Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #277069 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-29 22:45 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-09-30 12:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy
Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 22:45 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 05:13 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-09-30 08:40 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:14 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:37 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 14:59 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 19:17 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:46 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 06:59 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-01 00:44 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 05:32 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:46 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:34 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 15:03 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 14:40 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 20:44 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 19:32 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-30 16:11 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 08:59 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 15:06 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 19:33 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:33 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-01 15:15 -0700
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 22:59 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 22:10 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-02 04:08 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:05 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-02 08:44 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-02 18:18 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 15:21 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-02 19:38 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-02 21:40 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-03 03:53 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-03 06:11 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-03 11:38 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 15:43 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 15:24 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-03 20:22 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 17:17 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:48 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 21:02 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 01:04 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 04:07 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-05 10:38 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 09:54 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:23 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 12:06 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 12:11 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:10 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:57 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:48 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:17 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:35 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 19:46 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-05 23:53 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 20:12 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 01:21 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 02:30 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 16:56 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:28 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 18:01 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 19:38 -0700
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 18:05 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-08 23:22 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 09:25 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:42 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-03 01:11 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-03 10:44 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-03 17:27 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:40 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 12:22 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-04 17:18 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 19:00 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-04 23:20 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 18:50 -0500
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 06:19 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-03 17:29 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 15:56 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-03 20:33 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 18:37 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 09:10 -0400
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-02 18:19 +0000
