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

Groups > sci.physics > #512510 > unrolled thread

9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

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

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

#513906

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> After you pointed out Jim has a problem above Jim didn't get off of USENET 
> he just quit posting to alt.astronomy.

What do you think any of this has to do with astronomy, kook?

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#513113

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:lg9q9c-hr2.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:vv2q9c-g52.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:mqdh5s$u4q$2@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet more ravings from the lunatic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Seek help from a mental health professional for your delusions
>>>>>>>>>>> and an English teacher for your bizarre word capitalizations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are like a mocking bird.  You take what your mother says to
>>>>>>>>>> you and
>>>>>>>>>> repeat it to others.  Pardon me if I forget to respond to
>>>>>>>>>> anymore of your
>>>>>>>>>> mother's words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Ten Reasons why Your Mother is Fake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As usual, those that have never looked into the facts behind the
>>>>>>>> Great 9/11
>>>>>>>> Hoax can not state any facts from 9/11/01.  <G>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is as if you are completely ignorant of Actors or Crisis
>>>>>>>> Actors in particular.  <G>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you continue to capitalize words that should not be
>>>>>>> capitalized, lunatic, I mean other than your delusions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would learn something if you didn't spend so much time
>>>>>> nitpicking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>
>>>>> While you on the other hand will never be able to learn anything.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO when it is you who have never compared a Controlled
>>>> Demolition to what remained of the Twin Towers.  <G>
>>>
>>> Why is "Controlled Demolition" capitalized, kook?
>>>
>>>> The fact is the "Surviving Corners" towered way above any debris pile
>>>> from the Twin Towers and that is only possible in Nuclear Controlled
>>>> Demolitions. <G>
>>>
>>> Why are "Surviving Corners" and "Nuclear Controlled Demolitions"
>>> capitalized, kook?
>>>
>>>> And you can not count what looks like 6 floors of debris as a debris
>>>> pile because the fact is that was Stairwell B where about a dozen
>>>> people survived in the North Tower.  <G>
>>>
>>> Why is "Stairwell" capitalized, kook?
>>>
>>> How long have you been delusional, kook?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't believe YOU, for beng so anal retentive about spelling or
>> grammer.
>
> Consistantly captitalizing common words that should not be capitalized
> is a sign of mental illness.







I wonder why you aren't more of an expert on Obsessive Compulsive disorders.
Common symptoms are an unusual need to obsess over minutia.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ocd/basics/definition/CON-20027827
" With OCD, you may or may not realize that your obsessions aren't 
reasonable, and you may try to ignore them or stop them. But that only 
increases your distress and anxiety. Ultimately, you feel driven to perform 
compulsive acts in an effort to ease your stressful feelings."

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

#512944

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:36:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message 
>> news:mqdh5s$u4q$2@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet more ravings from the lunatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seek help from a mental health professional for your delusions and
>>>>> an English teacher for your bizarre word capitalizations.
>>>>
>>>> You are like a mocking bird.  You take what your mother says to you and
>>>> repeat it to others.  Pardon me if I forget to respond to anymore of your
>>>> mother's words.
>>>>
>>>> Rocky
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Ten Reasons why Your Mother is Fake.
>> 
>> As usual, those that have never looked into the facts behind the Great 9/11 
>> Hoax can not state any facts from 9/11/01.  <G>
>> 
>> It is as if you are completely ignorant of Actors or Crisis Actors in 
>> particular.  <G>
>> 
>> Rocky 
> 
>Why do you continue to capitalize words that should not be capitalized,
>lunatic, I mean other than your delusions?

     Rocky is poorly educated. This is a result of his very real
learning disability. Some leeway should be granted for this.

