Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #541058 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-23 09:16 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 120 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 09:16 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 08:01 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 10:50 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 09:05 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:49 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 09:18 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-24 18:44 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 15:44 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-25 02:50 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-25 06:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 06:44 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:07 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 08:09 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-26 12:21 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-26 17:36 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 10:39 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-26 14:51 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 16:14 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-26 20:24 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 05:26 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-27 08:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 03:58 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-27 16:32 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-27 16:29 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 01:13 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-31 17:10 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-01 06:46 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 07:32 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-01 17:50 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 12:03 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 01:40 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-28 11:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:57 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 08:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 16:59 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 14:34 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 21:37 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 16:34 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 23:09 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 17:19 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 10:32 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-31 16:54 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-01 06:34 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 00:40 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-03 07:02 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-04 13:20 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:47 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:47 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:46 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 12:36 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:47 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 16:16 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 21:37 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:43 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:57 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-24 03:18 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:44 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 16:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 15:35 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 18:25 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 17:34 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-24 00:00 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-23 23:48 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:45 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:44 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 08:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-25 07:08 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 06:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:08 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 20:06 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-26 10:38 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-25 09:28 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 09:08 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:10 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:09 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-26 10:20 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-26 09:50 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:37 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 08:27 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 21:43 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:49 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 08:29 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-24 09:38 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-24 20:46 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-24 17:00 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 00:43 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-24 19:38 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-25 06:23 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 22:46 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-25 07:10 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 06:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 06:18 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-27 02:03 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 05:26 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-24 03:11 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 06:46 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-24 20:46 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 15:55 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-25 02:57 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 09:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-25 06:07 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 10:03 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-26 00:22 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 19:26 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-26 03:25 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 22:21 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-26 10:38 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 14:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n5ete4$99q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541072 |
Hägar wrote: > "Rocky" wrote in message > news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > > Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11 > was > a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. > > > *** How about: Wockie is a Nut-Job ... > has a nice ring to it, you Loon ... Hagar is a fudge packing butt pirate, still has a most resounding ring. But I personally will stick with the "9/11 was an inside job" As the cgi was only used for one out of 4 alleged "plane" impacts. The other 3 were all propaganda barrages, with faked evidence. e.g. a passport, a bandana, a few small pieces of plane parts, a picture with a white blur,....that all had ellaborate fairytales tied to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fu2m7bduhuhla27a09h58do7e3a4rt9a61@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541116 |
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:44:29 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >Hagar is a fudge packing butt pirate, Says the man hating ugly Lesbo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 15:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <LK6dndVC7c26iebLnZ2dnUU7-IednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541116 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message news:n5ete4$99q$1@dont-email.me... > > > Hägar wrote: >> "Rocky" wrote in message >> news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >> Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11 >> was >> a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. >> >> >> *** How about: Wockie is a Nut-Job ... >> has a nice ring to it, you Loon ... > > > > Hagar is a fudge packing butt pirate, still has a most resounding ring. > > But I personally will stick with the "9/11 was an inside job" > As the cgi was only used for one out of 4 alleged "plane" impacts. > > The other 3 were all propaganda barrages, with faked evidence. e.g. a > passport, a bandana, a few small pieces of plane parts, a picture with a > white blur,....that all had ellaborate fairytales tied to them. Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and Flight 175 were both CGIs so CGI still fits 1/2 of the airplanes used on 9/11. And if CGI stood for Citizen Generated Image that might help because most the non-citizens already know 9/11 was an elaborate hoax. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 18:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541148 |