Re: Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 12:19 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 02:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <aiq61bt8mk89gb6dbittu9o0sauu7q66l5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277554 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 01:21:55 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:53:41 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:17:09 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:07:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 21:02:32 -0400, "Bast" >>>>>>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 17:17:12 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where all the non-television set worshippers have to say is >>>>>>>>>>>> there was no 757 that struck the Pentagon at 9:31 am when the >>>>>>>>>>>> attack started and clocks and watches stopped working or at >>>>>>>>>>>> 9:37am when the 9/11 Commission claims the Pentagon attack >>>>>>>>>>>> started. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ya know, Roger Rocky, clocks in the Pentagon continued to work >>>>>>>>>>> after the attack. IOW's the entire building wasn't off line >>>>>>>>>>> and out of commission. What time did all those clocks say? >>>>>>>>>>> What if one of them said 9:34 when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? >>>>>>>>>>> Can you tell me which clock said 9:34? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Trick question. >>>>>>>>>> Since NO flights hit the pentagon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can tell you when the missile hit though. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What platform did your imaginary missile come from? And be >>>>>>>>> specific. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another trick question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. If you claim the use of a missile, which you still haven't >>>>>>> identified, then >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What platform? >>>>>> >>>>>> A green one >>>>>> >>>>>>> How was it fired? >>>>>> >>>>>> With a button >>>>>> >>>>>>> Where was it fired from? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From behind the slurpee machine at the 7/11 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know the answers to these questions? Yes or no? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Answers above >>>>> >>>>> All this does is point out and reinforce the fact that you're lying >>>>> about the events of 9/11. >>>> >>>> >>>> So ? You've seen this already ? >>>> >>>> How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8 >>> >>> You haven't a clue that this is sarcasm, do you, raving lunatic? >> >> She is absolutely clueless. She even blasts Roger Rocky's claims all >> to hell with her stupidity. >Oh Yes, you HAVE seen it. Nope. I didn't say I have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 16:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-q2dnQ6b2KKnCIjLnZ2dnUU7-LednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277554 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mv0suq$2n4$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: > >>> She is absolutely clueless. She even blasts Roger Rocky's claims all >>> to hell with her stupidity. > >>Oh Yes, you HAVE seen it. >>And here I was afraid you were't taking my links seriously. > > NOBODY takes your links seriously. Except for other kooktards, of course. ROTFLMAO because you still support the Popular Mechanics bullshit even though you know the alleged 757 could not have "flowed" into the Pentagon now. You even pointed out it should have "splashed." And do not forget why Popular Mechanics had to use that lie. They had to try and find a way to explain the missing debris field at the Pentagon right after it was hit by a missile or three. What I found was strange about the Popular Mechanics bullshit is they even used bullshit that NIST wouldn't use themselves. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 15:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j5adnR4KZJ_cT4vLnZ2dnUU7-VGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277675 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mv4r7e$70m$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mv0suq$2n4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: > >>>>Oh Yes, you HAVE seen it. >>>>And here I was afraid you were't taking my links seriously. >>> >>> NOBODY takes your links seriously. Except for other kooktards, of >>> course. > >>ROTFLMAO because you still support the Popular Mechanics bullshit even >>though you know the alleged 757 could not have "flowed" into the Pentagon >>now. You even pointed out it should have "splashed." > > You lie, kOOktard. Why do you lie? I said the F-4 that struck the 12' > thick block "splashed", not the 757 that struck the Pentagon. Remember, > that situation was different, where a much larger jet struck a thinner > wall, so it penetrated while the F-4 "splashed". But it didn't penetrate > as a solid airplane, which was my point. > >>And do not forget why Popular Mechanics had to use that lie. They had to >>try and find a way to explain the missing debris field at the Pentagon >>right > > They found the debris field inside, kook. riiight. I'll bet you never stopped to think there might have been 3 missiles at the Pentagon where the first one was used just to make the hole in the wall. BTW incase you haven't heard the Russians have proven once again and just recently that their missiles have pin point accuracy and could fly three missiles into the exact same hole. That would also explain why there is a 6 minute discrepancy in the time of the first attack on the Pentagon. And once again. Poor Sarah's husband, missed the big bang by 20 or 26 minutes depending on what attack of the Pentagon he thinks was caused by a 757. And the funny thing is Sarah says 9:34 and that doesn't even match the 9/11 Commission's BS or the stopped clocks. