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off from payments.. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 12:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277217 |
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:11:49 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <df7p0blff896skdf6fbgnm6cn6q1drhe5q@4ax.com>, >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:36:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com>, >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> je suis charly wrote: >> >> >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> >> >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >> >> >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >> >> >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >> >> >>>>> the 9/11 damage. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >> >> >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >> >> >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >> >> >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >> >> >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >> >> >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >> >> >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >> >> >>> guided missile ??? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their >> >> >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >> >> >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >> >> >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >> >> >>> window in the building. >> >> >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >> >> >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hahahahaha. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" >> >> >> >> "Anything" ? >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? >> > >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about >> >anything, so what else should we expect. >> >> LOL. True. >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 > >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on >this PC.. > >https://www.google.com/url? >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= >1443794926555214 Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off >from payments.. I hear ya.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 10:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3078589d82d0108598c301@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277218 |
In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:11:49 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > wrote: > > >In article <df7p0blff896skdf6fbgnm6cn6q1drhe5q@4ax.com>, > >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> > >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:36:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com>, > >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> je suis charly wrote: > >> >> >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" > >> >> >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other > >> >> >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military > >> >> >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing > >> >> >>>>> the 9/11 damage. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are > >> >> >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on > >> >> >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced > >> >> >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily > >> >> >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel > >> >> >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from > >> >> >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a > >> >> >>> guided missile ??? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their > >> >> >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. > >> >> >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single > >> >> >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific > >> >> >>> window in the building. > >> >> >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and > >> >> >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hahahahaha. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" > >> >> > >> >> "Anything" ? > >> >> > >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > >> >> > >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > >> > > >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about > >> >anything, so what else should we expect. > >> > >> LOL. True. > >> > >> > >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? > >> > >> > >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. > >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. > >> > >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 > > > >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on > >this PC.. > > > >https://www.google.com/url? > >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= > >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% > >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- > >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= > >1443794926555214 > > Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) > > > >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off > >from payments.. > > I hear ya. I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg That one should. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 18:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277299 |
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:11:49 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <df7p0blff896skdf6fbgnm6cn6q1drhe5q@4ax.com>, >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:36:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com>, >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> je suis charly wrote: >> >> >> >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> >> >> >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >> >> >> >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >> >> >> >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >> >> >> >>>>> the 9/11 damage. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >> >> >> >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >> >> >> >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >> >> >> >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >> >> >> >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >> >> >> >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >> >> >> >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >> >> >> >>> guided missile ??? >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their >> >> >> >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >> >> >> >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >> >> >> >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >> >> >> >>> window in the building. >> >> >> >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >> >> >> >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hahahahaha. