Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #520084 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-10 09:01 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-10 19:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 283 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-10 09:01 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-10 15:44 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-10 19:07 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 15:17 -0500
Re: Rocky wrong again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-11 20:38 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-11 18:54 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:14 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:48 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 10:33 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:02 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 21:46 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:12 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 19:24 +0100
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 13:36 -0500
Re: Rocky still crazy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 18:54 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 21:19 +0100
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:13 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:31 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-11 14:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-11 17:26 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 03:55 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-11 06:43 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-11 19:22 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-12 06:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 11:47 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-13 07:04 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 05:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-14 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 17:22 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-15 17:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-15 17:39 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-15 19:29 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 09:21 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 08:57 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 15:50 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 20:08 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 16:43 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 16:51 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 21:10 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:29 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 17:20 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:26 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 18:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 21:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:52 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:50 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-17 00:23 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:42 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 01:13 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:45 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 16:48 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 21:43 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:50 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 06:51 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:56 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 06:25 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 07:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:09 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 23:00 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:03 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 20:24 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:43 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:01 -0500
9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:29 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:25 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 14:13 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 13:25 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:19 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW #10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 17:00 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 17:09 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:40 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:24 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-18 10:12 -0400
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:35 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-20 09:47 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:44 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:20 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 03:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:11 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 05:09 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 10:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 12:20 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 21:15 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:12 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 17:13 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 22:25 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:48 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:02 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:29 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 18:49 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-21 00:02 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-21 02:27 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-21 03:04 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-22 14:18 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 21:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 15:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 15:59 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:49 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:48 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 15:56 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:18 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:21 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:05 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:22 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:40 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 13:06 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 16:59 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 21:48 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 16:03 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 07:58 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:30 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 17:58 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 05:23 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 13:38 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 03:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:48 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:48 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-24 09:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 13:08 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 17:13 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 21:52 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:46 -0500
planes thereupon none where noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 18:10 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 16:14 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 08:24 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:32 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 15:50 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:32 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:06 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:13 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 17:22 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:33 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:15 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 05:42 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 14:53 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 18:23 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 07:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:07 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 11:24 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:45 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:15 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 05:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:38 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 07:02 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:13 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 21:26 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:13 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 21:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:31 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:57 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:01 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-22 16:19 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:11 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:40 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:11 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:15 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 01:12 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 06:44 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:39 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:15 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 22:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:14 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 20:04 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:41 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 22:11 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:14 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 13:07 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-21 18:25 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-21 20:27 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:36 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-22 10:28 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2015-09-22 17:47 +0100
9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 2 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-23 05:27 +0200
9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-23 06:09 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1 "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-23 20:22 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-24 06:53 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-24 01:49 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-25 07:33 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1a Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-24 06:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:27 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 17:38 -0400
no asbestos cladding on the main beams noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:38 -0700
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 05:59 +0200
if the planes were not bombs, or if they were bombs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 11:21 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:42 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:19 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-16 07:48 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-15 04:18 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:55 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 17:03 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:38 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:01 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:07 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:44 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 03:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:21 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 05:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:20 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:14 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:56 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-22 03:28 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 03:36 -0500
9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-16 07:37 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:46 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:06 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 00:30 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:38 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-16 17:59 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 07:11 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:05 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-14 17:06 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:57 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:31 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:06 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 12:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-11 17:20 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:36 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-12 08:02 -0400
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 05:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 04:18 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-13 04:45 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 16:04 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 16:03 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-14 14:19 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:17 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:54 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 16:01 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:08 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:02 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 02:12 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-17 13:33 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 13:45 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:45 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:46 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:25 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:22 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 11:32 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Stagger Lee <stag@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-16 12:40 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Stagger Lee <stag@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-16 15:28 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:56 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:19 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 14:04 -0700
no bombs that were not planes e.g noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:24 -0700
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 14:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kbb6vah8e56bjjd48sj22frj3fe7jn1a2g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520209 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:31:47 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know, nor particularly care, what, if any, religion FNVW >follows. But let's pretend he follows Judaism. How would that make the >points he raised any less valid? It's like person A arguing with lots of hot air against persecuting vampires and doing barbaric things like driving stakes into their hearts. Then it turns out that person A is a vampire! > Would the accuracy change if he were Baha'i? What if he followed >Buddhism? What if he were an atheist? > Of course it wouldn't matter. What ever religion he follows, if >any, will have no bearing on the accuracy of the points he raised, and >you removed in your pathetic attempt to avoid the truth. Ever since September 11, Jewish commentators and columnists have beaten their war drums for an all-out war against Iraq -- Kristol, Kagan, Krauthammer, Safire, Kondrake, Feder, Wattenberg, and many others - all of them deceptively pretending to be neutral observers, pretending to place American interests before those of Israel. Mortimer Zuckerman takes the cake in this category by being not only a columnist for US News and World Report; but its owner as well, and the owner of the NY Daily News to boot. And Zuckerman also apparently feels there's no conflict of interest in his publications' coverage of the Middle East caused by his current tenure as the Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, an umbrella group of fifty-two national Jewish organizations, whose very name and structure reveal the enormity of Jewish power and influence. Meanwhile, the cousins of the Jewish commentators and columnists are busy at work in Washington, seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy through their official and advisory positions in the Bush administration. Richard Perle, a Jew and Director of the Defense Policy Board, and a Director of the Jerusalem Post as well, would like us to attack Iraq now, as would Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, a Jew who, during the Gulf War aroused the fury of our senior military officers who claimed, quite correctly, that Wolfowitz was overly sympathetic to Israel [ New York Times, Dec. 23, 1991, p. A14]. Perle and Wolfowitz are joined in their cabal by "our" Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, a Jew who recently approved a plan to nuke Iraq if it moves against Israel, and Vice President Cheney's Jewish chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and Elliott Abrams, Bush's Jewish "National Security Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations." And we can't forget Bush's Press Secretary and chief handler, Ari Fleischer, also a Jew. Imagine the uproar if as many media pundits and government officials were of Iraqi or Palestinian descent! Imagine the media outrage if even one major columnist or advisor was discovered to be a member of the National Alliance. Having initiated the media barrage calling for a U.S. attack on Iraq, Jews are now trying to keep a low profile, fearful that the American people might finally connect the dots and realize that the Jews' reason for wanting war is not that they are concerned about the interests of New York fire-fighters or Pennsylvania coal-miners -- but that they are primarily concerned, as they always have been, about the future of Israel and World Jewry. Fearing a Gentile backlash against their subversive activities, it is critical for the Jews that most Americans not perceive who is behind the constant agitation for another war against Iraq. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported last week [July 30] that "some analysts say that Jewish leaders keep a low profile out of concern that critics might say America is attacking Iraq to benefit Israel." God forbid that anyone should dare reach such a conclusion! Jews are concerned not about whether attacking Saddam Hussein is good for America, but whether it is good for Israel. Forget that American blood and resources will be sacrificed. Forget that Jewish sabre-rattling will endanger the nation by making us the focus of Arab resentment. To the "Chosen," it doesn't really matter if thousands of additional Iraqi civilians are killed in an American attack. During the Gulf War, we bombarded Iraqi cities for two months, killing 80,000 innocent civilians [Il Giorno, Milan. Found in the Cape Cod Times, Aug. 3, 2002, p. A14]. At least 333,000 children and elderly Iraqis, and perhaps three times that many, have died prematurely since the war began, thanks to the U.S.