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

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

#513025

In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:36:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:mqdh5s$u4q$2@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet more ravings from the lunatic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seek help from a mental health professional for your delusions and
>>>>>> an English teacher for your bizarre word capitalizations.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are like a mocking bird.  You take what your mother says to you and
>>>>> repeat it to others.  Pardon me if I forget to respond to anymore of your
>>>>> mother's words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rocky
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          Ten Reasons why Your Mother is Fake.
>>> 
>>> As usual, those that have never looked into the facts behind the Great 9/11 
>>> Hoax can not state any facts from 9/11/01.  <G>
>>> 
>>> It is as if you are completely ignorant of Actors or Crisis Actors in 
>>> particular.  <G>
>>> 
>>> Rocky 
>> 
>>Why do you continue to capitalize words that should not be capitalized,
>>lunatic, I mean other than your delusions?
> 
>      Rocky is poorly educated. This is a result of his very real
> learning disability. Some leeway should be granted for this.

His capitalization choices show an obsession with certain words, a 
definite sign of mental illness.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#513205

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:00:17 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:36:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:mqdh5s$u4q$2@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet more ravings from the lunatic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seek help from a mental health professional for your delusions and
>>>>>>> an English teacher for your bizarre word capitalizations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are like a mocking bird.  You take what your mother says to you and
>>>>>> repeat it to others.  Pardon me if I forget to respond to anymore of your
>>>>>> mother's words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          Ten Reasons why Your Mother is Fake.
>>>> 
>>>> As usual, those that have never looked into the facts behind the Great 9/11 
>>>> Hoax can not state any facts from 9/11/01.  <G>
>>>> 
>>>> It is as if you are completely ignorant of Actors or Crisis Actors in 
>>>> particular.  <G>
>>>> 
>>>> Rocky 
>>> 
>>>Why do you continue to capitalize words that should not be capitalized,
>>>lunatic, I mean other than your delusions?
>> 
>>      Rocky is poorly educated. This is a result of his very real
>> learning disability. Some leeway should be granted for this.
>
>His capitalization choices show an obsession with certain words, a 
>definite sign of mental illness.

     While consistent with some forms of mental illness, his obsessive
capitalization of certain words isn't actually a definite sign.  
     I still think it's the result of his learning disability. But I
add that there is no way for me to actually know.

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

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

#512942

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:30:28 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message 
>news:mqdh5s$u4q$2@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> Rocky
>>>>
>>>> Yet more ravings from the lunatic.
>>>>
>>>> Seek help from a mental health professional for your delusions and
>>>> an English teacher for your bizarre word capitalizations.
>>>
>>> You are like a mocking bird.  You take what your mother says to you and
>>> repeat it to others.  Pardon me if I forget to respond to anymore of your
>>> mother's words.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          Ten Reasons why Your Mother is Fake.
>
>As usual, those that have never looked into the facts behind the Great 9/11 
>Hoax

     Do stop calling your nuke lie the great 9/11 hoax. Your claim is
a hoax, but it's not great.

>can not state any facts from 9/11/01.  <G>
>

     Since your hoax has no facts, none can be offered.

>It is as if you are completely ignorant of Actors or Crisis Actors in 
>particular.  <G>

     As of the time I write this, you've offered no evidence that such
actors were used. It's as if none were, which is the case, of course.

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

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

#512529

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>
>And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was the 
>crash dynamics.
>
>All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing 
>debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on 
>impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to get 
>you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
>

     NO CGIs were used.

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

     I await your cite for this claim. If it's a lie, you'll not offer
a cite.

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

     Since they were crushed by the top parts, no adjustments to the
non-existent nukes were needed.

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

     Asked and answered. Many times.

> https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/
>
>And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good 
>information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin 
>Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were 
>detonated.

     No nukes were used.

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

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

#512534

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>
>>And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was 
>>the
>>crash dynamics.
>>
>>All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
>>debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on
>>impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to get
>>you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
>>
>
>     NO CGIs were used.

ROTFLMAO because you will have to find out why there was a flash at the 
impact site yourself then.


>>BTW if you look close at the crash dynamics of the jets going into the 
>>Twin
>>Towers you will see a small flash on impact.  That flash was only used to
>>synchronize the real world with the bogus world so now you know the real
>>reason for that flash.  <G>
>
>     I await your cite for this claim. If it's a lie, you'll not offer
> a cite.