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and >Flight 175 were both CGIs Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the streets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 17:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <26WdnSlxn71HsubLnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541168 |
"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > >>Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and >>Flight 175 were both CGIs > > Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the > streets. They are called crisis actors and I know people that know people that live real close to Ground Zero and they never saw anything that proves a jet was there. Don't forget the following and all the other videos of Nuke York City where there were no jets photographed. 9/11 no planes compilation - interesting! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw Besides if you take a close look at the videos with the CGIs and play them in slow motion you will notice two things. 1. The two jets in Nuke York City on 9/11are consistent with CGIs. 2. They abruptly stop before they could film all the explosions necessary to make the holes in the South Tower that the CGI could not make. <G> The only thing real about 9/11 were the MRR nukes. 9/11 WTC Nuclear Demolition - North Tower PULVERIZED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrgtN3A3UNY Exposing the Nuclear Truth of 9/11 and other things I find interesting https://donaldfox.wordpress.com Concrete evidence shows US government nuked New York City on 9/11 ><http://presscore.ca/concrete-evidence-shows-us-government-nuked-new-york-city-on-911>< 9-11 Was a Nuclear Attack ><http://www.mwcnews.net/focus/politics/41703-9-11.html>< The day the world fell down.9-11 was a nuclear attack ><http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/11/the-day-the-world-fell-down-9-11-was-a-nuclear-attack>< Nuclear 9/11 Revealed ><http://geopolitics.co/vital-issues/nuclear-911-revealed>< Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5fce8$3bl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541169 |
On 23/12/2015 23:34, Rocky wrote: > "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message > news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> >>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and >>> Flight 175 were both CGIs >> >> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >> streets. > > They are called crisis actors You have proof for that? > and I know people that know people that live > real close to Ground Zero and they never saw anything that proves a jet was > there. > Ah, somebody that has a sister, that knows the brother that said his mother did not see anything. > Don't forget the following and all the other videos of Nuke York City where > there were no jets photographed. > > 9/11 no planes compilation - interesting! > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw > > Besides if you take a close look at the videos with the CGIs and play them > in slow motion you will notice two things. > > 1. The two jets in Nuke York City on 9/11are consistent with CGIs. > > 2. They abruptly stop before they could film all the explosions necessary > to make the holes in the South Tower that the CGI could not make. <G> > > The only thing real about 9/11 were the MRR nukes. > > 9/11 WTC Nuclear Demolition - North Tower PULVERIZED > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrgtN3A3UNY > > Exposing the Nuclear Truth of 9/11 and other things I find interesting > https://donaldfox.wordpress.com > > Concrete evidence shows US government nuked New York City on 9/11 >> <http://presscore.ca/concrete-evidence-shows-us-government-nuked-new-york-city-on-911>< > > 9-11 Was a Nuclear Attack >> <http://www.mwcnews.net/focus/politics/41703-9-11.html>< > > The day the world fell down.9-11 was a nuclear attack >> <http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/11/the-day-the-world-fell-down-9-11-was-a-nuclear-attack>< > > Nuclear 9/11 Revealed >> <http://geopolitics.co/vital-issues/nuclear-911-revealed>< > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bforkc-jr6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #541169 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message > news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and >>>Flight 175 were both CGIs >> >> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >> streets. > > They are called crisis actors and I know people that know people that live > real close to Ground Zero and they never saw anything that proves a jet was > there. > > Don't forget the following and all the other videos of Nuke York City where Don't forget that Rocky is bat shit crazy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 00:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ri1n7b1cevjqk2ce3ridcj42m6a3rmej6c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541174 |
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 23:48:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and >>>>Flight 175 were both CGIs >>> >>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>> streets. >> >> They are called crisis actors and I know people that know people that live >> real close to Ground Zero and they never saw anything that proves a jet was >> there. >> >> Don't forget the following and all the other videos of Nuke York City where > >Don't forget that Rocky is bat shit crazy. He and Bast only get worse by the day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 00:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gg1n7btcrs0ql0i8tjg33gqpm9u39g6h20@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541169 |
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and >>>Flight 175 were both CGIs >> >> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >> streets. > >They are called crisis actors They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 08:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n5gql3$usd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541221 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>> >>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>> streets. >> >> They are called crisis actors > > They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who > looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. NO ! they did not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM But you can still keep believing is that 9/11 road runner physics, as big brother tells you to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 07:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7ccq7bpq952s15mg82r5fpk6trit3980fv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541253 |
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>> >>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>> streets. >>> >>> They are called crisis actors >> >> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who >> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. > > > > > > >NO ! they did not. Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 06:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <4vGdnZG_zJiloODLnZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541464 |
"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message news:7ccq7bpq952s15mg82r5fpk6trit3980fv@4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >>Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>> >>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>> streets. >>>> >>>> They are called crisis actors >>> >>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who >>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>NO ! they did not. > > Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked > up and saw two planes hit the WTC. Again, they were paid to say that and that makes them crisis actors. Also there are two things wrong with your bullshit. Those jets were going way too fast to fly right into the Twin Towers without an Autopilot. Don't forget the Twin Towers were vertical and not horizontal which would make them very hard targets to hit without an autopilot. And those jets were clearly not using the Autopilot because an Autopilot will never put a jet in a dive as steep as they dive people claim they made. As my Christmas present to you I'll state this again. Both the jets in Nuke York City were CGIs. Not just because of their lack of crash dynamics but because there is really no easy way to hit a vertical building since you can't tell if you are going to the left or to the right of a vertical building as well as you can tell if you are going left of right of a horizontal runway. And throw out that autopilot Bullshit because the autopilot will never put the jet into a very steep dive. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 14:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kg8r7bdjlni854aoauth1g1ked0m2l96v7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541468 |
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 06:55:44 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:7ccq7bpq952s15mg82r5fpk6trit3980fv@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video
>>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the
>>>>>> streets.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are called crisis actors
>>>>
>>>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who
>>>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>NO ! they did not.
