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

Groups > sci.physics > #512510 > unrolled thread

9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

   9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 15:54 -0500
    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 16:12 -0500
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:34 -0500
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 21:59 +0000
          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 17:24 -0500
            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 22:41 +0000
              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:09 -0500
            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-11 14:07 -0500
              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:30 -0500
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 20:36 +0000
                  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 16:02 -0500
                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 22:28 +0000
                      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 17:35 -0500
                        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 23:29 +0000
                          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-12 05:27 -0400
                            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 16:58 +0000
                              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 15:49 -0500
                                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 21:09 +0000
                                  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-12 19:02 -0400
                                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:03 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 16:44 +0000
                              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-12 18:56 -0400
                  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:20 -0500
                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 17:00 +0000
                      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 04:36 -0500
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:20 -0500
    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 16:29 -0500
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:40 -0500
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 04:30 -0500
      Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:51 -0500
        Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 04:30 -0500
          Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:31 -0500
            Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 14:52 -0500
              Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:46 -0500
                Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:23 -0500
                Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-12 16:39 +0000
                  Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 16:24 -0500
                    Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 04:06 +0000
                      Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 08:59 -0700
    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 21:21 +0000
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:42 -0500
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 22:02 +0000
          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 17:30 -0500
            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 22:56 +0000
              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:10 -0500
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 18:50 +0000
                  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:00 -0500
                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 20:37 +0000
                      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 16:04 -0500
                        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 22:30 +0000
                          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 17:39 -0500
                            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 23:31 +0000
                            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:21 -0500
                              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-14 16:47 +0100
                                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 10:23 -0700
                                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 20:09 -0500
                              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-16 09:25 +0100
                        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:21 -0500
                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:20 -0500
                      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 17:11 +0000
                        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 04:36 -0500
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-11 14:10 -0500
                  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 09:19 -0500
    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 23:27 +0000
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:15 -0500
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 18:54 +0000
          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:25 -0500
            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 20:42 +0000
              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 16:15 -0500
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 22:33 +0000
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:41 -0500
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-11 15:28 +0000
          tOOtOOt noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 12:26 -0700
          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 09:06 -0500
            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-12 18:30 +0000
              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 16:13 -0500
                fake argumentarium noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 16:50 -0700
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 03:32 +0000
                  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 06:45 +0200
                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 04:18 -0500
    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 14:10 -0700
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 16:53 -0700
    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 14:27 -0700
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-13 16:30 -0500
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-13 22:56 +0000
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 04:35 -0500
        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-15 05:39 +0200
          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 05:50 -0500
            Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-16 06:58 +0200
              Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 08:25 -0500
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-17 05:09 +0200
                  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 04:20 -0500
                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:49 -0700
                    Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-20 01:58 +0200
                      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 03:53 -0500
                        Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-22 05:45 +0200
                          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:06 -0500
                            Re: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-23 03:59 -0500
                              2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 06:17 -0500
                                Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 07:23 -0500
                                Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-23 10:06 -0500
                                  Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 10:26 -0500
                                    Re: 2 Topaz stop right there jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 16:57 +0000
                                Re: 2 Topaz stop right there jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 16:56 +0000
                                Re: 2 Topaz stop right there Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
                      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake ( fake phone call too ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 09:33 -0500
          Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 16:24 -0700
      Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 19:04 -0700

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#513206

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:11:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:00:30 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:uosp9c-va1.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:8pmn9c-r7m.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:eljn9c-arl.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct medications might eliminate your bizarre delusions and
>>>>>>>> obsession with capitalizing words like "television".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't like the fact your Television is really your
>>>>>>> Lord and Master because you will accept everything it tells you as truth. 
>>>>>>> <G>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, because you worship your Television set I have to use a capital 
>>>>>>> later to signify your Television set is God to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lunatic raves on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct medications might eliminate your bizarre delusions and
>>>>>> obsession with capitalizing words like "television".
>>>>>
>>>>> You are boring, mindless and factless.
>>>>
>>>> You are blazingly stupid and quite insane.
>>>
>>>Thanks for proving the point I made earlier. 
>>>
>> 
>>      You have proved that you're stupid (unable to learn). I don't
>> think you're mentally ill. I presume mental illness is what Jim means
>> by claiming you're insane.
> 
>Blazingly stupid and a delusional paranoid.
>

     Stupid? Yes.
     Delusional? Yes.
     Paranoid? I don't see it.