ROTFLMAO because all you have to do is try to find any crash videos in Nuke 
York City because every one I've seen had the "Synchronization Flash."


>>FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization 
>>Range"
>>which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had to
>>do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the 
>>bogus
>>impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.
>
>     Since they were crushed by the top parts, no adjustments to the
> non-existent nukes were needed.

And you know that does not explain why so much remained standing at the very 
base of the Twin Towers so why continue to lie about it?


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

And I could tell the Ediot was lying every single time because none of his 
answers were consistent.  <G>

>> https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/
>>
>>And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good
>>information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin
>>Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were
>>detonated.
>
>     No nukes were used.

I thought that for 9 years so it appears you are just a lot slower than me.

Rocky 

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

#512630

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:40:45 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>>
>>>And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was 
>>>the
>>>crash dynamics.
>>>
>>>All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
>>>debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on
>>>impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to get
>>>you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
>>>
>>
>>     NO CGIs were used.
>
>ROTFLMAO because you will have to find out why there was a flash at the 
>impact site yourself then.
>

     Since you've proved in the post to which I am replying there was
no synchronization flash, I can't find out why it was there.

>>>BTW if you look close at the crash dynamics of the jets going into the 
>>>Twin
>>>Towers you will see a small flash on impact.  That flash was only used to
>>>synchronize the real world with the bogus world so now you know the real
>>>reason for that flash.  <G>
>>
>>     I await your cite for this claim. If it's a lie, you'll not offer
>> a cite.
>
>ROTFLMAO because all you have to do is try to find any crash videos in Nuke 
>York City because every one I've seen had the "Synchronization Flash."
>

     Lack of cite noted.
     Your PROOF that there was no such flash is noted.

>>>FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization 
>>>Range"
>>>which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had to
>>>do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the 
>>>bogus impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.
>>
>>     Since they were crushed by the top parts, no adjustments to the
>> non-existent nukes were needed.
>
>And you know that does not explain why so much remained standing at the very 
>base of the Twin Towers so why continue to lie about it?
>

     The surviving portions have been explained to you MANY times.
Your inability to be able to accept the truth you've been told is an
unfortunate result of your learning disability.

>>>But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out 
>>>of
>>>easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
>>
>>     Asked and answered. Many times.
>
>And I could tell the Ediot was lying every single time because none of his 
>answers were consistent.  <G>
>

     Your use of lying is not going to help you.

>>> https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/
>>>
>>>And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good
>>>information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin
>>>Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were
>>>detonated.
>>
>>     No nukes were used.
>
>I thought that for 9 years so it appears you are just a lot slower than me.

     You're the one with the very real learning disability. It's
unfortunate, but there is nothing anyone here can do about it save for
point it out.

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

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

#512541 — Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>>But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out 
>>of
>>easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
>>
>
>     Asked and answered. Many times.

But none of the answers given were possible because if the Twin Tower really 
fell a few inches off center then why is there so little of them on the 
ground?

And if the 9th and 10th floors fell a few inches off center why didn't they 
end up next to the "Surviving Corners."

All you have done by relying on bullshit posted by the Ediot is continue the 
lies told by the media about the Great 9/11 Hoax.

Are you proud of that feat?

Rocky 

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

#512629 — Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:51:37 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
><SNIP>
>>>But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out 
>>>of
>>>easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
>>>
>>
>>     Asked and answered. Many times.
>
>But none of the answers given were possible because if the Twin Tower really 
>fell a few inches off center then why is there so little of them on the 
>ground?
>

     The problem you have is that most of the debris was on the
ground. Some did end up on top of other buildings. This has been
proved multiple times.

>And if the 9th and 10th floors fell a few inches off center why didn't they 
>end up next to the "Surviving Corners."

     Who claimed a few inches? I've stated a few degrees. To the
educated mind, they don't instantly mean the same thing.