>>
>> Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked
>> up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
>
>Again, they were paid to say that and that makes them crisis actors.
>
There are no such thing as crisis actors within the context you
mean.
You are still free to prove they do exist, of course. But given
how many times I've requested such evidence, with none offered, it's
clear there is none.
>Also there are two things wrong with your bullshit.
>
>Those jets were going way too fast to fly right into the Twin Towers without
>an Autopilot. Don't forget the Twin Towers were vertical and not horizontal
>which would make them very hard targets to hit without an autopilot.
>
If you had ever taken a piloting lesson, you would know how crazy
that claim of yours is.
But present your evidence. Bar you having been caught in
*another* lie, you'll present valid, veritable evidence for your
claim.
But you'll likely offer the default admission that you're lying.
You will either refuse to acknowledge my request, or you'll play an
avoidance game.
>And those jets were clearly not using the Autopilot because an Autopilot
>will never put a jet in a dive as steep as they dive people claim they made.
>
The first plane didn't appear to be diving. It was on a fairly
linier trajectory.
The second plane did dive, though it appeared to level out a bit
before impact.
>As my Christmas present to you I'll state this again. Both the jets in Nuke
>York City were CGIs.
Yet 100% of the valid, verifiable evidence available proves they
were not.
How do you explain away this TRUTH?
>Not just because of their lack of crash dynamics but
>because there is really no easy way to hit a vertical building since you
>can't tell if you are going to the left or to the right of a vertical
>building as well as you can tell if you are going left of right of a
>horizontal runway.
You've never seen the inside of a cockpit, have you?
>And throw out that autopilot Bullshit because the
>autopilot will never put the jet into a very steep dive.
>
It wasn't a steep dive. But you're right in that autopilot
wouldn't crash into a building. Unless it had been programmed to do
so. The likelihood that the terrorists had with them the knowledge and
equipment to re-program the planes' autopilot is as low as the
likelihood that nukes were used in NYC on 9/11. Since you have PROVED,
more than once, that no nukes were used, well, the re-programming
option isn't too plausible.