>I knew someone much like him, though not so stupid.
>
>A perfectly normal person who one day started babbling about a "blue
>team" and a "red team" and on who's side various people were on, as
>well as tales of being watched.

     Sounds like Robert Desko.
 
>
>This continued to digress until action in the form of a butcher
>knife was taken against the "team leaders", actually family members.
>
>It fortunately ended without fatalities but with institutionalizing
>the individual.

     YIKES! I'm glad he wasn't able to harm anyone.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#512789

On 8/11/2015 9:10 AM, Rocky wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:8pmn9c-r7m.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eljn9c-arl.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> The correct medications might eliminate your bizarre delusions and
>>>> obsession
>>>> with capitalizing words like "television".
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't like the fact your Television is really your
>>> Lord
>>> and Master because you will accept everything it tells you as truth.  <G>
>>>
>>> So, because you worship your Television set I have to use a capital later
>>> to
>>> signify your Television set is God to you.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> The lunatic raves on.
>>
>> The correct medications might eliminate your bizarre delusions and
>> obsession with capitalizing words like "television".
>
> You are boring, mindless and factless.
>
>

and you dont have any facts, and it is mindless and boring, and an 
OOOOLLLDDD subject from long ago, a dead subject, dumb and dead.
( and go get a real Job the Twin tower stuff is stale, pasty white, 
dead, nobody gets excited about that anymore...)

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

#512987

"gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:mqdhaf$u4q$3@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 8/11/2015 9:10 AM, Rocky wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:8pmn9c-r7m.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eljn9c-arl.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> The correct medications might eliminate your bizarre delusions and
>>>>> obsession
>>>>> with capitalizing words like "television".
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't like the fact your Television is really your
>>>> Lord
>>>> and Master because you will accept everything it tells you as truth. 
>>>> <G>
>>>>
>>>> So, because you worship your Television set I have to use a capital 
>>>> later
>>>> to
>>>> signify your Television set is God to you.
>>>>
>>>> Rocky
>>>
>>> The lunatic raves on.
>>>
>>> The correct medications might eliminate your bizarre delusions and
>>> obsession with capitalizing words like "television".
>>
>> You are boring, mindless and factless.
>>
>>
>
> and you dont have any facts,

Sure I do and if you go back to the video in the OP you would have known it.

And I can even add

1.  The photos of the alleged hijackers were from the wrong airport.

2.  The movies of the alleged hijackers were not date and time stamped so 
they were worthless.

3.  The use of Crisis Actors and CGIs in Nuke York City mean the only 
hijackers they needed were the ones that took Flight 175 and Flight 93 to 
Cleveland where they both landed safely so the hijackers could get back to 
their family.

< REST OF YOUR BS WAS SNIPPED >

And don't forget the fact so little remained of the Twin Towers proves that 
they were not a collapse of a Controlled Demolition.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#512585

Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!  I
thought all the 911 kooktards died of terminal stupidity years ago.

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

#512686

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!  I
> thought all the 911 kooktards died of terminal stupidity years ago.

Oh bullshit because you didn't think or you would know there were a lot of 
inconsistencies in the bullshit your Television told you about 9/11.

--------  OP Below --------------------

9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0

And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was the
crash dynamics.

All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on
impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to get
you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.

BTW if you look close at the crash dynamics of the jets going into the Twin
Towers you will see a small flash on impact.  That flash was only used to
synchronize the real world with the bogus world so now you know the real
reason for that flash.  <G>

FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization Range"
which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had to
do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the bogus
impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.

But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out of
easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?

 https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/

And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good
information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin
Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were
detonated.

Rocky 

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

#512785

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
>> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!  I
>> thought all the 911 kooktards died of terminal stupidity years ago.
> 
> Oh bullshit because you didn't think or you would know there were a lot of 
> inconsistencies in the bullshit your Television told you about 9/11.
> 
> --------  OP Below --------------------
> 
> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
> 
> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was the
> crash dynamics.
> 
> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on
> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to get
> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.

A crashing airplane does not slow down instantly and there are thousands
of eyewitnesses to the planes hitting the buildings.

You are blazingly stupid and quite insane.

