Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #515667 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-21 17:22 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-25 09:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:22 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-08-21 18:54 -0400
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:56 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-21 18:59 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:44 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-22 11:48 -0400
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 18:47 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-22 15:08 -0400
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 21:46 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:06 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 18:54 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 04:07 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:21 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-23 03:59 -0400
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 17:43 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 12:04 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 17:23 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 19:44 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:23 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:43 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 14:36 -0400
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 19:54 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 18:54 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:53 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:01 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 21:02 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:49 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:26 +0000
? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 05:42 -0500
Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 04:07 -0700
2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:52 -0500
Re: 2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:28 -0700
Re: 2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 20:20 +0000
Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 12:15 +0100
Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 07:23 -0500
seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:35 -0500
Re: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 08:42 -0500
Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:05 -0500
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:53 -0500
Re: T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:19 +0000
Re: T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:13 +0000
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:04 -0500
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:18 -0500
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 19:50 +0000
Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:28 -0500
Re: Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 20:40 +0000
Re: Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 14:20 -0700
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:08 -0500
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:03 -0500
Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
Re: seismic evidence is inconsistent jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:11 +0000
Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:46 -0500
Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:08 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:45 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:24 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:44 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 05:09 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 08:40 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 09:36 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:07 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 13:03 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-24 11:59 -0400
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:57 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 21:35 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 19:41 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 17:55 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:13 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 18:55 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 03:44 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:50 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 05:18 +0200
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:29 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:45 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:28 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Ming Tiggle" <none@nomail.com> - 2015-08-21 21:52 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:12 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Ming Tiggle" <none@nomail.com> - 2015-08-21 21:53 -0700
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:55 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:54 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:21 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:30 +0000
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:44 -0500
Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:50 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 14:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_i3Cx.17952$%u.13620@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #515799 |
On 08/22/2015 01:04 PM, Rocky wrote:
> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>>
>> <http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html>
>
> ROTFLMAO because despite what the website above wants you to believe there
> were no holes from engines of a 757 in the Pentagon because the people that
> were supposed to plant the explosives for that part of the verisimilitude
> didn't want to do too much damage to the Pentagon. <G>
>
>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/>
>
> Yep, the old straw man argument trick. They didn't even try to address the
> lack of parts from the wings of the alleged Flight 77 that should have been
> all over the place if they really hit the light poles. <G>
>
>> <http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHA This site is filled with so much bullshit it is unreal. They
> talk about the F4 that was rammed into a solid wall and then they never
> showed how much debris from the F4 was left on the ground. They want you to
> believe that the desinegrated F4 floated away instead of leaving a pile of
> debris on the ground. < In other words that site was super shit >
>
>> <http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm>
>
> What a crock of shit that site was. Where is the debris from the alleged
> Flight 77. They claim it burned up but then there would be evidence of a
> big fire and that was missing too.
>
>> Look at all those photos showing plane debris, both outside and
>> *inside* the Pentagon. Hull pieces, the wheel rim of (surprise!
>> surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, a chunk of (surprise!
>> surprise! surprise! the Boeing 757 nose cone that actually
>> punched all the way through to A-E Drive, turbine compressor
>> parts from (surprise! surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, and a
>> shitload of small plane chunks directly in front of the building,
>> exactly as one would expect from those once-together chunks
>> slamming into and through concrete at 400 MPH. And that's not to
>> mention the eyewitnesses *and* video of the crash.
>>
>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html>
>
> If that site uses Mike Walter then we know it was bullshit because Mike
> Walter, the person in the OP was probably the worst Crisis Actor they hired.
>
>
>> And wouldn't you know it, the pre-collapse punch-through hole on
>> the outer Pentagon matches what one would expect to see from a
>> 757 hitting it at near ground level... that pilot was relying on
>> ground effect to keep the aircraft just off the ground, and
>> rammed it in at full throttle.
>>
>> Here's what the hole in the Pentagon looked like:
>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_precollapse-marked.jpg>
>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg>
>
> Picture leading you to believe there were two engines that rammed into the
> Pentagon with no excuse for why they only found one. <G>
>
>> You'll note the starboard wing was clipped by the generator unit,
>
> WTF??? Why couldn't you use the correct term. It was a "Smoke generator
> unit.". Duh.
>
>> shortening the length of the starboard wing punch-through hole to
>> the right of the main body punch-through hole.
>
> And yet the starboard wing didn't shed any parts? Unbelievable. Well,
> maybe not for you.
>
>
>> Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural
>> engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped
>> coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane,
>> and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural
>> Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing
>> on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with
>> the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section
>> of the plane, and I found the black box."
>
> Too bad it is inconsistent with the lack of debris found outside the
> Pentagon and the fact that not one of the security cameras in the area could
> be used to prove there was a 757 near the Pentagon. <G>
>
> Love is blind and as long as you are in love with your Television Set you
> will have problems with anything that goes against your Set. .Duh.
>
> Still both Pranksville and the Pentagon were damaged by nukes and the Twin
> Towers were damaged by CGIs that couldn't even keep their wing on.
>
> Rocky
Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation specialist
like HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's "personalities").
Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds SEVERE problems with the
official story. For one thing supposed flight path of the aircraft
compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible and wrong. Also
there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in the building
and parts scattered around that at first glance are not from the
supposed crash plane.
So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So WHAT
is being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it covered up! But
the fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question.
And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings together a
bunch of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy folks
interested and then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he
proposes his "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! This is
wonderful tradecraft at the HVAC level!