-sponsored blockade of medicine and food, and our destruction of Iraqi water purification plants. Madeleine Albright, the Jewish former Secretary of State, justified these cruel policies and coldly dismissed humanitarian concerns with the comment that "the price is worth it." 333,000 dead babies and old people, worth it. 80,000 wives and husbands and children dead, worth it. All of this, against a country that presents no threat to the United States! After all, Iraq is over 6,000 miles away, with no ballistic missiles that could reach us -- but, with missiles that could reach Tel Aviv. Since many Jews regard Israel as our "51st state," they have decided that we must launch a "preemptive war" against their enemy. They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at heart. Jews do not lose sleep at night worrying if such an attack will turn virtually the entire Moslem world of over one billion people against America, and subject us to further attacks like those of September 11th. During World War II, there was a joke that, as the Gentiles marched off to war, the favorite song of the Jews was "Onward Christian Soldiers," and that may once again be the case again if we attack Iraq. For one thing is certain -- the children of Wolfowitz and Perle and Krauthammer and their ilk will not be marching off in uniform, or coming home in body-bags, or with Purple Hearts. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article goes on to note the strategy of one influential Jewish leader: "Why should it be a Jewish or Israeli issue?" asked Morris Amitay, a pro-Israel activist and former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known around Washington as AIPAC: "We should stay as patriotic as the next guy, but not be out front." As for the Jewish motivation for instigating a US war against Iraq, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article reveals that "[t]he Jewish community views an attack on Iraq as advantageous on several levels. . . . "[A] regime change in Iraq would be in Israel's best interest. Iraq's production of weapons of mass destruction and apparent willingness to use them are a constant threat to Israel's security. . . . "American engagement in Iraq could help Israel's standing in its conflict with the Palestinians. President Saddam Hussein has been financially assisting Palestinian terrorist groups and giving funds to the families of suicide bombers. Many believe Hussein would try to rally Arab governments to his side by attacking Israel. "In addition, some argue that overthrowing Hussein would send a strong message to the Palestinians about the consequences of terrorism."[End of quote.] The Jewish-owned New York Times said in a recent editorial [August 3, 2002] that what is crucial is that Iraq be disarmed of all "unconventional weapons" -- the so-called "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, what the Times wants, but doesn't quite dare say, is a Middle East in which only one country has nuclear weapons -- Israel. This would give Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, known as the "Butcher of Beirut" for his bloody massacres of innocents going back decades and still happening today, the power to perpetually dominate the Arab world. It is Israel, and not Iraq nor other Arab nations that possesses the greatest Middle Eastern arsenal of over 450 nuclear weapons of mass destruction -- many of which were built during a time when Israel deceitfully disavowed any intention to build nuclear weapons. Of course Israel's vast nuclear arsenal has evoked nary a peep of criticism from American bureaucrats, elected officials or political commentators. According to American law, all aid to Israel would have to stop if it were proven that she had built nuclear weapons in violation of her agreements. All official Washington knows that Israel has done exactly that, but they keep silent to oblige Israel in getting more American money and more American blood. They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at heart. It is also Israel, and not Iraq, that is in the process of manufacturing genocidal biological weapons capable of killing Iraqis while leaving Jews unharmed. On November 15, 1998, the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel was developing an "ethno-bomb." It is reported that Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying a gene carried by some Arabs, and then creating a genetically-modified bacterium or virus. The deadly micro-organisms would attack only Arabs or other non-Jews, leaving Jews unscathed. Talk about genocide and "weapons of mass destruction"! A senior Israeli intelligence official has admitted that "There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon? which is not manufactured [in Israel]." [John Steinbach, "Nuke Nation: Israel's weapons of mass destruction" in Covert Action, April-June 2001] The big threat in the Middle East is Israel, not Iraq. The only weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are in Israel. Its 450 nuclear weapons [Wash. Post, March 11, 2001, B2], are far more than it needs for deterrence. Israel has ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow. They are the world's fourth or fifth most powerful nuclear power, and Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation that adamantly refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Don't forget that from the 1950s the United States was training Israeli nuclear scientists and providing nuclear-related technology. [John Steinbach, Covert Action Quarterly - April - June 2001. www.covertactionquarterly.org http://www.covertactionquarterly.org> ] It is clear that Israel has had no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms. Israel is the primary destabilizing force driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to seek their own deterrents. George W. Bush talks about an "Axis of Evil," a term cooked up by David Frum, his Jewish speech-writer, but this absurd attempt at demonization represents a grotesque double-standard by which Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are condemned for developing nuclear weapons, while Israel -- the principal culprit -- is permitted to increase its nuclear and biological arsenal in blatant violation of American laws that ought to cut off all aid to the Jewish state. Even the Jewish writer Seymour Hersh has admitted that "the size and sophistication of Israel's nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force." [quoted in Steinlight] Thanks to Israeli expansionism and terrorism, and international Jewish agitation, a wide-scale nuclear conflict in the Middle East has now become a distinct possibility. It could be triggered by religious zealots, or by secular Zionist fanatics, or both. Such a war would be directed by Ariel Sharon, a war criminal whose record as a murderer stretches from the massacre of Palestinian civilians in 1953 to the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, to this year's massacre at Jenin, to this month's openly-admitted rocket attack on a civilian apartment complex. They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at heart. How has the United States benefited from its love affair with Israel, after having deferred to its every whim for over half a century? Refusal to withdraw from Palestinian and Syrian territory, disregard for UN resolutions and U.S. requests, proliferation of nuclear weapons, aggression against its neighbors, damage to American relations with other Middle East countries, the deliberate bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty, and espionage against the U.S. by Jonathan Pollard and others. In fact, the Israeli Cabinet honored Pollard by declaring him an Israeli citizen in 1995, and he has been elevated to the status of a national hero there. Israel, the nation that is the largest recipient of American foreign and military aid in the world has reciprocated by placing spies in our government. Unfortunately, Pollard's case may be only the tip of the iceberg. Confirmation of recent Israeli spying on American soil was offered by the French newspaper Le Monde this past March and discussed by Dr. Pierce in prior American Dissident Voices broadcasts. It is high time that Americans woke up and spoke out about what this one-sided relationship is costing us. Israel has worked against our interests on other occasions, too. In 1992, Israel illegally resold American military technology to China, and resold aerial refueling technology to Latin America. [Tim Weiner, "The Man Who Protects America from Terrorism," New York Times, Feb. 1, 1999, A3] Do you remember Mordechai Vanunu? He is the Israeli whistle blower who is finishing his twelfth year in captivity -- and the American news media continue to treat him as a non-person. On Sept. 30, 1986, Israel's government lured Vanunu to Rome, abducted him, and put him on a cargo ship back to Israel. At a secret trial, he faced charges of espionage and treason. A military court sentenced him to 18 years in prison. What was Vanunu's crime? He gave detailed information about Israel's secret arsenal of nuclear bombs to journalists at the Sunday Times of London. After growing up in a Jewish family that emigrated to Israel from Morocco when he was a boy, Mordechai Vanunu became an employee at the Dimona nuclear plant in 1976. Nearly a decade later -- shortly before his employment ended at the remote nuclear facility -- he took photos of areas inside Dimona which had always been illegally hidden from international inspection. Using severance pay to travel abroad in 1986, Vanunu contacted the famous Insight investigative unit of Britain's Sunday Times. "During his extensive debriefing by our Insight team," the newspaper reported, "he offered to give the paper his photographs and all his information for nothing, provided we did not publish his name, insisting his sole interest was in stopping nuclear proliferation in the Middle East." However, the Sunday Times persuaded Vanunu to allow his name to be used. The paper agreed to pay him for the serialization of his story, or for a book. Peter Hounam, the main reporter on the story for the Sunday Times said: "My impression of the man was of someone who had a genuine desire to tell the world of something that was going on which he felt was genuinely wrong for Israel to do. He felt it was wrong that the Israeli public and parliament were not given any information about what was happening in Dimona." On Oct. 5, 1986, the Sunday Times broke the story under the front-page headline "REVEALED: THE SECRETS OF ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR ARSENAL." But by then, Vanunu was a prisoner of the Israeli government. That's how the world learned that he'd been kidnapped. From then on, when he was transported to court, the van windows were painted black. And it is still very dark for him. After a dozen years, much of them in isolation, he is still in prison. Can you imagine what would have happened if another country in the Middle East -- say, Iraq or Iran -- kidnapped one of its citizens from Western Europe to retaliate for spilling the beans about its nuclear weaponry? That person would have become an instant media hero in the United States. But if you mention Mordechai Vanunu's name to an American, you're likely to get a blank stare. On this side of the Atlantic, he's a media phantom. The United States' media coverage of Vanunu has remained paltry: just a few scattered newspaper articles. The New York Times - America's supposed "newspaper of record" -- has hardly mentioned Vanunu at all. That's quite a contrast to the situation in Britain, where coverage of Vanunu's case has been extensive and sustained. Recently, in the course of several months, mainstream British outlets have done at least 45 major stories about Vanunu, according to Nexis. Sixteen of them appeared in the Sunday Times alone. Top politicians and journalists in Washington wag their fingers at India and Pakistan for joining the world's nuclear club without an invitation. But there is no such scolding of Israel, which receives U.S. aid at a rate of about $10 Million a day, while maintaining a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads. If you wonder why this broadcast is virtually the only voice in the United States of America which dares to tell the truth on this vital issue, consider the fate of Mordechai Vanunu, for daring to tell the truth about Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Speaking of the suppression of news that is unfavorable to Israel, have you heard about the case of former Israeli secret agent, Victor Ostrovsky? Although he fled to Canada after revealing the tactics of the Mossad (Israel's spy and assassination agency) in a book, he continued to be pursued by the allies of Israel there and in the United States. [The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (October/November 1997, pp 37, 84-85).] He has written that "[t]he same people who presumably would praise someone from the CIA or the U.S. armed forces who exposed serious wrongdoing in those institutions were now hard at work to smother my criticisms of an intelligence agency for a foreign country that, to put it as charitably as possible, does not have America's best interests at heart." In 1995, an Israeli television executive called for Ostrovsky's assassination during a broadcast telephone interview with him. Those same "Americans" who call Ostrovsky a traitor to Israel for exposing the Mossad's tactics hail as a hero Jonathan Pollard, a traitor to the U.S. who spied on the American government for Israel. The suppression of criticism of Israel continues. There is the case of the two Oneida, New York Daily Dispatch editors who were fired last September for daring to mention Israeli terrorism and Israel's acts of oppression in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is horrifying to think that in a land priding itself on free speech that simply pointing out Israel's crimes in the Middle East can cause the firing of two editors. But when you're dealing with the Jewish power structure you're not dealing with Americans, and you're not dealing with people who have any respect for freedom of speech. The Jews were even able to get the offending editorial removed from the newspaper's website, as Dr. Pierce told us in a recent broadcast [October 27, 2001 ]. These high-handed tactics of intimidation and suppression combined with the virtual Jewish stranglehold on the U.S. news and entertainment industry help explain why most Americans are so easily misled on political issues where there is a vested Jewish interest and agenda. Now, as our pro-Israeli President threatens Iraq, it becomes increasingly obvious that Israel would love to have thousands of U.S. troops permanently stationed nearby. Just as plans for an attack on Iraq seem to have originated from a mentality of "Oh, since we're already in Afghanistan, why not attack Iraq, too" what is to prevent the whining (but secretly smiling) Israeli-firsters in the media and government from convincing Bush and Congress to decide that since we're already in Iraq, we might as well pay a visit to Israel to help them decimate the Palestinians? If we truly want peace in the Middle East and if we truly want to avoid the escalation of that regional conflict into a nuclear and biological catastrophe, we'd better wake up and learn how to deal with what the French ambassador to England so bluntly but aptly referred to as "that shitty little country Israel" which places us "in danger of World War III." The French ambassador is not the only one who is waking up. All over Europe mainstream politicians and writers are speaking out against the Jewish disease of unmitigated aggression and genocide, against the Jewish-led bloodbath. Our kinfolk in Europe are learning the score. Isn't it about time that we joined them -- before it's too late? > How long have you held the delusion that you are exempt from the >law? Serious question. What law, are sure it isn't a stupid question? www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 17:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msvkg1$2bo$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #520365 |
On 9/11/2015 2:43 PM, Topaz wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:31:47 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" > <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I don't know, nor particularly care, what, if any, religion FNVW >> follows. But let's pretend he follows Judaism. How would that make the >> points he raised any less valid? > > It's like person A arguing with lots of hot air against persecuting > vampires and doing barbaric things like driving stakes into their > hearts. Then it turns out that person A is a vampire! you believe in vampires? (sucker) <snip stupid crap> > > > www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org > > http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com > If you are into National Socialist Democrapps, vote for Heillary. GOT THAT ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 03:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rip7valt0stn6u6e2nra1m06k33i27b90s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520394 |
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:26:57 -0500, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 9/11/2015 2:43 PM, Topaz wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:31:47 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" >> <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> I don't know, nor particularly care, what, if any, religion FNVW >>> follows. But let's pretend he follows Judaism. How would that make the >>> points he raised any less valid? >> >> It's like person A arguing with lots of hot air against persecuting >> vampires and doing barbaric things like driving stakes into their >> hearts. Then it turns out that person A is a vampire! > >you believe in vampires? (sucker) > > ><snip stupid crap> > > >If you are into National Socialist Democrapps, vote for Heillary. > > GOT THAT ? Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933: "German women, German men ! It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women. Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other areas than the man. The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless devotion, her readiness to sacrifice. The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her talents and abilities. Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman. It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our attitude toward women. The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in government, politics, economics and social relations has not left women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with former ideals. A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family, in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother. The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary. It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age. But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the living mother of a family who gives the state children. German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and her daily bread is not a good trade. A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by 1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation. We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our blood is assured..." www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 18:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <con6va1o7v36h9c77be9t2oa0m5dg4s0o9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520365 |
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:43:44 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:31:47 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
><compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't know, nor particularly care, what, if any, religion FNVW
>>follows. But let's pretend he follows Judaism. How would that make the
>>points he raised any less valid?