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" >> >> >> >> >> >> "Anything" ? >> >> >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? >> >> > >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. >> >> >> >> LOL. True. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? >> >> >> >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. >> >> >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 >> > >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on >> >this PC.. >> > >> >https://www.google.com/url? >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= >> >1443794926555214 >> >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) >> >> >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off >> >from payments.. >> >> I hear ya. > >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. > >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg > >That one should. That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT lettering. We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 10:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3079b072acf56a98c304@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277325 |
In article <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > wrote: > > >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, > >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> > >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:11:49 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <df7p0blff896skdf6fbgnm6cn6q1drhe5q@4ax.com>, > >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:36:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com>, > >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> je suis charly wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" > >> >> >> >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other > >> >> >> >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military > >> >> >> >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing > >> >> >> >>>>> the 9/11 damage. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are > >> >> >> >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on > >> >> >> >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced > >> >> >> >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily > >> >> >> >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel > >> >> >> >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from > >> >> >> >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a > >> >> >> >>> guided missile ??? > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their > >> >> >> >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. > >> >> >> >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single > >> >> >> >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific > >> >> >> >>> window in the building. > >> >> >> >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and > >> >> >> >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hahahahaha. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Anything" ? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > >> >> > > >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about > >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. > >> >> > >> >> LOL. True. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. > >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. > >> >> > >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 > >> > > >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on > >> >this PC.. > >> > > >> >https://www.google.com/url? > >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= > >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% > >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- > >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= > >> >1443794926555214 > >> > >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) > >> > >> > >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off > >> >from payments.. > >> > >> I hear ya. > > > >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. > > > >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- > >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg > > > >That one should. > > That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked > the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the > hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT > lettering. A friend of mine has a hemi orange 2010 SRT with a 440 CI blown motor in it, and he has white R/T stripes on it, and it fools a lot of people into thinking it's a blown R/T. He bought the car with a messed up engine in it and he and his son drove it from Portland, across the country, using a LOT of oil along the way to the place that built and installed the new engine. It had a ton of mods done to it by the original owner. Last dyno it had 865 rear wheel HP with the low boost pulley on it, on Kroger pump gas. It idles and drives like stock, unless you get on it past about 40%. Fun car. And really really loud. > > We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number > of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a > 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals. I was apprached in an ER parking lot one time, and I was hobbling out to my car and this couple starts asking me about it, I couldn't believe it. I've had people make crazy U turns to catch up to me. I had one older guy ask me what year my car was, and when I said 2010, he was totally mystified. I told him they had about six of them down the street and then he asked how much. That let the air out of him. Too bad. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 16:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hkl51btrqmg4aqp2a02nufke4jdd865a4r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277356 |
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:29:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com>, >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about >> >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. >> >> >> >> >> >> LOL. True. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. >> >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 >> >> > >> >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on >> >> >this PC.. >> >> > >> >> >https://www.google.com/url? >> >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= >> >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% >> >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- >> >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= >> >> >1443794926555214 >> >> >> >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off >> >> >from payments.. >> >> >> >> I hear ya. >> > >> >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. >> > >> >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- >> >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg >> > >> >That one should. >> >> That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked >> the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the >> hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT >> lettering. > >A friend of mine has a hemi orange 2010 SRT with a 440 CI blown motor in >it, and he has white R/T stripes on it, and it fools a lot of people >into thinking it's a blown R/T. He bought the car with a messed up >engine in it and he and his son drove it from Portland, across the >country, using a LOT of oil along the way to the place that built and >installed the new engine. It had a ton of mods done to it by the >original owner. Last dyno it had 865 rear wheel HP with the low boost >pulley on it, on Kroger pump gas. It idles and drives like stock, unless >you get on it past about 40%. Fun car. And really really loud. Oh my!! Even more HP than the HellCat. :) I can see why it would be a fun car. Great looks and fast as heck!! >> We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number >> of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a >> 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals. > >I was apprached in an ER parking lot one time, and I was hobbling out to >my car and this couple starts asking me about it, I couldn't believe it. >I've had people make crazy U turns to catch up to me. I had one older >guy ask me what year my car was, and when I said 2010, he was totally >mystified. I told him they had about six of them down the street and >then he asked how much. That let the air out of him. Too bad. LOL. I think the funniest comment we've had which was similar was from an older man who asked about the headlights. He wanted to know where we got them and how we had them installed. We told him they came with the car. That's when he asked the year and when we said 2009 he was stunned. He thought it was a vintage car. Dodge did the best job in my opinion of the three "vintage look " cars from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 11:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.307dadb7fb40e4e698c313@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277508 |
In article <hkl51btrqmg4aqp2a02nufke4jdd865a4r@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:29:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > wrote: > > >In article <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com>, > >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> > >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, > >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about > >> >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> LOL. True. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. > >> >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 > >> >> > > >> >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on > >> >> >this PC.. > >> >> > > >> >> >https://www.google.com/url? > >> >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= > >> >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% > >> >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- > >> >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= > >> >> >1443794926555214 > >> >> > >> >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off > >> >> >from payments.. > >> >> > >> >> I hear ya. > >> > > >> >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. > >> > > >> >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- > >> >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg > >> > > >> >That one should. > >> > >> That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked > >> the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the > >> hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT > >> lettering. > > > >A friend of mine has a hemi orange 2010 SRT with a 440 CI blown motor in > >it, and he has white R/T stripes on it, and it fools a lot of people > >into thinking it's a blown R/T. He bought the car with a messed up > >engine in it and he and his son drove it from Portland, across the > >country, using a LOT of oil along the way to the place that built and > >installed the new engine. It had a ton of mods done to it by the > >original owner. Last dyno it had 865 rear wheel HP with the low boost > >pulley on it, on Kroger pump gas. It idles and drives like stock, unless > >you get on it past about 40%. Fun car. And really really loud. > > Oh my!! Even more HP than the HellCat. :) I can see why it would > be a fun car. Great looks and fast as heck!! I'll be plenty happy with the 485HP on the Scat Pack. > > > >> We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number > >> of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a > >> 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals. > > > >I was apprached in an ER parking lot one time, and I was hobbling out to > >my car and this couple starts asking me about it, I couldn't believe it. > >I've had people make crazy U turns to catch up to me. I had one older > >guy ask me what year my car was, and when I said 2010, he was totally > >mystified. I told him they had about six of them down the street and > >then he asked how much. That let the air out of him. Too bad. > > LOL. I think the funniest comment we've had which was similar was > from an older man who asked about the headlights. He wanted to know > where we got them and how we had them installed. We told him they > came with the car. That's when he asked the year and when we said > 2009 he was stunned. He thought it was a vintage car. > > Dodge did the best job in my opinion of the three "vintage look " cars > from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. I really hate the Camaro, as a previous owner of two of them, a '78 and an '86, and a '79 Trans Am, they really screwed it up on the last one, and the new one too, and it really makes me sad. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 18:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ms7b1b5jk7522hkt3i904n504otv9bj8ba@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277573 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:07:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <hkl51btrqmg4aqp2a02nufke4jdd865a4r@4ax.com>, >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:29:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com>, >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about >> >> >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> LOL. True. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. >> >> >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on >> >> >> >this PC.. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >https://www.google.com/url? >> >> >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= >> >> >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% >> >> >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- >> >> >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= >> >> >> >1443794926555214 >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off >> >> >> >from payments.. >> >> >> >> >> >> I hear ya. >> >> > >> >> >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. >> >> > >> >> >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- >> >> >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg >> >> > >> >> >That one should. >> >> >> >> That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked >> >> the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the >> >> hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT >> >> lettering. >> > >> >A friend of mine has a hemi orange 2010 SRT with a 440 CI blown motor in >> >it, and he has white R/T stripes on it, and it fools a lot of people >> >into thinking it's a blown R/T. He bought the car with a messed up >> >engine in it and he and his son drove it from Portland, across the >> >country, using a LOT of oil along the way to the place that built and >> >installed the new engine. It had a ton of mods done to it by the >> >original owner. Last dyno it had 865 rear wheel HP with the low boost >> >pulley on it, on Kroger pump gas. It idles and drives like stock, unless >> >you get on it past about 40%. Fun car. And really really loud. >> >> Oh my!! Even more HP than the HellCat. :) I can see why it would >> be a fun car. Great looks and fast as heck!! > >I'll be plenty happy with the 485HP on the Scat Pack. As you should be! You will have a sweet ride. >> >> We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number >> >> of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a >> >> 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals. >> > >> >I was apprached in an ER parking lot one time, and I was hobbling out to >> >my car and this couple starts asking me about it, I couldn't believe it. >> >I've had people make crazy U turns to catch up to me. I had one older >> >guy ask me what year my car was, and when I said 2010, he was totally >> >mystified. I told him they had about six of them down the street and >> >then he asked how much. That let the air out of him. Too bad. >> >> LOL. I think the funniest comment we've had which was similar was >> from an older man who asked about the headlights. He wanted to know >> where we got them and how we had them installed. We told him they >> came with the car. That's when he asked the year and when we said >> 2009 he was stunned. He thought it was a vintage car. >> >> Dodge did the best job in my opinion of the three "vintage look " cars >> from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. > >I really hate the Camaro, as a previous owner of two of them, a '78 and >an '86, and a '79 Trans Am, they really screwed it up on the last one, >and the new one too, and it really makes me sad. Before I met my husband he was a Chevy man. He had a 91 Firebird and an 85 Camaro. He liked them but he'd had a 383 Roadrunner as a teenager and that was the love of his life as far as a car is concerned. In truth he rode motorcycles almost exclusively for 20 years when he was a young man. I'm a Mustang gal myself. Drove my mothers 67 back in the day and then I had a 97 GT and a Mach1 before going with the Challenger. In between I had a 2005 C6 Corvette loaded with everything. It was a great car but we needed an SUV with my husband retired and we were doing some traveling. I flipped the C6 for cash and bought a Cadillac SRX. In the Challenger picture at my link you can see the back of the C6 in the background and you can see the rear of my husband's black Ford Lightning truck. Like you, we've gone through a few cars in our time. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 22:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.307fa583229b521d98c326@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277680 |
In article <ms7b1b5jk7522hkt3i904n504otv9bj8ba@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:07:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > wrote: > > >In article <hkl51btrqmg4aqp2a02nufke4jdd865a4r@4ax.com>, > >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> > >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:29:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com>, > >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, > >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about > >> >> >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> LOL. True. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. > >> >> >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on > >> >> >> >this PC.. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >https://www.google.com/url? > >> >> >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= > >> >> >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% > >> >> >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- > >> >> >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= > >> >> >> >1443794926555214 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off > >> >> >> >from payments.. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I hear ya. > >> >> > > >> >> >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. > >> >> > > >> >> >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- > >> >> >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg > >> >> > > >> >> >That one should. > >> >> > >> >> That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked > >> >> the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the > >> >> hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT > >> >> lettering. > >> > > >> >A friend of mine has a hemi orange 2010 SRT with a 440 CI blown motor in > >> >it, and he has white R/T stripes on it, and it fools a lot of people > >> >into thinking it's a blown R/T. He bought the car with a messed up > >> >engine in it and he and his son drove it from Portland, across the > >> >country, using a LOT of oil along the way to the place that built and > >> >installed the new engine. It had a ton of mods done to it by the > >> >original owner. Last dyno it had 865 rear wheel HP with the low boost > >> >pulley on it, on Kroger pump gas. It idles and drives like stock, unless > >> >you get on it past about 40%. Fun car. And really really loud. > >> > >> Oh my!! Even more HP than the HellCat. :) I can see why it would > >> be a fun car. Great looks and fast as heck!! > > > >I'll be plenty happy with the 485HP on the Scat Pack. > > As you should be! You will have a sweet ride. > > >> >> We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number > >> >> of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a > >> >> 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals. > >> > > >> >I was apprached in an ER parking lot one time, and I was hobbling out to > >> >my car and this couple starts asking me about it, I couldn't believe it. > >> >I've had people make crazy U turns to catch up to me. I had one older > >> >guy ask me what year my car was, and when I said 2010, he was totally > >> >mystified. I told him they had about six of them