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5kjjq$d5p$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541468 |
On 25/12/2015 12:55, Rocky wrote: > "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message > news:7ccq7bpq952s15mg82r5fpk6trit3980fv@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>>> >>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>>> streets. >>>>> >>>>> They are called crisis actors >>>> >>>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who >>>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> NO ! they did not. >> >> Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked >> up and saw two planes hit the WTC. > > Again, they were paid to say that and that makes them crisis actors. > I await your evidence of this. > Also there are two things wrong with your bullshit. > > Those jets were going way too fast to fly right into the Twin Towers without > an Autopilot. So planes can't fly as fast on manual as on autopilot, how strange. > Don't forget the Twin Towers were vertical and not horizontal > which would make them very hard targets to hit without an autopilot. Yes pilots have trouble all the time landing on runways, some of which are narrower that the WTC. > And those jets were clearly not using the Autopilot because an Autopilot > will never put a jet in a dive as steep as they dive people claim they made. > So they were on manual when they hit the TT's, glad we cleared that up. > As my Christmas present to you I'll state this again. Both the jets in Nuke > York City were CGIs. Not just because of their lack of crash dynamics but > because there is really no easy way to hit a vertical building since you > can't tell if you are going to the left or to the right of a vertical > building as well as you can tell if you are going left of right of a > horizontal runway. It makes you wonder how planes can land on a runway without veering to the left or right. > And throw out that autopilot Bullshit because the > autopilot will never put the jet into a very steep dive. > Do tell who said the planes were on autopilot? > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 20:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tYadndLBpdmDa-DLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541547 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:n5kjjq$d5p$6@dont-email.me... > On 25/12/2015 12:55, Rocky wrote: >> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:7ccq7bpq952s15mg82r5fpk6trit3980fv@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>>>> streets. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are called crisis actors >>>>> >>>>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who >>>>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> NO ! they did not. >>> >>> Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked >>> up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >> >> Again, they were paid to say that and that makes them crisis actors. >> > > I await your evidence of this. You already have all sorts of evidence. You just have to stop and think about why the jets never slowed down or why the Twin Towers floated away before they could crush the Survivors in WTC2. >> Also there are two things wrong with your bullshit. >> >> Those jets were going way too fast to fly right into the Twin Towers >> without >> an Autopilot. > > So planes can't fly as fast on manual as on autopilot, how strange. No it was the human targetting that would not work. They were basically looking at the side of a pin and how could they fly right into a pin without an autopilot? >> Don't forget the Twin Towers were vertical and not horizontal >> which would make them very hard targets to hit without an autopilot. > > Yes pilots have trouble all the time landing on runways, some of which are > narrower that the WTC. But those runways are horizontal and it is easy to see if you are right or left of the runway because it will either look like / or \ depending on if you are right or left of the runway. But a vertical building does not give you that help. DUH >> And those jets were clearly not using the Autopilot because an Autopilot >> will never put a jet in a dive as steep as they dive people claim they >> made. >> > > So they were on manual when they hit the TT's, glad we cleared that up. > >> As my Christmas present to you I'll state this again. Both the jets in >> Nuke >> York City were CGIs. Not just because of their lack of crash dynamics >> but >> because there is really no easy way to hit a vertical building since you >> can't tell if you are going to the left or to the right of a vertical >> building as well as you can tell if you are going left of right of a >> horizontal runway. > > It makes you wonder how planes can land on a runway without veering to the > left or right. Again real runways will either look like / or \ depending on if you are right or left of them. DUH >> And throw out that autopilot Bullshit because the >> autopilot will never put the jet into a very steep dive. >> > > Do tell who said the planes were on autopilot? All sorts of people have said that because humans could not use the side of a pin as a target and use the alleged radar readings to see how far out they were right on target. Nearly everything about 9/11 was bogus including the CGIs on both sides of the South Tower. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 10:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5lqi5$bj6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541576 |