HVAC! "Rocky"? IS that you HVAC? Are you going to "categorically deny"
one more time?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 19:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ob2dnXzbU5RwhETInZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515816 |
"benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote in message news:_i3Cx.17952$%u.13620@fx06.iad... > On 08/22/2015 01:04 PM, Rocky wrote: >> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>> >>> <http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html> >> >> ROTFLMAO because despite what the website above wants you to believe >> there >> were no holes from engines of a 757 in the Pentagon because the people >> that >> were supposed to plant the explosives for that part of the verisimilitude >> didn't want to do too much damage to the Pentagon. <G> >> >>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/> >> >> Yep, the old straw man argument trick. They didn't even try to address >> the >> lack of parts from the wings of the alleged Flight 77 that should have >> been >> all over the place if they really hit the light poles. <G> >> >>> <http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html> >> >> HAHAHAHAHAHA This site is filled with so much bullshit it is unreal. >> They >> talk about the F4 that was rammed into a solid wall and then they never >> showed how much debris from the F4 was left on the ground. They want you >> to >> believe that the desinegrated F4 floated away instead of leaving a pile >> of >> debris on the ground. < In other words that site was super shit > >> >>> <http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm> >> >> What a crock of shit that site was. Where is the debris from the alleged >> Flight 77. They claim it burned up but then there would be evidence of a >> big fire and that was missing too. >> >>> Look at all those photos showing plane debris, both outside and >>> *inside* the Pentagon. Hull pieces, the wheel rim of (surprise! >>> surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, a chunk of (surprise! >>> surprise! surprise! the Boeing 757 nose cone that actually >>> punched all the way through to A-E Drive, turbine compressor >>> parts from (surprise! surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, and a >>> shitload of small plane chunks directly in front of the building, >>> exactly as one would expect from those once-together chunks >>> slamming into and through concrete at 400 MPH. And that's not to >>> mention the eyewitnesses *and* video of the crash. >>> >>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html> >> >> If that site uses Mike Walter then we know it was bullshit because Mike >> Walter, the person in the OP was probably the worst Crisis Actor they >> hired. >> >> >>> And wouldn't you know it, the pre-collapse punch-through hole on >>> the outer Pentagon matches what one would expect to see from a >>> 757 hitting it at near ground level... that pilot was relying on >>> ground effect to keep the aircraft just off the ground, and >>> rammed it in at full throttle. >>> >>> Here's what the hole in the Pentagon looked like: >>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_precollapse-marked.jpg> >>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg> >> >> Picture leading you to believe there were two engines that rammed into >> the >> Pentagon with no excuse for why they only found one. <G> >> >>> You'll note the starboard wing was clipped by the generator unit, >> >> WTF??? Why couldn't you use the correct term. It was a "Smoke generator >> unit.". Duh. >> >>> shortening the length of the starboard wing punch-through hole to >>> the right of the main body punch-through hole. >> >> And yet the starboard wing didn't shed any parts? Unbelievable. Well, >> maybe not for you. >> >> >>> Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural >>> engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped >>> coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, >>> and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural >>> Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing >>> on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with >>> the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section >>> of the plane, and I found the black box." >> >> Too bad it is inconsistent with the lack of debris found outside the >> Pentagon and the fact that not one of the security cameras in the area >> could >> be used to prove there was a 757 near the Pentagon. <G> >> >> Love is blind and as long as you are in love with your Television Set you >> will have problems with anything that goes against your Set. .Duh. >> >> Still both Pranksville and the Pentagon were damaged by nukes and the >> Twin >> Towers were damaged by CGIs that couldn't even keep their wing on. >> >> Rocky > > Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation specialist like > HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's "personalities"). > > Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds SEVERE problems with the > official story. For one thing supposed flight path of the aircraft > compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible and wrong. Also > there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in the building and > parts scattered around that at first glance are not from the supposed > crash plane. > > So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So WHAT is > being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it covered up! But the > fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question. > > And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings together a bunch > of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy folks interested and > then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he proposes his > "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! This is wonderful > tradecraft at the HVAC level! WTF??? I know there are a lot of other things that prove the Pentagon was a BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis Actors had to say a 757 folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the wall. As for the Nukes and the CGIs. I am calling it like I see it. The remains of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from below and not above and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 could only be recreated exactly by using 3D software. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 18:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8n7ucc.tl3.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #515924 |
Rocky wrote: > "benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:_i3Cx.17952$%u.13620@fx06.iad... >> On 08/22/2015 01:04 PM, Rocky wrote: >>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" >>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>>> >>>> <http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html> >>> >>> ROTFLMAO because despite what the website above wants you to believe >>> there >>> were no holes from engines of a 757 in the Pentagon because the >>> people that >>> were supposed to plant the explosives for that part of the >>> verisimilitude didn't want to do too much damage to the Pentagon. <G> >>>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/> >>> >>> Yep, the old straw man argument trick. They didn't even try to >>> address the >>> lack of parts from the wings of the alleged Flight 77 that should >>> have been >>> all over the place if they really hit the light poles. <G> >>> >>>> <http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html> >>> >>> HAHAHAHAHAHA This site is filled with so much bullshit it is >>> unreal. They >>> talk about the F4 that was rammed into a solid wall and then they >>> never showed how much debris from the F4 was left on the ground. They >>> want you to >>> believe that the desinegrated F4 floated away instead of leaving a >>> pile of >>> debris on the ground. < In other words that site was super shit > >>> >>>> <http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm> >>> >>> What a crock of shit that site was. Where is the debris from the >>> alleged Flight 77. They claim it burned up but then there would be >>> evidence of a big fire and that was missing too. >>> >>>> Look at all those photos showing plane debris, both outside and >>>> *inside* the Pentagon. Hull pieces, the wheel rim of (surprise! >>>> surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, a chunk of (surprise! >>>> surprise! surprise! the Boeing 757 nose cone that actually >>>> punched all the way through to A-E Drive, turbine compressor >>>> parts from (surprise! surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, and a >>>> shitload of small plane chunks directly in front of the building, >>>> exactly as one would expect from those once-together chunks >>>> slamming into and through concrete at 400 MPH. And that's not to >>>> mention the eyewitnesses *and* video of the crash. >>>> >>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html> >>> >>> If that site uses Mike Walter then we know it was bullshit because >>> Mike Walter, the person in the OP was probably the worst Crisis >>> Actor they hired. >>> >>> >>>> And wouldn't you know it, the pre-collapse punch-through hole on >>>> the outer Pentagon matches what one would expect to see from a >>>> 757 hitting it at near ground level... that pilot was relying on >>>> ground effect to keep the aircraft just off the ground, and >>>> rammed it in at full throttle. >>>> >>>> Here's what the hole in the Pentagon looked like: >>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_precollapse-marked.jpg> >>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg> >>> >>> Picture