>
>All you have done by relying on bullshit posted by the Ediot is continue the 
>lies told by the media about the Great 9/11 Hoax.
>
>Are you proud of that feat?

     To claim pride in proving you wrong would be a bit much. I feel
neither pride nor shame in it.

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

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

#512692 — Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:82gjsah1d0pkuld8k6bq9h8lpo8ag4a5s2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:51:37 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>><SNIP>
>>>>But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out
>>>>of
>>>>easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
>>>>
>>>
>>>     Asked and answered. Many times.
>>
>>But none of the answers given were possible because if the Twin Tower 
>>really
>>fell a few inches off center then why is there so little of them on the
>>ground?
>>
>
>     The problem you have is that most of the debris was on the
> ground. Some did end up on top of other buildings. This has been
> proved multiple times.

You are so full of BULLSHIT because NIST NEVER said anything at all about 
where all the debris ended up and it doesn't take a genius to see that the 
Surviving Corners were much higher than the debris pile from both Twin 
Towers put together.  Now why was that?  <G>

>>And if the 9th and 10th floors fell a few inches off center why didn't 
>>they
>>end up next to the "Surviving Corners."
>
>     Who claimed a few inches? I've stated a few degrees. To the
> educated mind, they don't instantly mean the same thing.

That doesn't explain where the debris from the 9th and 10th floors ended up 
if the Surviving corner of the North Tower reached the 8th floor.

And take a close look at the top of the Surviving Corners.  The top of the 
Surviving Corner stopped at the seams exactly like the heat that vaporized 
the rest of the corners could not transfer through the seam very well.

And if they were really a collaspe the corners should have either bent over 
or left more debris at the very bottom of the Twin Towers.  DUH.

>
>>
>>All you have done by relying on bullshit posted by the Ediot is continue 
>>the
>>lies told by the media about the Great 9/11 Hoax.
>>
>>Are you proud of that feat?
>
>     To claim pride in proving you wrong would be a bit much. I feel
> neither pride nor shame in it.

Too bad it really doesn't matter what you or the Ediot claim about the Twin 
Towers because if NIST couldn't address the issues that help prove the Twin 
Towers were nuked.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#512812 — Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:31:03 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:82gjsah1d0pkuld8k6bq9h8lpo8ag4a5s2@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:51:37 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>>>But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out
>>>>>of
>>>>>easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Asked and answered. Many times.
>>>
>>>But none of the answers given were possible because if the Twin Tower 
>>>really
>>>fell a few inches off center then why is there so little of them on the
>>>ground?
>>>
>>
>>     The problem you have is that most of the debris was on the
>> ground. Some did end up on top of other buildings. This has been
>> proved multiple times.
>
>You are so full of BULLSHIT 

     You use the oddest terminology to describe when someone has
posted the truth.

>because NIST NEVER said anything at all about 
>where all the debris ended up and it doesn't take a genius to see that the 
>Surviving Corners were much higher than the debris pile from both Twin 
>Towers put together.  Now why was that?  <G>

     This is as dumbed down as I am able to get:

     The towers fell a few degrees off center. This is why the
surviving corners (or Surviving Corners for the uneducated) existed.

>
>>>And if the 9th and 10th floors fell a few inches off center why didn't 
>>>they end up next to the "Surviving Corners."
>>
>>     Who claimed a few inches? I've stated a few degrees. To the
>> educated mind, they don't instantly mean the same thing.
>
>That doesn't explain where the debris from the 9th and 10th floors ended up 
>if the Surviving corner of the North Tower reached the 8th floor.
>

     Most probably on the ground. If you have evidence that the debris
was to be found elsewhere, present it.

>And take a close look at the top of the Surviving Corners.  The top of the 
>Surviving Corner stopped at the seams exactly like the heat that vaporized 
>the rest of the corners could not transfer through the seam very well.
>

     Whereas there was no vaporization, your lie has failed you.