On 26/12/2015 02:06, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:n5kjjq$d5p$6@dont-email.me... >> On 25/12/2015 12:55, Rocky wrote: >>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>> news:7ccq7bpq952s15mg82r5fpk6trit3980fv@4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>>>>> streets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are called crisis actors >>>>>> >>>>>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who >>>>>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NO ! they did not. >>>> >>>> Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked >>>> up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >>> >>> Again, they were paid to say that and that makes them crisis actors. >>> >> >> I await your evidence of this. > > You already have all sorts of evidence. You just have to stop and think > about why the jets never slowed down or why the Twin Towers floated away > before they could crush the Survivors in WTC2. Ok, I've stopped & thought. Others on this NG have done a frame by frame analysis that shows the de acceleration. The amount of debris on the ground is evidence that the towers did not 'float away'. > >>> Also there are two things wrong with your bullshit. >>> >>> Those jets were going way too fast to fly right into the Twin Towers >>> without >>> an Autopilot. >> >> So planes can't fly as fast on manual as on autopilot, how strange. > > No it was the human targetting that would not work. They were basically > looking at the side of a pin and how could they fly right into a pin without > an autopilot? A large pin. > >>> Don't forget the Twin Towers were vertical and not horizontal >>> which would make them very hard targets to hit without an autopilot. >> >> Yes pilots have trouble all the time landing on runways, some of which are >> narrower that the WTC. > > But those runways are horizontal and it is easy to see if you are right or > left of the runway because it will either look like / or \ depending on if > you are right or left of the runway. But a vertical building does not give > you that help. DUH > Building in front, you are heading straight towards it Building to right, you are to far left. Building to left, you are to far right. I think pilots could work that out. > >>> And those jets were clearly not using the Autopilot because an Autopilot >>> will never put a jet in a dive as steep as they dive people claim they >>> made. >>> >> >> So they were on manual when they hit the TT's, glad we cleared that up. >> >>> As my Christmas present to you I'll state this again. Both the jets in >>> Nuke >>> York City were CGIs. Not just because of their lack of crash dynamics >>> but >>> because there is really no easy way to hit a vertical building since you >>> can't tell if you are going to the left or to the right of a vertical >>> building as well as you can tell if you are going left of right of a >>> horizontal runway. >> >> It makes you wonder how planes can land on a runway without veering to the >> left or right. > > Again real runways will either look like / or \ depending on if you are > right or left of them. DUH > See above. >>> And throw out that autopilot Bullshit because the >>> autopilot will never put the jet into a very steep dive. >>> >> >> Do tell who said the planes were on autopilot? > > All sorts of people have said that because humans could not use the side of > a pin as a target and use the alleged radar readings to see how far out they > were right on target. Did the 'black box' reveal they were on autopilot? Nearly everything about 9/11 was bogus including the > CGIs on both sides of the South Tower. > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j04t7b9onul40td8799bb5sb28nvmujqlp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541576 |
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:06:56 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:n5kjjq$d5p$6@dont-email.me...
>> On 25/12/2015 12:55, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:7ccq7bpq952s15mg82r5fpk6trit3980fv@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video
>>>>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the
>>>>>>>> streets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are called crisis actors
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who
>>>>>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> NO ! they did not.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked
>>>> up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
>>>
>>> Again, they were paid to say that and that makes them crisis actors.
>>
>> I await your evidence of this.
>
>You already have all sorts of evidence.
Then you should have had no problem presenting it. Odd that you
didn't.
>You just have to stop and think
>about why the jets never slowed down or why the Twin Towers floated away
>before they could crush the Survivors in WTC2.
>
They did slow down upon impact. One of your 9/11 k00k videos was
used to prove this. And what did float away of the towers was
statistically insignificant. We've been over this MANY times.
>>> Also there are two things wrong with your bullshit.
>>>
>>> Those jets were going way too fast to fly right into the Twin Towers
>>> without an Autopilot.
>>
>> So planes can't fly as fast on manual as on autopilot, how strange.
>
>No it was the human targetting that would not work. They were basically
>looking at the side of a pin and how could they fly right into a pin without
>an autopilot?
Again, you know NOTHING of flight dynamics.
>
>>> Don't forget the Twin Towers were vertical and not horizontal
>>> which would make them very hard targets to hit without an autopilot.
>>
>> Yes pilots have trouble all the time landing on runways, some of which are
>> narrower that the WTC.
>
>But those runways are horizontal and it is easy to see if you are right or
>left of the runway because it will either look like / or \ depending on if
>you are right or left of the runway. But a vertical building does not give
>you that help. DUH
>
Uh, look up Red Over Red, You're Dead.
You know NOTHING of piloting a plane.
>>> And those jets were clearly not using the Autopilot because an Autopilot
>>> will never put a jet in a dive as steep as they dive people claim they
>>> made.
>>
>> So they were on manual when they hit the TT's, glad we cleared that up.
>>
>>> As my Christmas present to you I'll state this again. Both the jets in
>>> Nuke
>>> York City were CGIs. Not just because of their lack of crash dynamics
>>> but
>>> because there is really no easy way to hit a vertical building since you
>>> can't tell if you are going to the left or to the right of a vertical
>>> building as well as you can tell if you are going left of right of a
>>> horizontal runway.