<snip remaining kook babble>

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#512826 — Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:40tp9c-va1.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
>>> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!  I
>>> thought all the 911 kooktards died of terminal stupidity years ago.
>>
>> Oh bullshit because you didn't think or you would know there were a lot 
>> of
>> inconsistencies in the bullshit your Television told you about 9/11.
>>
>> --------  OP Below --------------------
>>
>> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>
>> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was 
>> the
>> crash dynamics.
>>
>> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
>> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on
>> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to 
>> get
>> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
>
> A crashing airplane does not slow down instantly and there are thousands
> of eyewitnesses to the planes hitting the buildings.

Oh yes, because they were watching the CGIs on your Lord and Master the 
Television Set or they heard a few of the Crisis Actors speak.  DUH.

BTW you really need to learn about "Crisis Actors" before you take 
everything they say as true and I can help you with that.  See:
 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crisis_actor

Besides there were also a lot people and videos that didn't see anything or 
show anything about jets in Nuke York City.  See:

9/11 no planes compilation - interesting!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw

And a video of what might have been the very first no-planer that was 
broadcast.

911 FOX - an eye-witness says it was a bomb, no plane
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

And notice that the other guy says "that is what we heard" and then he says 
"We saw it on Television."  Pretty funny huh?

In other words all your bullshit about two 767s in Nuke York City is just 
that and the crash dynamics prove they were just CGIs and not real jets. 
But not only did the crash dynamics prove they were bogus the fact one of 
the wings on the alleged Flight 175 faded in and out also proves it was just 
a CGI too.  Note the only way to recreate that disappearing wing trick on 
the alleged Flight 175 is with 3D software and let the 3D image reflect the 
sky.

Plus with the 3D image they built of Nuke York City they could have made 
millions of crash videos from any different angle.  And if you ever wonder 
why some of the crash videos made it to the news so quickly it is because a 
few of the crash videos were prepared before the alleged crashes even took 
place.  <G>

And do not forget to notice the flash when the CGI hits one of the Twin 
Towers because that flash was used to synchronize the bogus CGIs with the 
real world.  <G>

And do not forget to notice the videos that have a jet ramming the Twin 
Towers also breaks away almost instantly so that entire deal could have been 
a CGI too.

And there is proof that the Naudet Brother's film was clearly edited so it 
looks like the hole in the North Tower was really big enough for a 767 
because in real life it was not so what do you think about that?

Rocky 

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

#512838 — Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs)

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:40tp9c-va1.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
>>>> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!  I
>>>> thought all the 911 kooktards died of terminal stupidity years ago.
>>>
>>> Oh bullshit because you didn't think or you would know there were a lot 
>>> of
>>> inconsistencies in the bullshit your Television told you about 9/11.
>>>
>>> --------  OP Below --------------------
>>>
>>> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>>
>>> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was 
>>> the
>>> crash dynamics.
>>>
>>> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
>>> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on
>>> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to 
>>> get
>>> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
>>
>> A crashing airplane does not slow down instantly and there are thousands
>> of eyewitnesses to the planes hitting the buildings.
> 
> Oh yes, because they were watching the CGIs on your Lord and Master the 
> Television Set or they heard a few of the Crisis Actors speak.  DUH.

Nope, lunatic boi, they were standing in the streets watching the
airplanes hit.

After the first airplane hit, the streets were filled with far more
people watching the second airplane hit.

You are just a raving lunatic that can't even get word capitalizaton
correct nor understand this has nothing to do with astronomy.

<snip lunatic ravings>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#512848 — Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:1b3q9c-g52.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:40tp9c-va1.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group! 
>>>>> I
>>>>> thought all the 911 kooktards died of terminal stupidity years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Oh bullshit because you didn't think or you would know there were a lot
>>>> of
>>>> inconsistencies in the bullshit your Television told you about 9/11.
>>>>
>>>> --------  OP Below --------------------
>>>>
>>>> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>>>
>>>> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was
>>>> the
>>>> crash dynamics.
>>>>
>>>> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
>>>> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down 
>>>> on
>>>> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to
>>>> get
>>>> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were 
>>>> real.
>>>
>>> A crashing airplane does not slow down instantly and there are thousands
>>> of eyewitnesses to the planes hitting the buildings.
>>
>> Oh yes, because they were watching the CGIs on your Lord and Master the
>> Television Set or they heard a few of the Crisis Actors speak.  DUH.
>
> Nope, lunatic boi, they were standing in the streets watching the
> airplanes hit.

You mean the "Crisis Actors" were paid to stand in the street and then 
recite their script when asked questions.  DUH.