>And if they were really a collaspe the corners should have either bent over 
>or left more debris at the very bottom of the Twin Towers.  DUH.
>

     I await your evidence of this. It will be fun to read your take
on physics.

>>>All you have done by relying on bullshit posted by the Ediot is continue 
>>>the lies told by the media about the Great 9/11 Hoax.
>>>
>>>Are you proud of that feat?
>>
>>     To claim pride in proving you wrong would be a bit much. I feel
>> neither pride nor shame in it.
>
>Too bad it really doesn't matter what you or the Ediot claim about the Twin 
>Towers because if NIST couldn't address the issues that help prove the Twin 
>Towers were nuked.  <G>

     Since they were not nuked, there was nothing about nukes to be
addressed.

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

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

#512839 — Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ihkksalu9mf95db8nrlj7jp7gg4kvq9ggd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:31:03 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:82gjsah1d0pkuld8k6bq9h8lpo8ag4a5s2@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:51:37 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>><SNIP>
>>>>>>But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was 
>>>>>>out
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and 
>>>>>>WTC4?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Asked and answered. Many times.
>>>>
>>>>But none of the answers given were possible because if the Twin Tower
>>>>really
>>>>fell a few inches off center then why is there so little of them on the
>>>>ground?
>>>>
>>>
>>>     The problem you have is that most of the debris was on the
>>> ground. Some did end up on top of other buildings. This has been
>>> proved multiple times.
>>
>>You are so full of BULLSHIT
>
>     You use the oddest terminology to describe when someone has
> posted the truth.

BULLSHIT BECAUSE NIST OR THE MEDIA NEVER EVEN TRIED TO ADDRESS THE SURVIVING 
CORNERS  YOU LIAR.

And you, what do you see when you look at images of the "Surviving Corners?" 
Come on say something to prove you even know what I'm talking about you 
asshole.


>>because NIST NEVER said anything at all about
>>where all the debris ended up and it doesn't take a genius to see that the
>>Surviving Corners were much higher than the debris pile from both Twin
>>Towers put together.  Now why was that?  <G>
>
>     This is as dumbed down as I am able to get:
>
>     The towers fell a few degrees off center. This is why the
> surviving corners (or Surviving Corners for the uneducated) existed.

TOTAL BULLSHIT BECAUSE IF THEY FELL THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL OVER 8 FLOORS 
OF DEBRIS AND THE ONLY 8 FLOORS WAS FROM ONE OF THE SURVIVING CORNERS.  DUH



>>>>And if the 9th and 10th floors fell a few inches off center why didn't
>>>>they end up next to the "Surviving Corners."
>>>
>>>     Who claimed a few inches? I've stated a few degrees. To the
>>> educated mind, they don't instantly mean the same thing.
>>
>>That doesn't explain where the debris from the 9th and 10th floors ended 
>>up
>>if the Surviving corner of the North Tower reached the 8th floor.
>>
>
>     Most probably on the ground. If you have evidence that the debris
> was to be found elsewhere, present it.

FACT REMAINS WHAT MAKES YOU AND THE EDIOT THINK YOU KNOW MORE THAN NIST. 
Hell, people that know about Controlled Demoltions know a hell of a lot more 
than both of you put together.

YOU REALLY SHOULD PETITION NIST AND HAVE THEM EXPLAIN THE SURVIVING CORNERS 
BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T DO IT THE FIRST TIME AND YOU CAN NOT DO IT AGAIN.  <G>


>>And take a close look at the top of the Surviving Corners.  The top of the
>>Surviving Corner stopped at the seams exactly like the heat that vaporized
>>the rest of the corners could not transfer through the seam very well.
>>
>
>     Whereas there was no vaporization, your lie has failed you.

KEEP GOING.  THEN TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY EVERYTHING STOPPED RIGHT AT THE SEAM 
where the Twin Towers appear to have vanished from existence just above the 
seams in the Surviving Corners.


>>And if they were really a collaspe the corners should have either bent 
>>over
>>or left more debris at the very bottom of the Twin Towers.  DUH.
>>
>
>     I await your evidence of this. It will be fun to read your take
> on physics.

WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO FIND SOMEONE WITH ANY BRAINS THAT HAS EVER ADDRESSED 
THE "SURVIVING CORNERS" BESIDES DIMITRI KHALEZOV BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT.

>>>>All you have done by relying on bullshit posted by the Ediot is continue
>>>>the lies told by the media about the Great 9/11 Hoax.
>>>>
>>>>Are you proud of that feat?
>>>
>>>     To claim pride in proving you wrong would be a bit much. I feel
>>> neither pride nor shame in it.
>>
>>Too bad it really doesn't matter what you or the Ediot claim about the 
>>Twin
>>Towers because if NIST couldn't address the issues that help prove the 
>>Twin
>>Towers were nuked.  <G>
>
>     Since they were not nuked, there was nothing about nukes to be
> addressed.

The only way I could ever beleve that is if you had another reason for why 
the tallest part of the Twin Towers were the "Surviving Corners" and not the 
debris pile as it would have been if it had been a COLLAPSE or a Controlled 
Demoltion.

And just like with Hyper-V and Remote Desktop you do not know a damn thing 
about what a Controlled Demoltion leaves behind.  <G>

God damn it K the kook is an ignorant asshole who proves he does not know 
anything about Controlled Demolitions and yet he is trying to be a mister 
know it all about them.  SHIT.

Rocky 

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

#512947 — Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:46:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ihkksalu9mf95db8nrlj7jp7gg4kvq9ggd@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:31:03 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:82gjsah1d0pkuld8k6bq9h8lpo8ag4a5s2@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:51:37 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1u5isadqr740uvjrrf2gvf57lb2q2jphfl@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>><SNIP>
>>>>>>>But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was 
>>>>>>>out
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and 
>>>>>>>WTC4?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Asked and answered. Many times.
>>>>>
>>>>>But none of the answers given were possible because if the Twin Tower
>>>>>really
>>>>>fell a few inches off center then why is there so little of them on the
>>>>>ground?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     The problem you have is that most of the debris was on the
>>>> ground. Some did end up on top of other buildings. This has been
>>>> proved multiple times.
>>>
>>>You are so full of BULLSHIT
>>
>>     You use the oddest terminology to describe when someone has
>> posted the truth.
>
>BULLSHIT BECAUSE NIST OR THE MEDIA NEVER EVEN TRIED TO ADDRESS THE SURVIVING 
>CORNERS  YOU LIAR.
>

     Does proving my case in all caps make you feel better?

>And you, what do you see when you look at images of the "Surviving Corners?" 
>Come on say something to prove you even know what I'm talking about you 
>asshole.
>

     Wow. I must have really hit the proverbial nail on the head for
you to be so angry.
     Here's something I, and others, have stated many times. The
surviving corners existed because the towers fell a few degrees off
center. This is how everyone can know it wasn't a controlled
demolition.

>
>>>because NIST NEVER said anything at all about
>>>where all the debris ended up and it doesn't take a genius to see that the
>>>Surviving Corners were much higher than the debris pile from both Twin
>>>Towers put together.  Now why was that?  <G>
>>
>>     This is as dumbed down as I am able to get:
>>
>>     The towers fell a few degrees off center. This is why the
>> surviving corners (or Surviving Corners for the uneducated) existed.
>
>TOTAL BULLSHIT BECAUSE IF THEY FELL THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL OVER 8 FLOORS 
>OF DEBRIS AND THE ONLY 8 FLOORS WAS FROM ONE OF THE SURVIVING CORNERS.  DUH
>

     Does proving my case in all caps make you feel better?
     I can't dumb it down any more than I have. That it's still beyond
your intellectual limits is sad, but there's nothing more to be done.

