Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #269082 > unrolled thread

9/11 : Any Questions?

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

Contents

  9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 17:12 -0500
    Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-04 23:04 +0000
    Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 03:36 +0000
      Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 07:50 -0500
        Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 14:33 +0000
          Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:30 -0500
            Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 16:40 +0000
    Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-05 11:10 -0400
      Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:25 -0500
      Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 16:32 +0000
        Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 12:13 -0500
          Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 18:19 +0000
            Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 14:45 -0500
              Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 22:57 +0000
                Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-06 17:27 -0500
                  Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 10:00 -0700
                    Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 17:18 -0500
        Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:42 -0500
    Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-05 20:12 +0200
    Re: 9/11 : Any Questions? Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-05 11:20 -0700

#269082 — 9/11 : Any Questions?

 https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#269086

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg 
 
Yes, when did people first start to notice you are insane?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269101

Subject: 9/11 : Any Questions?

Not a question but a comment.  Not only do kookvids lie, but kookpics do
as well!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269114

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:musr85$2gb$2@pcls7.std.com...
> Subject: 9/11 : Any Questions?
>
> Not a question but a comment.  Not only do kookvids lie, but kookpics do
> as well!

ROTFLMAO it is just too bad that I can say no to your hijacking and put this 
thread back on course with a photo that helps prove the CGIs that rammed the 
Twin Towers were cheap CGIs with no crash dynamics either.
 https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269117

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:musr85$2gb$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> Subject: 9/11 : Any Questions?
>>
>> Not a question but a comment.  Not only do kookvids lie, but kookpics do
>> as well!

>ROTFLMAO it is just too bad that I can say no to your hijacking and put this 
>thread back on course with a photo that helps prove the CGIs that rammed the 
>Twin Towers were cheap CGIs with no crash dynamics either.

It's still a lie, kooktard.  "WTC Construction nearly 2 feet thick." Nope, 
the exterior columns were 13.5"x14" hollow box columns.  14" is NOT 
"nearly 2 feet thick".

The box columns were hollow, and of various thicknesses depending what
they had to support.  Just above the "tridents" the walls of the box
columns were nearly 4" thick, but at the top they were only 1/4" thick,
and of a cheaper grade of steel.  Someone posted that where the planes hit
they were 5/16" thick.

So the planes had to smash through a total of 5/8" of steel over half the
total area, and glass (which offered nearly no resistance) over the other 
half.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269129

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:muu1na$g67$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:musr85$2gb$2@pcls7.std.com...
>>> Subject: 9/11 : Any Questions?
>>>
>>> Not a question but a comment.  Not only do kookvids lie, but kookpics do
>>> as well!
>
>>ROTFLMAO it is just too bad that I can say no to your hijacking and put 
>>this
>>thread back on course with a photo that helps prove the CGIs that rammed 
>>the
>>Twin Towers were cheap CGIs with no crash dynamics either.
>
> It's still a lie, kooktard.  "WTC Construction nearly 2 feet thick." Nope,
> the exterior columns were 13.5"x14" hollow box columns.  14" is NOT
> "nearly 2 feet thick".
>
> The box columns were hollow, and of various thicknesses depending what
> they had to support.  Just above the "tridents" the walls of the box
> columns were nearly 4" thick, but at the top they were only 1/4" thick,
> and of a cheaper grade of steel.  Someone posted that where the planes hit
> they were 5/16" thick.
>
> So the planes had to smash through a total of 5/8" of steel over half the
> total area, and glass (which offered nearly no resistance) over the other
> half.

And your supporting link is missing as usual.  <G>

Either way

1...There is no way a real jet could fly as fast as the CGIs used in Nuke 
York City.

2.  There is no way a real jet could fly with just one wing.

3.  There are too many consistencies between the Nuke York City jets and 
very cheap CGIs.

 http://911planeshoax.com/

Rocky

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269142

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>And your supporting link is missing as usual.  <G>

Do I have to spoon feed you everything?  Besides, you gave no supporting
link to the false claim "WTC Construction nearly 2 feet thick."

>Either way

>1...There is no way a real jet could fly as fast as the CGIs used in Nuke 
>York City.

Why not? And your support for this is?

>2.  There is no way a real jet could fly with just one wing.