There are so many inconsistancies with the Great 9/11 hoax how can you fall 
for any of the crap that your beloved Television threw in your face?


> After the first airplane hit, the streets were filled with far more
> people watching the second airplane hit.

And yet we were only given the scripts from the paid Crisis Actors or those 
that fell for the bullshit from the paid Crisis Actors.

BTW the CGIs on your beloved Television Set still prove they are CGIs by 
their crash dynamics and the item needed to synchronize the bogus CGIs with 
the real world is still in those videos.  <G>

Oh and not only do the crash dynamics give the CGIs away but so does the 
disappearing wing of the alleged Flight 175 because that can only be 
recreated with 3D software.  <G>


> You are just a raving lunatic that can't even get word capitalizaton
> correct nor understand this has nothing to do with astronomy.

Oh boy, I have never seen anybody try so hard to defend their beloved 
Television Set before.

> <snip lunatic ravings>

Clearly you have a love affair with your beloved Television set and you 
think it will only give you the truth.  So how many other prime time movies 
have you fallen for?

Rocky 

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

#512871 — Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs)

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:1b3q9c-g52.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:40tp9c-va1.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>>> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group! 
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> thought all the 911 kooktards died of terminal stupidity years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh bullshit because you didn't think or you would know there were a lot
>>>>> of
>>>>> inconsistencies in the bullshit your Television told you about 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>> --------  OP Below --------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>>>>
>>>>> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was
>>>>> the
>>>>> crash dynamics.
>>>>>
>>>>> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
>>>>> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down 
>>>>> on
>>>>> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to
>>>>> get
>>>>> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were 
>>>>> real.
>>>>
>>>> A crashing airplane does not slow down instantly and there are thousands
>>>> of eyewitnesses to the planes hitting the buildings.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, because they were watching the CGIs on your Lord and Master the
>>> Television Set or they heard a few of the Crisis Actors speak.  DUH.
>>
>> Nope, lunatic boi, they were standing in the streets watching the
>> airplanes hit.
> 
> You mean the "Crisis Actors" were paid to stand in the street and then 
> recite their script when asked questions.  DUH.

What are "Crisis Actors" and why is it capitalized, kook?

> There are so many inconsistancies with the Great 9/11 hoax how can you fall 
> for any of the crap that your beloved Television threw in your face?

Why is Television capitalized, kook?

<snip remaining insane babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#512694

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!

Oh look, I found another idiot who would rather believe the obvious bullshit 
stories from the media than to trust his own eyes.

But I will agree that sci.physics is the best place to argue about the 
Physics of 9/11 because slightly damaged buildings shouldn't fall at 
freefall speed and building that are mostly intact should not fall at 66% of 
freefall all the way down to the ground.

And then if the Twin Towers were tough enough to stand up to strong winds 
why did their remains make them look like they were made out of cardboard?

Rocky 

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

#512712

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


>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
>> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!

>But I will agree that sci.physics is the best place to argue about the 
>Physics of 9/11 because slightly damaged buildings shouldn't fall at 
>freefall speed and building that are mostly intact should not fall at 66% of 
>freefall all the way down to the ground.

Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics

I wasn't talking about sci.physics, ko0ktard.  Why is "alt.astronomy" in
the newsgroups line?  What do conspiracy theories of nukes in the twin
towers and your poor understanding of their collapses have to do with 
astronomy?

In the heyday of ko0ktards foamimg away years ago, the crossposts were
even more bizarre.  I suspect this thread will get worse as k0oktards add
off-topic groups.

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

#512795 — tOOtOOt

massive loss of tensional integrity (TensegritY,
brought about by a)
teh force of impact, and b)
the plane-bomb; I mean,
what else would you get, but debris, falling freely

> >freefall all the way down to the ground.
> 
> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
> 
> I wasn't talking about sci.physics, ko0ktard.  Why is "alt.astronomy" in
> the newsgroups line?  What do conspiracy theories of nukes in the twin
> towers and your poor understanding of their collapses have to do with 
> astronomy?
> 
> In the heyday of ko0ktards foamimg away years ago, the crossposts were
> even more bizarre.  I suspect this thread will get worse as k0oktards add
> off-topic groups.