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 18:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3npd1b1hanig02ira61vhshpeqk7hji2lk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277744 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:28:47 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >And once again. Poor Sarah's husband, missed the big bang by 20 or 26 >minutes He said 20 minutes. >depending on what attack of the Pentagon he thinks was caused by a >757. Only American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01. >And the funny thing is Sarah says 9:34 I asked you what clock in the Pentagon said 9:34. I'm still waiting for an answer to that as well as the time stamp on the guard shack video. Can you answer these questions or not? >Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b61e024-31c0-4803-b509-2ab2762179c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #277756 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-7, Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:28:47 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > >And once again. Poor Sarah's husband, missed the big bang by 20 or 26 > >minutes > > He said 20 minutes. > > >depending on what attack of the Pentagon he thinks was caused by a > >757. > > Only American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01. > > >And the funny thing is Sarah says 9:34 > > I asked you what clock in the Pentagon said 9:34. I'm still waiting > for an answer to that as well as the time stamp on the guard shack > video. > > Can you answer these questions or not? > > > >Rocky u think he had access to a clock inside? what is he, spook #1, james bond of US of Retardia?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 18:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <TsednTcyF7pva4vLnZ2dnUU7-L2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277675 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mv4r7e$70m$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mv0suq$2n4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: > >>>>Oh Yes, you HAVE seen it. >>>>And here I was afraid you were't taking my links seriously. >>> >>> NOBODY takes your links seriously. Except for other kooktards, of >>> course. > >>ROTFLMAO because you still support the Popular Mechanics bullshit even >>though you know the alleged 757 could not have "flowed" into the Pentagon >>now. You even pointed out it should have "splashed." > > You lie, kOOktard. Why do you lie? I said the F-4 that struck the 12' > thick block "splashed", not the 757 that struck the Pentagon. Remember, > that situation was different, where a much larger jet struck a thinner > wall, so it penetrated while the F-4 "splashed". But it didn't penetrate > as a solid airplane, which was my point. So now you are saying that the alleged 757 that flew into the pentagon was "solid?" Then where were the alleged passengers then? And if it were solid how was it light enough to fly? <G> >>And do not forget why Popular Mechanics had to use that lie. They had to >>try and find a way to explain the missing debris field at the Pentagon >>right > > They found the debris field inside, kook. riiight. The problem remains they found next to no debris outside the Pentagon and why was there only one small engine recovered? Heck even when the jet went down in the Hudson River we were told they were still looking for the engines and we should have been told that about the Pentagon too. Plus what was a blast engineer doing at the Pentagon as proven by Popular Mechanics? I can see a blast engineer being used for bombs and missiles but 757s? And do not forget to take a look at the relatively short shadows and the fact there are no people at GZ. That means the following photo had to be taken from when the radiation at GZ was the worst and nobody was allowed into the site. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <beajec-aud.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #277762 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mv4r7e$70m$2@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:mv0suq$2n4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >> >>>>>Oh Yes, you HAVE seen it. >>>>>And here I was afraid you were't taking my links seriously. >>>> >>>> NOBODY takes your links seriously. Except for other kooktards, of >>>> course. >> >>>ROTFLMAO because you still support the Popular Mechanics bullshit even >>>though you know the alleged 757 could not have "flowed" into the Pentagon >>>now. You even pointed out it should have "splashed." >> >> You lie, kOOktard. Why do you lie? I said the F-4 that struck the 12' >> thick block "splashed", not the 757 that struck the Pentagon. Remember, >> that situation was different, where a much larger jet struck a thinner >> wall, so it penetrated while the F-4 "splashed". But it didn't penetrate >> as a solid airplane, which was my point. > > So now you are saying that the alleged 757 that flew into the pentagon was > "solid?" Then where were the alleged passengers then? And if it were solid > how was it light enough to fly? Solid as in one piece or not broken, you ignorant, raving, lunatic. >>>And do not forget why Popular Mechanics had to use that lie. They had to >>>try and find a way to explain the missing debris field at the Pentagon >>>right >> >> They found the debris field inside, kook. > > riiight. The problem remains they found next to no debris outside the > Pentagon and why was there only one small engine recovered? There was little debris OUTSIDE because most of it was INSIDE and both engines were recovered, or at least the pieces, you ignorant, raving, lunatic. <snip remaining ignorant, raving, delusions> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JvCdnX77brvuU4rLnZ2dnUU7-eednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277762 