>
> It's like person A arguing with lots of hot air against persecuting
>vampires and doing barbaric things like driving stakes into their
>hearts. Then it turns out that person A is a vampire!
>
Vampires are fictional, stupid.
>> Would the accuracy change if he were Baha'i? What if he followed
>>Buddhism? What if he were an atheist?
>> Of course it wouldn't matter. What ever religion he follows, if
>>any, will have no bearing on the accuracy of the points he raised, and
>>you removed in your pathetic attempt to avoid the truth.
>
>
[snip copyright violation]
Once again you PROVE you hold the delusion that you are exempt
from the law. At some point you'll learn you're not.
Start saving those pennies now.
>
>> How long have you held the delusion that you are exempt from the
>>law? Serious question.
>
> What law, are sure it isn't a stupid question?
>
In this case, copyright law. That my question was, and is, too
cerebral for you doesn't make it stupid. It proves you're stupid. But
you proved that already.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 06:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bad1189f703c92fedf1bbb0b2c404cbc@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #520146 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Topaz, in <news:koq3va11ebdfrm4nm7jop8eg00sb8sirh2@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:01:41 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> Topaz, in <news:8n41va569bj7hnr3qh73nhcbpa7r213t9b@4ax.com> did thusly >> jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> <SMACKAKOOK!> >> That site promulgates some of the most retarded of the conspiracy >> theories concerning 9/11. If you wish to learn what really happened, >> it'll take engaging your brain and learning building engineering, >> flight kinetics and physics... very few of you kooks are up to the >> task, for obvious reasons. >> >> <snicker> > You are a worthless snickering asshole and probably a Jew. You are a retarded monkey who is too comfortably ensconced in your own stupidity to ever think of educating yourself. > CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view, > America! > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws BTW, your "CIA insider" Susan Lindauer is a delusional schizophrenic nutjob who believes she has psychic abilities and can utter prophecies. She had no connections whatsoever to the CIA... and her only actual connection to anyone who *did* have connections with the CIA was a physician with ties to the middle east. She was a conspiracy theory nutjob even back then, continually pursuing meetings with him to pump him for information. He broke off contact with Lindauer due to what he described as an increasingly "seditious bent" to her discussions. IOW, she went off the rails. She was arrested by the FBI for taking money from the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and indicted for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government... IOW, a spy. She was later arrested at Carswell AFB for psychological evaluation, only released after she was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. She then began k'laming she was a CIA asset... but in reality, she had just known someone years prior (who had cut off all contact with her) who was a CIA asset. She was later yet again found mentally unfit to stand trial and judged to be mentally insane. Psychotic. She was never a CIA agent, she was never a CIA asset. Believe the stupidity that tard spews at your own risk... you'd do well to research her claims completely, given that she's been caught in many, _many_ lies. Par for the course for a psychotic delusional kook... they all lie to sustain their delusions. <https://www.metabunk.org/susan-lindauer.t2494/> <https://web.archive.org/web/20130620221315/http://www.scribd.com/doc/46046645/US-v-Susan-Lindauer-NYSD-448-F-Supp-2d-558-2006> <https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/46046645-us-v-susan-lindauer-nysd-448-f-supp-2d-558-2006-pdf.1445/> "Although defendant denies she is mentally ill, she is plainly aware of what others think, and so, as Dr. Kleinman noted, she "is disposed to dissimulate, i.e., minimize the presence and extent of her psychiatric difficulties, especially to mental health professionals ā whom she distrusts and generally dislikes." (Kleinman Report 12/13/05 at 8) She acknowledged to him that if she testifies at her trial she will have to avoid touching on such subjects as her psychic powers, but "also noted that when (metaphorically) attacked by others she has spontaneously uttered prophecies." (Id.at 46) But then, given that you're just as insane as Susan Lindauer, there's little surprise that you'd not only believe her wholly implausible kookbabble, but that you'd accept it wholesale as your own delusion. <snicker> > <SMACKAKOOK!> > Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's > most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible > morning? I don't think so! NORAD was only contacted three times by the FAA that day. Once at 8:37 AM to inform NORAD NEADS (North American Air Defense Command Northeast Air Defense Sector) that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 AM to mistakenly inform them that Flight 11 was headed to DC (they were wrong, it had hit the WTC North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 AM to mistakenly tell them Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston was hijacked. The NYC Air Traffic Control called NORAD NEADS at 9:03 AM to report UA 175 hijacked... the same time the flight hit the WTC South Tower. Within minutes, fighter jets from Otis AFB and Langley NGB had scrambled. Unfortunately, the primitive air traffic tracking system of 2001 allowed the hijackers to turn off their transponders, forcing ATC to search through the 4500 flights in the region to find them... they didn't. NORAD radar wasn't inward-looking in 2001, it was for perimeter defense against incoming planes and missiles from other countries, so NORAD had no way to track the planes themselves. They had to rely upon FAA ATC to tell them where the planes were, and ATC was confused because they had no transponders to track. You moron. LOL > There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable > than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing > down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on > the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from > jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage > and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the > fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not > have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this - > only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such > distances. Did you not see the chunks of building flying outward as the towers collapsed? Huge hunks hit and damaged other buildings. The viscoelastic dampers between the floor spars and outer truss frame were pre-tensioned to counteract the bowing effect of the weight of the buildings, when those viscoelastic dampers started giving way (the source of those loud bangs that many called "explosions") the force expulsed not only building parts but human parts caught in the churning disintegrating rubble as the towers fell. The WTC towers literally "unzipped" like a zipper... once the lateral load-bearing capacity of those viscoelastic dampers was exceeded, they failed, the truss frame bowed, the floor spars drooped, and the collapse process ejected materials from the sides of the buildings as they fell. > <SMACKAKOOK!> > The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is > compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. No, it's compelling evidence that NORAD's role was outward looking. They couldn't even track planes internal to US borders. That wasn't their role in 2001, they were there to protect the country from external threats. > NORAD is the world's most > sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies > that make it extremely reliable and effective. It is only effective in the directions it looks, and in 2001 it looked outward, you retard. > NORAD routinely > intercepts off course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, Yes, it does. Today, because they have the ability now to track air traffic internal to US borders. In 2001, they did so with the help of FAA ATC tracking the aircraft for them. With no transponders to track, FAA was confused, so NORAD had little to go on in tracking the aircraft. > especially near such security-sensitive areas as New York City and the > Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial > jets were out of communication and flying towards known terrorist > targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of these planes was intercepted > by NORAD! We were told that NORAD only looks for aircraft coming from > outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given the history of > NORAD's routine interceptions! Yes, routine interceptions with the help of FAA ATC tracking the aircraft for them. That system worked well up until 2001, as no terrorists had thought of such an attack before then. Such an event couldn't happen again today because NORAD has complete internal tracking coverage of the US. > The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the > falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade > Center building collapses: > > SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE > EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK > > On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade > Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent > people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for > days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also > collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall > speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that > struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage > and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained > standing. > > In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan > Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert > Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own > eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government > conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale." > > We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's > tale that's "beyond the pale!" > > Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented > phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, > and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have > stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of > authoritarian assertions? > > The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told > us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now > referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government > claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet > fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to > the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult > to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive > fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such > buildings generally remain standing. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc> Whoopsie... see the roof starting to collapse from the left-hand side of the building, starting at 0:16 of the video, prior to the overall collapse of the building, Ko0k? That's the textbook definition of "progressive collapse", you brainfucked retard. The interior of the building had been so gutted and weakened by fire that the roof could no longer support itself. It fell through and ripped what remaining structural steel there was away, precipitating the collapse. See how the wall facing the camera kind of folds inward immediately after the roof collapses, Ko0k? See the computer physics simulation of the collapse starting at 1:01 of the video, showing the roof collapsing, exactly as was seen in the actual building, Ko0K? > According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical > evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly > caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the > tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain > reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to > the weight falling from above. > > There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the > observed facts > > * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical > steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the > next. Those "immense vertical steel core columns" were only built to 150% of required standing strength. And they didn't have much to support with the lateral supports ripped away by the falling penthouse. Not to mention the fact that they'd lost on the order of 50% of their total strength due to heat weakening, meaning they were only at 75% of the required standing strength. Idiot. LOL > * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to > gravity > alone. "near free-fall" LOL Now you retarded kooks are forced to admit they didn't fall *at* free-fall speed... what will you do when you're forced to admit the fall speed of the buildings were entirely consistent with the seismic records, and entirely consistent with the progressive collapse model, K0oK? LOL Message-ID: <1facf6fdf2b182085bea8b3a42e5fe8b@dizum.com> > This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from > the air a<SMACKAKOOK!