leading you to believe there were two engines that rammed >>> into the >>> Pentagon with no excuse for why they only found one. <G> >>> >>>> You'll note the starboard wing was clipped by the generator unit, >>> >>> WTF??? Why couldn't you use the correct term. It was a "Smoke >>> generator unit.". Duh. >>> >>>> shortening the length of the starboard wing punch-through hole to >>>> the right of the main body punch-through hole. >>> >>> And yet the starboard wing didn't shed any parts? Unbelievable. Well, >>> maybe not for you. >>> >>> >>>> Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural >>>> engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped >>>> coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, >>>> and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural >>>> Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing >>>> on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with >>>> the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section >>>> of the plane, and I found the black box." >>> >>> Too bad it is inconsistent with the lack of debris found outside the >>> Pentagon and the fact that not one of the security cameras in the >>> area could >>> be used to prove there was a 757 near the Pentagon. <G> >>> >>> Love is blind and as long as you are in love with your Television >>> Set you will have problems with anything that goes against your Set. >>> .Duh. >>> >>> Still both Pranksville and the Pentagon were damaged by nukes and >>> the Twin >>> Towers were damaged by CGIs that couldn't even keep their wing on. >>> >>> Rocky >> >> Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation specialist >> like HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's "personalities"). >> >> Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds SEVERE problems with >> the official story. For one thing supposed flight path of the >> aircraft compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible and >> wrong. >> Also there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in the >> building and parts scattered around that at first glance are not >> from the supposed crash plane. >> >> So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So >> WHAT is being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it covered up! >> But >> the fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question. >> >> And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings together a >> bunch of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy folks >> interested >> and then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he proposes >> his "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! This is >> wonderful tradecraft at the HVAC level! > > WTF??? I know there are a lot of other things that prove the > Pentagon was a BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis Actors > had to say > a 757 folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the wall. > > As for the Nukes and the CGIs. I am calling it like I see it. The > remains of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from below and > not > above and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 could > only be recreated exactly by using 3D software. > > Rocky but you're the only one that thinks so
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 20:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d4ydnb4rtsNFukTInZ2dnUU7-cudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515932 |
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8n7ucc.tl3.19.1@news.alt.net... > Rocky wrote: >> "benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:_i3Cx.17952$%u.13620@fx06.iad... >>> On 08/22/2015 01:04 PM, Rocky wrote: >>>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" >>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>>>> >>>>> <http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html> >>>> >>>> ROTFLMAO because despite what the website above wants you to believe >>>> there >>>> were no holes from engines of a 757 in the Pentagon because the >>>> people that >>>> were supposed to plant the explosives for that part of the >>>> verisimilitude didn't want to do too much damage to the Pentagon. <G> >>>>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/> >>>> >>>> Yep, the old straw man argument trick. They didn't even try to >>>> address the >>>> lack of parts from the wings of the alleged Flight 77 that should >>>> have been >>>> all over the place if they really hit the light poles. <G> >>>> >>>>> <http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html> >>>> >>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA This site is filled with so much bullshit it is >>>> unreal. They >>>> talk about the F4 that was rammed into a solid wall and then they >>>> never showed how much debris from the F4 was left on the ground. They >>>> want you to >>>> believe that the desinegrated F4 floated away instead of leaving a >>>> pile of >>>> debris on the ground. < In other words that site was super shit > >>>> >>>>> <http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm> >>>> >>>> What a crock of shit that site was. Where is the debris from the >>>> alleged Flight 77. They claim it burned up but then there would be >>>> evidence of a big fire and that was missing too. >>>> >>>>> Look at all those photos showing plane debris, both outside and >>>>> *inside* the Pentagon. Hull pieces, the wheel rim of (surprise! >>>>> surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, a chunk of (surprise! >>>>> surprise! surprise! the Boeing 757 nose cone that actually >>>>> punched all the way through to A-E Drive, turbine compressor >>>>> parts from (surprise! surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, and a >>>>> shitload of small plane chunks directly in front of the building, >>>>> exactly as one would expect from those once-together chunks >>>>> slamming into and through concrete at 400 MPH. And that's not to >>>>> mention the eyewitnesses *and* video of the crash. >>>>> >>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html> >>>> >>>> If that site uses Mike Walter then we know it was bullshit because >>>> Mike Walter, the person in the OP was probably the worst Crisis >>>> Actor they hired. >>>> >>>> >>>>> And wouldn't you know it, the pre-collapse punch-through hole on >>>>> the outer Pentagon matches what one would expect to see from a >>>>> 757 hitting it at near ground level... that pilot was relying on >>>>> ground effect to keep the aircraft just off the ground, and >>>>> rammed it in at full throttle. >>>>> >>>>> Here's what the hole in the Pentagon looked like: >>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_precollapse-marked.jpg> >>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg> >>>> >>>> Picture leading you to believe there were two engines that rammed >>>> into the >>>> Pentagon with no excuse for why they only found one. <G> >>>> >>>>> You'll note the starboard wing was clipped by the generator unit, >>>> >>>> WTF??? Why couldn't you use the correct term. It was a "Smoke >>>> generator unit.". Duh. >>>> >>>>> shortening the length of the starboard wing punch-through hole to >>>>> the right of the main body punch-through hole. >>>> >>>> And yet the starboard wing didn't shed any parts? Unbelievable. Well, >>>> maybe not for you. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural >>>>> engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped >>>>> coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, >>>>> and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural >>>>> Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing >>>>> on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with >>>>> the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section >>>>> of the plane, and I found the black box." >>>> >>>> Too bad it is inconsistent with the lack of debris found outside the >>>> Pentagon and the fact that not one of the security cameras in the >>>> area could >>>> be used to prove there was a 757 near the Pentagon. <G> >>>> >>>> Love is blind and as long as you are in love with your Television >>>> Set you will have problems with anything that goes against your Set. >>>> .Duh. >>>> >>>> Still both Pranksville and the Pentagon were damaged by nukes and >>>> the Twin >>>> Towers were damaged by CGIs that couldn't even keep their wing on. >>>> >>>> Rocky >>> >>> Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation specialist >>> like HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's "personalities"). >>> >>> Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds SEVERE problems with >>> the official story. For one thing supposed flight path of the >>> aircraft compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible and >>> wrong. >>> Also there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in the >>> building and parts scattered around that at first glance are not >>> from the supposed crash plane. >>> >>> So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So >>> WHAT is being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it covered up! >>> But >>> the fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question. >>> >>> And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings together a >>> bunch of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy folks >>> interested >>> and then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he proposes >>> his "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! This is >>> wonderful tradecraft at the HVAC level! >> >> WTF??? I know there are a lot of other things that prove the >> Pentagon was a BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis Actors >> had to say >> a 757 folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the wall. >> >> As for the Nukes and the CGIs. I am calling it like I see it. The >> remains of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from below and >> not >> above and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 could >> only be recreated exactly by using 3D software. >> >> Rocky > > but you're the only one that thinks so And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were used at Ground Zero. DUH Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 19:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8n7uqg.5k3.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #515936 |