It obviously had two wings, as seen in many, many videos.

>3.  There are too many consistencies between the Nuke York City jets and 
>very cheap CGIs.

Babbling gibberish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269126

In article <4_WdnZR2vNwAOYzLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
wookiee@att.net says...
> 
>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg 

Well yes, I have a lot of questions?

Assuming you're not just trolling..

How did you get so clueless?
Were you dropped on your head?
Are you a victim of shaken baby syndrome?

Or were you just born dumb?


-- 
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]

#269128

"BDK" <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.307c5cf7f88fe9ba98c311@news.giganews.com...
> In article <4_WdnZR2vNwAOYzLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> wookiee@att.net says...
>>
>>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg
>
> Well yes, I have a lot of questions?
>
> Assuming you're not just trolling..
>
> How did you get so clueless?
> Were you dropped on your head?
> Are you a victim of shaken baby syndrome?
>
> Or were you just born dumb?

Your the one that refuses to say which one of the many government's 9/11 
fairytales that you believe in.

And in the process we have uncovered there are multiple beliefs in the 
Television Set Worshippers Guild that you are clearly a part of.

BTW since you have hijacked this thread instead of seeing that it gives a 
good argument proving that the jets in Nuke York City were just CGIs the 
I'll repost the OP

  **********  OP  **********

https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269139

BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> writes:

>In article <4_WdnZR2vNwAOYzLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
>wookiee@att.net says...
>> 
>>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg 

>Well yes, I have a lot of questions?

>Assuming you're not just trolling..

>How did you get so clueless?
>Were you dropped on your head?

Probably on purpose. And multiple times.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269148

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:muu8mk$2f2$4@pcls7.std.com...
> BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> writes:
>
>>In article <4_WdnZR2vNwAOYzLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>wookiee@att.net says...
>>>
>>>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg
>
>>Well yes, I have a lot of questions?
>
>>Assuming you're not just trolling..
>
>>How did you get so clueless?
>>Were you dropped on your head?
>
> Probably on purpose. And multiple times.

ROTFLMAO because you posted this:

"This is what happens when a jet hits concrete at 500 mph.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0 "

and yet you still support the bullshit stories told about the 16 foot wide 
hole in the Pentagon?  Boy are you ever a hypocrite.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269153

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>>>How did you get so clueless?
>>>Were you dropped on your head?
>>
>> Probably on purpose. And multiple times.

>ROTFLMAO because you posted this:

>"This is what happens when a jet hits concrete at 500 mph.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0 "

>and yet you still support the bullshit stories told about the 16 foot wide 
>hole in the Pentagon?  Boy are you ever a hypocrite.

96' hole, not 16', kooktard.

Much larger jet, thinner concrete at the Pentagon.  Plus the phantom jet
target was on bearings which allowed it to recoil, preventing a reflected
tensile wave that would tend to break up concrete.  The Pentagon wall was
fixed to the ground/held in place by the rest of the building.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269166

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:muuf0d$ad8$3@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>>>How did you get so clueless?
>>>>Were you dropped on your head?
>>>
>>> Probably on purpose. And multiple times.
>
>>ROTFLMAO because you posted this:
>
>>"This is what happens when a jet hits concrete at 500 mph.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0 "
>
>>and yet you still support the bullshit stories told about the 16 foot wide
>>hole in the Pentagon?  Boy are you ever a hypocrite.
>
> 96' hole, not 16', kooktard.

Before the wall fell you idiot.

> Much larger jet, thinner concrete at the Pentagon.  Plus the phantom jet
> target was on bearings which allowed it to recoil, preventing a reflected
> tensile wave that would tend to break up concrete.  The Pentagon wall was
> fixed to the ground/held in place by the rest of the building.

And why the 6 minute difference then?

And why do some stories of Flight 77 have it do a 360 degree spiral dive 
before it gets to the Pentagon and others have it do a 270 degree turn after 
it flies over the Pentagon?

Seems the 270 degree turn was the more unbelievable of the two so they went 
with another story again.  <G>

And even your story does not match what Popular Mechanics said about "the 
plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid."

There is so much bullshit in the ever changing stories in an attempt to 
explain the missing debris from the Pentagon or why just one engine was 
found it is unreal.

