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

Groups > sci.physics > #520707 > unrolled thread

If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 12:16 -0500
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 14:09 -0400
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:38 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:51 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:31 -0500
          Re: Rocky's legal woes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:57 +0000
            Re: Rocky's legal woes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:16 -0400
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:40 -0500
                Re: Rocky the stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:27 +0000
                Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:24 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:21 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:09 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:38 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:34 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:39 -0500
            Re: More Rocky delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 21:17 +0000
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:44 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 01:27 +0000
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:05 -0500
                Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-16 14:06 +0000
                  Re: Broken airplanes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 18:04 +0000
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-18 14:05 -0500
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 10:51 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:02 -0400
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:28 -0400
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 11:31 -0400
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:14 -0500
                Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:47 -0400
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:04 -0500
                    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 23:46 -0400
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:22 -0700
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:19 -0400
      Re: smoke and fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:29 +0000
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-13 14:27 -0400
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 11:34 -0700
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:43 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:53 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:59 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:24 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 22:43 -0400
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:50 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:21 -0500
        Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0000
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid Wills is FULL OF SHIT ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 09:35 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:43 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:48 -0700
    Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:26 +0000
      9/11 debunkers, debunked - Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:35 -0400
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:00 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0100
          Re: Rocky denies reality jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:39 +0000
        Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:36 +0000
          Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
            Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 16:03 +0000
              Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:48 -0400
              Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0400
                Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 17:05 +0000
                  Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 20:43 -0400
                    Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 21:15 -0400
                      Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 09:47 -0400
                        Re: How fire works for the ignorant "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:13 -0500
                        Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 18:24 -0400
                          Re: How fire works for the ignorant Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:32 -0700
                            Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:42 -0400
                          Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 22:36 +0000
                            Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 19:57 -0400
                              Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 00:13 +0000
                              Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:43 -0400
                    Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 01:20 +0000

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

#521478 — Re: Broken airplanes

In sci.physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
> 
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>>news:mt7s5p$o6f$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere
>>>>around until the FBI showed up.
>>>
>>> Plenty of debris outside the Pentagon, but most of the plane went into
>>> the building.
> 
>>riiight.  And I suppose you are going to tell me that the 757 folded it's 
>>wings back just like a bird going into a birdhouse and neatly tucked it's 
>>wings and engines into a small hole even though no real jet has ever been 
>>seen doing that before or since.  <G>
> 
> The body of the plane definitely entered the building, which is why all 
> its debris was there. I believe one wing went through the wall but the 
> other hit the ground and disintegrated just before impact.

Nope, the other wing disintegrated when it hit the wall and left an
imprint that is visible in several photos. The Pentagon is a rather
sturdy building.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#521846 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES )

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mtbt0p$meu$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mt7s5p$o6f$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris 
>>>>anywhere
>>>>around until the FBI showed up.
>>>
>>> Plenty of debris outside the Pentagon, but most of the plane went into
>>> the building.
>
>>riiight.  And I suppose you are going to tell me that the 757 folded it's
>>wings back just like a bird going into a birdhouse and neatly tucked it's
>>wings and engines into a small hole even though no real jet has ever been
>>seen doing that before or since.  <G>
>
> The body of the plane definitely entered the building, which is why all
> its debris was there. I believe one wing went through the wall but the
> other hit the ground and disintegrated just before impact.

That is not what the lie witness Mike Walter stated.  <G>  He stated it 
folded it's wings back like a bird.  Here see for yourself:

9/11 Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Mike Walter
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

>>And I've already told you that the 9/11 hoaxsters were setup to make
>>hundreds if not thousands of bogus videos but their 3D layout of Nuke York
>>City only took care of buildings so when they ran into a video with a 
>>crane
>>in it they had problems adding a CGI to that video.  Here see for 
>>yourself.
>
>>Believe Your Own Eyes - 9/11 - No "Planes" Were Ever Used.mp4
>>( Time indexed to start at 25:58 )
>> https://youtu.be/IL8cJWyOxWQ?t=25m58s
>
> That video clip has definitely been tampered with, kooktard.  Did you
> think nobody would notice?
>
> p.s. Your start point is off.
>
>>Oh yeah, if you want to continue with your lies you will have to see that
>>there is a difference between nukes detonated in rock and nukes detonated 
>>in
>>dirt.
>
> Yup, one in rock will definitely couple its distinctive nuclear signature
> to the earth better, so that seismometers worldwide will have an even
> easier time detecting the nuclear explosions.