Rocky wrote: > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8n7ucc.tl3.19.1@news.alt.net... >> Rocky wrote: >>> "benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:_i3Cx.17952$%u.13620@fx06.iad... >>>> On 08/22/2015 01:04 PM, Rocky wrote: >>>>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" >>>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html> >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLMAO because despite what the website above wants you to >>>>> believe there >>>>> were no holes from engines of a 757 in the Pentagon because the >>>>> people that >>>>> were supposed to plant the explosives for that part of the >>>>> verisimilitude didn't want to do too much damage to the Pentagon. >>>>> <G> >>>>>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/> >>>>> >>>>> Yep, the old straw man argument trick. They didn't even try to >>>>> address the >>>>> lack of parts from the wings of the alleged Flight 77 that should >>>>> have been >>>>> all over the place if they really hit the light poles. <G> >>>>> >>>>>> <http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html> >>>>> >>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA This site is filled with so much bullshit it is >>>>> unreal. They >>>>> talk about the F4 that was rammed into a solid wall and then they >>>>> never showed how much debris from the F4 was left on the ground. They >>>>> want you to >>>>> believe that the desinegrated F4 floated away instead of leaving a >>>>> pile of >>>>> debris on the ground. < In other words that site was super shit > >>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm> >>>>> >>>>> What a crock of shit that site was. Where is the debris from the >>>>> alleged Flight 77. They claim it burned up but then there would >>>>> be evidence of a big fire and that was missing too. >>>>> >>>>>> Look at all those photos showing plane debris, both outside and >>>>>> *inside* the Pentagon. Hull pieces, the wheel rim of (surprise! >>>>>> surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, a chunk of (surprise! >>>>>> surprise! surprise! the Boeing 757 nose cone that actually >>>>>> punched all the way through to A-E Drive, turbine compressor >>>>>> parts from (surprise! surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, and a >>>>>> shitload of small plane chunks directly in front of the building, >>>>>> exactly as one would expect from those once-together chunks >>>>>> slamming into and through concrete at 400 MPH. And that's not to >>>>>> mention the eyewitnesses *and* video of the crash. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html> >>>>> >>>>> If that site uses Mike Walter then we know it was bullshit because >>>>> Mike Walter, the person in the OP was probably the worst Crisis >>>>> Actor they hired. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And wouldn't you know it, the pre-collapse punch-through hole on >>>>>> the outer Pentagon matches what one would expect to see from a >>>>>> 757 hitting it at near ground level... that pilot was relying on >>>>>> ground effect to keep the aircraft just off the ground, and >>>>>> rammed it in at full throttle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's what the hole in the Pentagon looked like: >>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_precollapse-marked.jpg> >>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> Picture leading you to believe there were two engines that rammed >>>>> into the >>>>> Pentagon with no excuse for why they only found one. <G> >>>>> >>>>>> You'll note the starboard wing was clipped by the generator unit, >>>>> >>>>> WTF??? Why couldn't you use the correct term. It was a "Smoke >>>>> generator unit.". Duh. >>>>> >>>>>> shortening the length of the starboard wing punch-through hole to >>>>>> the right of the main body punch-through hole. >>>>> >>>>> And yet the starboard wing didn't shed any parts? Unbelievable. >>>>> Well, maybe not for you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural >>>>>> engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped >>>>>> coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, >>>>>> and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural >>>>>> Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing >>>>>> on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with >>>>>> the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section >>>>>> of the plane, and I found the black box." >>>>> >>>>> Too bad it is inconsistent with the lack of debris found outside >>>>> the Pentagon and the fact that not one of the security cameras in the >>>>> area could >>>>> be used to prove there was a 757 near the Pentagon. <G> >>>>> >>>>> Love is blind and as long as you are in love with your Television >>>>> Set you will have problems with anything that goes against your >>>>> Set. .Duh. >>>>> >>>>> Still both Pranksville and the Pentagon were damaged by nukes and >>>>> the Twin >>>>> Towers were damaged by CGIs that couldn't even keep their wing on. >>>>> >>>>> Rocky >>>> >>>> Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation >>>> specialist like HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's "personalities"). >>>> >>>> Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds SEVERE problems >>>> with the official story. For one thing supposed flight path of the >>>> aircraft compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible and >>>> wrong. >>>> Also there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in the >>>> building and parts scattered around that at first glance are not >>>> from the supposed crash plane. >>>> >>>> So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So >>>> WHAT is being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it >>>> covered up! But >>>> the fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question. >>>> >>>> And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings together a >>>> bunch of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy folks >>>> interested >>>> and then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he >>>> proposes his "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! This is >>>> wonderful tradecraft at the HVAC level! >>> >>> WTF??? I know there are a lot of other things that prove the >>> Pentagon was a BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis >>> Actors had to say >>> a 757 folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the wall. >>> >>> As for the Nukes and the CGIs. I am calling it like I see it. The >>> remains of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from >>> below and not >>> above and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 >>> could only be recreated exactly by using 3D software. >>> >>> Rocky >> >> but you're the only one that thinks so > > And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were > used at Ground Zero. DUH > > Rocky where are they
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 21:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MuOdnXzwYc9YtETInZ2dnUU7-RGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515937 |
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8n7uqg.5k3.17.1@news.alt.net... > Rocky wrote: >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:8n7ucc.tl3.19.1@news.alt.net... >>> Rocky wrote: >>>> "benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:_i3Cx.17952$%u.13620@fx06.iad... >>>>> On 08/22/2015 01:04 PM, Rocky wrote: >>>>>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" >>>>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html> >>>>>> >>>>>> ROTFLMAO because despite what the website above wants you to >>>>>> believe there >>>>>> were no holes from engines of a 757 in the Pentagon because the >>>>>> people that >>>>>> were supposed to plant the explosives for that part of the >>>>>> verisimilitude didn't want to do too much damage to the Pentagon. >>>>>> <G> >>>>>>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep, the old straw man argument trick. They didn't even try to >>>>>> address the >>>>>> lack of parts from the wings of the alleged Flight 77 that should >>>>>> have been >>>>>> all over the place if they really hit the light poles. <G> >>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html> >>>>>> >>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA This site is filled with so much bullshit it is >>>>>> unreal. They >>>>>> talk about the F4 that was rammed into a solid wall and then they >>>>>> never showed how much debris from the F4 was left on the ground. They >>>>>> want you to >>>>>> believe that the desinegrated F4 floated away instead of leaving a >>>>>> pile of >>>>>> debris on the ground. < In other words that site was super shit > >>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm> >>>>>> >>>>>> What a crock of shit that site was. Where is the debris from the >>>>>> alleged Flight 77. They claim it burned up but then there would >>>>>> be evidence of a big fire and that was missing too. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Look at all those photos showing plane debris, both outside and >>>>>>> *inside* the Pentagon. Hull pieces, the wheel rim of (surprise! >>>>>>> surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, a chunk of (surprise! >>>>>>> surprise! surprise! the Boeing 757 nose cone that actually >>>>>>> punched all the way through to A-E Drive, turbine compressor >>>>>>> parts from (surprise! surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, and a >>>>>>> shitload of small plane chunks directly in front of the building, >>>>>>> exactly as one would expect from those once-together chunks >>>>>>> slamming into and through concrete at 400 MPH. And that's not to >>>>>>> mention the eyewitnesses *and* video of the crash. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html> >>>>>> >>>>>> If that site uses Mike Walter then we know it was bullshit because >>>>>> Mike Walter, the person in the OP was probably the worst Crisis >>>>>> Actor they hired. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And wouldn't you know it, the pre-collapse punch-through hole on >>>>>>> the outer Pentagon matches what one would expect to see from a >>>>>>> 757 hitting it at near ground level... that pilot was relying on >>>>>>> ground effect to keep the aircraft just off the ground, and >>>>>>> rammed it in at full throttle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's what the hole in the Pentagon looked like: >>>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_precollapse-marked.jpg> >>>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg> >>>>>> >>>>>> Picture leading you to believe there were two engines that rammed >>>>>> into the >>>>>> Pentagon with no excuse for why they only found one. <G> >>>>>> >>>>>>> You'll note the starboard wing was clipped by the generator unit, >>>>>> >>>>>> WTF??? Why couldn't you use the correct term. It was a "Smoke >>>>>> generator unit.". Duh. >>>>>> >>>>>>> shortening the length of the starboard wing punch-through hole to >>>>>>> the right of the main body punch-through hole. >>>>>> >>>>>> And yet the starboard wing didn't shed any parts? Unbelievable. >>>>>> Well, maybe not for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural >>>>>>> engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped >>>>>>> coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, >>>>>>> and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural >>>>>>> Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing >>>>>>> on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with >>>>>>> the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section >>>>>>> of the plane, and I found the black box." >>>>>> >>>>>> Too bad it is inconsistent with the lack of debris found outside >>>>>> the Pentagon and the fact that not one of the security cameras in the >>>>>> area could >>>>>> be used to prove there was a 757 near the Pentagon. <G> >>>>>> >>>>>> Love is blind and as long as you are in love with your Television >>>>>> Set you will have problems with anything that goes against your >>>>>> Set. .Duh. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still both Pranksville and the Pentagon were damaged by nukes and >>>>>> the Twin >>>>>> Towers were damaged by CGIs that couldn't even keep their wing on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rocky >>>>> >>>>> Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation >>>>> specialist like HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's "personalities"). >>>>> >>>>> Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds SEVERE problems >>>>> with the official story. For one thing supposed flight path of the >>>>> aircraft compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible and >>>>> wrong. >>>>> Also there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in the >>>>> building and parts scattered around that at first glance are not >>>>> from the supposed crash plane. >>>>> >>>>> So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So >>>>> WHAT is being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it >>>>> covered up! But >>>>> the fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question. >>>>> >>>>> And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings together a >>>>> bunch of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy folks >>>>> interested >>>>> and then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he >>>>> proposes his "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! This is >>>>> wonderful tradecraft at the HVAC level! >>>> >>>> WTF??? I know there are a lot of other things that prove the >>>> Pentagon was a BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis >>>> Actors had to say >>>> a 757 folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the wall. >>>> >>>> As for the Nukes and the CGIs. I am calling it like I see it. The >>>> remains of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from >>>> below and not >>>> above and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 >>>> could only be recreated exactly by using 3D software. >>>> >>>> Rocky >>> >>> but you're the only one that thinks so >> >> And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were >> used at Ground Zero. DUH >> >> Rocky > > where are they Boy you have a super short memory because you just posted: "i don't go to the web sites you post." So why should I post a link or five? Rocky >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8n81kq.lf.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #515939 |
Rocky wrote: > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8n7uqg.5k3.17.1@news.alt.net... >> Rocky wrote: >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:8n7ucc.tl3.19.1@news.alt.net... >>>> Rocky wrote: >>>>> "benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:_i3Cx.17952$%u.13620@fx06.iad... >>>>>> On 08/22/2015 01:04 PM, Rocky wrote: >>>>>>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" >>>>>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because despite what the website above wants you to >>>>>>> believe there >>>>>>> were no holes from engines of a 757 in the Pentagon because the >>>>>>> people that >>>>>>> were supposed to plant the explosives for that part of the >>>>>>> verisimilitude didn't want to do too much damage to the >>>>>>> Pentagon. <G> >>>>>>>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yep, the old straw man argument trick. They didn't even try to >>>>>>> address the >>>>>>> lack of parts from the wings of the alleged Flight 77 that >>>>>>> should have been >>>>>>> all over the place if they really hit the light poles. <G> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA This site is filled with so much bullshit it is >>>>>>> unreal. They >>>>>>> talk about the F4 that was rammed into a solid wall and then >>>>>>> they never showed how much debris from the F4 was left on the >>>>>>> ground. They want you to >>>>>>> believe that the desinegrated F4 floated away instead of >>>>>>> leaving a pile of >>>>>>> debris on the ground. < In other words that site was super >>>>>>> shit > >>>>>>>> <http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a crock of shit that site was. Where is the debris from >>>>>>> the alleged Flight 77. They claim it burned up but then there would >>>>>>> be evidence of a big fire and that was missing too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Look at all those photos showing plane debris, both outside and >>>>>>>> *inside* the Pentagon. Hull pieces, the wheel rim of (surprise! >>>>>>>> surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, a chunk of (surprise! >>>>>>>> surprise! surprise! the Boeing 757 nose cone that actually >>>>>>>> punched all the way through to A-E Drive, turbine compressor >>>>>>>> parts from (surprise! surprise! surprise!) a Boeing 757, and a >>>>>>>> shitload of small plane chunks directly in front of the >>>>>>>> building, exactly as one would expect from those once-together >>>>>>>> chunks >>>>>>>> slamming into and through concrete at 400 MPH. And that's not >>>>>>>> to mention the eyewitnesses *and* video of the crash. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If that site uses Mike Walter then we know it was bullshit >>>>>>> because Mike Walter, the person in the OP was probably the worst >>>>>>> Crisis >>>>>>> Actor they hired. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And wouldn't you know it, the pre-collapse punch-through hole >>>>>>>> on the outer Pentagon matches what one would expect to see from a >>>>>>>> 757 hitting it at near ground level... that pilot was relying >>>>>>>> on ground effect to keep the aircraft just off the ground, and >>>>>>>> rammed it in at full throttle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's what the hole in the Pentagon looked like: >>>>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_precollapse-marked.jpg> >>>>>>>> <http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Picture leading you to believe there were two engines that >>>>>>> rammed into the >>>>>>> Pentagon with no excuse for why they only found one. <G> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You'll note the starboard wing was clipped by the generator >>>>>>>> unit, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WTF??? Why couldn't you use the correct term. It was a "Smoke >>>>>>> generator unit.". Duh. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> shortening the length of the starboard wing punch-through hole >>>>>>>> to the right of the main body punch-through hole. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And yet the starboard wing didn't shed any parts? Unbelievable. >>>>>>> Well, maybe not for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural >>>>>>>> engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped >>>>>>>> coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, >>>>>>>> and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural >>>>>>>> Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane >>>>>>>> wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane >>>>>>>> with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail >>>>>>>> section of the plane, and I found the black box." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too bad it is inconsistent with the lack of debris found outside >>>>>>> the Pentagon and the fact that not one of the security cameras >>>>>>> in the area could >>>>>>> be used to prove there was a 757 near the Pentagon. <G> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Love is blind and as long as you are in love with your >>>>>>> Television Set you will have problems with anything that goes >>>>>>> against your >>>>>>> Set. .Duh. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still both Pranksville and the Pentagon were damaged by nukes >>>>>>> and the Twin >>>>>>> Towers were damaged by CGIs that couldn't even keep their wing >>>>>>> on. Rocky >>>>>> >>>>>> Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation >>>>>> specialist like HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's >>>>>> "personalities"). Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds >>>>>> SEVERE problems >>>>>> with the official story. For one thing supposed flight path of >>>>>> the aircraft compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible >>>>>> and wrong. >>>>>> Also there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in >>>>>> the building and parts scattered around that at first glance are not >>>>>> from the supposed crash plane. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So >>>>>> WHAT is being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it >>>>>> covered up! But >>>>>> the fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question. >>>>>> >>>>>> And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings >>>>>> together a bunch of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy >>>>>> folks >>>>>> interested >>>>>> and then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he >>>>>> proposes his "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! >>>>>> This is wonderful tradecraft at the HVAC level! >>>>> >>>>> WTF??? I know there are a lot of other things that prove the >>>>> Pentagon was a BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis >>>>> Actors had to say >>>>> a 757 folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the >>>>> wall. As for the Nukes and the CGIs. I am calling it like I see it. >>>>> The remains of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from >>>>> below and not >>>>> above and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 >>>>> could only be recreated exactly by using 3D software. >>>>> >>>>> Rocky >>>> >>>> but you're the only one that thinks so >>> >>> And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs >>> were used at Ground Zero. DUH >>> >>> Rocky >> >> where are they > > Boy you have a super short memory because you just posted: "i don't > go to the web sites you post." So why should I post a link or five? > > Rocky so , where are they
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 05:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u42oac-n4t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #515936 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were used > at Ground Zero. DUH Are just as batshit crazy as you are, kook. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 05:42 -0500 |
| Subject | ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) |
| Message-ID | <ft6dndO0ldREPkTInZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515985 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:u42oac-n4t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were >> used >> at Ground Zero. DUH > > Are just as batshit crazy as you are, kook. And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs are in the following: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic > signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. Ok so explain why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were vaporized by two deep underground nukes. See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg From a video posted by the Friendly Neighborhood Nut we know the North Tower shook violently, stopped shaking for around 12 seconds and then started it's trip down. Where is that series of events on those seismograph readings? Since photographic evidence give us tell tale signs that they were nuked there are only three possibilitys.: 1. The people with the seismographs lied That is what I suspected. 2. With all the testing of undergroun nukes done by the USA they learned how to fool the seismographs making you a LIAR. 3. Or a deep underground nuke leaves a different signature completely. It is very hard to tell from the readings you show where the building shook for a few seconds and than sat for 12 seconds and then started to fall. > This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. And on the other hand the following is clear evidence that two deep underground nukes were used on the Twin Towers. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm ROTFLMAO because that site proves it is screwed up right off the bat. It states: "were able to determine accurate times of the plane impacts and building collapses." They should get real because real jets don't have disappearing wings but 3D CGIs do. > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html We already know from videos taken of the Twin Towers that they shook for a few seconds stopped shaking for about 12 seconds then started their way down. Where is the video taken of the North Tower represened by the seismograph readings? <G> > Jim Pennino Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 04:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-21F0DC.04071923082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #516030 |
In article <ft6dndO0ldREPkTInZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs > are in the following: > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Do nuclear explosions leave colored arrows in the air? > Ok so explain why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were > vaporized by two deep underground nukes. See: This is what an underground nuke looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sedan_Plowshare_Crater.jpg > Since photographic evidence give us tell tale signs that they were nuked > there are only three possibilitys.: > > 1. The people with the seismographs lied That is what I suspected. Did the Russians and Chinese lie? > 2. With all the testing of undergroun nukes done by the USA they learned > how to fool the seismographs making you a LIAR. Do the Russians and Chinese also know how to cheat on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? > 3. Or a deep underground nuke leaves a different signature completely. It > is very hard to tell from the readings you show where the building shook for > a few seconds and than sat for 12 seconds and then started to fall. How deep can you drill a hole and not be noticed in Manhattan? > And on the other hand the following is clear evidence that two deep > underground nukes were used on the Twin Towers. <G> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg More nuclear explosions: https://hellsshadow.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/beirut-barracks-after-bombing.jpg ?w=640 > We already know from videos taken of the Twin Towers that they shook for a > few seconds stopped shaking for about 12 seconds then started their way > down. Where is the video taken of the North Tower represened by the > seismograph readings? <G> Do you know how it is when inhale for a sneeze and then then then then then then then you finally sneeze? -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 14:52 -0500 |
| Subject | 2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) |
| Message-ID | <mdSdnQMIG_i8uUfInZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516034 |