Plus why were people filmed carrying something out of the Pentagon with a 
tarp.  Seems they didn't want us to see that it was really a missile that 
stuck the Pentagon at 9:31 instead of a 757 at 9:37.  <G>

Don't you see that you are forced to lie and lie and lie because 9/11 was a 
lie and it doesn't matter what you think you have to use lies to support the 
lie of 9/11.  DUH

BTW I just noticed that Popular Mechanic didn't want to deal with all the 
different CGIs used by  the 9/11 Hoaxsters that they didn't show a single 
image of a any of the CGIs used in Nuke York City on 9/11.  <G>

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269187

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:muuf0d$ad8$3@pcls7.std.com...

>>>and yet you still support the bullshit stories told about the 16 foot wide
>>>hole in the Pentagon?  Boy are you ever a hypocrite.
>>
>> 96' hole, not 16', kooktard.

>Before the wall fell you idiot.

That was before the collapse, kooktard.  Why do you think the collapse was
so wide, instead of 16' wide, or perhaps not at all?  It's because 96'
of aircraft debris entered the building and damaged/destroyed several
interior columns.  There's a diagram of column damage online, go search
for it.

>> Much larger jet, thinner concrete at the Pentagon.  Plus the phantom jet
>> target was on bearings which allowed it to recoil, preventing a reflected
>> tensile wave that would tend to break up concrete.  The Pentagon wall was
>> fixed to the ground/held in place by the rest of the building.

>And why the 6 minute difference then?

What 6 minute difference?  Flight 77 was much larger than a F-4 Phantom,
the Pentagon wall was thinner than a 12' thick reinforced concrete block,
which was allowed to recoil.  Thus the block survived while the Pentagon
wall got a 96' wide hole cut in it.

>And why do some stories of Flight 77 have it do a 360 degree spiral dive 
>before it gets to the Pentagon and others have it do a 270 degree turn after 
>it flies over the Pentagon?

Probably you kooktards trying to confuse the matter.  What the flight data
recorder had it doing would be the correct answer.

>And even your story does not match what Popular Mechanics said about "the 
>plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid."

Artistic license I guess (I don't consider them experts of any sort), but
upon impact the plane was no longer a solid object, it would be small 
pieces of debris or even dust which has some liquidlike properties.  Like
the F-4 Phantom, the dust "splashes" from the wall much like a liquid 
would.

>There is so much bullshit in the ever changing stories

of the kooktards.

> in an attempt to 
>explain the missing debris from the Pentagon

Very little missing debris as 95% of the plane was recovered.

> or why just one engine was 
>found it is unreal.

Do we really know this, or are you just repeating some kooksite?  Or
perhaps it hit something more solid and became fine debris.  I don't
know, and I don't trust your (mis)leading questions.

Do any non-kooktards know if both engines were recovered?

>Plus why were people filmed carrying something out of the Pentagon with a 
>tarp.

Perhaps bodies.

>  Seems they didn't want us to see that it was really a missile

That's just stupid-ass guessing, or rather kooktardery.  You have no idea
what was under any tarp there.

>stuck the Pentagon at 9:31 instead of a 757 at 9:37.  <G>

Out of the dozens and dozens of people stuck in traffic, nobody saw a
second missile/plane at 9:31.  Face it, clocks can have the wrong time, or
perhaps it was already broken and someone embellished a story saying the
impact broke it, or...

>Don't you see that you are forced to lie and lie and lie because 9/11 was a 
>lie and it doesn't matter what you think you have to use lies to support the 
>lie of 9/11.  DUH

The only lies here are from you and Bast.  And all the kookvids, which you
proved are all lies.  (Thanks again for that proof!)

