Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #523737 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-29 11:59 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 247 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 13:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 18:23 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 17:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:17 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 05:02 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 08:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 15:21 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:55 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:20 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 19:20 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:06 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 09:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 12:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 23:31 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:06 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-02 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 05:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 03:47 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 06:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:42 -0500
Re: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-03 05:33 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 22:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 08:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 19:33 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 16:30 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 19:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 04:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 04:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 14:12 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 16:12 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 18:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 13:25 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-05 21:41 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:34 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 20:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 21:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 15:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 16:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 10:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 16:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 17:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-08 03:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:11 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 16:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:19 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-09 20:09 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 10:59 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-10 00:57 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 11:22 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 09:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 14:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:43 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-06 15:59 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 13:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-07 05:58 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 02:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 02:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 18:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 10:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:40 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 11:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-03 19:27 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 15:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 18:07 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 20:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 03:24 +0000
Re: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-04 04:39 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 18:07 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 13:36 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:21 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:22 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 18:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 19:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:18 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:32 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:02 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:22 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:08 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 19:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 00:26 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 22:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 22:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 04:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:30 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:34 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 21:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 21:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 22:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 19:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 20:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:26 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 09:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 07:34 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 09:28 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 19:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-05 10:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 02:56 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-30 22:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-01 10:11 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 12:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-02 10:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 18:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 16:13 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:07 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 18:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 17:52 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 23:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 22:54 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 22:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 04:35 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 16:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 20:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 08:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:08 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:50 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 21:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 09:16 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:14 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 04:19 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 14:30 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 23:27 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 13:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 14:54 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 16:24 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:46 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:02 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 04:17 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:37 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 18:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 01:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 14:41 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 10:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 17:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-02 20:34 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 19:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:11 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:07 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:19 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 08:27 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-30 00:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:32 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:03 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 17:36 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:59 -0700