>>>>>And if the 9th and 10th floors fell a few inches off center why didn't
>>>>>they end up next to the "Surviving Corners."
>>>>
>>>>     Who claimed a few inches? I've stated a few degrees. To the
>>>> educated mind, they don't instantly mean the same thing.
>>>
>>>That doesn't explain where the debris from the 9th and 10th floors ended 
>>>up if the Surviving corner of the North Tower reached the 8th floor.
>>
>>     Most probably on the ground. If you have evidence that the debris
>> was to be found elsewhere, present it.
>
>FACT REMAINS WHAT MAKES YOU AND THE EDIOT THINK YOU KNOW MORE THAN NIST. 
>Hell, people that know about Controlled Demoltions know a hell of a lot more 
>than both of you put together.
>
>YOU REALLY SHOULD PETITION NIST AND HAVE THEM EXPLAIN THE SURVIVING CORNERS 
>BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T DO IT THE FIRST TIME AND YOU CAN NOT DO IT AGAIN.  <G>
>

     Lack of evidence, and default admission that I am correct, is
noted and accepted. Now whine about it.

>>>And take a close look at the top of the Surviving Corners.  The top of the
>>>Surviving Corner stopped at the seams exactly like the heat that vaporized
>>>the rest of the corners could not transfer through the seam very well.
>>
>>     Whereas there was no vaporization, your lie has failed you.
>
>KEEP GOING.  THEN TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY EVERYTHING STOPPED RIGHT AT THE SEAM 
>where the Twin Towers appear to have vanished from existence just above the 
>seams in the Surviving Corners.

     They didn't vanish. You may present this lie as often as you feel
you must, but the truth will not be altered.

>
>>>And if they were really a collaspe the corners should have either bent 
>>>over
>>>or left more debris at the very bottom of the Twin Towers.  DUH.
>>
>>     I await your evidence of this. It will be fun to read your take
>> on physics.
>
>WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO FIND SOMEONE WITH ANY BRAINS THAT HAS EVER ADDRESSED 
>THE "SURVIVING CORNERS" BESIDES DIMITRI KHALEZOV BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT.

     Your lack of evidence, and default admission that you were lying,
is noted and accepted. Now whine about it.

>
>>>>>All you have done by relying on bullshit posted by the Ediot is continue
>>>>>the lies told by the media about the Great 9/11 Hoax.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you proud of that feat?
>>>>
>>>>     To claim pride in proving you wrong would be a bit much. I feel
>>>> neither pride nor shame in it.
>>>
>>>Too bad it really doesn't matter what you or the Ediot claim about the 
>>>Twin Towers because if NIST couldn't address the issues that help prove the 
>>>Twin Towers were nuked.  <G>
>>
>>     Since they were not nuked, there was nothing about nukes to be
>> addressed.
>
>The only way I could ever beleve that is if you had another reason for why 
>the tallest part of the Twin Towers were the "Surviving Corners" and not the 
>debris pile as it would have been if it had been a COLLAPSE or a Controlled 
>Demoltion.
>

     Their survival proves there was no controlled demolition of any
sort.

>And just like with Hyper-V and Remote Desktop you do not know a damn thing 
>about what a Controlled Demoltion leaves behind.  <G>
>

     Just like with Hyper-V and Remote Desktop, I do know.
     Is there a *specific* reason you're lying about this?

>God damn it K the kook is an ignorant asshole who proves he does not know 
>anything about Controlled Demolitions and yet he is trying to be a mister 
>know it all about them.  SHIT.

     I don't claim to be an expert, but it's obvious I know more than
you. Given your well documented learning disability, this should be a
given. But it is very nice that you put so much effort into proving
this truth.

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

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

#513019 — Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

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

>>     This is as dumbed down as I am able to get:
>>
>>     The towers fell a few degrees off center. This is why the
>> surviving corners (or Surviving Corners for the uneducated) existed.

>TOTAL BULLSHIT BECAUSE IF THEY FELL THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL OVER 8 FLOORS 
>OF DEBRIS AND THE ONLY 8 FLOORS WAS FROM ONE OF THE SURVIVING CORNERS.  DUH

There *were* about 8 floors of debris, k00ktard!  6 sub-basements (70 feet)
and two or so above street level!