Sorry dude that is not entirely true.  Besides you still have to deal with 
the survivors of WTC1 and your theory has to kill all of them.

Rocky 

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

#522485 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES )

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mtbt0p$meu$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
> The body of the plane definitely entered the building

What plane?

> which is why all its debris was there.

or maybe there was no plane?

> I believe one wing went through the wall

Too bad that is just another bogus theory proven by the fact the wings or 
engines of the alleged Flight 77 didn't make a mark on the Pentagon.

> but the
> other hit the ground and disintegrated just before impact.

ROTFLMAO because that only happen in the movies.  Oh wait, 9/11 was just a 
bad movie because in real life those wings would have left debris all over 
the grass at the Pentagon.

And do not forget how Mike Walter had to change his story to try and match 
the total lack of debris in front of the Pentagon.  He had to add the part 
about a 757 folding it's wings back as if it were going into a birdhouse. 
<G>

9/11 Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Mike Walter
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

Rocky 

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

#520775 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Rocky wrote:
>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>> burning afterwards?
>>>
>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
>>> WTC7.
>>
>>
>>
>> Point of clarification:
>> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever
>> completely collapsed because of fire.
>> Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>
>
>     No one is claiming fire alone did it.




Well, the official fairytale says it did.
Especially when it comes to WTC 7





>> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out,
>> and were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>> So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>>
>
>     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.





AGAIN,...the official fairytale says fire caused the beams and floors to 
melt
In ALL THREE TOWERS






>
>> Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the
>> rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>
>     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
> metal, but nothing molten.
>     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
> mentally ill?
>






How many times will you keep ignoring these videos.
Do you work for NIST ?

WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE


9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM


9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw


Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 
1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY


Are you calling Mayor Giuliani a LIAR ???







>>
>> ...That doesn't happen without other help
>>
>
>     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
> molten.







How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed at all.

......Your keepers at 9/11 fairytale central, are not going to be happy with 
you slipping up like that.....they make liabilities like you disappear. 

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

#520778 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mt4kku$2j6$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
> K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rocky wrote:
>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>>> burning afterwards?
>>>>
>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
>>>> WTC7.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Point of clarification:
>>> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever
>>> completely collapsed because of fire.
>>> Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>>
>>
>>     No one is claiming fire alone did it.
>
>
>
>
> Well, the official fairytale says it did.
> Especially when it comes to WTC 7

As proven by a youtube video by NIST itself:

NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc




>>> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out,
>>> and were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>>> So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>>>
>>
>>     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
>
>
>
>
>
> AGAIN,...the official fairytale says fire caused the beams and floors to 
> melt
> In ALL THREE TOWERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the
>>> rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>>
>>     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
>> metal, but nothing molten.
>>     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
>> mentally ill?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How many times will you keep ignoring these videos.
> Do you work for NIST ?
>
> WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
>
>
> 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
>
>
> 9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
>
>
> Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 
> 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY
>
>
> Are you calling Mayor Giuliani a LIAR ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> ...That doesn't happen without other help
>>>
>>
>>     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
>> molten.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed at 
> all.
>
> ......Your keepers at 9/11 fairytale central, are not going to be happy 
> with you slipping up like that.....they make liabilities like you 
> disappear.

:-)

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

#520985 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:02:10 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rocky wrote:
>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>>> burning afterwards?
>>>>
>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
>>>> WTC7.
>>>
>>>
>>> Point of clarification:
>>> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever
>>> completely collapsed because of fire.
>>> Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>>
>>
>>     No one is claiming fire alone did it.
>
>
>
>Well, the official fairytale says it did.

     Nope. Though I welcome evidence that it does.

>Especially when it comes to WTC 7
>

     Nope. Though I welcome evidence that it does.

>>> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out,
>>> and were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>>> So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>>
>>     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
>
>
>AGAIN,...the official fairytale says fire caused the beams and floors to 
>melt
>In ALL THREE TOWERS

     Nope. Though I welcome evidence that it does.


>>> Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the
>>> rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>>
>>     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
>> metal, but nothing molten.
>>     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
>> mentally ill?
>>
>
>
>
>How many times will you keep ignoring these videos.
>Do you work for NIST ?
>
>WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
>
>
>9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
>
>
>9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
>
>
>Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 
>1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY
>
>
>Are you calling Mayor Giuliani a LIAR ???
>

     Your default admission that you are mentally ill is noted and
accepted.


>>> ...That doesn't happen without other help
>>
>>     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
>> molten.
>
>
>
>How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.