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mv8fea$gk0$4@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mv4r7e$70m$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>>>> NOBODY takes your links seriously. Except for other kooktards, of >>>>> course. >>> >>>>ROTFLMAO because you still support the Popular Mechanics bullshit even >>>>though you know the alleged 757 could not have "flowed" into the >>>>Pentagon >>>>now. You even pointed out it should have "splashed." >>> >>> You lie, kOOktard. Why do you lie? I said the F-4 that struck the 12' >>> thick block "splashed", not the 757 that struck the Pentagon. Remember, >>> that situation was different, where a much larger jet struck a thinner >>> wall, so it penetrated while the F-4 "splashed". But it didn't >>> penetrate >>> as a solid airplane, which was my point. > >>So now you are saying that the alleged 757 that flew into the pentagon was >>"solid?" > > Yes. A single "thing" called a Boeing 757. It was a solid object, not a > liquid or a gas. Hollow, but solid. riiight. Too bad real commercial airliners are about as solid as an egg shell. Only the airliners involved in the Great Hijacker Hoax could be both solid and yet almost completely disappear from view int he wink of an eye. And the 757 flew so fcuking fast no cameras near the Pentagon could record them. >>>>And do not forget why Popular Mechanics had to use that lie. They had >>>>to >>>>try and find a way to explain the missing debris field at the Pentagon >>>>right >>> >>> They found the debris field inside, kook. > >>riiight. The problem remains they found next to no debris outside the >>Pentagon > > I said they found the debris inside, kooktard, because that's where the > plane went. Yes, according the the Governments Once Upon a Time story. Too bad it was just a story. >> and why was there only one small engine recovered? > > Pieces of both 757 engines were recovered. L I A R. >>Heck even when the jet went down in the Hudson River we were told they >>were >>still looking for the engines > > Did they look at the bottoms of the wings? They were there. Damaged and > non-functional, but there. Don't forget real airliners fall apart in real life. Only those used by the living suicide pilots were special. >>Plus what was a blast engineer doing at the Pentagon as proven by Popular >>Mechanics? I can see a blast engineer being used for bombs and missiles >>but >>757s? > > A 757 striking concrete at 500 mph is going to have a lot of similarities > to conventional explosions. Not the same, of course, but many > similarities. Incaase you failed to notice. When the wall caved at the Pentagon it was blown up and not burned down. Do you really think an airliner did that? >>And do not forget to take a look at the relatively short shadows and the >>fact there are no people at GZ. That means the following photo had to be >>taken from when the radiation at GZ was the worst and nobody was allowed >>into the site. > > So you're just guessing. You don't even know the time or day of that > photo. Well, it had to be after 9 am and before noon because the shadows recorded on 9/11 at that time were pretty long. Just look for the videos of the napalum cannon shooting something out the north side of the South Tower when the CGI rammed into it. > The fact remains that they began searching for victims almost immediately. > Such as finding the survivors in the North Tower stairwell within hours. > Plus, remember that you listed no radioactivity above background as part > of your excellent "Duck Test" that proves there were no nukes, remember? Don't forget the normal radioactivity for Ground Zero was a lot higher than it was when it was still the World Trade Center. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 17:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8em01b5966t8ivh3aci8vptj9nrafk5r8i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277371 |
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:43:09 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>>> To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per
>>>>>>>> hour is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building
>>>>>>>> wall is the height of ignorance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think
>>>>>>> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the
>>>>>>> distance between them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing
>>>>>>> through a couple rings of the Pentagon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris
>>>>>> within milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane?
>>>>>
>>>>> To touch on the topic of this group where I am seeing this:
>>>>> conservation of momentum.
>>>>
>>>> Momentum may be conserved, but physical integrity is not, and when
>>>> turbine engines come apart, the pieces tend to fly 90 degrees from
>>>> the axis of rotation.
>>>
>>> Those pieces would travel at subsonic velocities relative to the axis.
>>> The craft was moving relative to the wall at a speed that was not an
>>> insignificant fraction of the radial velocity of debris. The debris
>>> from an engine would have spread over a limited radial extent as the
>>> craft impacted the wall.
>>
>> Yeah, so?
>>
>> The engine would not be going through the wall like a bullet; more
>> like buckshot.
>
>
>
>
>I love it.
>So now your story is that the alleged plane at the pentagon, turned to
>fragments before it hit anything.
No one has made such a claim.
>
>HOOO- BOY You should have stuck to mutant alligators eating it.
No one made that claim either.
>That
>fairytale was more credible.