"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message news:charlie-gordon1492-21F0DC.04071923082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > In article <ft6dndO0ldREPkTInZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs >> are in the following: >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > Do nuclear explosions leave colored arrows in the air? Those arrows are to help people see that the location of the deep underground nukes can be determined by the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers. >> Ok so explain why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were >> vaporized by two deep underground nukes. See: > > This is what an underground nuke looks like: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sedan_Plowshare_Crater.jpg But that is not a proper comparison because the nukes used at GZ were in rock and not dirt. Here, if you want to see what the nuke under WTC4 left behind when it was detonated in rock see: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html And do not forget to notice that the hole is filled with concrete and people also used concrete to help conceal radiation at Chernobyl. > How deep can you drill a hole and not be noticed in Manhattan? Very very very deep if you have a building above you. DUH >> And on the other hand the following is clear evidence that two deep >> underground nukes were used on the Twin Towers. <G> >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > More nuclear explosions: > https://hellsshadow.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/beirut-barracks-after-bombing.jpg So, why don't you find evidence of nuclear controlled demoltions instead? >> We already know from videos taken of the Twin Towers that they shook for >> a >> few seconds stopped shaking for about 12 seconds then started their way >> down. Where is the video taken of the North Tower represened by the >> seismograph readings? <G> > > Do you know how it is when inhale for a sneeze and then then then then > then then > then you finally sneeze? Oh, I see you have no answer so you have to sidetrack. Too bad the fact remains the seismic readings do not jive with the video evidence. Again, I can not stress enough that there is plenty of evidence that NIST lied through their teeth so why not other government agencies? The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 13:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-D2670E.13285923082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #516228 |
In article <mdSdnQMIG_i8uUfInZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message > news:charlie-gordon1492-21F0DC.04071923082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > > In article <ft6dndO0ldREPkTInZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > > >> And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs > >> are in the following: > >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > > > Do nuclear explosions leave colored arrows in the air? > > Those arrows are to help people see that the location of the deep > underground nukes can be determined by the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin > Towers. Are there many arrows above the desert in Nevada? > >> Ok so explain why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were > >> vaporized by two deep underground nukes. See: > > > > This is what an underground nuke looks like: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sedan_Plowshare_Crater.jpg > > But that is not a proper comparison because the nukes used at GZ were in > rock and not dirt. Your knowledge of Nevada geology is rocky. > And do not forget to notice that the hole is filled with concrete and people > also used concrete to help conceal radiation at Chernobyl. Which has worked so well it is like there never was a radiation leak. http://www.benlovejoy.com/journeys/chernobyl/exclusion/ > > How deep can you drill a hole and not be noticed in Manhattan? > > Very very very deep if you have a building above you. DUH I would like to see you place one of these puppies in your basement. https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/products/core-products/exploration/deep-drilling- rigs.html > >> And on the other hand the following is clear evidence that two deep > >> underground nukes were used on the Twin Towers. <G> > >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > > > More nuclear explosions: > > https://hellsshadow.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/beirut-barracks-after-bombin > > g.jpg > > So, why don't you find evidence of nuclear controlled demoltions instead? Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, I wish, I wish he'd go away... > >> We already know from videos taken of the Twin Towers that they shook for > >> a > >> few seconds stopped shaking for about 12 seconds then started their way > >> down. Where is the video taken of the North Tower represened by the > >> seismograph readings? <G> > > > > Do you know how it is when inhale for a sneeze and then then then then > > then then > > then you finally sneeze? > > Oh, I see you have no answer so you have to sidetrack. Too bad the fact > remains the seismic readings do not jive with the video evidence. > > Again, I can not stress enough that there is plenty of evidence that NIST > lied through their teeth so why not other government agencies? > > The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11 > kBDS8W Achooo! -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 20:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked |
| Message-ID | <sgmpac-tf5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #516228 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Those arrows are to help people see that the location of the deep > underground nukes can be determined by the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin > Towers. There were no nukes of any kind, kook. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances that rational people would expect from such events. Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any governmental agency. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 12:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked |
| Message-ID | <mrc9th$ajv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #516030 |
On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:u42oac-n4t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>> And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were >>> used >>> at Ground Zero. DUH >> >> Are just as batshit crazy as you are, kook. > > And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs > are in the following: > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > > >> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic >> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. > > Ok so explain why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were > vaporized by two deep underground nukes. See: > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > From a video posted by the Friendly Neighborhood Nut we know the North Tower > shook violently, stopped shaking for around 12 seconds and then started it's > trip down. Where is that series of events on those seismograph readings? > > Since photographic evidence give us tell tale signs that they were nuked > there are only three possibilitys.: > > 1. The people with the seismographs lied That is what I suspected. > > 2. With all the testing of undergroun nukes done by the USA they learned > how to fool the seismographs making you a LIAR. > > 3. Or a deep underground nuke leaves a different signature completely. It > is very hard to tell from the readings you show where the building shook for > a few seconds and than sat for 12 seconds and then started to fall. > > >> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. > > And on the other hand the following is clear evidence that two deep > underground nukes were used on the Twin Towers. <G> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm > > ROTFLMAO because that site proves it is screwed up right off the bat. It > states: "were able to determine accurate times of the plane impacts and > building collapses." They should get real because real jets don't have > disappearing wings but 3D CGIs do. > > > >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html > > We already know from videos taken of the Twin Towers that they shook for a > few seconds stopped shaking for about 12 seconds then started their way > down. Where is the video taken of the North Tower represened by the > seismograph readings? <G> > >> Jim Pennino > > Rocky > > Evasive answers noted. Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature? Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 07:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked |
| Message-ID | <roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #516036 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
<tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:u42oac-n4t.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were
>>>> used at Ground Zero. DUH
>>>
>>> Are just as batshit crazy as you are, kook.
>>
>> And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs
>> are in the following:
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>>
>>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>>
>> Ok so explain why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were
>> vaporized by two deep underground nukes. See:
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>> From a video posted by the Friendly Neighborhood Nut we know the North Tower
>> shook violently, stopped shaking for around 12 seconds and then started it's
>> trip down. Where is that series of events on those seismograph readings?
>>
>> Since photographic evidence give us tell tale signs that they were nuked
>> there are only three possibilitys.:
>>
>> 1. The people with the seismographs lied That is what I suspected.
>>
>> 2. With all the testing of undergroun nukes done by the USA they learned
>> how to fool the seismographs making you a LIAR.
>>
>> 3. Or a deep underground nuke leaves a different signature completely. It
>> is very hard to tell from the readings you show where the building shook for
>> a few seconds and than sat for 12 seconds and then started to fall.
>>
>>
>>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>>
>> And on the other hand the following is clear evidence that two deep
>> underground nukes were used on the Twin Towers. <G>
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>>>
>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because that site proves it is screwed up right off the bat. It
>> states: "were able to determine accurate times of the plane impacts and
>> building collapses." They should get real because real jets don't have
>> disappearing wings but 3D CGIs do.