     I've yet to see any evidence that it ever became molten.

>Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed at all.

     As of the time I write this, I've seen no evidence that the metal
was ever molten.

>
>......Your keepers at 9/11 fairytale central, are not going to be happy with 
>you slipping up like that.....they make liabilities like you disappear. 
>

     And yet I'm still here. Odd that.

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

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

#521025 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

In article <mt4kku$2j6$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
> 
> K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Rocky wrote:
> >>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
> >>> burning afterwards?
> >>>
> >>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
> >>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
> >>> WTC7.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Point of clarification:
> >> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever
> >> completely collapsed because of fire.
> >> Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
> >>
> >
> >     No one is claiming fire alone did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the official fairytale says it did.
> Especially when it comes to WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out,
> >> and were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
> >> So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
> >>
> >
> >     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN,...the official fairytale says fire caused the beams and floors to 
> melt
> In ALL THREE TOWERS
> 
> 
> 
No sane person claimed beams and floors melted, You poor fuckwit,

> 


> 
> 
> >
> >> Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the
> >> rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
> >
> >     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
> > metal, but nothing molten.
> >     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
> > mentally ill?
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times will you keep ignoring these videos.
> Do you work for NIST ?
> 
> WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
> 
> 
> 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
> 
> 
> 9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
> 
> 
> Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 
> 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY
> 
> 
> Are you calling Mayor Giuliani a LIAR ???
> 
> 

Are you claiming he saw it? I hope not.


If there was something molten, it was not steel. There are a lot of 
materials that it could have possibly been, but steel is not one of 
them. Either that day or "weeks later". Steel needs a LOT of heat to 
melt and stay melted.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >> ...That doesn't happen without other help
> >>
> >
> >     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
> > molten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed at all.

Yes, please explain how it melted, since we sane people don't think it 
did.

> 
> ......Your keepers at 9/11 fairytale central, are not going to be happy with 
> you slipping up like that.....they make liabilities like you disappear. 

They eventually take mentally ill people like you to the asylum.

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

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

#521286 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

BDK wrote:
> In article <mt4kku$2j6$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
>>
>> K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rocky wrote:
>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they
>>>>> stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2
>>>>> or WTC7.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Point of clarification:
>>>> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever
>>>> completely collapsed because of fire.
>>>> Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>>>
>>>
>>>     No one is claiming fire alone did it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the official fairytale says it did.
>> Especially when it comes to WTC 7
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned
>>>> out, and were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>>>> So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>>>>
>>>
>>>     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AGAIN,...the official fairytale says fire caused the beams and floors
>> to melt
>> In ALL THREE TOWERS
>>
>>
>>
> No sane person claimed beams and floors melted, You poor fuckwit,
>
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in
>>>> the rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>>>
>>>     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
>>> metal, but nothing molten.
>>>     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
>>> mentally ill?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How many times will you keep ignoring these videos.
>> Do you work for NIST ?
>>
>> WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
>>
>>
>> 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
>>
>>
>> 9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
>>
>>
>> Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath
>> WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY
>>
>>
>> Are you calling Mayor Giuliani a LIAR ???
>>
>>
>
> Are you claiming he saw it? I hope not.
>
>
> If there was something molten, it was not steel. There are a lot of
> materials that it could have possibly been, but steel is not one of
> them. Either that day or "weeks later". Steel needs a LOT of heat to
> melt and stay melted.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ...That doesn't happen without other help
>>>>
>>>
>>>     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
>>> molten.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
>> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed at
>> all.
>
> Yes, please explain how it melted, since we sane people don't think it
> did.






<ROTFLMAO>
You don't think it did,......are you really going to use THAT for your 
argument ????

<sigh> There is just no debating logic like that.

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

#521325 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:31:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

[...]

>>> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
>>> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed at
>>> all.
>>
>> Yes, please explain how it melted, since we sane people don't think it
>> did.
>
>
><ROTFLMAO>
>You don't think it did,......are you really going to use THAT for your 
>argument ????
>
><sigh> There is just no debating logic like that.

     Brave, brave, Sir Robin!

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

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

#521358 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:31:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
>>>> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>> Yes, please explain how it melted, since we sane people don't think it
>>> did.
>>
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO>
>> You don't think it did,......are you really going to use THAT for your
>> argument ????
>>
>> <sigh> There is just no debating logic like that.
>
>     Brave, brave, Sir Robin!




