Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #515431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-20 19:57 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-08-28 12:27 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-20 19:57 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 17:09 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:59 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 05:10 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 08:24 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-21 15:23 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 20:53 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:12 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:13 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 08:09 +1000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:08 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:01 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:12 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:58 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 08:15 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 10:23 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 16:47 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:48 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:45 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:47 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 08:10 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:27 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 17:38 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 16:49 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-22 17:51 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 23:29 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:28 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:16 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 09:11 +0100
2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 05:51 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 12:15 +0100
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:26 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:38 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:40 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 17:45 +0100
T-Annoy proves he is still an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 11:59 -0500
Re: T-Annoy proves he is still an asshole (was find your own evidence) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:19 +0100
T-Annoy proves he is still a big asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:45 -0500
Re: T-Annoy proves he is still a big asshole (was find your own evidence) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:10 +0000
Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:29 -0500
Re: Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:33 +0000
Re: Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:06 -0500
Re: Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:31 -0700
Re: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:47 -0500
Caught Kent in a BIG LIE (was: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit)) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:14 -0500
Re: Caught Kent in a BIG LIE (was: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit)) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 08:39 -0500
Re: Caught Kent in a BIG LIE (was: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 15:00 +0100
Re: Caught Kent in a BIG LIE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:00 +0000
Re: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 16:58 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:47 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:46 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:50 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 21:07 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-22 15:11 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 22:57 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 21:17 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-22 14:42 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 22:58 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 00:43 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 00:16 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:07 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:05 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:12 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 01:16 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:10 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 17:35 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:59 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 05:37 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 08:41 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 06:55 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 07:40 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:34 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 14:45 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:52 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:53 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:42 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 09:20 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:53 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:47 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:16 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:34 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:06 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:13 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-22 18:02 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:12 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 21:36 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:07 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:06 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:06 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 10:03 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 20:17 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:59 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:07 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-23 09:07 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 06:08 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 21:22 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-22 21:31 -0700
Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 10:43 -0500
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:01 +0000
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 19:38 +0200
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:08 -0500
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:35 +0000
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:05 -0500
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 13:06 -0700
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 21:47 +0200
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 12:59 -0700
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 11:38 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:19 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:10 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 10:43 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:49 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-23 04:44 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-22 21:55 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 06:27 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 07:24 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 09:56 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:08 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 10:46 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:59 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:14 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:02 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:02 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-27 19:21 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 15:39 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:05 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:10 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-27 18:17 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 06:31 +0200
Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-28 13:54 -0400
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 04:42 +0200
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 04:09 +0000
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 18:12 +0200
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 03:17 -0400
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 14:17 -0700
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 03:16 -0400
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 17:17 +0200
box cutters were not illegal, at that time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 12:27 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 13:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: |
| Message-ID | <5uqdncnH2LdTlkfInZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516151 |