down the street and > >> >then he asked how much. That let the air out of him. Too bad. > >> > >> LOL. I think the funniest comment we've had which was similar was > >> from an older man who asked about the headlights. He wanted to know > >> where we got them and how we had them installed. We told him they > >> came with the car. That's when he asked the year and when we said > >> 2009 he was stunned. He thought it was a vintage car. > >> > >> Dodge did the best job in my opinion of the three "vintage look " cars > >> from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. > > > >I really hate the Camaro, as a previous owner of two of them, a '78 and > >an '86, and a '79 Trans Am, they really screwed it up on the last one, > >and the new one too, and it really makes me sad. > > Before I met my husband he was a Chevy man. He had a 91 Firebird and > an 85 Camaro. He liked them but he'd had a 383 Roadrunner as a > teenager and that was the love of his life as far as a car is > concerned. In truth he rode motorcycles almost exclusively for 20 > years when he was a young man. I had a deal with my dopey cousin to buy his '70 Roadrunner when he was going to sell it. He forgot, and sold it to a guy I went to school with. It had never been driven in snow/salt, and I was majorly pissed off that I didn't get it. I've never cared about bikes, and to be honest, I saw too many people messed up and knew someone who was killed, so I passed on them. I only had the '78 for a day, I changed the intake gaskets on it and sold it for a $500 profit. > > I'm a Mustang gal myself. Drove my mothers 67 back in the day and > then I had a 97 GT and a Mach1 before going with the Challenger. In > between I had a 2005 C6 Corvette loaded with everything. It was a > great car but we needed an SUV with my husband retired and we were > doing some traveling. I flipped the C6 for cash and bought a Cadillac > SRX. In the Challenger picture at my link you can see the back of > the C6 in the background and you can see the rear of my husband's > black Ford Lightning truck. Until recently, I never liked Ford styling at all. Even the old Mustangs were no more than ok, and starting with the '71, I thought they were pretty ugly. I always thought they had too many lines and trim on the sides, and on a lot of their stuff, the fender flares were a joke. > > Like you, we've gone through a few cars in our time. :) I have a friend who has had an amazing number of cars in his lifetime, some for just days, and a lot of them for like 3 weeks or a month. That I don't get at all, but I did hate my '99 Grand Cherokee from almost day one. I couldn't wait to dump it. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 00:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jvfe1bhjr9f310qscae8pqea1es77t1hju@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277717 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:56:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <ms7b1b5jk7522hkt3i904n504otv9bj8ba@4ax.com>, >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:07:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <hkl51btrqmg4aqp2a02nufke4jdd865a4r@4ax.com>, >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:29:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com>, >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about >> >> >> >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> LOL. True. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. >> >> >> >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on >> >> >> >> >this PC.. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >https://www.google.com/url? >> >> >> >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= >> >> >> >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% >> >> >> >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- >> >> >> >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= >> >> >> >> >1443794926555214 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off >> >> >> >> >from payments.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I hear ya. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- >> >> >> >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That one should. >> >> >> >> >> >> That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked >> >> >> the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the >> >> >> hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT >> >> >> lettering. >> >> > >> >> >A friend of mine has a hemi orange 2010 SRT with a 440 CI blown motor in >> >> >it, and he has white R/T stripes on it, and it fools a lot of people >> >> >into thinking it's a blown R/T. He bought the car with a messed up >> >> >engine in it and he and his son drove it from Portland, across the >> >> >country, using a LOT of oil along the way to the place that built and >> >> >installed the new engine. It had a ton of mods done to it by the >> >> >original owner. Last dyno it had 865 rear wheel HP with the low boost >> >> >pulley on it, on Kroger pump gas. It idles and drives like stock, unless >> >> >you get on it past about 40%. Fun car. And really really loud. >> >> >> >> Oh my!! Even more HP than the HellCat. :) I can see why it would >> >> be a fun car. Great looks and fast as heck!! >> > >> >I'll be plenty happy with the 485HP on the Scat Pack. >> >> As you should be! You will have a sweet ride. >> >> >> >> We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number >> >> >> of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a >> >> >> 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals. >> >> > >> >> >I was apprached in an ER parking lot one time, and I was hobbling out to >> >> >my car and this couple starts asking me about it, I couldn't believe it. >> >> >I've had people make crazy U turns to catch up to me. I had one older >> >> >guy ask me what year my car was, and when I said 2010, he was totally >> >> >mystified. I told him they had about six of them down the street and >> >> >then he asked how much. That let the air out of him. Too bad. >> >> >> >> LOL. I think the funniest comment we've had which was similar was >> >> from an older man who asked about the headlights. He wanted to know >> >> where we got them and how we had them installed. We told him they >> >> came with the car. That's when he asked the year and when we said >> >> 2009 he was stunned. He thought it was a vintage car. >> >> >> >> Dodge did the best job in my opinion of the three "vintage look " cars >> >> from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. >> > >> >I really hate the Camaro, as a previous owner of two of them, a '78 and >> >an '86, and a '79 Trans Am, they really screwed it up on the last one, >> >and the new one too, and it really makes me sad. >> >> Before I met my husband he was a Chevy man. He had a 91 Firebird and >> an 85 Camaro. He liked them but he'd had a 383 Roadrunner as a >> teenager and that was