>>
>>
>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
>>
>> We already know from videos taken of the Twin Towers that they shook for a
>> few seconds stopped shaking for about 12 seconds then started their way
>> down. Where is the video taken of the North Tower represened by the
>> seismograph readings? <G>
>>
>
>Evasive answers noted.
>
>Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>
>Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>
Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
would naturally lie to help the U.S.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 07:35 -0500 |
| Subject | seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked) |
| Message-ID | <LvGdnTeLl_nSI0TInZ2dnUU7-cudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516059 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon > <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote: >> >>Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature? >> >>Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer? >> > > Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings. > Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China > would naturally lie to help the U.S. We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then it stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and where is that in the seismic evidence? FYI for some reason fact and fiction to not line up again. <G> 9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. Visible shaking 12 seconds before collapse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA And the description of the shaking ground from witnesses at the scene puts that shaking on par with a 5.5 quake and not a 2.3 so someone is lying and I doubt if it was the witnesses or the video. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 08:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked) |
| Message-ID | <2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #516063 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>>>
>>>Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>>>
>>>Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>>
>> Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
>> Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
>> would naturally lie to help the U.S.
>
>We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then it
>stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and where
>is that in the seismic evidence? FYI for some reason fact and fiction to
>not line up again. <G>
>
Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. Visible shaking 12 seconds
>before collapse
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA
>
>And the description of the shaking ground from witnesses at the scene puts
>that shaking on par with a 5.5 quake and not a 2.3 so someone is lying and I
>doubt if it was the witnesses or the video. <G>
You have no idea how the Richter scale works.
One will easily feel a 2.3 if they are near. Those within a few
blocks of the towers would have felt the 2.3 caused by the collapse of
the towers.
Hey, how is that whole ignoring my posts thing working out for
you?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 09:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) |
| Message-ID | <yp6dna02UJepTkTInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516074 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon >>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote: >>>> >>>>Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature? >>>> >>>>Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer? >>> >>> Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings. >>> Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China >>> would naturally lie to help the U.S. >> >>We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then >>it >>stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and >>where >>is that in the seismic evidence? FYI for some reason fact and fiction to >>not line up again. <G> >> > > Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the > towers collapsed. This is not a secret. And yet you can't point to it? Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me. And don't forget NIST could not explain why the remains of the Twin Towers did not resemble a "Pancake collapse" so they were forced to quit using the term "pancake collapse" and then they simply went from a collapse initiation to a "Global Collapse" and never tried to address why there was so little debris at the base of the Twin Towers. <G> Oh, but you think you can address the lack of debris at the base of the Twin Towers and I'll bet you will never try knowing exactly how NIST got around that issue. <G> And don't forget how the Ediot from alt.conspiracy tried to explain the lack of debris at the base of the Twin Towers. The Ediot from alt.conspiracy claimed the shaking by the jet weakened them. ROTFLMAO The only way you will ever be able to figure out what really happened on 9/11 is if you track down why there were so many inconsistencies with the media bullshit about 9/11. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent |
| Message-ID | <mrcua7$squ$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #516078 |
On 23/08/2015 15:05, Rocky wrote: > "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon >>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature? >>>>> >>>>> Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer? >>>> >>>> Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings. >>>> Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China >>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S. >>> >>> We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then >>> it >>> stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and >>> where >>> is that in the seismic evidence? FYI for some reason fact and fiction to >>> not line up again. <G> >>> >> >> Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the >> towers collapsed. This is not a secret. > > And yet you can't point to it? Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me. > But you have claimed that the ground shook, if it did then seismographs would record it. Are you saying that the ground did not shake, or are you saying that seismographs did not record it? > And don't forget NIST could not explain why the remains of the Twin Towers > did not resemble a "Pancake collapse" so they were forced to quit using the > term "pancake collapse" and then they simply went from a collapse initiation > to a "Global Collapse" and never tried to address why there was so little > debris at the base of the Twin Towers. <G> > > Oh, but you think you can address the lack of debris at the base of the Twin > Towers and I'll bet you will never try knowing exactly how NIST got around > that issue. <G> > > And don't forget how the Ediot from alt.conspiracy tried to explain the lack > of debris at the base of the Twin Towers. The Ediot from alt.conspiracy > claimed the shaking by the jet weakened them. ROTFLMAO > > The only way you will ever be able to figure out what really happened on > 9/11 is if you track down why there were so many inconsistencies with the > media bullshit about 9/11. > > Rocky Sheeple > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 12:53 -0500 |
| Subject | T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent ) |
| Message-ID | <Z6udnTxjiPKglUfInZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516130 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:mrcua7$squ$5@dont-email.me... > On 23/08/2015 15:05, Rocky wrote: >> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon >>>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer? >>>>> >>>>> Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings. >>>>> Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China >>>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S. >>>> >>>> We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds >>>> then >>>> it >>>> stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and >>>> where >>>> is that in the seismic evidence? FYI for some reason fact and fiction >>>> to >>>> not line up again. <G> >>>> >>> >>> Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the >>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret. >> >> And yet you can't point to it? Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me. >> > > But you have claimed that the ground shook, if it did then seismographs > would record it. T-annoy, I agree with that but that does not mean we will be given what they recorded you idiot. > Are you saying that the ground did not shake, or are you saying that > seismographs did not record it? You gave two options and neither one of them was that we were lied to and yet there is all sorts of evidence that NIST lied to us so why shouldn't other government agencies lie too? >> And don't forget NIST could not explain why the remains of the Twin >> Towers >> did not resemble a "Pancake collapse" so they were forced to quit using >> the >> term "pancake collapse" and then they simply went from a collapse >> initiation >> to a "Global Collapse" and never tried to address why there was so little >> debris at the base of the Twin Towers. <G> >> >> Oh, but you think you can address the lack of debris at the base of the >> Twin >> Towers and I'll bet you will never try knowing exactly how NIST got >> around >> that issue. <G> >> >> And don't forget how the Ediot from alt.conspiracy tried to explain the >> lack >> of debris at the base of the Twin Towers. The Ediot from alt.conspiracy >> claimed the shaking by the jet weakened them. ROTFLMAO >> >> The only way you will ever be able to figure out what really happened on >> 9/11 is if you track down why there were so many inconsistencies with the >> media bullshit about 9/11. >> >> Rocky And don't forget the best evidence that NIST was in on the "Great 9/11 Hoax" is the following playlist and the comments in those videos. <G> "NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence" Published on Jun 28, 2015 ... "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." https://youtu.be/zvCuMULutHs?list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web