>>
>> It makes you wonder how planes can land on a runway without veering to the
>> left or right.
>
>Again real runways will either look like / or \ depending on if you are
>right or left of them. DUH
>
No, they won't. But you will provide VALID, verifiable evidence
for your claim.
Oh wait. You won't. You'll offer the default admission that
you're lying by running away. Metaphorically speaking.
>>> And throw out that autopilot Bullshit because the
>>> autopilot will never put the jet into a very steep dive.
>>
>> Do tell who said the planes were on autopilot?
>
>All sorts of people have said that because humans could not use the side of
>a pin as a target and use the alleged radar readings to see how far out they
>were right on target. Nearly everything about 9/11 was bogus including the
>CGIs on both sides of the South Tower.
Offer a cite for these "all sorts of people."
The voices in your head do not count.
[Cue Rocky playing some avoidance game, if he is able to acknowledge
my post at all.
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n5jjlq$96t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541464 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>> >>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>> streets. >>>> >>>> They are called crisis actors >>> >>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who >>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> NO ! they did not. > > Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked > up and saw two planes hit the WTC. They saw SOMETHING go into the building,.....but not a passenger jet. Most eyewitnesses described a missile or a small gray private plane with no windows. All descriptions could easily be of a millitary cruise missle, including the blur at the pentagon. WNBC saw a missile or small plane in Chopper4 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHhBcZxYqY Then a few days later we started seeing CGI edits with a full sized jet,....and the spin doctors started their propaganda campaign.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 09:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <AsCdne6vutHSweDLnZ2dnUU7-c2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541474 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message news:n5jjlq$96t$1@dont-email.me... > > > Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>>> >>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>>> streets. >>>>> >>>>> They are called crisis actors >>>> >>>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who >>>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> NO ! they did not. >> >> Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked >> up and saw two planes hit the WTC. > > > > > > They saw SOMETHING go into the building,.....but not a passenger jet. > Most eyewitnesses described a missile or a small gray private plane with > no windows. > > All descriptions could easily be of a millitary cruise missle, including > the blur at the pentagon. > > WNBC saw a missile or small plane in Chopper4 video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHhBcZxYqY > > > > Then a few days later we started seeing CGI edits with a full sized > jet,....and the spin doctors started their propaganda campaign. And given that NORAD can also track Santa either Santa is real or NORAD has a habit of using bogus radar blips whenever they want. <G> I suspect the latter of the two and I always have especially after hearing that one of the games played on 9/11/01 involved using fake radar blips. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 14:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <9k8r7b537h32malnnf7vt1qett3ftn48qo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541479 |
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:08:22 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>news:n5jjlq$96t$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:34:07 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:38bm7bh4jbphunlvqgqr5lvqrfl3rrc537@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video
>>>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the
>>>>>>> streets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are called crisis actors
>>>>>
>>>>> They're called New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 who
>>>>> looked up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO ! they did not.
>>>
>>> Yes they did. New Yorkers going about their business on 9/11 looked
>>> up and saw two planes hit the WTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> They saw SOMETHING go into the building,.....but not a passenger jet.
>> Most eyewitnesses described a missile or a small gray private plane with
>> no windows.
>>
>> All descriptions could easily be of a millitary cruise missle, including
>> the blur at the pentagon.
>>
>> WNBC saw a missile or small plane in Chopper4 video
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHhBcZxYqY
>>
>>
>>
>> Then a few days later we started seeing CGI edits with a full sized
>> jet,....and the spin doctors started their propaganda campaign.
>
>
>And given that NORAD can also track Santa either Santa is real or NORAD has
>a habit of using bogus radar blips whenever they want. <G>
>
>I suspect the latter of the two and I always have especially after hearing
>that one of the games played on 9/11/01 involved using fake radar blips.
>
Look at the HTML source for the radar readout, stupid.
I have to ask, who ties your shoes for you? Or do you wear Velcro
fastening shoes? You've proved, again, that your learning disability
would make it impossible for you to handle the complex task of tying
your own shoes.
Oh how I wish I were simply offering a lame insult. Sadly, I'm
not.
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web