>BTW I just noticed that Popular Mechanic didn't want to deal with all the 
>different CGIs used by  the 9/11 Hoaxsters that they didn't show a single 
>image of a any of the CGIs used in Nuke York City on 9/11.  <G>

Gibberish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269241

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:muuv80$cd9$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:muuf0d$ad8$3@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>>>and yet you still support the bullshit stories told about the 16 foot 
>>>>wide
>>>>hole in the Pentagon?  Boy are you ever a hypocrite.
>>>
>>> 96' hole, not 16', kooktard.
>
>>Before the wall fell you idiot.
>
> That was before the collapse, kooktard.  Why do you think the collapse was
> so wide, instead of 16' wide, or perhaps not at all?  It's because 96'
> of aircraft debris entered the building and damaged/destroyed several
> interior columns.  There's a diagram of column damage online, go search
> for it.
>
>>> Much larger jet, thinner concrete at the Pentagon.  Plus the phantom jet
>>> target was on bearings which allowed it to recoil, preventing a 
>>> reflected
>>> tensile wave that would tend to break up concrete.  The Pentagon wall 
>>> was
>>> fixed to the ground/held in place by the rest of the building.
>
>>And why the 6 minute difference then?
>
> What 6 minute difference?

Clocks stopped at 9:31.  Even the local airport shows activity at 9:31. 
They only reason the 9/11 hoaxsters had to change the time to 9:37 is they 
were really planning to use Flight 93 for the Pentagon attack but when it 
was delayed on take off they had to use Flight 11 instead but the bogus blip 
couldn't make it to the scene on time so the time was moved back and 
changing things like that is consistant with bullshit stories don't you 
know?

You really should watch:

Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
( time indexed to start at 29:30 where she talks about the two different 
stories )
 https://youtu.be/VXBk8JqwFlw?t=29m30s


>  Flight 77 was much larger than a F-4 Phantom,
> the Pentagon wall was thinner than a 12' thick reinforced concrete block,
> which was allowed to recoil.  Thus the block survived while the Pentagon
> wall got a 96' wide hole cut in it.

link?  I'd heard that wall was 6 feet thick making it as thick if not 
thicker than the wall in your 1/2 of a video that refused to show the 
conclusion of the jet flying into a concrete barrier.

>>And why do some stories of Flight 77 have it do a 360 degree spiral dive
>>before it gets to the Pentagon and others have it do a 270 degree turn 
>>after
>>it flies over the Pentagon?
>
> Probably you kooktards trying to confuse the matter.  What the flight data
> recorder had it doing would be the correct answer.

But that is what changed.  Thanks to Gov Shill he posted something showing a 
360 degree turn before the Flight 77 blip got to the Pentagon but other 
videos show a 270 degree turn after flying over the Pentagon.  Those 9/11 
hoaxsters can't even keep their stories straight and I'm surprized you fell 
for their complete bullshit.

>>And even your story does not match what Popular Mechanics said about "the
>>plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid."
>
> Artistic license I guess (I don't consider them experts of any sort), but
> upon impact the plane was no longer a solid object, it would be small
> pieces of debris or even dust which has some liquidlike properties.  Like
> the F-4 Phantom, the dust "splashes" from the wall much like a liquid
> would.

ROTFLMAO  I can see your point but that is what Popular Mechanics claimed 
"flowed into the structure" so we both agree that Popular Mechanics is a 
crock of shit.

And even your video gave us a crock of shit because there was debris all 
over Nuke York City and if a jet had really flown apart into little bitty 
parts it should have left debris over a very wide area then but nothing was 
found until they unloaded trucks and spread things around for a photo OP.


> Very little missing debris as 95% of the plane was recovered.

But only in your fairytale because there is no photographic evidence to 
support your fairytale and you proved that to me already.  <G>


>
>> or why just one engine was
>>found it is unreal.
>
> Do we really know this, or are you just repeating some kooksite?  Or
> perhaps it hit something more solid and became fine debris.  I don't
> know, and I don't trust your (mis)leading questions.

Look for yourself.  Only one small engine was pulled from the wreckage like 
it was from a missile instead of a 757.  <G>


> Do any non-kooktards know if both engines were recovered?
>
>>Plus why were people filmed carrying something out of the Pentagon with a
>>tarp.
>
> Perhaps bodies.

But that is normally done one at a time instead of under what might have 
been under the remains of a circus tent since 9/11 was really just a circus 
and there were not 19 hijackers.


>>  Seems they didn't want us to see that it was really a missile
>
> That's just stupid-ass guessing, or rather kooktardery.  You have no idea
> what was under any tarp there.

Hmmm, something that only leaves one small engine behind and can make a big 
hole in a wall without spreading debris all over the place.  I'd say I have 
a real good idea what was under the tarp.