> Bullshit. "near free-fall" means there was resistance. That WTC7 stood as long as it did, considering the massive internal damage from structural members losing their strength due to heat soaking, is a wonder. Those structural members first expanded laterally (which you can see in photos and videos as a huge bulge in the side of the building prior to collapse), and when they could no longer expand, they were forced to droop downward, which means that even had they had full structural strength, they wouldn't have had the leverage to support the building. > Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the > way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction > as air would? Except that's not how it happened, as can be seen in the videos of the collapse. The penthouse structural members had become too weak to support all the equipment up there, it fell in, smashing through the already heat-weakened structural members below, removing what little structural support they provided to the building after they'd expanded and drooped. Shortly after the penthouse fell in, the entire building collapsed. > Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing > the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? Yes again, that old bugaboo of all kooks, kinetic energy, kicks your kook ass... just how does a lower story stop the fall of thousands of tons of steel and concrete that's already achieved enough kinetic energy via its fall to overwhelm the immediately-lower floor's ability to support it? The fall would have had to be less than 6.533 meters for that to happen, given that the building was built to 150% standing strength... how far above the top human-space floor was the penthouse, K0oK? Oh, unfortunately for your broken little brain, it was just over twice that distance. IOW, once that penthouse fell in, there was no stopping it. And as the floors sequentially fell in, with the structural steel weakened to only ~20% of their full strength, there was nothing that was going to stop the collapse. LOL > Wha<SMACKAKOOK!> I note you snipped out that proof that the B-767 wings were actually *stronger* than the steel of the WTC towers. It must suck to be as delusional as you, yet also ironically far too stupid to right yourself... you're like an off-center Weebles Wobble But They Won't Fall Down... spinning sideways and attempting to achieve some balance, but utterly unable to do so. You moron. <snicker> -- Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East Moline, IL. Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID: <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're off your meds, Roget Wittekind. I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 19:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <97dbc8c5438c29f7442776f4914f7e58@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #520241 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> NEMO, in <news:jtn5vapav4ecermlvo1k8s4jvq6l8g1e36@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:43:45 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wanker Ejaculatus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: <drooling tardbabble> > In the name of Allah, the merciful, the benevolent... </drooling tardbabble> Still blowing camels, OCDK0oK? <snicker> >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > <snicker> That's right, <snicker>. That your poor broken brain is compelled to post-edit that word out because it's kicked your stupid kook ass is noted, OCDK0oK. <snicker> >> Topaz, in <news:koq3va11ebdfrm4nm7jop8eg00sb8sirh2@4ax.com> did thusly >> jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:01:41 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote >>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>> You are a worthless snickering asshole and probably a Jew. >> You are a retarded monkey who is too comfortably ensconced in your own >> stupidity to ever think of educating yourself. <drooling tardbabble> > Fo' sure, kikey. </drooling tardbabble> Insulting your fellow members of the nazi gay squad, OCDK0oK? Is that what you fags consider 'foreplay'? <snicker> >> Did you not see the chunks of building flying outward as the towers >> collapsed? Huge hunks hit and damaged other buildings. The >> viscoelastic dampers between the floor spars and outer truss frame >> were pre-tensioned to counteract the bowing effect of the weight of >> the buildings, when those viscoelastic dampers started giving way (the >> source of those loud bangs that many called "explosions") the force >> expulsed not only building parts but human parts caught in the >> churning disintegrating rubble as the towers fell. >> >> The WTC towers literally "unzipped" like a zipper... once the lateral >> load-bearing capacity of those viscoelastic dampers was exceeded, they >> failed, the truss frame bowed, the floor spars drooped, and the >> collapse process ejected materials from the sides of the buildings as >> they fell. <drooling tardbabble> > Still kvetching about your 7-Eleven World Trade Plaza incident, > jewboi? > > After FOURTEEN fucking years???? Get a life! LOLOK </drooling tardbabble> Says the retarded and thoroughly pwned no-life kook as he spends entire days obsessively post-editing, post-humping and proving how retarded he is. <snicker> -- Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East Moline, IL. Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID: <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're off your meds, Roget Wittekind. I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 15:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1ob6vat740jl7b1sn55ea7as35kuso8hc8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520241 |
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:43:45 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >You are a retarded monkey who is too comfortably ensconced in your own >stupidity to ever think of educating yourself. You should do the world a favor and flush yourself down a toilet for being a worthless turd. http://the911hoax.com/ In addition to what is demonstrated about possible faked news footage and airplane wings miraculously slicing through steel girders, the compelling evidence presented in the series includes: 1. Use of journalists, news company employees, and relatives of news company employees as sources for stories, defying normal journalistic rules and conventions which would have had them using random people off the streets (or people calling the news room by phone) as witnesses to what they saw or heard. 2. First a journalist and then a photographer each say they are right under the towers when the second plane hits, but no noise of a plane coming in low causes them to look up and say something like, "there's another plane!" 3. Mike Walter of USA Today claims he witnessed an American Airlines jet fly into the Pentagon. In the three interview pieces shown, he displays no emotion to what he is saying, as if he were completely detached from the traumatic jolt of what he witnessed. He seems happy and he's almost smiling even in the first interview which was right after it happened. 4. Walter also makes the highly curious statement that the plane that flew into the Pentagon "looked like a cruise missile with wings." Why would he say anything about a cruise missile? Why would he say that a plane looks like a cruise missile with wings? Most of us have seen airplanes far more often than we have seen a cruise missile, so he picks a very odd reference. Why does he say it looked like anything other than what he claims it was, a commercial jet airplane? Why an out of the blue comparison to a cruise missile? 5. Later, Walter has to explain the wings on the plane collapsed when hitting the Pentagon and that is why the hole in the Pentagon was not larger, but instead was smaller as would have been made with a cruise missile. 6. When the plane hit the second WTC tower, as seen in video clip after video clip, the steel girders of the building somehow did not slice off its wings. Magically, the lighter metal airplane wings manage to cut through much thicker and heavier metal steel girders and remain intact as the plane enters the building. 7. Sean Murtagh, vice president for finance at CNN, is used as a news source. He is not a journalist but someone who deals with making sure the company makes as much profit as possible. He is called upon as an eyewitness, and says he saw a large plane crash into the first tower that was hit. No explanation is given as to why he was looking up at the towers when the first tower was hit. 8. Owen Moogan, a producer at FOX, says he heard a plane flying by low while still laying in bed in his high-rise apartment building and then he heard it crash into the tower about 5 blocks from where he lives. What he says is not that suspicious on surface level, except that you have to consider it in relation to his position with FOX. Why do they not have random people with no affiliation or connection to the media saying what they heard and saw? If he heard a loud plane overhead, surely there were others in his building who did too, but they were not interviewed. 9. Mark Obenhaus, an ABC producer, says he saw a large plane flying low, that it was certainly a commercial jet, and then says, "my eyes followed it because this is approximately 15 blocks from the World Trade Center." He followed it in the skyline for the reason that he thought it was headed toward the WTC and would hit one of the towers. It is odd that he would make such an assumption instead of assuming it was a plane having some engine trouble that might crash into the water. His first assumption is the plane is headed toward the WTC specifically. 10. Jay Aldersberg, a medical reporter for ABC, contradicts what others have said. He says he was looking at the smoke, which would have been from the first tower, so it is the second tower he is talking about that he says he saw a small plane hit. He says it "looked like a propeller type." In other words, what he saw was a small plane, nothing near the size of a commercial jet. 11. Mark Birnback, identified only as a FOX employee (not a journalist nor producer nor holding an important position with the company, but assumed to be some type of support staff), says the plane he saw had a blue circular logo on the front and no passenger windows, that is was not a commercial jet. 12. Stewart Nurick, an intern at CBS, said he saw the second plane and that it was small. 13. Don Dahler, war correspondent for ABC, says what he heard was not an airplane, but sounded like a missile. Having covered war, he would know the difference. He also says about the second tower, he didn't see a plane, but "it just exploded." He may not have seen the missile, but others are saying they saw a small plane (which may have actually been a missile). 14. Dick Oliver interviews people on the street. The people are telling him they saw a missile not a plane. 15. Eric Shawn, FOX terrorism reporter, contradicts FOX employee Birnback, ABC medical reporter Aldersberg, CBS intern Nurick, war correspondent Dahler, and Oliver's people on the street. Shawn says the second plane was large. 16. Forty-one seconds after the second tower is hit, FOX news comes up with bin Laden's name out of the blue, before most Americans had ever heard of him, ahead of the Bush administration blaming of bin Laden, with no prompting from a government source to make the suggestion it was bin Laden, and with no pretense of any evidence of bin Laden being involved. 17. Winston Mitchell, an ABC reporter, says he saw a plane overhead. Vince Cellini, a FOX sports anchor called into cover hard news that day, starts to call it a missile, but then corrects himself. 