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

#512984

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mqd4at$5a4$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mqbc08$bvc$3@pcls7.std.com...
>>> Oh, look.  A kooktard posting WTC conspiracies to an off-topic group!
>
>>But I will agree that sci.physics is the best place to argue about the
>>Physics of 9/11 because slightly damaged buildings shouldn't fall at
>>freefall speed and building that are mostly intact should not fall at 66% 
>>of
>>freefall all the way down to the ground.
>
> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
>
> I wasn't talking about sci.physics, ko0ktard.  Why is "alt.astronomy" in
> the newsgroups line?  What do conspiracy theories of nukes in the twin
> towers and your poor understanding of their collapses have to do with
> astronomy?

If you are going to try and quote me at least quote me right.  I have stated 
over and over and over again they were deep underground nukes and everybody 
wants to think they perform exactly like ground level nukes and that is why 
they are so quick to dismiss the only thing that explains the near total 
lack of huge debris piles from the Twin Towers.

And of two theories, the one where the Twin Towers collapsed into piles of 
debris less than 10 feet high and an underground nuke vaporized the lower 
section of the Twin Towers and the upper section was vaporized on it's way 
down to the ground the second theory is clearly much better.


> In the heyday of ko0ktards foamimg away years ago, the crossposts were
> even more bizarre.  I suspect this thread will get worse as k0oktards add
> off-topic groups.

And again, all the idiots that want to make it appear there were no lies in 
the Official story can never address any part of the Official bullshit.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#513047

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mqd4at$5a4$1@pcls7.std.com...

>> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
>>
>> I wasn't talking about sci.physics, ko0ktard.  Why is "alt.astronomy" in
>> the newsgroups line?  What do conspiracy theories of nukes in the twin
>> towers and your poor understanding of their collapses have to do with
>> astronomy?

>If you are going to try and quote me at least quote me right.  I have stated 
>over and over [snip crap]

You didn't answer the question.  What do imaginary nukes and your
poor understanding of the twin towers' collapses have to do with
astronomy?

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

#513071

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mqg3bn$pih$3@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mqd4at$5a4$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking about sci.physics, ko0ktard.  Why is "alt.astronomy" in
>>> the newsgroups line?  What do conspiracy theories of nukes in the twin
>>> towers and your poor understanding of their collapses have to do with
>>> astronomy?
>
>>If you are going to try and quote me at least quote me right.  I have 
>>stated
>>over and over [snip crap]
>
> You didn't answer the question.

And you didn't answer mine.  So?

>  What do imaginary nukes

Funny that imaginary nukes and CGIs can convert the Twin Towers to a few 
surviving spots where the debris pile left behind from two 110 story 
buildings is much smaller than the debris pile left by one 47 story building 
and even that debris pile was small for a 47 story building.

> and your
> poor understanding of the twin towers' collapses

You spelled collupses wrong because most of the Twin Towers ended up 
floating away instead of hitting the ground as proven by the lack of remains 
and how much ultra fine dust was photographed in the air.

> have to do with
> astronomy?

Why are you bitching about alt astronomy when you didn't even post to it you 
idiot?

Rocky 

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

#513127 — fake argumentarium

as anyone knows, who has made concrete from cement;,
it is mostly a)
sand, and b)
gravel (taht is,
it has very little tensional integrity, although
you can coompress the **** out of it

> You spelled collupses wrong because most of the Twin Towers ended up 
> floating away instead of hitting the ground as proven by the lack of remains 
> and how much ultra fine dust was photographed in the air.
> 
> > have to do with
> > astronomy?
> 
> Why are you bitching about alt astronomy when you didn't even post to it you 
> idiot?
> 
> Rocky

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

#513176

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mqg3bn$pih$3@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mqd4at$5a4$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't talking about sci.physics, ko0ktard.  Why is "alt.astronomy" in
>>>> the newsgroups line?  What do conspiracy theories of nukes in the twin
>>>> towers and your poor understanding of their collapses have to do with
>>>> astronomy?
>>
>>>If you are going to try and quote me at least quote me right.  I have 
>>>stated
>>>over and over [snip crap]
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.

>And you didn't answer mine.  So?

I asked first.  Why did you put alt.astronomy in a post with nothing to
do with astronomy?

[snip crap]

>> have to do with
>> astronomy?

>Why are you bitching about alt astronomy when you didn't even post to it you 
>idiot?

I corrected your mistake and took it out.

And you, stupid ko0ktard, put it right back.  Just goes to show that
k0oktards are still just as stoopid as the off-topic posting 911 k00ktards
from years ago.

