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: Re: 2 Topaz stop right there Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:10 -0500
                                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
                      why ask whyn''t noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:46 -0700
          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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

#516086 — Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:17:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>put alt.astronomy back in
>
>"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:dq2jtatq7bbfjt4k0ubbtl894jk2177jhh@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
>> America!
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws
>>
>> The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
>> of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
>> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy.
>
>Stop right there because there is something you are missing.
>
>If all people do is look at WTC7 they see one thing but if you consider the 
>damage done to the building directly north of WTC7 we see another.
>
>All sorts of evidence states that Fiterman Hall, the building north of WTC7 
>was damaged by WTC7 but there was no falling debris that jumped across the 
>street onto Fiterman Hall so Fiterman Hall was not damaged by WTC7 it was 
>damaged by the exact same underground nuke that vaporized the lower floors 
>of WTC7.
>
>Oddly enough because WTC7 was only 47 stories tall it would have been easy 
>to use a nuke to vaporize the entire building but it was only partially 
>vaporized.  From photos I've seen they use the rubble pile from WTC7 to make 
>it appear that the Twin Towers also left a pile of rubble but other photos 
>prove next to nothing was left of the Twin Towers.
>
>So how they managed to use a nuke to only vaporize part of the WTC7 is 
>probably the same way they used nukes to vaporize right up to the floors 
>below the alleged impact points making people think the collapse started at 
>the alleged impact area instead of noticing that the floors below the 
>alleged impact area were vaporized and that is what really started the 
>collapse of the Twin Towers.
>
>I know from my own experience that it is hard to believe that nukes were 
>used at Ground Zero but I also know once all the evidence that says "nukes" 
>is looked at and all the evidence against nukes is the same bullshit we were 
>given about a commercial jet at the Pentagon I'm stuck believing the Twin 
>Towers were nuked.  See:
>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
>Rocky 
>
 From the videos I have seen I believe it was ordinary bombs as in an
ordinary demolition of buildings. One video had a witness who heard
multiple explosions, not one big one. But the main point is that the
media's version is nonsense and those who kiss up to the media are
fools or feds of some kind.


www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

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

#516090 — Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:83ojtalfjksum4ta80c5r56di8cedvqanm@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:17:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>put alt.astronomy back in
>>
>>"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:dq2jtatq7bbfjt4k0ubbtl894jk2177jhh@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
>>> America!
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws
>>>
>>> The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
>>> of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
>>> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy.
>>
>>Stop right there because there is something you are missing.
>>
>>If all people do is look at WTC7 they see one thing but if you consider 
>>the
>>damage done to the building directly north of WTC7 we see another.
>>
>>All sorts of evidence states that Fiterman Hall, the building north of 
>>WTC7
>>was damaged by WTC7 but there was no falling debris that jumped across the
>>street onto Fiterman Hall so Fiterman Hall was not damaged by WTC7 it was
>>damaged by the exact same underground nuke that vaporized the lower floors
>>of WTC7.
>>
>>Oddly enough because WTC7 was only 47 stories tall it would have been easy
>>to use a nuke to vaporize the entire building but it was only partially
>>vaporized.  From photos I've seen they use the rubble pile from WTC7 to 
>>make
>>it appear that the Twin Towers also left a pile of rubble but other photos
>>prove next to nothing was left of the Twin Towers.
>>
>>So how they managed to use a nuke to only vaporize part of the WTC7 is
>>probably the same way they used nukes to vaporize right up to the floors
>>below the alleged impact points making people think the collapse started 
>>at
>>the alleged impact area instead of noticing that the floors below the
>>alleged impact area were vaporized and that is what really started the
>>collapse of the Twin Towers.
>>
>>I know from my own experience that it is hard to believe that nukes were
>>used at Ground Zero but I also know once all the evidence that says 
>>"nukes"
>>is looked at and all the evidence against nukes is the same bullshit we 
>>were
>>given about a commercial jet at the Pentagon I'm stuck believing the Twin
>>Towers were nuked.  See:
>>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>>Rocky
>>
> From the videos I have seen I believe it was ordinary bombs as in an
> ordinary demolition of buildings. One video had a witness who heard
> multiple explosions, not one big one. But the main point is that the
> media's version is nonsense and those who kiss up to the media are
> fools or feds of some kind.

I know there were a lot of explosions and I know there were toasted cars 
too.  Both of which were used to deceive people because Ground Zero was 
called Ground Zero for the pre-9/11 definition of Ground Zero and people in 
our own government have been told that the Twin Towers were nuked.