the love of his life as far as a car is >> concerned. In truth he rode motorcycles almost exclusively for 20 >> years when he was a young man. > >I had a deal with my dopey cousin to buy his '70 Roadrunner when he was >going to sell it. He forgot, and sold it to a guy I went to school with. >It had never been driven in snow/salt, and I was majorly pissed off that >I didn't get it. My husband also had a 70 Roadrunner. Wrecked it just before he left for the Navy in '76. He slid off an icy road and hit a telephone pole. >I've never cared about bikes, and to be honest, I saw too many people messed up and >knew someone who was killed, so I passed on them. I understand. Ken, husband, totaled two bikes. One he didn't get a scratch as he jumped clear before the car hit him. The second one put him in Balboa Naval Hospital for almost a month. That's when he was in his early 20's. He still rides today and I've gotten used to it. >Had the '78 for a day, I changed the intake gaskets on >it and sold it for a $500 profit. LOL Good for you. >> I'm a Mustang gal myself. Drove my mothers 67 back in the day and >> then I had a 97 GT and a Mach1 before going with the Challenger. In >> between I had a 2005 C6 Corvette loaded with everything. It was a >> great car but we needed an SUV with my husband retired and we were >> doing some traveling. I flipped the C6 for cash and bought a Cadillac >> SRX. In the Challenger picture at my link you can see the back of >> the C6 in the background and you can see the rear of my husband's >> black Ford Lightning truck. > >Until recently, I never liked Ford styling at all. Even the old Mustangs >were no more than ok, and starting with the '71, I thought they were >pretty ugly. I always thought they had too many lines and trim on the >sides, and on a lot of their stuff, the fender flares were a joke. In high school I really wanted a '69 Cougar Eliminator. http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/c7/02/06/c70206979d5c10f1c2edc5767b50f471.jpg Dad said no. :( >> Like you, we've gone through a few cars in our time. :) > >I have a friend who has had an amazing number of cars in his lifetime, >some for just days, and a lot of them for like 3 weeks or a month. That >I don't get at all, but I did hate my '99 Grand Cherokee from almost day >one. I couldn't wait to dump it. Flipping cars gets expensive. We have a friend who's a flipper too. He usually loses out on the deals but its a hobby with him so what the heck. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 10:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30819d869143ebd898c331@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277790 |
In article <jvfe1bhjr9f310qscae8pqea1es77t1hju@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:56:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > wrote: > > >In article <ms7b1b5jk7522hkt3i904n504otv9bj8ba@4ax.com>, > >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> > >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:07:25 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <hkl51btrqmg4aqp2a02nufke4jdd865a4r@4ax.com>, > >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:29:56 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <4ivt0bpuud4f1u90kb5o757p74erug4p31@4ax.com>, > >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:03:01 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In article <3pnq0bh7r66cckl4hk214r435d38jjmm1g@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >ninety7gt@cox.net says... > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >To Bast, it probably is. But she's dumber than, well, just about > >> >> >> >> >> >anything, so what else should we expect. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> LOL. True. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Mine's a 2010 R/T in Hemi Orange, what year/color is yours? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> A fellow Challenger owner! :) Mine's a 2009 Hemi Orange SRT. > >> >> >> >> >> Here's a picture taken about a week after I got it in Feb 2009. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/184vp3y92icudjz/2009%20SRT.jpg?dl=0 > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Mine looks identical to this one. I don't have any pics of my car on > >> >> >> >> >this PC.. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >https://www.google.com/url? > >> >> >> >> >sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= > >> >> >> >> >0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPv8kbK5ocgCFcwaPgodq5MDjw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mibz.com% > >> >> >> >> >2F2155-detonator-yellow-a-new-high-impact-colort-for-the-2010-dodge- > >> >> >> >> >challanger-rt-classic.html&psig=AFQjCNEt3IWLJbGIhjRTZkidD8lRFOtqgQ&ust= > >> >> >> >> >1443794926555214 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Sorry BDk but even Tiny URL can't sort that. :) > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >About a year from now, I'll be ordering a Scat Pack, I want a year off > >> >> >> >> >from payments.. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I hear ya. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >I was afraid it wouldn't work, I couldn't find any pics with a sane URL. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/277054/2009-dodge-challenger- > >> >> >> >r-t-photo-277057-s-429x262.jpg > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >That one should. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That one worked. Very nice looking Challenger. I've always liked > >> >> >> the RT stripe on the side. I've also seen a few SRT's without the > >> >> >> hood stripes but with the RT side stripes. They just leave off the RT > >> >> >> lettering. > >> >> > > >> >> >A friend of mine has a hemi orange 2010 SRT with a 440 CI blown motor in > >> >> >it, and he has white R/T stripes on it, and it fools a lot of people > >> >> >into thinking it's a blown R/T. He bought the car with a messed up > >> >> >engine in it and he and his son drove it from Portland, across the > >> >> >country, using a LOT of oil along the way to the place that built and > >> >> >installed the new engine. It had a ton of mods done to it by the > >> >> >original owner. Last dyno it had 865 rear wheel HP with the low boost > >> >> >pulley on it, on Kroger pump gas. It idles and drives like stock, unless > >> >> >you get on it past about 40%. Fun car. And really really loud. > >> >> > >> >> Oh my!! Even more HP than the HellCat. :) I can see why it would > >> >> be a fun car. Great looks and fast as heck!! > >> > > >> >I'll be plenty happy with the 485HP on the Scat Pack. > >> > >> As you should be! You will have a sweet ride. > >> > >> >> >> We get lots of looks and comments on ours. I'm amazed at the number > >> >> >> of people who think it's a vintage Challenger. When I/we say it's a > >> >> >> 2009 they're shocked. And lot of