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 09:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ro7m0b9aigh3c52r2n89ob3v2e8df8i19v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523842 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:18:47 +1000, Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > >>On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:51:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 >>>>> folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small >>>>> hole. >>>> >>>> You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike >>>> Walter's claims are idiocy. >>>> >>>> Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that >>>> American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit the >>>> Pentagon. >>> >>> >>>And yet you refuse or are unable to explain how an alleged passenger plane >>>that had a wingspan of over 120' and a tail that poked 40' into the air. >>>Managed to hit a building and not leave any damage beyond a 16' round hole. >>> >>>And that 16' hole was punched through at least 5 reinforced concrete walls, >>>in addition to other walls inside each ring. >>> >>>Only a cruise missile is designed to do that. And even it would have had >>>problems, without further explosives being used. >>> >> >>So now you're claiming it was a cruise missile which hit the Pentagon >>and that additional explosives were used? >> >>What platform for your supposed missile? >> >>What additional explosives and where are you claiming they were >>located? > >I'm surprised to learn that a cruise missile is designed to punch through >reinforced concrete walls. > >From my time in the military, some of which was spent working on missiles, I >seem to recall that weapons designed to penetrate thick concrete walls were >"bunker buster" type weapons, and that cruise missiles were, primarily, designed >to carry a warhead, conventional or nuclear, hundreds of miles to destroy a >target by relying on the power of the warhead to do the work, rather than >actually penetration. > >But since I'm sane I don't have the troofers ability to dream shit up. > >Shill #2 Concrete penetrating GBU-28 http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm Cruise missile AGM-86 http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm Apples Vs Oranges. Fact - that which never forms a part of a troofer argument. Shill #2 -- The majority of the concrete they used in the Twin Towers was designed to float down to the ground when the buildings were imploded. Roger Wittekind (Rocky) alt.conspiracy 30 Oct 11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 19:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #523844 |
Government Shill #2 wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:18:47 +1000, Government Shill #2 > <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:51:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 >>>>>> folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a >>>>>> small hole. >>>>> >>>>> You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike >>>>> Walter's claims are idiocy. >>>>> >>>>> Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that >>>>> American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit >>>>> the Pentagon. >>>> >>>> >>>> And yet you refuse or are unable to explain how an alleged >>>> passenger plane that had a wingspan of over 120' and a tail that >>>> poked 40' into the air. Managed to hit a building and not leave any >>>> damage beyond a 16' round hole. >>>> >>>> And that 16' hole was punched through at least 5 reinforced concrete >>>> walls, in addition to other walls inside each ring. >>>> >>>> Only a cruise missile is designed to do that. And even it would have >>>> had problems, without further explosives being used. >>>> >>> >>> So now you're claiming it was a cruise missile which hit the Pentagon >>> and that additional explosives were used? >>> >>> What platform for your supposed missile? >>> >>> What additional explosives and where are you claiming they were >>> located? >> >> I'm surprised to learn that a cruise missile is designed to punch >> through reinforced concrete walls. >> >> From my time in the military, some of which was spent working on >> missiles, I seem to recall that weapons designed to penetrate thick >> concrete walls were "bunker buster" type weapons, and that cruise >> missiles were, primarily, designed to carry a warhead, conventional or >> nuclear, hundreds of miles to destroy a target by relying on the power >> of the warhead to do the work, rather than actually penetration. >> >> But since I'm sane I don't have the troofers ability to dream shit up. >> >> Shill #2 > > > Concrete penetrating GBU-28 > http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm > > Cruise missile AGM-86 > http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm > > Apples Vs Oranges. > > Fact - that which never forms a part of a troofer argument. > > Shill #2 I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing the 9/11 damage. And what else do they have by now that isn't going to be listed on a public website ? They routinely deny a lot of things,....even the stealth fighters and bombers (F-117 Nighthawk) Those never existed until they suddenly appeared in the gulf war.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 19:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-A58522.19025329092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #523849 |
In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other than > it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military already had > weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing the 9/11 damage. Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d304f4e4-2727-4b24-9d30-b35ed5396a74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #523877 |
really, and the towers were so different from the pentagonal; also, gOOd note on type of ordinace, although the towers had no asbestos cladding > Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are heavily armorred > so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on the bomb's kinetic energy to > break through meters of reinforced concrete before detonating. Because cruise > missiles are primarily horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from > the fuel and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from > gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. > > -- > Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments > of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from > coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true > of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 09:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mugo3r$mdp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #523877 |
je suis charly wrote: > In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" > <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >> the 9/11 damage. > > Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are heavily > armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on the bomb's > kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced concrete before > detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily horizontal trajectory > the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel and engines. A bomb > dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from gravity and it has a > primarily vertical trajectory. Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a guided missile ??? Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their cruise missiles during the first gulf war. Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific window in the building. Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. Even back in the cold war days of the 1960's ICBM's were covering the planet and just waiting for some idiot to tell them their target and push a button. ....Actually that was before many who may be reading this post were even born, and the internet itself was still a dream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ughtdc-4mr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #523933 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > je suis charly wrote: >> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >>> the 9/11 damage. >> >> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are heavily >> armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on the bomb's >> kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced concrete before >> detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily horizontal trajectory >> the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel and engines. A bomb >> dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from gravity and it has a >> primarily vertical trajectory. > > > Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a guided > missile ??? Only a brain dead raving lunatic would come to such a conclusion from what was said. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nkjo0bh8fnaih9kvaf1lji8vi506igk9t4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523933 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >je suis charly wrote: >> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >>> the 9/11 damage. >> >> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are heavily >> armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on the bomb's >> kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced concrete before >> detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily horizontal trajectory >> the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel and engines. A bomb >> dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from gravity and it has a >> primarily vertical trajectory. > >Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a guided >missile ??? > >Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their >cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single out, >and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific window in >the building. >Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and were >remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. Hahahahaha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 19:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muhsde$h9n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524008 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> je suis charly wrote: >>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >>>> the 9/11 damage. >>> >>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >> >> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >> guided missile ??? >> >> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their >> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >> window in the building. >> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. > > Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. > > Hahahahaha. Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" ....You are too, as your strings are being pulled, and you dance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e6budc-b71.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #524031 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> je suis charly wrote: >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >>>>> the 9/11 damage. >>>> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >>> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >>> guided missile ??? >>> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >>> window in the building. >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >> >> Hahahahaha. > > Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" Bzzt, wrong answer kook; you lose. A drone is an unmanned aircraft that can fly autonomously, no matter what the 9 year old next door told you, kook. <snip remaining kook drivel> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 21:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524031 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> je suis charly wrote: >>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links other >>>>> than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US Military >>>>> already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable of causing >>>>> the 9/11 damage. >>>> >>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >>> >>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >>> guided missile ??? >>> >>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of their >>> cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >>> window in the building. >>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >> >> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >> >> Hahahahaha. > > >Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" "Anything" ? My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. Is my Challenger a drone?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 22:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mui4sf$38j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524036 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> je suis charly wrote: >>>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links >>>>>> other than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US >>>>>> Military already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable >>>>>> of causing the 9/11 damage. >>>>> >>>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >>>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >>>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >>>> >>>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >>>> guided missile ??? >>>> >>>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of >>>> their cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >>>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >>>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >>>> window in the building. >>>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >>>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >>> >>> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >>> >>> Hahahahaha. >> >> >> Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" > > "Anything" ? > > My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. > > Is my Challenger a drone? If you stuck a camera inside the front, sent the video signal back to your computer at home, and told it to turn, accelerate, and brake, from your computer, and even dump a dead body in the woods miles from your home,.....YES it would be considered a drone. Are you so narrow minded to think only those toy helicopers are drones ? .....What a perfect weapon to use to be able to hit the WTC towers without risking a pilot. It could even be told when to play pre-recorded or even relay radio messages, to trick anyone into thinking there was an actual pilot. Surprise,....they actually could do that, wayyyy back in the NASA Apollo days (1960's/70's)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 22:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8s6p0b920tfrgluldmiridal9ecl909f35@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524047 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:15:50 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> je suis charly wrote: >>>>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links >>>>>>> other than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US >>>>>>> Military already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable >>>>>>> of causing the 9/11 damage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>>>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on >>>>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>>>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>>>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>>>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from >>>>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >>>>> >>>>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >>>>> guided missile ??? >>>>> >>>>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of >>>>> their cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >>>>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single >>>>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific >>>>> window in the building. >>>>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >>>>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >>>> >>>> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >>>> >>>> Hahahahaha. >>> >>> >>> Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" >> >> "Anything" ? >> >> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >> >> Is my Challenger a drone? > > >If you stuck a camera inside the front, sent the video signal back to your >computer at home, and told it to turn, accelerate, and brake, from your >computer, and even dump a dead body in the woods miles from your >home,.....YES it would be considered a drone. A wire guided torpedo is remotely controlled. Also a TOW is wire guided. Are you claiming these two are drones? LOL >Are you so narrow minded to think only those toy helicopers are drones ? My husband and I have a home near Pax River Naval Base. I know what a drone aircraft looks like. Global Hawk being a big bird. >It could even be told when to play pre-recorded or even relay radio >messages, to trick anyone into thinking there was an actual pilot. > > >Surprise,....they actually could do that, wayyyy back in the NASA Apollo >days (1960's/70's) Is this your attempt to claim there were no manned Apollo moon landings? LOL. Jaysus you're gullible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 04:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mulgmo$aoi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524050 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:15:50 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> je suis charly wrote: >>>>>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links >>>>>>>> other than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US >>>>>>>> Military already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable >>>>>>>> of causing the 9/11 damage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are >>>>>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend >>>>>>> on the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced >>>>>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily >>>>>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel >>>>>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy >>>>>>> from gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a >>>>>> guided missile ??