But the real truth is they were nuked from below as proven by the tell tale 
signs in the following photo which is the lack of large piles of debris and 
the "Surviving Corners."
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#516123 — Re: 2 Topaz stop right there

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> I know there were a lot of explosions and I know there were toasted cars 
> too.  Both of which were used to deceive people because Ground Zero was 
> called Ground Zero for the pre-9/11 definition of Ground Zero and people in 
> our own government have been told that the Twin Towers were nuked.

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516122 — Re: 2 Topaz stop right there

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> Stop right there because there is something you are missing.

You stop kook boy; the thing you are missing is a functional brain.

The facts are some airliners were hijacked.

Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires
which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed
almost 2 hours later.

One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the
western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

Everything else is kook babble.

That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble.

That there is missing rubble is kook babble.

That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble.

That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble.

That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear
devices is kook babble.

That there was an EMP is kook babble.

That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not
seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble.

That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything
to do with what happened is kook babble.

That the scene was radioactive is kook babble.

That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima
or Nagasaki is kook babble.

That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear
is kook babble.

That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance 
and still be expected to work is kook babble.

That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear
bombs is kook babble.

That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the
airplanes hit the towers is kook babble.

That all the video was CGI is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the
windows is kook babble.

That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble.

That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion
is kook babble.

There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to
ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble.

Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble.

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature
that can be detected anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the 
collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon
and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is
kook babble.

Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble.


<snip remaining kook babble>

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516608 — Re: Re: 2 Topaz stop right there

"Chertoff also freed five Mossad agents who had been arrested and
detained for months by the FBI on the day of the 911 attacks. They had
been caught in New Jersey filming and cheering the 911 attacks on the
World Trade Center. Interestingly enough they were apprehended with
large sums of cash, false passports, and boxcutters (the same devices
used in the hijackings). The FBI also found self-taken photos of very
happy Mossad agents grinning and flicking their lighters with the
World Trade Center burning in the background. Chertoff also allowed
all of the apprehended Israeli spies to return to Israel out of the
reach of American investigators.

Israel and the Jewish supremacists could not afford these revelations
of Israel's spying and treachery. They had to put one of their own in
position to protect their interests. They found him in Michael
Chertoff.

Michael Chertoff is the son of a rabbi and a long-time radical Zionist
and Jewish supremacist. After the first apprehensions of the massive
Israeli spy ring occurred, this dedicated Zionist was quickly put into
the position of head of the Justice Department Criminal Division. The
United States State Department, Justice Department and Executive
branch is honeycombed with Israeli loyalists. President Bush was and
is surrounded by them. In the popular vernacular they are called
Neocons, but they are simply Jewish supremacists who put the agenda
and interests of Israel over that of the United States. Two of them,
Wolfowitz and Perle, were the chief architects of the Iraq War, a war
good for Israel but an unmitigated disaster for the people of the
United States. The Zionist network has many avenues by which they can
get almost any appointment in government they want. They put him in a
position to quash this story of Israeli treachery, and he in fact did
so."

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp

www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

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

#516129 — Re: 2 Topaz stop right there

On 23/08/2015 12:17, Rocky wrote:
> put alt.astronomy back in
>
> "Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dq2jtatq7bbfjt4k0ubbtl894jk2177jhh@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
>> America!
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws
>>
>> The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
>> of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
>> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy.
>
> Stop right there because there is something you are missing.
>
> If all people do is look at WTC7 they see one thing but if you consider the
> damage done to the building directly north of WTC7 we see another.
>
> All sorts of evidence states that Fiterman Hall, the building north of WTC7
> was damaged by WTC7 but there was no falling debris that jumped across the
> street onto Fiterman Hall so Fiterman Hall was not damaged by WTC7 it was
> damaged by the exact same underground nuke that vaporized the lower floors
> of WTC7.
>

But where are the seismograph recordings for these nukes?

> Oddly enough because WTC7 was only 47 stories tall it would have been easy
> to use a nuke to vaporize the entire building but it was only partially
> vaporized.  From photos I've seen they use the rubble pile from WTC7 to make
> it appear that the Twin Towers also left a pile of rubble but other photos
> prove next to nothing was left of the Twin Towers.
>
> So how they managed to use a nuke to only vaporize part of the WTC7 is
> probably the same way they used nukes to vaporize right up to the floors
> below the alleged impact points making people think the collapse started at
> the alleged impact area instead of noticing that the floors below the
> alleged impact area were vaporized and that is what really started the
> collapse of the Twin Towers.
>
> I know from my own experience that it is hard to believe that nukes were
> used at Ground Zero but I also know once all the evidence that says "nukes"
> is looked at and all the evidence against nukes is the same bullshit we were
> given about a commercial jet at the Pentagon I'm stuck believing the Twin
> Towers were nuked.  See:
>    http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Rocky Sheeple
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

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

#515401 — Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake ( fake phone call too )

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message 
news:d3kjgvFje7lU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> This gives a fantastically small likelihood of this phonecall (one 
> prominent person talking to another prominent person within an ongoing 
> attack of high-jackers).