>
Since it exits solely within your mind, to you it would be.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 01:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kbou0b9c2v1g0i9rol59joclfgvbqdri2a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277343 |
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 03:53:04 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:18:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:05:02 -0500, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:19 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He's pissed the virgins weren't and they were all ugly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And so, Jimp proves again that he even refuses to LOOK at any >>>>>>>>>> evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kook youtube videos are not proof of anything, raving lunatic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure they are,....they prove that you are afraid of your own shadow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Babbling nonsense of a raving lunatic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip lunatic babble> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>So while you are flapping your gums. >>>>>>How about an actual comment on the video >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng >>>>> >>>>> Please see Message-ID: <k4tudc-1v2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> for >>>>>Jim's comment on the video. >>>> >>>> Which does not address the issues of flying fast so close to the >>>> ground or why there weren't Wile E Coyote outlines of both engines in >>>> the wall of the Pentagon. >>> >>>There is nothing special about flying fast close to the ground other >>>than, if one wants to stay alive, you must be vigilante for things >>>sticking up in the air. >>> >>>To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per hour >>>is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building wall is >>>the height of ignorance. >> >> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think >> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the distance >> between them? >> >> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing through a >> couple rings of the Pentagon. > >Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris within >milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane? > >Turbine engines do not have large cast iron engine blocks and ingesting >ANY debris while running at full power causes them to self destruct in >a spectacular fashion. An engine after it ingests even a bird [ soft tissue and bone not reinforced concrete and steel ] will be destroyed and need replacing. >Actually, the airplane made a rather jagged, more or less round hole >as all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hungred >miles an hour. One of the best descriptions is it smashed the entire plane to smithereens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 10:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <19qv0b1jibb3gkk9fcklrlie06ig9t65a5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277345 |
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 01:11:43 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: >On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 03:53:04 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:18:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:05:02 -0500, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:19 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He's pissed the virgins weren't and they were all ugly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And so, Jimp proves again that he even refuses to LOOK at any >>>>>>>>>>> evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kook youtube videos are not proof of anything, raving lunatic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure they are,....they prove that you are afraid of your own shadow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Babbling nonsense of a raving lunatic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip lunatic babble> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So while you are flapping your gums. >>>>>>>How about an actual comment on the video >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see Message-ID: <k4tudc-1v2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> for >>>>>>Jim's comment on the video. >>>>> >>>>> Which does not address the issues of flying fast so close to the >>>>> ground or why there weren't Wile E Coyote outlines of both engines in >>>>> the wall of the Pentagon. >>>> >>>>There is nothing special about flying fast close to the ground other >>>>than, if one wants to stay alive, you must be vigilante for things >>>>sticking up in the air. >>>> >>>>To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per hour >>>>is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building wall is >>>>the height of ignorance. >>> >>> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think >>> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the distance >>> between them? >>> >>> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing through a >>> couple rings of the Pentagon. >> >>Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris within >>milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane? >> >>Turbine engines do not have large cast iron engine blocks and ingesting >>ANY debris while running at full power causes them to self destruct in >>a spectacular fashion. > >An engine after it ingests even a bird [ soft tissue and bone not >reinforced concrete and steel ] will be destroyed and need replacing. Which is not the same thing as disintegrating to powder. >>Actually, the airplane made a rather jagged, more or less round hole >>as all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hungred >>miles an hour. > >One of the best descriptions is it smashed the entire plane to >smithereens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nof5ec-9so.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #277359 |