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of >>>>>> their cruise missiles during the first gulf war. >>>>>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only >>>>>> single out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target >>>>>> a specific window in the building. >>>>>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and >>>>>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11. >>>>> >>>>> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone. >>>>> >>>>> Hahahahaha. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anything remotely controlled is a "drone" >>> >>> "Anything" ? >>> >>> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob. >>> >>> Is my Challenger a drone? >> >> >> If you stuck a camera inside the front, sent the video signal back to >> your computer at home, and told it to turn, accelerate, and brake, >> from your computer, and even dump a dead body in the woods miles >> from your home,.....YES it would be considered a drone. > > A wire guided torpedo is remotely controlled. Also a TOW is wire > guided. Are you claiming these two are drones? > > LOL > >> Are you so narrow minded to think only those toy helicopers are drones >> ? > > My husband and I have a home near Pax River Naval Base. I know what > a drone aircraft looks like. Global Hawk being a big bird. > >> It could even be told when to play pre-recorded or even relay radio >> messages, to trick anyone into thinking there was an actual pilot. >> >> >> Surprise,....they actually could do that, wayyyy back in the NASA >> Apollo days (1960's/70's) > > Is this your attempt to claim there were no manned Apollo moon > landings? LOL. > > Jaysus you're gullible. No attempt whatsoever. As my subject at hand is 9/11 and how the government lied to us, and stole multi-billions or more while doing it You are free to interpret that comment any way you wish. It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions of dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. ....And an inability to ever return to the moon, as apparently they forget how they did it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 17:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2pst0blts38mk4l16ut52h9lj4dj1oloq3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524214 |
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:55:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions of >dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. Is that what you think is the extent of NASA's Space Program ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 09:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <r05u0bloo0i5um2ua2sadsi57coj26echa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524302 |
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:38 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:55:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >wrote: > >>It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions of >>dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. > >Is that what you think is the extent of NASA's Space Program ? Neil Degrasse Tyson on the NASA budget: https://youtu.be/l3BVjYFyF5M?t=22m24s Shill #2 -- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 21:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d6cu0bdidobdq86b2ipule22ipccp35psb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524323 |
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 09:34:35 +1000, Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:38 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:55:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions of >>>dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. >> >>Is that what you think is the extent of NASA's Space Program ? > >Neil Degrasse Tyson on the NASA budget: >https://youtu.be/l3BVjYFyF5M?t=22m24s Yes. I was thinking about all the technology developed for the space program, especially medical innovations, which have benefited people not only in the US but all over the world. Space Program Benefits: NASA’s Positive Impact on Society http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html >Shill #2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 21:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <munc4g$10l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524323 |
Government Shill #2 wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:38 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:55:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions of >>> dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. >> >> Is that what you think is the extent of NASA's Space Program ? > > Neil Degrasse Tyson on the NASA budget: > https://youtu.be/l3BVjYFyF5M?t=22m24s > > Shill #2 Ah-ha-ha,.....Neil Degrasse,.....the publicity whore NASA shill. All NASA had to do was buy a bag of meteorites from some guy in the desert, for $200. Or like Von Braun did, he just went to Antarctica and looked for them in the snow. All the space/moon rocks you need to sell a fairytale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 22:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gndu0b9mojhpo21irmhau280paq63kav40@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524339 |
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:49:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Government Shill #2 wrote: >> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:38 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:55:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions of >>>> dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. >>> >>> Is that what you think is the extent of NASA's Space Program ? >> >> Neil Degrasse Tyson on the NASA budget: >> https://youtu.be/l3BVjYFyF5M?t=22m24s >> >> Shill #2 > > > > > >Ah-ha-ha,.....Neil Degrasse,.....the publicity whore NASA shill. > >All NASA had to do was buy a bag of meteorites from some guy in the desert, >for $200. >Or like Von Braun did, he just went to Antarctica and looked for them in the >snow. > >All the space/moon rocks you need to sell a fairytale. I said you ARE one of the Troofers claiming the US never landed on the moon. I'm always right and you're always wrong, Bast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 10:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3079b30f5e96de9c98c306@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524341 |
In article <gndu0b9mojhpo21irmhau280paq63kav40@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:49:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > >Government Shill #2 wrote: > >> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:38 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:55:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions of > >>>> dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. > >>> > >>> Is that what you think is the extent of NASA's Space Program ? > >> > >> Neil Degrasse Tyson on the NASA budget: > >> https://youtu.be/l3BVjYFyF5M?t=22m24s > >> > >> Shill #2 > > > > > > > > > > > >Ah-ha-ha,.....Neil Degrasse,.....the publicity whore NASA shill. Sane Non-Troofer. > > > >All NASA had to do was buy a bag of meteorites from some guy in the desert, > >for $200. > >Or like Von Braun did, he just went to Antarctica and looked for them in the > >snow. > > > >All the space/moon rocks you need to sell a fairytale. Her delusions are all sorts of crazy. > > I said you ARE one of the Troofers claiming the US never landed on the > moon. > > I'm always right and you're always wrong, Bast. It's the only thing she does right. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 19:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mupprn$bi0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524341 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:49:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Government Shill #2 wrote: >>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:38 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:55:49 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is just coincidence that NASA also cost taxpayers multi-billions >>>>> of dollars,.....for a bag of rocks. >>>> >>>> Is that what you think is the extent of NASA's Space Program ? >>> >>> Neil Degrasse Tyson on the NASA budget: >>> https://youtu.be/l3BVjYFyF5M?t=22m24s >>> >>> Shill #2 >> >> >> >> >> >> Ah-ha-ha,.....Neil Degrasse,.....the publicity whore NASA shill. >> >> All NASA had to do was buy a bag of meteorites from some guy in the >> desert, for $200. >> Or like Von Braun did, he just went to Antarctica and looked for them >> in the snow. >> >> All the space/moon rocks you need to sell a fairytale. > > I said you ARE one of the Troofers claiming the US never landed on the > moon. > > I'm always right and you're always wrong, Bast. You can think whatever you want, if it makes you get through the day. I can actually deal with reality, and accept that the system is hopelessly corrupt. Which is why I now work the system to my advantage, and let you pay for me getting ahead. So I couldn't care less if you disagree with me or not. 9/11 was an inside job, and if you want me not to provide the proof to the world,.....pay me to stay quiet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web