Are you also going to tell us that  Monty Python and the holy grail, was a 
CNN  documentary, on 9/11 ?
...You animal food trough wiper. 

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

#521415 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:47:35 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:31:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
>>>>> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed
>>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, please explain how it melted, since we sane people don't think it
>>>> did.
>>>
>>>
>>> <ROTFLMAO>
>>> You don't think it did,......are you really going to use THAT for your
>>> argument ????
>>>
>>> <sigh> There is just no debating logic like that.
>>
>>     Brave, brave, Sir Robin!
>
>Are you also going to tell us that  Monty Python and the holy grail, was a 
>CNN  documentary, on 9/11 ?

     I'm commenting on how bravely you've run away from BDK.

>...You animal food trough wiper. 
>

     The line is"

     "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal
food trough wiper!"

     I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and
your father smelt of elderberries!

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

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

#521426 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

In article <3umhva5u18svbg2dshuufo92r26tse0qah@4ax.com>, 
compuelf@gmail.com says...
> 
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:47:35 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:31:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>>> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked.
> >>>>> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed
> >>>>> at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, please explain how it melted, since we sane people don't think it
> >>>> did.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <ROTFLMAO>
> >>> You don't think it did,......are you really going to use THAT for your
> >>> argument ????
> >>>
> >>> <sigh> There is just no debating logic like that.
> >>
> >>     Brave, brave, Sir Robin!
> >
> >Are you also going to tell us that  Monty Python and the holy grail, was a 
> >CNN  documentary, on 9/11 ?
> 
>      I'm commenting on how bravely you've run away from BDK.
> 
> >...You animal food trough wiper. 
> >
> 
>      The line is"
> 
>      "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal
> food trough wiper!"
> 
>      I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and
> your father smelt of elderberries!

It couldn't be a hamster, Bast is too dumb for it to be true. My money 
is on a Garden Slug.

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

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

#521521 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11

the main reason, of course, was because
tehy hit the cool rrth, at the bottom of their falls

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

#521024

In article <fchbvah52s1r15rtddoscut1cbc3fk3h92@4ax.com>, 
compuelf@gmail.com says...
> 
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >Rocky wrote:
> >> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
> >> burning afterwards?
> >>
> >> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
> >> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
> >> WTC7.
> >
> >
> >
> >Point of clarification:
> >WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely 
> >collapsed because of fire.
> >Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
> >
> 
>      No one is claiming fire alone did it. 
> 
> >And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, and 
> >were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
> >So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
> >
> 
>      Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
> 
> >Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the 
> >rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
> 
>      Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
> metal, but nothing molten.
>      Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
> mentally ill?
> 
> >
> >...That doesn't happen without other help
> >
> 
>      And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
> molten.

This is a question even the most rabid Troofer ever answers. I don't 
know if they just somehow are aware it's BS, or they just haven't come 
up with a BS line to explain the unexplainable.

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

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

#520755 — Re: smoke and fire

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
 
> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely 
> collapsed because of fire.
> Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.

Even if that were true, the are the only buildings in the world that
got two airliners full of fuel dumped down their middle.

> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, and 
> were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.

Many things that burn produce black smoke.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#520713

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:16:43 -0500
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> From: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
> Subject: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't
> they stay burning? Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:16:43 -0500
> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931

Hey Ichabod What do you not have a job?

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

#520718

"Rocky"  wrote in message 
news:ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

<< snip insanity laden drivel >>


Wockie, my wittle whacked out fwiend,

They had an hour long special on 9/11 yesterday on TV and it clearly 
showed two airliners crashing into the towers, including an interview 
with one gentleman ho saw the first one approach and then hit the 
first tower a few floors above his ...  but I suppose Bush and Cheney 
faked that, too ...

You are one hallucinating asshole, Wockie ... you really need 
psychiatric help ... like a straitjacket.

Bast, the GLBT muff diving queen is running a close second, though ...

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

#520725

"Hägar" <hsahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:-ZmdnYkDnPEsXGjInZ2dnUVZ5s2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Rocky"  wrote in message 
> news:ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> << snip insanity laden drivel >>
>
>
> Wockie, my wittle whacked out fwiend,
>
> They had an hour long special on 9/11 yesterday on TV and it clearly 
> showed two airliners crashing into the towers, including an interview with 
> one gentleman ho saw the first one approach and then hit the first tower a 
> few floors above his ...  but I suppose Bush and Cheney faked that, too 
> ...
>
> You are one hallucinating asshole, Wockie ... you really need psychiatric 
> help ... like a straitjacket.