>>stuck the Pentagon at 9:31 instead of a 757 at 9:37.  <G>
>
> Out of the dozens and dozens of people stuck in traffic, nobody saw a
> second missile/plane at 9:31.

That would have been the first attack and that is what some people saw. 
See:
 https://youtu.be/VXBk8JqwFlw?t=29m30s

> Face it, clocks can have the wrong time, or
> perhaps it was already broken and someone embellished a story saying the
> impact broke it, or...

Oh yes, clocks at a heliport where they even transport the president from 
time to time are routinely off by 6 minutes.  riiight.  Boy is your crap 
getting deep.


>>Don't you see that you are forced to lie and lie and lie because 9/11 was 
>>a
>>lie and it doesn't matter what you think you have to use lies to support 
>>the
>>lie of 9/11.  DUH
>
> The only lies here are from you and Bast.  And all the kookvids, which you
> proved are all lies.  (Thanks again for that proof!)

You need to prove they found more than just one engine and that the hole was 
wider than 16 feet before the collapse.

Or that clocks at the Heliport were routinely off by 6 minutes.


>>BTW I just noticed that Popular Mechanic didn't want to deal with all the
>>different CGIs used by  the 9/11 Hoaxsters that they didn't show a single
>>image of a any of the CGIs used in Nuke York City on 9/11.  <G>
>
> Gibberish.

ROTFLMAO because even you don't want to put a photo of a real jet right 
beside the jets that were used in Nuke York City because that would help 
prove all that flew in Nuke York City were helicopters and CGIs.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269425

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:28:56 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
...
> Clocks stopped at 9:31.  Even the local airport shows activity at 9:31. 
> They only reason the 9/11 hoaxsters had to change the time to 9:37 is they 
> were really planning to use Flight 93 for the Pentagon attack but when it 
> was delayed on take off they had to use Flight 11 instead but the bogus blip 
> couldn't make it to the scene on time so the time was moved back and 
> changing things like that is consistant with bullshit stories don't you 
> know?
...
> Rocky

For those not reality challenged, there is a nice discussion in http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Pentagon_Event_Time_Mar19_2013.pdf looking at the "stopped clocks" and whether they could indicate an earlier attack time. Spoiler: the conclusion is that they do not.

Dan (Woj...)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269442

"dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:b5032418-c4b2-45ad-9db1-3ad7567493b9@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:28:56 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
...
> Clocks stopped at 9:31.  Even the local airport shows activity at 9:31.
> They only reason the 9/11 hoaxsters had to change the time to 9:37 is they
> were really planning to use Flight 93 for the Pentagon attack but when it
> was delayed on take off they had to use Flight 11 instead but the bogus 
> blip
> couldn't make it to the scene on time so the time was moved back and
> changing things like that is consistant with bullshit stories don't you
> know?
...
> Rocky

For those not reality challenged, there is a nice discussion in 
http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Pentagon_Event_Time_Mar19_2013.pdf 
looking at the "stopped clocks" and whether they could indicate an earlier 
attack time. Spoiler: the conclusion is that they do not.

Dan (Woj...)

=======================

So, it says the heliport clock stopped at 9:31am and that was the time of 
the first attack by a white plane that never made it to the Pentagon because 
it might have been shot down by a helicopter at the heliport itself..  Oh I 
see, you fell for the crap about there was only one attack.  Shame on you.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269202

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:32:20 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> writes:
>
>>In article <4_WdnZR2vNwAOYzLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
>>wookiee@att.net says...
>>> 
>>>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg 
>
>>Well yes, I have a lot of questions?
>
>>Assuming you're not just trolling..
>
>>How did you get so clueless?
>>Were you dropped on your head?
>
>Probably on purpose. And multiple times.

     A traumatic brain injury would explain Roger's very real learning
disability.


"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."

Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269152

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional 
woman-stalking truck crashing kook), in
<news:4_WdnZR2vNwAOYzLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg

Yes, I have a question, Roger... why are you such a delusional retard?
LOL

You've already been spanked on this bit of retardation many times in
the past, Roger. Why does your broken schizo brain feel it is
necessary to repeat your lies? Do you think people believe your fairy
tales?