In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 01:11:43 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >>On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 03:53:04 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:18:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:05:02 -0500, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:19 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He's pissed the virgins weren't and they were all ugly. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And so, Jimp proves again that he even refuses to LOOK at any >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kook youtube videos are not proof of anything, raving lunatic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure they are,....they prove that you are afraid of your own shadow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Babbling nonsense of a raving lunatic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip lunatic babble> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So while you are flapping your gums. >>>>>>>>How about an actual comment on the video >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see Message-ID: <k4tudc-1v2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> for >>>>>>>Jim's comment on the video. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which does not address the issues of flying fast so close to the >>>>>> ground or why there weren't Wile E Coyote outlines of both engines in >>>>>> the wall of the Pentagon. >>>>> >>>>>There is nothing special about flying fast close to the ground other >>>>>than, if one wants to stay alive, you must be vigilante for things >>>>>sticking up in the air. >>>>> >>>>>To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per hour >>>>>is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building wall is >>>>>the height of ignorance. >>>> >>>> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think >>>> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the distance >>>> between them? >>>> >>>> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing through a >>>> couple rings of the Pentagon. >>> >>>Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris within >>>milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane? >>> >>>Turbine engines do not have large cast iron engine blocks and ingesting >>>ANY debris while running at full power causes them to self destruct in >>>a spectacular fashion. >> >>An engine after it ingests even a bird [ soft tissue and bone not >>reinforced concrete and steel ] will be destroyed and need replacing. > > Which is not the same thing as disintegrating to powder. The point which you have totally missed is that turbine engines are really rather fragile and no one said they turn to powder. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 11:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <80i21bpvkatbv0satcprflulbtk5v3iv8f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #277359 |
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 10:44:05 -0400, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 01:11:43 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >>On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 03:53:04 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:18:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:05:02 -0500, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:19 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He's pissed the virgins weren't and they were all ugly. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And so, Jimp proves again that he even refuses to LOOK at any >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kook youtube videos are not proof of anything, raving lunatic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure they are,....they prove that you are afraid of your own shadow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Babbling nonsense of a raving lunatic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip lunatic babble> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So while you are flapping your gums. >>>>>>>>How about an actual comment on the video >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see Message-ID: <k4tudc-1v2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> for >>>>>>>Jim's comment on the video. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which does not address the issues of flying fast so close to the >>>>>> ground or why there weren't Wile E Coyote outlines of both engines in >>>>>> the wall of the Pentagon. >>>>> >>>>>There is nothing special about flying fast close to the ground other >>>>>than, if one wants to stay alive, you must be vigilante for things >>>>>sticking up in the air. >>>>> >>>>>To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per hour >>>>>is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building wall is >>>>>the height of ignorance. >>>> >>>> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think >>>> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the distance >>>> between them? >>>> >>>> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing through a >>>> couple rings of the Pentagon. >>> >>>Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris within >>>milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane? >>> >>>Turbine engines do not have large cast iron engine blocks and ingesting >>>ANY debris while running at full power causes them to self destruct in >>>a spectacular fashion. >> >>An engine after it ingests even a bird [ soft tissue and bone not >>reinforced concrete and steel ] will be destroyed and need replacing. > >Which is not the same thing as disintegrating to powder. Who's claiming anything disintegrated into powder? Bast? >>>Actually, the airplane made a rather jagged, more or less round hole >>>as all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hungred >>>miles an hour. >> >>One of the best descriptions is it smashed the entire plane to >>smithereens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 12:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.307b1c478f57bfa798c30c@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277417 |