And I'll bet they never explained why there was no jet in the wide shot from 
Chopper 5.  <G>

From: "Rocky"
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:22 PM
Subject: Ping Kid: "Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling 
between 300 and 500 MPH covers?

A while back we were talking about a jet missing in the wide shot from
Chopper 5.  See:

>07 - The Key
>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s

and you replied with a complete evasion of:

"Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling between 300 and 500
MPH covers?"

Also see:

9/11 and Media Fakery
 http://fakemedia911.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-plane-speed.html

Why don't we just do the math and I'll even go on the worst case scenario.

Let us say that the jet was only 15 pixels wide in the narrow shot but it
was clearly much bigger than that.

Now lets say that they used a 30x zoom but they clearly didn't zoom in that
far.

That doesn't make the jet disappear it would mean the jet would only show up
in every other frame and again that is using the worse case scenario and not
real life.  <G>

To me the fact there were so many videos of a disappearing wing is evidence
of a CGI and the fact you have to lie about the missing jet in the wide shot
is also evidence that the media used CGIs in their 9/11 bullshit.

BTW it does not matter who started the initial lies only that lies are
needed to keep the lies going and going and going.  <G>

Same with the crime scene photos of Ground Zero.  Until someone can come up
with a valid reason that the alleged falling debris from the North Tower did
not crush the Survivors or end up in the basement then Dimitri Khalezov
still has the best explanation for what happened to the Twin Towers.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#520738

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:43:34 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Hägar" <hsahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:-ZmdnYkDnPEsXGjInZ2dnUVZ5s2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Rocky"  wrote in message 
>> news:ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> << snip insanity laden drivel >>
>>
>>
>> Wockie, my wittle whacked out fwiend,
>>
>> They had an hour long special on 9/11 yesterday on TV and it clearly 
>> showed two airliners crashing into the towers, including an interview with 
>> one gentleman ho saw the first one approach and then hit the first tower a 
>> few floors above his ...  but I suppose Bush and Cheney faked that, too 
>> ...
>>
>> You are one hallucinating asshole, Wockie ... you really need psychiatric 
>> help ... like a straitjacket.
>
>
>And I'll bet they never explained why there was no jet in the wide shot from 
>Chopper 5.  <G>
>
>From: "Rocky"
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
>Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:22 PM
>Subject: Ping Kid: "Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling 
>between 300 and 500 MPH covers?
>
>A while back we were talking about a jet missing in the wide shot from
>Chopper 5.  See:
>
>>07 - The Key
>>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
>> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s
>
>and you replied with a complete evasion of:
>
>"Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling between 300 and 500
>MPH covers?"
>

     When, in reality and not your delusions, has Hägar asked such a
question?

[snip the remainder of your delusions about Hägar]

     Please get the mental health care you've once again PROVED you
NEED. I'm being as serious as I can when I offer that suggestion.

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

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

#520771

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dehbvatu5u3v3asnekbe4v52kp4vmcvcs5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:43:34 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Hägar" <hsahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:-ZmdnYkDnPEsXGjInZ2dnUVZ5s2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "Rocky"  wrote in message
>>> news:ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> << snip insanity laden drivel >>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wockie, my wittle whacked out fwiend,
>>>
>>> They had an hour long special on 9/11 yesterday on TV and it clearly
>>> showed two airliners crashing into the towers, including an interview 
>>> with
>>> one gentleman ho saw the first one approach and then hit the first tower 
>>> a
>>> few floors above his ...  but I suppose Bush and Cheney faked that, too
>>> ...
>>>
>>> You are one hallucinating asshole, Wockie ... you really need 
>>> psychiatric
>>> help ... like a straitjacket.
>>
>>
>>And I'll bet they never explained why there was no jet in the wide shot 
>>from
>>Chopper 5.  <G>
>>
>>From: "Rocky"
>>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
>>Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:22 PM
>>Subject: Ping Kid: "Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling
>>between 300 and 500 MPH covers?
>>
>>A while back we were talking about a jet missing in the wide shot from
>>Chopper 5.  See:
>>
>>>07 - The Key
>>>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
>>> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s
>>
>>and you replied with a complete evasion of:
>>
>>"Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling between 300 and 500
>>MPH covers?"
>>
>
>     When, in reality and not your delusions, has Hägar asked such a
> question?

Funny that I quoted you and you decided to run from your outright lie again.

For once I can quote T-annoy the heckler:  "Keep wriggling"

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web