Message-ID: <97d179e87e7c0eaa1548729fd234f829@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
========================================================

Message-ID: <1c0d42b6cb0b1ed6b4df6ee62c32542d@dizum.com>
==============================
The facade was 0.09" thick aluminum, you witless brainless dumbshit.
LOL

<http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf>
"By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior
cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that
2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09" aluminum sheet was used, in the form of
43,600 panels, to cover the facade of each Twin Tower."
==============================

Moron. LOL

No concrete in the WTC tower walls, either, as a weight-saving measure
so they could build higher. The Empire State Building, being a
grid-constructed building, had thick concrete walls *and* massive
solid girders... and that 10-ton plane sliced right through.

The aluminum used in modern aircraft wings isn't the soft shit found
in soda cans, you nong. It's Aluminum 2219-T81, precipitation
hardened, with a tensile strength equal to that of A36 structural
steel, and a superior yield strength.

<http://www.aircraftmaterials.com/data/aluminium/2219.html>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A36_steel>
===========================================================
Aluminum 2219-T81 tensile strength: 58 ksi
Aluminum 2219-T81 yield strength: 43 ksi

Structural steel tensile strength: 58 ksi
Structural steel yield strength: 36 ksi
===========================================================

Those "14 inch steel box columns" were actually 4 plates of low-grade
A36 steel, each 5/16" thick, welded into a hollow box girder. So those
197.5 ton planes were really only punching through 5/8" of metal...
and the metal in the planes was *stronger* than the WTC structural
steel... and the planes were above the critical velocity that would
allow even weaker materials to sever the box girders.

The WTC towers were designed to minimize the amount of concrete used.
The walls didn't even have cement in them, only the floor spars and
that was only 4" thick. That was a weight-saving measure so they could
build higher. Moron.

Are you seriously saying WWII Kamikaze planes of ~10 tons (made of
materials much weaker than the 767 planes that hit the WTC towers)
were able to punch through much harder 1 to 2 inch armor steel plating
on battleships, yet the 197.5 ton planes couldn't punch through the
5/8" of softer structural steel in the WTC towers, despite the fact
that the 767 metal was stronger than the WTC tower, and despite the
fact that the 767s were heavier and going faster than the WWII
Kamikaze planes, kook?

You moron. LOL
========================================================
========================================================
========================================================

Now you'll have to backpedal and expand your schizophrenic
paranoid-delusional conspiracy theory in even more implausible or
impossible but completely hilarious ways, Roger.

Moron.

<snicker>

-- 

Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394

Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.

Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.

B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".

C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).

D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.

E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL

F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL

G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.

K) Your broken brain has now stated (MID:
<YtWdnQvC1PTFNWjInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>) that "liquid freon in
the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo [sic]
nuclear bomb" (your words). Complete and utter nonsense from your
thoroughly broken schizophrenic brain, Roger.

L) In further expanding your delusion, your broken brain has k'lamed
that the reason for the WTC Memorial Lights is to cover up Cherenkov
radiation at the WTC site as a result of a nuclear detonation, kook
blather which I utterly destroy here: MID:
<1f304ece6ae3cd30c1bee10ad300b720@dizum.com> by proving that Cherenkov
radiation in air can only happen with highly energetic beta radiation;
that beta particles due to nuclear fission aren't energetic enough to
cause Cherenkov radiation in air; and that even with beta particles of
maximum possible energy, the Cherenkov radiation in air would only
extend ~2 meters above the ground. That's not taking into account that
the WTC Memorial Lights are currently at the *top* of the 7-story
Battery Parking Garage on Morris Street and are lit only once a year
on 11 Sep. Before the new Goldman Sachs building was built, the lights
were in vacant lot 26 on West Side Highway near the WTC site (on which
the new Goldman Sachs building now sits). They were *never* at the WTC
site. Moron. LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================

Moron. LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269154

In article <4_WdnZR2vNwAOYzLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>  https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/any-questions.jpg 

No question about it.  9/11 was an inside job.
Sold to you by the same old men who "sold" you WMD in Iraq. and you 
believed them.
start here;
www.ae911truth.org/
or
Google; 9/11 Truth
-- 
Karma ; what a concept!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web