18. We find out the local news stations were knocked off the air, so they could not do coverage. If they were able to do coverage, they would not have called upon people employed by or relatives of people employed by the national media outlets, but would have used common random New Yorkers on the street who would have reported what the same common random New Yorkers were telling Dick Oliver, a missile, not a plane hit the second tower. What ultimately appears implicit and explicit in all these sources of information about 9/11 is that Muslims were not behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC, but that the attacks were part of a scheme to feed the American population a string of outrageous lies in order to prepare the American population for invasions and wars in the Muslim nations. www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 06:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <24324ca42146cc357281def8e7c5ff97@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #520377 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Topaz, in <news:1ob6vat740jl7b1sn55ea7as35kuso8hc8@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:43:45 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> You are a retarded monkey who is too comfortably ensconced in your own >> stupidity to ever think of educating yourself. > You should do the world a favor and flush yourself down a toilet for > being a worthless tu<SMACKAKOOK!> Well, let's see, thousands of videos taken by average people all agree that two planes hit the towers; The fact that the towers didn't rise even a fraction of an inch, nor did people experience radiation effects, nor did seismographs pick up nuke signatures, nor were any EMP effects evident proves no nukes were detonated; I've proven to you that the aircraft-quality aluminum used in the aircraft wings was actually *stronger* than the structural A36 steel used in the WTC towers *and* had sufficient kinetic energy to sever the box girders even had they not been stronger; I've proven your "cruise missile" bullshit is exactly that, out of context bullshit; I've proven you have no grasp of physics, so you believe every stupid goddamn conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe, with a special bent toward any that feature Israel as the blameboy so you can feed your unwarranted hatred ... there's not a lot more your Gish gallop attempts can do... the more you blather, the more you prove you're an idiot who believes in kooky conspiracy theories. Message-ID: <45434b23dda241b1a23d3522266791bc@dizum.com> ===================================================== Perspective and angle correlation of size of aircraft hitting Pentagon, proving it was AA Flight 77: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk> <http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html> "It was like a cruise missile with wings.", according to the PentaCon kooks... but they take that quote out of context... the full quote was "I saw this plane, this jet, an American airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings."[8] [8] <http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html> That's all the eyewitness testimony from the Pentagon attack. The only mention of missiles is: 1) one guy wondering if an engine of Flight 77 had been hit with a heat-seeking missile 2) one guy describing the airplane as "nothing more than a guided missile at that point", said point being after the plane had descended low enough that ground effect kept it aloft. 3) one stating it was definitely an airplane, but the airplane "sounded like a missile" because its engines were at full throttle. (The same person who was covered in jet fuel, and crawled his way out from under the Pentagon rubble). 4) one describing the plane, and how it sounded like a missile because its engines were spooled up to full throttle. 5) one describing the landing gear and flaps positions of the plane, saying it looked in their mind as a missile would look on its final trajectory toward a building, metaphorically-speaking. 6) one guy on the road next to the Pentagon who didn't see the plane or the impact, but described the sound of the full-throttle engines as though it sounded like a missile. 7) another guy in the Pentagon who didn't see the plane or impact, but described the high-throttle engines as sounding like a missile. 8) one describing the plane, its markings, its height off the ground, the faces of people inside the plane looking out, and its trajectory as though it were a heat-seeking missile locked onto its target. 9) one guy on the road, his car pelted by debris after the impact, who heard the plane and the impact but didn't see it, and thought at first it was a missile strike. 10) one Gulf War vet describing his experience with missile strikes, then describing the AA Flight 77 coming overhead then slamming into the Pentagon, which was similar but had important distinctions to his experience with actual missile strikes. 11) one who described the airplane in detail, then went on to describe its speed and approach as being like "a cruise missile with wings". Who later reiterated that he'd been using a metaphor, and added, "I said that as a metaphor. To me it was like a missile was fired at a building. It exploded as you'd imagine a missile to explode... It was an American Airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw the big 'AA' on the side." One Kirlin employee was standing and looking out the window where the plane hit... he saw the plane coming at him, but didn't have time to react. The force of the impact blew in the blast-resistant window, which partially wrapped around him as he and it were thrown ~80 feet down a hallway into a closet. The closet door slammed shut and the fireball right behind him following him down the hallway went around the closet. He was soaked in jet fuel, but by that time the sprinklers had come on. He survived. Let's see the kooks tell that guy that he didn't see what he saw, didn't experience what he experienced... and not one of these retards were anywhere near the area... they get their delusions vicariously through the internet. LOL Stoooopid broken-brained kooks are gullible enough to believe these wholly impossible scenarios, and yet they have the fucking nerve to claim the rest of the world is "asleep" or "insane". LOL ===================================================== Stoooopid kook. Go peddle your stupid conspiracy theory somewhere else. Maybe Facebook or Twitter. Usenetters are too smart to buy into your retardation. <snicker> -- Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East Moline, IL. Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID: <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're off your meds, Roget Wittekind. I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 05:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8hq7vahbno0s10l5o249kqijb1s3aoa8ob@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520450 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 06:59:50 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >Well, let's see, thousands of videos taken by average people all agree >that two planes hit the towers; http://911planeshoax.com/ In the impact videos, notably the Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Spiegel TV and Evan Fairbanks videos we see what we are told is a plane cartoonishly pass through the steel face of the tower like a ghost. As the alleged plane makes contact with the tower there is no bending, buckling or breaking of the plane. No wings breaking or other parts of the plane breaking apart. This is impossible. It is cartoon physics. It melts into the side of the tower like a knife through butter. http://imageshack.com/a/img850/7038/rma9.gif A passenger jet is a hollow aluminum and plastic tube which is highly vulnerable to impacts with flying birds. http://imageshack.com/a/img89/3552/u9a4.jpg The "plane" we are told is Flight 175 is depicted as being simultaneously both half in the South Tower and still completely intact, a pair of buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each. http://imageshack.com/a/img191/2404/hmxt.jpg When the tip of the plane's fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the fuselage should be breaking up. http://imageshack.com/a/img713/3572/e7m.gif That would cause the wings to break off. From the holes left in both towers after "impact" we are supposed to believe the wings sliced clean through the 14 inch steel beams but this is simply impossible. The fragile mostly hollow aluminum wings would not slice through all the 14 inch steel box columns of the WTC towers and leave a Wylie Coyote style hole. http://imageshack.com/a/img607/1741/a68j.jpg An airplane wing can be sliced in half by a wooden telephone pole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo Aluminum plane wings will not cut through 14 inch steel regardless of speed and weight. Not only is it impossible for the wings to have cut through the steel columns but it is absolutely impossible for the fragile wing tips to have also cut through the steel columns. The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode. http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7325/7qav.jpg The plane would simply be obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of the tower. The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The "plane" also violates Newton's First Law. There are NO verified airplane parts. Apart from one or two props placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engineā¦parts that didn't even match a Boeing 767 and like the laughable bit of engine on the Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen and no black boxes were ever found at ground zero. http://imageshack.com/a/img191/9174/ozo2.jpg In reality, if a plane had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall and its wings would have broken off and the majority of the plane would have fallen to the street below. The street below would have been littered with plane debris and the charred remains of the passengers yet it wasn't because there was no plane. FAA Regulation 121 requires a comprehensive investigation of all crashes of scheduled commercial flights yet there are no official crash reports on the 4 incidents because there were no planes. In all of the footage the alleged planes hitting the twin towers clearly do not look real. The planes have a computer generated appearance. In the different footage we see the planes changing shape and color, missing wings, are featureless and blurred. Pilot John Lear made the observation that the plane has no strobe lights. The plane also casts no shadow. http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights. In conclusion we can be 100% certain the planes were not real. Apart from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the planes do not even look real. >The fact that the towers didn't rise even a fraction of an inch, nor >did people experience radiation effects, nor did seismographs pick up >nuke signatures, nor were any EMP effects evident proves no nukes were >detonated; > >I've proven to you that the aircraft-quality aluminum used in the >aircraft wings was actually *stronger* than the structural A36 steel >used in the WTC towers *and* had sufficient kinetic energy to sever >the box girders even had they not been stronger; Here is one youtube video that shows what you are saying to be nonsense. The CGI plane passes into the building without slowing down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE > >I've proven your "cruise missile" bullshit is exactly that, out of >context bullshit; > >I've proven you have no grasp of physics, so you believe every stupid You only proved that you are a worthless piece of shit. www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 11:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CIKdne7Rl5zjy2nInZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #520470 |