these people are car guys and gals. > >> >> > > >> >> >I was apprached in an ER parking lot one time, and I was hobbling out to > >> >> >my car and this couple starts asking me about it, I couldn't believe it. > >> >> >I've had people make crazy U turns to catch up to me. I had one older > >> >> >guy ask me what year my car was, and when I said 2010, he was totally > >> >> >mystified. I told him they had about six of them down the street and > >> >> >then he asked how much. That let the air out of him. Too bad. > >> >> > >> >> LOL. I think the funniest comment we've had which was similar was > >> >> from an older man who asked about the headlights. He wanted to know > >> >> where we got them and how we had them installed. We told him they > >> >> came with the car. That's when he asked the year and when we said > >> >> 2009 he was stunned. He thought it was a vintage car. > >> >> > >> >> Dodge did the best job in my opinion of the three "vintage look " cars > >> >> from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. > >> > > >> >I really hate the Camaro, as a previous owner of two of them, a '78 and > >> >an '86, and a '79 Trans Am, they really screwed it up on the last one, > >> >and the new one too, and it really makes me sad. > >> > >> Before I met my husband he was a Chevy man. He had a 91 Firebird and > >> an 85 Camaro. He liked them but he'd had a 383 Roadrunner as a > >> teenager and that was the love of his life as far as a car is > >> concerned. In truth he rode motorcycles almost exclusively for 20 > >> years when he was a young man. > > > >I had a deal with my dopey cousin to buy his '70 Roadrunner when he was > >going to sell it. He forgot, and sold it to a guy I went to school with. > >It had never been driven in snow/salt, and I was majorly pissed off that > >I didn't get it. > > My husband also had a 70 Roadrunner. Wrecked it just before he left > for the Navy in '76. He slid off an icy road and hit a telephone > pole. > > >I've never cared about bikes, and to be honest, I saw too many people messed up and > >knew someone who was killed, so I passed on them. > > I understand. Ken, husband, totaled two bikes. One he didn't get a > scratch as he jumped clear before the car hit him. The second one put > him in Balboa Naval Hospital for almost a month. That's when he was > in his early 20's. He still rides today and I've gotten used to it. > > >Had the '78 for a day, I changed the intake gaskets on > >it and sold it for a $500 profit. > > LOL Good for you. > > >> I'm a Mustang gal myself. Drove my mothers 67 back in the day and > >> then I had a 97 GT and a Mach1 before going with the Challenger. In > >> between I had a 2005 C6 Corvette loaded with everything. It was a > >> great car but we needed an SUV with my husband retired and we were > >> doing some traveling. I flipped the C6 for cash and bought a Cadillac > >> SRX. In the Challenger picture at my link you can see the back of > >> the C6 in the background and you can see the rear of my husband's > >> black Ford Lightning truck. > > > >Until recently, I never liked Ford styling at all. Even the old Mustangs > >were no more than ok, and starting with the '71, I thought they were > >pretty ugly. I always thought they had too many lines and trim on the > >sides, and on a lot of their stuff, the fender flares were a joke. > > In high school I really wanted a '69 Cougar Eliminator. > http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/c7/02/06/c70206979d5c10f1c2edc5767b50f471.jpg > > Dad said no. :( My sister wanted a '68 Mustang for her first car. Dad said HELL NO, and she ended up with a Cutlass instead. > > > >> Like you, we've gone through a few cars in our time. :) > > > >I have a friend who has had an amazing number of cars in his lifetime, > >some for just days, and a lot of them for like 3 weeks or a month. That > >I don't get at all, but I did hate my '99 Grand Cherokee from almost day > >one. I couldn't wait to dump it. > > Flipping cars gets expensive. We have a friend who's a flipper too. > He usually loses out on the deals but its a hobby with him so what the > heck. :) Yeah, but you can really tie up a lot of cash in them. I guess he could do a lot worse, like gamble. My ex-gf's former hubby was into bookies for over $20K. He was fooling around too, and recently at the age of 61 is going to be a father again, after having a one night stand with a co- worker while drunk as hell. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250q0bp6qn3br1f6ujn9qap5i3t4c67eph@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277161 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> je suis charly wrote:
>>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other
>>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military
>>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing
>>>>> the 9/11 damage.
>>>>
>>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are
>>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on
>>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced
>>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily
>>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel
>>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from
>>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory.
>>>
>>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a
>>> guided missile ???
>>>
>>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their
>>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war.
>>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single
>>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific
>>> window in the building.
>>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and
>>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11.
>>
>> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone.
>>
>> Hahahahaha.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Anything remotely controlled is a "drone"
>
Since when? In reality, please. Citing your delusions will not be
enough.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0gan0bp13a3ja66bvjvradcbmja203ghdd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277051 |
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:55:12 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
[...]
>> Concrete penetrating GBU-28
>> http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm
>>
>> Cruise missile AGM-86
>> http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm
>>
>> Apples Vs Oranges.
>>
>> Fact - that which never forms a part of a troofer argument.
>>
>> Shill #2
>
>
>
>
>I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other than
>it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military already had
>weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing the 9/11 damage.
>
Probably that your claim is delusional.
>And what else do they have by now that isn't going to be listed on a public
>website ?