In article <80i21bpvkatbv0satcprflulbtk5v3iv8f@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 10:44:05 -0400, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > >On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 01:11:43 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 03:53:04 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > >>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:18:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:05:02 -0500, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:19 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >>>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> He's pissed the virgins weren't and they were all ugly. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And so, Jimp proves again that he even refuses to LOOK at any > >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Kook youtube videos are not proof of anything, raving lunatic. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sure they are,....they prove that you are afraid of your own shadow. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Babbling nonsense of a raving lunatic. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <snip lunatic babble> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>So while you are flapping your gums. > >>>>>>>>How about an actual comment on the video > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! > >>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please see Message-ID: <k4tudc-1v2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> for > >>>>>>>Jim's comment on the video. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Which does not address the issues of flying fast so close to the > >>>>>> ground or why there weren't Wile E Coyote outlines of both engines in > >>>>>> the wall of the Pentagon. > >>>>> > >>>>>There is nothing special about flying fast close to the ground other > >>>>>than, if one wants to stay alive, you must be vigilante for things > >>>>>sticking up in the air. > >>>>> > >>>>>To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per hour > >>>>>is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building wall is > >>>>>the height of ignorance. > >>>> > >>>> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think > >>>> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the distance > >>>> between them? > >>>> > >>>> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing through a > >>>> couple rings of the Pentagon. > >>> > >>>Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris within > >>>milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane? > >>> > >>>Turbine engines do not have large cast iron engine blocks and ingesting > >>>ANY debris while running at full power causes them to self destruct in > >>>a spectacular fashion. > >> > >>An engine after it ingests even a bird [ soft tissue and bone not > >>reinforced concrete and steel ] will be destroyed and need replacing. > > > >Which is not the same thing as disintegrating to powder. > > Who's claiming anything disintegrated into powder? Bast? The dust/powder thing seems to be a main symptom of terminal kOOktardery. > > >>>Actually, the airplane made a rather jagged, more or less round hole > >>>as all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hungred > >>>miles an hour. > >> > >>One of the best descriptions is it smashed the entire plane to > >>smithereens. That's not "fine" enough for the troofers. -- 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tj38ec-4v4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #277417 |
In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > Who's claiming anything disintegrated into powder? Bast? The kooks seem to think that turbine engines are like the engine in a car, i.e. a great big, solid piece of metal that should make a bullet-like hole in a wall. They totally fail to understand that the interior volume of that great big turbine engine is mostly air and fragile fan blades and is nothing like a V-8 engine block. Thus the "disintegrated into powder" remark is an ignorant attempt to ridicule the fact that turbine engines break up and do NOT make a nice, neat round hole on impact. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 19:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <musaue$9fu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #277426 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > >> Who's claiming anything disintegrated into powder? Bast? > > The kooks seem to think that turbine engines are like the engine in > a car, i.e. a great big, solid piece of metal that should make a > bullet-like hole in a wall. > > They totally fail to understand that the interior volume of that great > big turbine engine is mostly air and fragile fan blades and is nothing > like a V-8 engine block. > > Thus the "disintegrated into powder" remark is an ignorant attempt > to ridicule the fact that turbine engines break up and do NOT make > a nice, neat round hole on impact. You do realize that those engines " made of mostly air " weigh into the tonnage range. And are the solidest parts of a jet. Of course the turbines in a cruise type missle are mounted right in the back, and are designed to shrapnelize,...by design. So you are fianlly realizing these were missiles that hit,...and not passenger planes at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqo8ec-b57.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #277440 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >> >>> Who's claiming anything disintegrated into powder? Bast? >> >> The kooks seem to think that turbine engines are like the engine in >> a car, i.e. a great big, solid piece of metal that should make a >> bullet-like hole in a wall. >> >> They totally fail to understand that the interior volume of that great >> big turbine engine is mostly air and fragile fan blades and is nothing >> like a V-8 engine block. >> >> Thus the "disintegrated into powder" remark is an ignorant attempt >> to ridicule the fact that turbine engines break up and do NOT make >> a nice, neat round hole on impact. > > > > You do realize that those engines " made of mostly air " weigh into the > tonnage range. Yep, lots of sheet metal and fan blades. > And are the solidest parts of a jet. Nope, that would be the landing gear. <snip remaining ignorant kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 18:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pq2dna5u_8zzJozLnZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #277440 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message news:musaue$9fu$1@dont-email.me... > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >> >>> Who's claiming anything disintegrated into powder? Bast? >> >> The kooks seem to think that turbine engines are like the engine in >> a car, i.e. a great big, solid piece of metal that should make a >> bullet-like hole in a wall. >> >> They totally fail to understand that the interior volume of that great >> big turbine engine is mostly air and fragile fan blades and is nothing >> like a V-8 engine block. >> >> Thus the "disintegrated into powder" remark is an ignorant attempt >> to ridicule the fact that turbine engines break up and do NOT make >> a nice, neat round hole on impact. > > > > > > > You do realize that those engines " made of mostly air " weigh into the > tonnage range. > And are the solidest parts of a jet. > > > Of course the turbines in a cruise type missle are mounted right in the > back, and are designed to shrapnelize,...by design. > So you are fianlly realizing these were missiles that hit,...and not > passenger planes at all. The truth is that the people that planted explosives in the Pentagon didn't want to damage the Pentagon too much so they never planted the explosives needed to make it look like jet engines rammed into the Pentagon. The problem is, thermate worked great on making the roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers but they could not use thermate to make the road runner cutouts in the Pentagon so they would have had to use real explosives. 