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8hq7vahbno0s10l5o249kqijb1s3aoa8ob@4ax.com... > On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 06:59:50 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > > >>Well, let's see, thousands of videos taken by average people all agree >>that two planes hit the towers; But all it took was a 3D layout of Nuke York City and a synchronization flash to make hundreds of bogus videos. It is just too bad that the CGIs without the synchronization flash where different than the CGIs with the synchronization flash. BTW FNN I won't see your reply if there is one because you've earned poll postion in my no truth list. Rocky > http://911planeshoax.com/ > > In the impact videos, notably the Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Spiegel > TV and Evan Fairbanks videos we see what we are told is a plane > cartoonishly pass through the steel face of the tower like a ghost. As > the alleged plane makes contact with the tower there is no bending, > buckling or breaking of the plane. No wings breaking or other parts of > the plane breaking apart. This is impossible. It is cartoon physics. > It melts into the side of the tower like a knife through butter. > > http://imageshack.com/a/img850/7038/rma9.gif A passenger jet is a > hollow aluminum and plastic tube which is highly vulnerable to impacts > with flying birds. http://imageshack.com/a/img89/3552/u9a4.jpg The > "plane" we are told is Flight 175 is depicted as being simultaneously > both half in the South Tower and still completely intact, a pair of > buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each. > > http://imageshack.com/a/img191/2404/hmxt.jpg When the tip of the > plane's fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the > fuselage should be breaking up. > http://imageshack.com/a/img713/3572/e7m.gif That would cause the wings > to break off. > > From the holes left in both towers after "impact" we are supposed to > believe the wings sliced clean through the 14 inch steel beams but > this is simply impossible. The fragile mostly hollow aluminum wings > would not slice through all the 14 inch steel box columns of the WTC > towers and leave a Wylie Coyote style hole. > > http://imageshack.com/a/img607/1741/a68j.jpg An airplane wing can be > sliced in half by a wooden telephone pole: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo Aluminum plane wings will > not cut through 14 inch steel regardless of speed and weight. Not only > is it impossible for the wings to have cut through the steel columns > but it is absolutely impossible for the fragile wing tips to have also > cut through the steel columns. > > The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would > explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode. > http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7325/7qav.jpg The plane would simply be > obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel > and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of > the tower. > > The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can > the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the > tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The "plane" also > violates Newton's First Law. > > There are NO verified airplane parts. Apart from one or two props > placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engine.parts that didn't > even match a Boeing 767 and like the laughable bit of engine on the > Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen and > no black boxes were ever found at ground zero. > http://imageshack.com/a/img191/9174/ozo2.jpg In reality, if a plane > had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall > and its wings would have broken off and the majority of the plane > would have fallen to the street below. The street below would have > been littered with plane debris and the charred remains of the > passengers yet it wasn't because there was no plane. > > FAA Regulation 121 requires a comprehensive investigation of all > crashes of scheduled commercial flights yet there are no official > crash reports on the 4 incidents because there were no planes. > > In all of the footage the alleged planes hitting the twin towers > clearly do not look real. The planes have a computer generated > appearance. In the different footage we see the planes changing shape > and color, missing wings, are featureless and blurred. Pilot John Lear > made the observation that the plane has no strobe lights. The plane > also casts no shadow. http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html > > According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off > on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at > every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, > wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other > categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights. > > In conclusion we can be 100% certain the planes were not real. Apart > from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the > planes do not even look real. > > >>The fact that the towers didn't rise even a fraction of an inch, nor >>did people experience radiation effects, nor did seismographs pick up >>nuke signatures, nor were any EMP effects evident proves no nukes were >>detonated; >> >>I've proven to you that the aircraft-quality aluminum used in the >>aircraft wings was actually *stronger* than the structural A36 steel >>used in the WTC towers *and* had sufficient kinetic energy to sever >>the box girders even had they not been stronger; > > Here is one youtube video that shows what you are saying to be > nonsense. The CGI plane passes into the building without slowing down. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE > > > >> >>I've proven your "cruise missile" bullshit is exactly that, out of >>context bullshit; >> >>I've proven you have no grasp of physics, so you believe every stupid > > > You only proved that you are a worthless piece of shit. > > > > www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org > > http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 07:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <840275b9af890b88e9984e6bec636992@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #520470 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Topaz, in <news:8hq7vahbno0s10l5o249kqijb1s3aoa8ob@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 06:59:50 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Well, let's see, thousands of videos taken by average people all agree >> that two planes hit the towers; > h<SMACKAKOOK!> > The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would > explode. Just like they did when the plane hit the Empire State Building, right? Oh, wait... one wing *did* slice right into the building. And that was with a 10-ton plane (versus the 197.5 tons of each of the planes that hit the WTC towers) of much weaker construction than the 767s that hit the WTC towers, going less than half as fast, and with a building that had much stronger grid-construction and a *lot* more concrete and steel. I note you've yet again snipped out that proof that the 767 wings were *stronger* than the structural steel in the WTC towers, you moron. Cling tight to your delusions, kook. They're all you've got. > It would not enter the tower and then explode. Yeah, it would. Jet fuel is specifically designed to be hard to ignite. It requires substantial vaporization before it even becomes flammable. Liquid jet fuel will not burn until it's very hot. Do you believe they put fuel into planes that's as volatile as, say, gasoline? Oh wait, not even liquid gasoline will ignite easily... only the fumes burn. And gasoline is *much* more flammable than jet fuel. You moron. > http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7325/7qav.jpg The plane would simply be > obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel > and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of > the tower. The WTC towers were designed to minimize the amount of concrete used. The walls didn't even have cement in them, only the floor spars and that was only 4" thick. That was a weight-saving measure so they could build higher. Moron. Those "14 inch steel box columns" were actually 4 plates each 5/16" thick, welded into a hollow box girder. So those 197.5 ton planes were really only punching through 5/8" of metal... and the metal in the planes was *stronger* than the WTC structural steel... and the planes were above the critical velocity that would allow even weaker materials to sever the box girders. Are you seriously saying WWII Kamikaze planes of ~10 tons (made of materials much weaker than the 767 planes that hit the WTC towers) were able to punch through much harder 1 to 2 inch armor steel plating on battleships, yet the 197.5 ton planes couldn't punch through the 5/8" of softer structural steel in the WTC towers, despite the fact that the 767 metal was stronger than the WTC tower, and despite the fact that the 767s were heavier and going faster than the WWII Kamikaze planes, kook? > The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can > the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the > tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The "plane" also > violates Newton's First Law. It did slow down, you just didn't see it because the deceleration was so quick. Going from ~500 MPH to zero in a hundred feet or so doesn't leave a lot of time to witness the deceleration, especially on grainy YouTube videos. You moron. Besides which, those "14 inch girders" weren't. They were 14" outside dimensions, but they were flat plate steel 5/16" thick, welded into a box girder... so only 5/8" thick in total. I note you've also snipped out the reality of WWII Kamikaze planes (much lighter than the 767s that slammed into the WTC towers, and much less strongly constructed) punching through the 1 to 2" thick plate steel on armored battleships. You moron. > There are NO verified airplane parts. Apart from one or two props > placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engineĀ parts that didn't > even match a Boeing 767 That's a blatant lie. The compressor part was verified to be the high-pressure compressor turbine from the engine of the flight that hit the WTC tower. You quoting other broken-brained kooks isn't proof to the contrary. You moron. > and like the laughable bit of engine on the > Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen Just like that F-14 that was slammed into a 6.6 meter thick concrete block as a test... confetti. Gee, imagine that. Other planes have been crashed as tests (and other planes have crashed into buildings such as the Empire State Building) with much the same results. You moron. > http://imageshack.com/a/img191/9174/ozo2.jpg In reality, if a plane > had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall The 14" outside dimension hollow girders with walls only 5/16" thick were spaced 6'8" apart. That was the *strongest* part of the WTC towers up that high... and the aircraft wings, as I proved, were *stronger* than the structural steel of the WTC towers. So not only wasn't there a lot of metal up there, what was up there wasn't very thick or strong. You moron. The rest of your tardblather is snipped. You moron. >> The fact that the towers didn't rise even a fraction of an inch, nor >> did people experience radiation effects, nor did seismographs pick up >> nuke signatures, nor were any EMP effects evident proves no nukes were >> detonated; >> >> I've proven to you that the aircraft-quality aluminum used in the >> aircraft wings was actually *stronger* than the structural A36 steel >> used in the WTC towers *and* had sufficient kinetic energy to sever >> the box girders even had they not been stronger; > He<SMACKAKOOK!> Just how do you propose to gauge the deceleration when a plane goes from ~500 MPH to zero in about 100 feet, from a fucking grainy YouTube video? You moron. >> I've proven your "cruise missile" bullshit is exactly that, out of >> context bullshit; >> >> I've proven you have no grasp of physics, so you believe every stupid > You only proved that you are a worthless piece of shit. Oh, you're lashing out because I proved you're a delusional kook who rejects reality. That reality I just laid on you must really be making your poor broken brain hurt. You moron. <snicker> -- Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East Moline, IL. Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID: <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're off your meds, Roget Wittekind. I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 05:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivfavahkksfl0jgm14l4ijl95957mp0q23@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520618 |