>
>They routinely deny a lot of things,....even the stealth fighters and
>bombers (F-117 Nighthawk)
>Those never existed until they suddenly appeared in the gulf war.
I recall seeing at least one on a Ford commercial.
The stealth planes were known to exist long before the first Gulf
war.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 16:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8cgo0bprs2742k3noki8f6p06546nm0jd2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277074 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:23:37 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:55:12 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >wrote: >> >>They routinely deny a lot of things,....even the stealth fighters and >>bombers (F-117 Nighthawk) >>Those never existed until they suddenly appeared in the gulf war. > > I recall seeing at least one on a Ford commercial. > The stealth planes were known to exist long before the first Gulf >war. Yep. First used by George HW Bush in Panama in 1989. The invasion of Panama was the first combat deployment for the AH-64, the HMMWV, and the F-117A. 19889. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militaryaircraft/p/f117.htm None of this you can't find on Google. Of course some of us also know who Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich were. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 20:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3lcm0b9jlf0spcqpauoqp6gi1k4f181188@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277045 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:18:47 +1000, Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > >>On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:51:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 >>>>> folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small >>>>> hole. >>>> >>>> You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike >>>> Walter's claims are idiocy. >>>> >>>> Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that >>>> American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit the >>>> Pentagon. >>> >>> >>>And yet you refuse or are unable to explain how an alleged passenger plane >>>that had a wingspan of over 120' and a tail that poked 40' into the air. >>>Managed to hit a building and not leave any damage beyond a 16' round hole. >>> >>>And that 16' hole was punched through at least 5 reinforced concrete walls, >>>in addition to other walls inside each ring. >>> >>>Only a cruise missile is designed to do that. And even it would have had >>>problems, without further explosives being used. >>> >> >>So now you're claiming it was a cruise missile which hit the Pentagon >>and that additional explosives were used? >> >>What platform for your supposed missile? >> >>What additional explosives and where are you claiming they were >>located? > >I'm surprised to learn that a cruise missile is designed to punch through >reinforced concrete walls. > >From my time in the military, some of which was spent working on missiles, I >seem to recall that weapons designed to penetrate thick concrete walls were >"bunker buster" type weapons, and that cruise missiles were, primarily, designed >to carry a warhead, conventional or nuclear, hundreds of miles to destroy a >target by relying on the power of the warhead to do the work, rather than >actually penetration. > >But since I'm sane I don't have the troofers ability to dream shit up. Ah the delusional Roger and Bast's crazy Troofer world is something to behold isn't it?. And thanks for your expertise on the matter. :) >Shill #2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 09:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mugodh$nnh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #277060 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:18:47 +1000, Government Shill #2 > <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:51:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 >>>>>> folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a >>>>>> small hole. >>>>> >>>>> You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike >>>>> Walter's claims are idiocy. >>>>> >>>>> Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that >>>>> American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit >>>>> the Pentagon. >>>> >>>> >>>> And yet you refuse or are unable to explain how an alleged >>>> passenger plane that had a wingspan of over 120' and a tail that >>>> poked 40' into the air. Managed to hit a building and not leave any >>>> damage beyond a 16' round hole. >>>> >>>> And that 16' hole was punched through at least 5 reinforced concrete >>>> walls, in addition to other walls inside each ring. >>>> >>>> Only a cruise missile is designed to do that. And even it would have >>>> had problems, without further explosives being used. >>>> >>> >>> So now you're claiming it was a cruise missile which hit the Pentagon >>> and that additional explosives were used? >>> >>> What platform for your supposed missile? >>> >>> What additional explosives and where are you claiming they were >>> located? >> >> I'm surprised to learn that a cruise missile is designed to punch >> through reinforced concrete walls. >> >> From my time in the military, some of which was spent working on >> missiles, I seem to recall that weapons designed to penetrate thick >> concrete walls were "bunker buster" type weapons, and that cruise >> missiles were, primarily, designed to carry a warhead, conventional or >> nuclear, hundreds of miles to destroy a target by relying on the power >> of the warhead to do the work, rather than actually penetration. >> >> But since I'm sane I don't have the troofers ability to dream shit up. > > Ah the delusional Roger and Bast's crazy Troofer world is something to > behold isn't it?. > > And thanks for your expertise on the matter. :) > > >> Shill #2 You do realize that the missiles they had by 9/11 were far more developed than the ones they used in WW2 . don't you ? So I'm not sure an unsubstantiated claim of "past military experience" is going to count for much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web