9/11 PLANES HOAX http://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-drone/ Rocky FYI only a CGI can fly with one wing gone. See: https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/luc-courchesne-missing-left-wing.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 06:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muoa09$kn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #277343 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:18:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:05:02 -0500, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:19 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He's pissed the virgins weren't and they were all ugly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And so, Jimp proves again that he even refuses to LOOK at any >>>>>>>>>> evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kook youtube videos are not proof of anything, raving lunatic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure they are,....they prove that you are afraid of your own >>>>>>>> shadow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Babbling nonsense of a raving lunatic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip lunatic babble> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So while you are flapping your gums. >>>>>> How about an actual comment on the video >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng >>>>> >>>>> Please see Message-ID: <k4tudc-1v2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> for >>>>> Jim's comment on the video. >>>> >>>> Which does not address the issues of flying fast so close to the >>>> ground or why there weren't Wile E Coyote outlines of both engines in >>>> the wall of the Pentagon. >>> >>> There is nothing special about flying fast close to the ground other >>> than, if one wants to stay alive, you must be vigilante for things >>> sticking up in the air. >>> >>> To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per hour >>> is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building wall is >>> the height of ignorance. >> >> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think >> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the distance >> between them? >> >> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing through a >> couple rings of the Pentagon. > > Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris within > milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane? > > Turbine engines do not have large cast iron engine blocks and ingesting > ANY debris while running at full power causes them to self destruct in > a spectacular fashion. > > Actually, the airplane made a rather jagged, more or less round hole > as all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hungred > miles an hour. "all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hundred miles an hour." Cause and Effect ?,....but on 9/11 it was, Effect and Cause. So now......The "plane" exploded BEFORE it hit the building ???? The official 9/11 fairytale is amazing,.....it even seem to have references to Pinocchio's nose
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3tf5ec-9so.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #277349 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:18:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:05:02 -0500, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:19 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He's pissed the virgins weren't and they were all ugly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And so, Jimp proves again that he even refuses to LOOK at any >>>>>>>>>>> evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kook youtube videos are not proof of anything, raving lunatic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure they are,....they prove that you are afraid of your own >>>>>>>>> shadow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Babbling nonsense of a raving lunatic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip lunatic babble> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So while you are flapping your gums. >>>>>>> How about an actual comment on the video >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see Message-ID: <k4tudc-1v2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> for >>>>>> Jim's comment on the video. >>>>> >>>>> Which does not address the issues of flying fast so close to the >>>>> ground or why there weren't Wile E Coyote outlines of both engines in >>>>> the wall of the Pentagon. >>>> >>>> There is nothing special about flying fast close to the ground other >>>> than, if one wants to stay alive, you must be vigilante for things >>>> sticking up in the air. >>>> >>>> To even suggest that an airplane moving at hundreds of miles per hour >>>> is going to create some sort of outline in a sturdy building wall is >>>> the height of ignorance. >>> >>> I didn't say the airplane, I said its two engines. Why do you think >>> they would both go through one hole that was smaller than the distance >>> between them? >>> >>> Supposedly the aircraft made a nice round hole after passing through a >>> couple rings of the Pentagon. >> >> Why do you think the engines were not turned into flying debris within >> milliseconds of impact lke the rest of the airplane? >> >> Turbine engines do not have large cast iron engine blocks and ingesting >> ANY debris while running at full power causes them to self destruct in >> a spectacular fashion. >> >> Actually, the airplane made a rather jagged, more or less round hole >> as all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hungred >> miles an hour. > > > > > > > > "all the bits and pieces impacted the building at several hundred miles an > hour." > > Cause and Effect ?,....but on 9/11 it was, Effect and Cause. > So now......The "plane" exploded BEFORE it hit the building ???? No, moron, the airplane started disintegrating the instant the left wing hit the ground and the nose hit the building, raving lunatic. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web