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 07:04:46 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> You should flush yourself down a toilet for being a worthless turd. >Just like they did when the plane hit the Empire State Building, >right? Oh, wait... one wing *did* slice right into the building. http://www.rijo.homepage.t-online.de/pdf/EN_GL_45_empire_state_building.pdf Sheared off by the impact, its wings fell as fiery debris > And >that was with a 10-ton plane (versus the 197.5 tons of each of the >planes that hit the WTC towers) of much weaker construction than the Nope, it was the WTC towers that had the tough steel outer shell. >767s that hit the WTC towers, going less than half as fast, and with a >building that had much stronger grid-construction and a *lot* more >concrete and steel. I note you've yet again snipped out that proof >that the 767 wings were *stronger* than the structural steel in the >WTC towers, you moron. If I snip something it's because you are a worthless peice of shit, you turd. Your plan is to be such a piece of shit that no one can stand to read your crappy posts. It's not that bad of a stategy actually, but it shows what a worthless little turd you are. www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 06:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <df7c360ee14a32426b5e7d93dff1f9e0@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #520636 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Topaz, in <news:ivfavahkksfl0jgm14l4ijl95957mp0q23@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 07:04:46 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > You should flu<SMACKAKOOK!> Awwww, poor kook. You can't handle the reality that the wings of those 767s were actually *stronger* than the structural steel in the WTC towers, nor that the total steel the planes had to punch through was a mere 5/8" of relatively weak A36 steel. Your continued rejection of reality is noted. <snicker> >> Just like they did when the plane hit the Empire State Building, >> right? Oh, wait... one wing *did* slice right into the building. > http://www.rijo.homepage.t-online.de/pdf/EN_GL_45_empire_state_building.pdf > > Sheared off by the impact, its wings fell as fiery debris Bullshit. Check the hole it left, you moron. One wing sheared off, one penetrated the building. Just how did the fuel from the wing tank dump down the elevator shafts if the wings sheared off and "fell as fiery debris", you retarded fuckwit? >> And that was with a 10-ton plane (versus the 197.5 tons of each of the >> planes that hit the WTC towers) of much weaker construction than the >> 767s that hit the WTC towers, going less than half as fast, and with a >> building that had much stronger grid-construction and a *lot* more >> concrete and steel. I note you've yet again snipped out that proof >> that the 767 wings were *stronger* than the structural steel in the >> WTC towers, you moron. >> >> Cling tight to your delusions, kook. They're all you've got. > Nope, it was the WTC towers that had the tough steel outer shell. Bullshit. The outer facade of the WTC towers was aluminum. Thin and weak aluminum. Message-ID: <1c0d42b6cb0b1ed6b4df6ee62c32542d@dizum.com> ============================== The facade was 0.09" thick aluminum, you witless brainless dumbshit. LOL <http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf> "By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09" aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the facade of each Twin Tower." ============================== Moron. LOL No concrete in the WTC tower walls, either, as a weight-saving measure so they could build higher. The Empire State Building, being a grid-constructed building, had thick concrete walls *and* massive solid girders... and that 10-ton plane sliced right through. The aluminum used in modern aircraft wings isn't the soft shit found in soda cans, you nong. It's Aluminum 2219-T81, precipitation hardened, with a tensile strength equal to that of A36 structural steel, and a superior yield strength. <http://www.aircraftmaterials.com/data/aluminium/2219.html> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A36_steel> =========================================================== Aluminum 2219-T81 tensile strength: 58 ksi Aluminum 2219-T81 yield strength: 43 ksi Structural steel tensile strength: 58 ksi Structural steel yield strength: 36 ksi =========================================================== Those aircraft wings were *stronger* than the steel in the WTC towers. And remember, they had kinetic energy on their side, as well. And lest we all forget, those hollow box girders of the WTC towers, constructed of four 5/16" thick A36 steel plates welded into a hollow box, were spaced 6'8" apart. So there wasn't a lot of steel up there where the planes hit, and there was *no* concrete in the walls. The WTC towers were designed that way as a weight-saving measure so they could build higher. You moron. LOL >>> It would not enter the tower and then explode. >> Yeah, it would. Jet fuel is specifically designed to be hard to >> ignite. It requires substantial vaporization before it even becomes >> flammable. Liquid jet fuel will not burn until it's very hot. Do you >> believe they put fuel into planes that's as volatile as, say, >> gasoline? Oh wait, not even liquid gasoline will ignite easily... only >> the fumes burn. And gasoline is *much* more flammable than jet fuel. >> You moron. >>> http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7325/7qav.jpg The plane would simply be >>> obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel >>> and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of >>> the tower. >> The WTC towers were designed to minimize the amount of concrete used. >> The walls didn't even have cement in them, only the floor spars and >> that was only 4" thick. That was a weight-saving measure so they could >> build higher. Moron. >> >> Those "14 inch steel box columns" were actually 4 plates each 5/16" >> thick, welded into a hollow box girder. So those 197.5 ton planes were >> really only punching through 5/8" of metal... and the metal in the >> planes was *stronger* than the WTC structural steel... and the planes >> were above the critical velocity that would allow even weaker >> materials to sever the box girders. >> >> Are you seriously saying WWII Kamikaze planes of ~10 tons (made of >> materials much weaker than the 767 planes that hit the WTC towers) >> were able to punch through much harder 1 to 2 inch armor steel plating >> on battleships, yet the 197.5 ton planes couldn't punch through the >> 5/8" of softer structural steel in the WTC towers, despite the fact >> that the 767 metal was stronger than the WTC tower metal, and despite >> the fact that the 767s were heavier and going faster than the WWII >> Kamikaze planes, kook? >>> The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can >>> the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the >>> tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The "plane" also >>> violates Newton's First Law. >> They did slow down, you just didn't see it because the deceleration >> was so quick. Going from ~500 MPH to zero in a hundred feet or so >> doesn't leave a lot of time to witness the deceleration, especially >> on grainy YouTube videos. You moron. >> >> Besides which, those "14 inch girders" weren't. They were 14" outside >> dimensions, but they were flat plate steel 5/16" thick, welded into a >> box girder... so only 5/8" thick in total. I note you've also snipped >> out the reality of WWII Kamikaze planes (much lighter than the 767s >> that slammed into the WTC towers, and much less strongly constructed) >> punching through the 1 to 2" thick plate steel on armored battleships. >> You moron. >>> There are NO verified airplane parts. Apart from one or two props >>> placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engineĀ parts that didn't >>> even match a Boeing 767 >> That's a blatant lie. The compressor part was verified to be the >> high-pressure compressor turbine from the engine of the flight that >> hit the WTC tower. You quoting other broken-brained kooks isn't proof >> to the contrary. You moron. >>> and like the laughable bit of engine on the >>> Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen >> Just like that F-14 that was slammed into a 6.6 meter thick concrete >> block as a test... confetti. Gee, imagine that. Other planes have been >> crashed as tests (and other planes have crashed into buildings such as >> the Empire State Building) with much the same results. You moron. >>> http://imageshack.com/a/img191/9174/ozo2.jpg In reality, if a plane >>> had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall >> The 14" outside dimension hollow girders with walls only 5/16" thick >> were spaced 6'8" apart. That was the *strongest* part of the WTC >> towers up that high... and the aircraft wings, as I proved, were >> *stronger* than the structural steel of the WTC towers. So not only >> wasn't there a lot of metal up there, what was up there wasn't very >> thick or strong. You moron. >> >> The rest of your tardblather is snipped. You moron. >>>> The fact that the towers didn't rise even a fraction of an inch, nor >>>> did people experience radiation effects, nor did seismographs pick up >>>> nuke signatures, nor were any EMP effects evident proves no nukes were >>>> detonated; >>>> >>>> I've proven to you that the aircraft-quality aluminum used in the >>>> aircraft wings was actually *stronger* than the structural A36 steel >>>> used in the WTC towers *and* had sufficient kinetic energy to sever >>>> the box girders even had they not been stronger; >>> He<SMACKAKOOK!> >> Just how do you propose to gauge the deceleration when a plane goes >> from ~500 MPH to zero in about 100 feet, from a fucking grainy YouTube >> video? You moron. >>>> I've proven your "cruise missile" bullshit is exactly that, out of >>>> context bullshit; >>>> >>>> I've proven you have no grasp of physics, so you believe every stupid >>>> goddamn conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe, with a special >>>> bent toward any that feature Israel as the blameboy so you can feed >>>> your unwarranted hatred ... there's not a lot more your Gish gallop >>>> attempts can do... the more you blather, the more you prove you're an >>>> idiot who believes in kooky conspiracy theories. >>>> >>>> Message-ID: <45434b23dda241b1a23d3522266791bc@dizum.com> >>>> ===================================================== >>>> Perspective and angle correlation of size of aircraft hitting >>>> Pentagon, proving it was AA Flight 77: >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk> >>>> >>>> <http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html> >>>> "It was like a cruise missile with wings.", according to the PentaCon >>>> kooks... but they take that quote out of context... the full quote was >>>> "I saw this plane, this jet, an American airlines jet, coming. And I >>>> thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean >>>> it was like a cruise missile with wings."[8] >>>> >>>> [8] >>>> <http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html> >>>> >>>> That's all the eyewitness testimony from the Pentagon attack. The only >>>> mention of missiles is: >>>> >>>> 1) one guy wondering if an engine of Flight 77 had been hit with a >>>> heat-seeking missile >>>> >>>> 2) one guy describing the airplane as "nothing more than a guided >>>> missile at that point", said point being after the plane had descended >>>> low enough that ground effect kept it aloft. >>>> >>>> 3) one stating it was definitely an airplane, but the airplane >>>> "sounded like a missile" because its engines were at full throttle. >>>> (The same person who was covered in jet fuel, and crawled his way out >>>> from under the Pentagon rubble). >>>> >>>> 4) one describing the plane, and how it sounded like a missile because >>>> its engines were spooled up to full throttle. >>>> >>>> 5) one describing the landing gear and flaps positions of the plane, >>>> saying it looked in their mind as a missile would look on its final >>>> trajectory toward a building, metaphorically-speaking. >>>> >>>> 6) one guy on the road next to the Pentagon who didn't see the plane >>>> or the impact, but described the sound of the full-throttle engines as >>>> though it sounded like a missile. >>>> >>>> 7) another guy in the Pentagon who didn't see the plane or impact, but >>>> described the high-throttle engines as sounding like a missile. >>>> >>>> 8) one describing the plane, its markings, its height off the ground, >>>> the faces of people inside the plane looking out, and its trajectory >>>> as though it were a heat-seeking missile locked onto its target. >>>> >>>> 9) one guy on the road, his car pelted by debris after the impact, who >>>> heard the plane and the impact but didn't see it, and thought at first >>>> it was a missile strike. >>>> >>>> 10) one Gulf War vet describing his experience with missile strikes, >>>> then describing the AA Flight 77 coming overhead then slamming into >>>> the Pentagon, which was similar but had important distinctions to his >>>> experience with actual missile strikes. >>>> >>>> 11) one who described the airplane in detail, then went on to describe >>>> its speed and approach as being like "a cruise missile with wings". >>>> Who later reiterated that he'd been using a metaphor, and added, "I >>>> said that as a metaphor. To me it was like a missile was fired at a >>>> building. It exploded as you'd imagine a missile to explode... It was >>>> an American Airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw >>>> the big 'AA' on the side." >>>> >>>> One Kirlin employee was standing and looking out the window where the >>>> plane hit... he saw the plane coming at him, but didn't have time to >>>> react. The force of the impact blew in the blast-resistant window, >>>> which partially wrapped around him as he and it were thrown ~80 feet >>>> down a hallway into a closet. The closet door slammed shut and the >>>> fireball right behind him following him down the hallway went around >>>> the closet. He was soaked in jet fuel, but by that time the sprinklers >>>> had come on. He survived. Let's see the kooks tell that guy that he >>>> didn't see what he saw, didn't experience what he experienced... and >>>> not one of these retards were anywhere near the area... they get their >>>> delusions vicariously through the internet. LOL >>>> >>>> Stoooopid broken-brained kooks are gullible enough to believe these >>>> wholly impossible scenarios, and yet they have the fucking nerve to >>>> claim the rest of the world is "asleep" or "insane". LOL >>>> ===================================================== >>> You only pro<SMACKAKOOK!