I fixed your mistake again and took alt.astronomy out again.  Are you
going to act like a little child and put it back?  I don't expect anything
more from k0oktards.  Too predictible.

So tell us.  Why did you put alt.astronomy in a post with nothing to
do with astronomy, not once, but twice? Or will it be three times, when 
you reply to this?

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

#514971

Am 13.08.2015 05:32, schrieb Michael Moroney:

> I asked first.  Why did you put alt.astronomy in a post with nothing to
> do with astronomy?
>
> [snip crap]
>
>>> have to do with
>>> astronomy?
>
>> Why are you bitching about alt astronomy when you didn't even post to it you
>> idiot?
>
> I corrected your mistake and took it out.
>
> And you, stupid ko0ktard, put it right back.  Just goes to show that
> k0oktards are still just as stoopid as the off-topic posting 911 k00ktards
> from years ago.
>
> I fixed your mistake again and took alt.astronomy out again.  Are you
> going to act like a little child and put it back?  I don't expect anything
> more from k0oktards.  Too predictible.
>
> So tell us.  Why did you put alt.astronomy in a post with nothing to
> do with astronomy, not once, but twice? Or will it be three times, when
> you reply to this?

Sorry for your inconvenience. But apparently you want to know, why your 
newsgroup is pested with this kind of junk.

So let me try to explain:

9/11 is kind of psychological warfare and that is directed against the 
people of the USA (among others).

This is not at all restricted to the event itself, but also to the 
subsequent discussions about it.

As you might notice, the investigations produced a lot of inconceivable 
nonsense and nobody dared to sort out the rubble. Instead a lot of even 
greater nonsense is produced in 'alternative media'.

This kind of junk is then spread around to where it does not belong, 
since the last sober mind shall be infested with 9/11-voodoo.

The method used is trying to create a certain mental disturbance called 
'cognitive dissonance'.

To achieve this, everybody should consider there is something wrong on 
9/11, but does not know, what that is and what is right.

This causes some mental stress and the shills would like everyone to 
suffer from this, since it absorbs energy and divert from otherwise 
useful activities.


TH

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

#515014

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:45:21 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 13.08.2015 05:32, schrieb Michael Moroney:
>
>> I asked first.  Why did you put alt.astronomy in a post with nothing to
>> do with astronomy?
>>
>> [snip crap]
>>
>>>> have to do with astronomy?
>>
>>> Why are you bitching about alt astronomy when you didn't even post to it you
>>> idiot?
>>
>> I corrected your mistake and took it out.
>>
>> And you, stupid ko0ktard, put it right back.  Just goes to show that
>> k0oktards are still just as stoopid as the off-topic posting 911 k00ktards
>> from years ago.
>>
>> I fixed your mistake again and took alt.astronomy out again.  Are you
>> going to act like a little child and put it back?  I don't expect anything
>> more from k0oktards.  Too predictible.
>>
>> So tell us.  Why did you put alt.astronomy in a post with nothing to
>> do with astronomy, not once, but twice? Or will it be three times, when
>> you reply to this?
>
>Sorry for your inconvenience. But apparently you want to know, why your 
>newsgroup is pested with this kind of junk.
>
>So let me try to explain:
>
>9/11 is kind of psychological warfare and that is directed against the 
>people of the USA (among others).
>
>This is not at all restricted to the event itself, but also to the 
>subsequent discussions about it.
>

     Do you honestly think Rocky's compulsion to add an irrelevant
group produces this? If you do, how do you propose he realizes this
goal?

>As you might notice, the investigations produced a lot of inconceivable 
>nonsense and nobody dared to sort out the rubble. Instead a lot of even 
>greater nonsense is produced in 'alternative media'.
>
>This kind of junk is then spread around to where it does not belong, 
>since the last sober mind shall be infested with 9/11-voodoo.
>
>The method used is trying to create a certain mental disturbance called 
>'cognitive dissonance'.
>

     Who holds contrary beliefs at the same time? And how do you
propose Rocky's need to add alt.astronomy to his replies causes this
to occur?

>To achieve this, everybody should consider there is something wrong on 
>9/11, but does not know, what that is and what is right.
>
>This causes some mental stress and the shills would like everyone to 
>suffer from this, since it absorbs energy and divert from otherwise 
>useful activities.
>

     None of that explains why Rocky is compelled to add alt.astronomy
to the list of groups.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web