In reality and it was proven during the trial of the 20th hijacker the phone 
call between Barbara and Ted Olson was never completed and he admitted later 
he lied about it.

"The FBI's report on phone calls from AA 77 indicates that she did not reach 
her husband from that flight."
 http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-2/

That was also the only phone call that was supposed to have mentioned 
"boxcutters" so all that boxcutter crap was even proven to be bullshit but 
when the media was begged to broadcast a retraction by some of those that 
doubt the official bullshit they would not.

Rocky 

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

#516801 — why ask whyn''t

this is often shown with the problem,
how many random folks at a party,
to have two with the same birhtday,
way less than 365-6

> This was the question.
> 
> A random pick would produce random result. This would gain likelihood of 
> prominence at the rate those prominent people are distributed among the 
> general public.
> 
> That general public is the people of the USA and the office of the 
> solicitor general is unique.
> 
> There are a few other offices in government of similar hight, but not 
> that many.
> 
> To estimate the likelihood lets assume, there are a hundred offices 
> similar or higher in position within the US government.
> 
> Then we have 100 divided by 200 million as likelihood (supposed 200 
> million are the number of citizens, who could possibly fly).
> 
> This number we need to multiply by a similar likelihood in connection to 
> Barbara Olson, since she had own prominence.
> 
> The phone-call connects two prominent people at both ends, hence the 
> probabilities are multiplied. This is the likelihood of a random pick of 
> phone conversations to being held by two prominent people.
> 
> This event also happened at another event with a certain (small) 
> likelihood ('air-suicide'). Since this is an independent event, we need 
> to multiply its probability to that of the phone-call.
> 
> This gives a fantastically small likelihood of this phonecall (one 
> prominent person talking to another prominent person within an ongoing 
> attack of high-jackers).
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> TH

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

#514021

wOw, dood the math ... but, I forgot, who her hubby, was

> prominent person as Barbara Olson be involved in such an event??
> 
> This is against the laws of probability:
> accidents and disasters are assumed to strike 'blind', hence we would 
> not expect more prominent people involved as is the percentage of 
> prominent people in the set of possible victims times the number of victims.
> 
> Since the solicitor general is an extremely high rank in 
> US-constitution, his wife is EXTREMELY unlikely to be part of any random 
> set.
> 
> But non-randomness is a hit for a fake.
> 
> Second: if those people supposed to have committed such a suicide attack 
> are still alive, then WHO has done it then?
> 
> This is actually an important question, since the US fought wars because 
> of these people.
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> >>
> >> Here's a picture you might enjoy.
> >> https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=263473194
> >
> > They used all sorts of things at the Great 9/11 Hoax to lead  you astray but
> > what Survived of the Twin Towers could only be left by a deep underground
> > nuke.
> 
> 
> Nukes are most likely the wrong idea. The main reason: nukes cause a 
> HUGE pressure wave and that was not observed.
> 
> What in fact was observed is stranger than nukes: jellyfication and 
> dustification of steel and concrete in midair, burning cars blocks away, 
> wast amounts of unburned paper (coming from that 'melted' towers), ponds 
> of molten steel.
> 
> Also: the first massive destruction was not on one of the  towers, but 
> on WTC 6. There was a huge hole vertically through this building and the 
> material was simply missing.
> 
> The pile of debris from all of the buildings was WAY too small and only 
> about 20% of the material made its way to the ground. This strange fact 
> could not even explained by a nuke.
> 
> So, what has caused all of this????
> 
> Actually I don't know, but my assumptions are similar to those of Judy 
> Wood. She thinks, that some sort of advanced weapons have been used, 
> that utilize a so called 'Hutchison effect'.
> 
> The other question is: who's done it?
> 
> Answer: no idea, but most likely it was NOT George W. Bush.
> 
> 
> TH

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

#513436

I might enjoy it,
were I not a top=poster

> Here's a picture you might enjoy.
> https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=263473194
> -- 
> Karma ; what a concept!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web