> >> Oh, you're lashing out because I proved you're a delusional kook who >> rejects reality. That reality I just laid on you must really be making >> your poor broken brain hurt. You moron. >> >> <snicker> > If I sni<SMACKAKOOK!> Your broken little brain can't handle reality. Sounds like a personal problem. Retard. <snicker> -- Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East Moline, IL. Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID: <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're off your meds, Roget Wittekind. I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 15:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5cceva12sf02b92mm9l1ngc0tpavq2v7tj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520944 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:36:31 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > >Topaz, in <news:ivfavahkksfl0jgm14l4ijl95957mp0q23@4ax.com> did thusly >jump head first into the wood chipper again: Shut up you turd. >> You should flu<SMACKAKOOK!>l, Shut your worthless pie hole you snickering twisted turd. By NOMOREWARFORISRAEL FBI Agent's 9/11 Motive Testimony: Israel References Omitted from 9/11 Repo= rt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DRTiNAVq65Cg&list=3DPLfrlsC1yJ2dRalMQdwNfu= 3wsQYT5xmNQn 9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D95ncn5Q16N4&list=3DPL3C32560738EF3C30&fea= ture=3Dplpp Bin Laden's own words about 9/11 Motive (from UK Guardian newspaper): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11 Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DtRfhUezbKLw Five Israelis Were Seen Filming As Jet Liners Ploughed Into The Twin Towers= On September 11, 2001 Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and = knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA?: http://rense.com/general44/those.htm Just watched following excellent interview with Anthony Shaffer: Ex-Army Operative tells Jesse Ventura: U.S. Govt. Knew of 9/11 Hijacker & C= ould Have Prevented the Terrorist Attacks: http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/2015/9/9/ex-army-operative-tells-jesse-ventura= -us-govt-knew-of-911-hijacker-could-have-prevented-the-terrorist-attacks-0_= 133etabaslp1 Petraeus & Central Command also warned of Israel threat to US troops: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/07/general-petraeus-isra= el-emails Stephen Sniegoski wrote: Though hyperbolic at times, as is Raimondo's trademark, his article hits th= e spot in his major point that the pro-Israel neocons "have lost the tug-of= -war with the pro-American faction of the foreign policy establishment: tha= t's the significance of the Iran deal, and its importance should not be und= erestimated. This is a tipping point, a real sea-change - but the neocons n= ever give up, and they never give an inch. We underestimate them at our per= il. "It's now fourteen years after 9/11, and the War Party's momentum has been = slowed, albeit not entirely halted. But this is no time for complacency. Wh= at they are counting on is their staying power within the GOP, and their ma= ny connections in the Democratic party - including their influence over Hil= lary Clinton, whose recent speech on the Iran deal was framed in terms of h= er total allegiance to Israel." The Long Road From 9/11The neocons have been pushed back - but not defeated= : http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/09/10/the-long-road-from-911/ Scroll to link at bottom of following URL for Founding Father George Washin= gton's 'Farewell Address' warning to avoid passionate attachments and entan= gling alliances for/with foreign countries like the US has for Israel: =20 http://astandforjustice.org THE HIGH COST OF SUBSERVIENCE TO ISRAEL (by Paul Findley): http://america-hijacked.com/2011/05/30/the-high-cost-of-subservience-to-isr= ael-by-paul-findley/ No mention of above in US media because of following: Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What If We Do?: http://america-hijacked.com/2013/04/26/do-jews-dominate-in-american-media-a= nd-so-what-if-we-do/ america-hijacked.com/ www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 17:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fceeva1rr5lscdo9l2f798329p5krfvad5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521140 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:47:43 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:36:31 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote >Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > >>Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >>Topaz, in <news:ivfavahkksfl0jgm14l4ijl95957mp0q23@4ax.com> did thusly >>jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >Shut up you turd. > > >>> You should flu<SMACKAKOOK!>l, > >Shut your worthless pie hole you snickering twisted turd. None of the conspiracy whacko's can manage to write a sentence without some reference to shit, turds, and assholes. And that includes the ring leader Pathological Liar Roger the stalker/heckler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 15:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <irvgvaljhijaj78633ruvgsqadl7bevlar@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521149 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:22:04 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >None of the conspiracy whacko's can manage to write a sentence >without some reference to shit, turds, and assholes. Only because your kind are like that. > And that >includes the ring leader Pathological Liar Roger the stalker/heckler. There is no way that jet fuel would get hot enough to melt steel https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=911+jet+fuel+fire&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002 www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 17:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1i3hvalqcm8iqdnldsfb51iq6ndie3890h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521349 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:43:18 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:22:04 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >wrote: > > >>None of the conspiracy whacko's can manage to write a sentence >>without some reference to shit, turds, and assholes. >> >> And that includes the ring leader Pathological Liar Roger the stalker/heckler. > >There is no way that jet fuel would get hot enough to melt steel It didn't melt steel it WEAKENED IT. It isn't rocket science to know that if you heat steel it WEAKENS it. WEAKENED steel will fail. When it can no longer hold a load failure occurs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 17:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cp3hval7aargn2plo93hjfkdo1vkcdd906@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521356 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:34:44 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:43:18 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> >wrote: > >> >>On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:22:04 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >>wrote: >> >> >>>None of the conspiracy whacko's can manage to write a sentence >>>without some reference to shit, turds, and assholes. >>> >>> And that includes the ring leader Pathological Liar Roger the stalker/heckler. >> >>There is no way that jet fuel would get hot enough to melt steel > >It didn't melt steel it WEAKENED IT. > >It isn't rocket science to know that if you heat steel it WEAKENS it. >WEAKENED steel will fail. When it can no longer hold a load failure >occurs. > Topaz is an idiot. There is a thing called a forge that melts steel using, of all things, coal which doesn't burn as hot as jet fuel. It's the oxygen pumped in that creates the high temps. In those towers there was a natural forge - the air came in the bottom and accelerated out the top - tall chimney and a natural forge. There was so much air (oxygen) present that the temperatures got high enough to MELT steel. FACT. -- Sir Gregory
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j6ahvap35h2nnahm8juuble5sut778kbic@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521357 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:39:13 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:34:44 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > >>On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:43:18 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> >>>On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:22:04 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>None of the conspiracy whacko's can manage to write a sentence >>>>without some reference to shit, turds, and assholes. >>>> >>>> And that includes the ring leader Pathological Liar Roger the stalker/heckler. >>> >>>There is no way that jet fuel would get hot enough to melt steel >> >>It didn't melt steel it WEAKENED IT. >> >>It isn't rocket science to know that if you heat steel it WEAKENS it. >>WEAKENED steel will fail. When it can no longer hold a load failure >>occurs. >> > > >Topaz is an idiot. There is a thing called a forge that melts >steel using, of all things, coal which doesn't burn as hot as >jet fuel. It's the oxygen pumped in that creates the high temps. > >In those towers there was a natural forge - the air came in the >bottom and accelerated out the top - tall chimney and a natural >forge. There was so much air (oxygen) present that the temperatures got >high enough to MELT steel. > >FACT. Gerg, you're inhaling fumes again from your poop bucket. Coke, a form of coal, is needed to melt steel in an open forge. The WTC collapsed because the steel WSEAKENED and the floors pancaked down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 09:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <erqiva10vg3rs16fv6k7dfjimbb4hnt1md@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521379 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:29:13 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:39:13 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." ><greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote: >>On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:34:44 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >>>On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:43:18 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> >>>wrote: >>>>On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:22:04 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>None of the conspiracy whacko's can manage to write a sentence >>>>>without some reference to shit, turds, and assholes. >>>>> >>>>> And that includes the ring leader Pathological Liar Roger the stalker/heckler. >>>> >>>>There is no way that jet fuel would get hot enough to melt steel >>> >>>It didn't melt steel it WEAKENED IT. >>> >>>It isn't rocket science to know that if you heat steel it WEAKENS it. >>>WEAKENED steel will fail. When it can no longer hold a load failure >>>occurs. >> >>Topaz is an idiot. There is a thing called a forge that melts >>steel using, of all things, coal which doesn't burn as hot as >>jet fuel. It's the oxygen pumped in that creates the high temps. >> >>In those towers there was a natural forge - the air came in the >>bottom and accelerated out the top - tall chimney and a natural >>forge. There was so much air (oxygen) present that the temperatures got >>high enough to MELT steel. >> >>FACT. > >Gerg, you're inhaling fumes again from your poop bucket. > >Coke, a form of coal, is needed to melt steel in an open forge. Like I said - coal! A Corvette is a form of an automobile but it's still an automobile. Duh! >The WTC collapsed because the steel WSEAKENED and the floors pancaked >down. To some extent. But the fact that way less steel was recovered than was in place prior to the collapse indicates that some of it actually MELTED. All the idiots who claim it wasn't hot enough to melt steel are just plain ignorant. -- Sir Gregory
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web