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

#513075 — Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mqfssr$i24$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>>     This is as dumbed down as I am able to get:
>>>
>>>     The towers fell a few degrees off center. This is why the
>>> surviving corners (or Surviving Corners for the uneducated) existed.
>
>>TOTAL BULLSHIT BECAUSE IF THEY FELL THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL OVER 8 
>>FLOORS
>>OF DEBRIS AND THE ONLY 8 FLOORS WAS FROM ONE OF THE SURVIVING CORNERS. 
>>DUH
>
> There *were* about 8 floors of debris, k00ktard!  6 sub-basements (70 
> feet)
> and two or so above street level!

WRONG because the same TV station that proved there were EMPs when the nukes 
were detonated that leveled the North Tower also proved the lower levels of 
the Twin Towers were not filled with debris.

And how could there be debris in the basements of the Twin Towers when the 
Survivors and the Surviving Corners that were both above ground level had 
very little if any debris on them?"

Here, I'll help you.  The only possible explanation for the lack of debris 
in the basement and the lack of debris above ground was the fact most the 
Twin Towers floated away after something that creates an EMP.  See:

Radiological Cleanup on ground zero -
    This video is dedicated to Dimitri Khalezov
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZ8UcMgucY

Rocky

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

#513181 — Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

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


>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mqfssr$i24$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>>     This is as dumbed down as I am able to get:
>>>>
>>>>     The towers fell a few degrees off center. This is why the
>>>> surviving corners (or Surviving Corners for the uneducated) existed.
>>
>>>TOTAL BULLSHIT BECAUSE IF THEY FELL THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL OVER 8 
>>>FLOORS
>>>OF DEBRIS AND THE ONLY 8 FLOORS WAS FROM ONE OF THE SURVIVING CORNERS. 
>>>DUH
>>
>> There *were* about 8 floors of debris, k00ktard!  6 sub-basements (70 
>> feet)
>> and two or so above street level!

>WRONG because the same TV station that proved there were EMPs when the nukes 
>were detonated that leveled the North Tower also proved the lower levels of 
>the Twin Towers were not filled with debris.

K00ktard, the lower levels of the World Trade Center was huge.  16 acres,
with the "bathtub" 70 feet deep.  The towers themselves were only 208x208
feet, and were in the "bathtub".  The area right near the tower bases
filled those 70' with debris and then some, while much of the lower levels 
away from the tower bases didn't collapse and had no debris.  The top of
the rubble pile was close to street level.

Remember them digging that huge pile of rubble for months and months? I
do.

>And how could there be debris in the basements of the Twin Towers when the 
>Survivors and the Surviving Corners that were both above ground level had 
>very little if any debris on them?"

Why did you capitalize "survivors" and "surviving corners"?

[snip crap]

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

#513283 — Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

they were served by a huge subway system slash retail mall slash-
for-all-that-I-know paintball ghetto, and
this has to do with why, w.t.c7, was damaged so badly

> >And how could there be debris in the basements of the Twin Towers when the 
> >Survivors and the Surviving Corners that were both above ground level had 
> >very little if any debris on them?"
> 
> Why did you capitalize "survivors" and "surviving corners"?
> 
> [snip crap]

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

#512530

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>  9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
> 
> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was the 
> crash dynamics.
> 
> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing 
> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on 
> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to get 
> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
> 
> BTW if you look close at the crash dynamics of the jets going into the Twin 
> Towers you will see a small flash on impact.  That flash was only used to 
> synchronize the real world with the bogus world so now you know the real 
> reason for that flash.  <G>
> 
> FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization Range" 
> which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had to 
> do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the bogus 
> impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.
> 
> But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out of 
> easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
> 
>  https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/
> 
> And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good 
> information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin 
> Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were 
> detonated.
> 
> Rocky 
 
Yet more deranged ravings from a lunatic. 

Note the capitalization of words that should not be capitalized.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web