To Friendly Neighborhood Nut, I looked through your post and didn't find where you addressed the great big lies from NIST in there attempt to add lies to the Great 9/11 Hoax. "NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence" Published on Jun 28, 2015 How many columns were severed by the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers and was the damage the impacts caused enough to seriously compromise the structural integrity of the towers? Excerpts from the following have been used in this series of videos: Kevin Ryan: Toronto 9/11 Hearings: https://youtu.be/ltgJLzMtbyM Kevin Ryan: A New Standard in Deception: https://youtu.be/VsfLQAclHA0 September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor (full): https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M Tony Szamboti Interview 2014 : On NIST's 9/11 Sins of Omission https://youtu.be/x-PA8pjaU3k Ed Munyak, FPE - Fire Protection Engineer - AE911Truth.org: https://youtu.be/c0QEutd1Unc Tony Szamboti, M.E. - Mechanical Engineer AE911Truth.org: https://youtu.be/4V3WdpzaA4o Kevin Ryan : On Why NIST's 9/11 WTC Reports are False & Unscientific: https://youtu.be/Fs9nHDDBtfA 9/11: The Best Physical Evidence of Explosives - David Chandler Lecture: https://youtu.be/DPwwcXF_V0c Recommended related videos: 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out: https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg 9/11 Exposed Second Edition: https://youtu.be/DXRDq9nKJ0U The Twin Towers And Their Destruction: https://youtu.be/rg_PxAVeGHA WTC 7: Fires Fuelled by Office Furnishings. Be AFRAID!: https://youtu.be/2qn1Iu6olJQ Take the 47 Minute Building 7 Challenge!: https://youtu.be/E6s0Gam54mk Related reading: The for links below did not cut and paste so you will have to get them from the comment seconds of the following playlist: Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/arti... Kevin Ryan: How Science Died at the World Trade Centre: http://digwithin.net/2015/02/15/scien... Kevin Ryan: Why the NIST WTC Report on the Towers is False: http://digwithin.net/2013/09/05/nist-... Kevin Ryan: Why the NIST WTC 7 Report is False: http://digwithin.net/2011/07/09/why-t... According to the NIST report, only 14% to 15% of the columns were cut, in each of the towers. On page 133 of Glanz and Lipton's book 'City in the Sky' they summarise the findings of a white paper by Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White, the Structural Engineers who designed the Twin Towers, as follows: "The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind." And in the Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: "One could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction." And . . . "Live loads on these perimeter columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." And in regard the the plane impacts, from the NIST report - NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Appendix A (photostats of John Skilling's 3 page paper from 1964, see paragraph outlined in box, with red underlining) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 mph. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of the impact." And from the Seattle Times, 1993, an interview with John Skilling, Chief Structural Engineer of the World Trade Centre . . . http://tinyurl.com/6or8qv Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." https://youtu.be/zvCuMULutHs?list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 18:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: |
| Message-ID | <4dgpac-7s4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #516168 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > How many columns were severed by the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers and > was the damage the impacts caused enough to seriously compromise the > structural integrity of the towers? All the important things can be found here, kook: The facts are some airliners were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed almost 2 hours later. One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Everything else is kook babble. That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble. That there is missing rubble is kook babble. That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble. That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble. That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear devices is kook babble. That there was an EMP is kook babble. That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble. That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything to do with what happened is kook babble. That the scene was radioactive is kook babble. That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima or Nagasaki is kook babble. That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear is kook babble. That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance and still be expected to work is kook babble. That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear bombs is kook babble. That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the airplanes hit the towers is kook babble. That all the video was CGI is kook babble. That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble. That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the windows is kook babble. That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble. That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion is kook babble. There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble. Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature that can be detected anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is kook babble. Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 14:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: |
| Message-ID | <vb6ktadud0fv92d2rsg4625iphh2mmrmaq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #516168 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:08:50 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>To Friendly Neighborhood Nut,
>
>I looked through your post and didn't find where you addressed the great big
>lies from NIST in there attempt to add lies to the Great 9/11 Hoax.
[...]
There would first need to be lies to be addressed. No one can
address lies that do not exist.
You will note FNVW has, on many occasions, addressed the lies
you've posted. Since they exist, he was able.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 13:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-CB555E.13061923082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #516207 |
> >I looked through your post and didn't find where you addressed the great big > >lies from NIST in there attempt to add lies to the Great 9/11 Hoax. I am more than willing to address NIST lies about Ada. -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian. That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 21:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: |
| Message-ID | <7a50035dc381a22213ed10a6b7157ba5@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #516168 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky, in <news:5uqdncnH2LdTlkfInZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > T<SMACKAKOOK!> Your continuing to froth out hundreds of lines of delusional blather does not help your kooky conspiracy theory to get around the laws of physics. Therefore your kooky conspiracy theory is still impossible. It could not have happened as your broken brain is telling you it happened, it is a physical impossibility. All you've accomplished and continue to accomplish is to let everyone know that you're off your meds, stupid and gullible. Until such time as your broken brain gets the meds it needs so it can explain exactly how your kooky conspiracy theory is able to violate the laws of physics, you are not allowed a voice. You'll have your stupid psychotic jabberhole slapped shut each time you open it to spew your stupidity. Kook. LOL > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 17 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how delusional you are. 4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>). They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation. 5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). 16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes (MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3 nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is? While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps (radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this *still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed "EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly head again. LOL 17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your "34 or more nukes" blather... eventually, your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the real city was blown up by 1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's *proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back on your meds, you delusional loon. ====================================================== There are now 17 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp simple physics. Kook. LOL -- Rocky, your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Your brain becoming more and more broken, in just one short day it moved from G) above to now telling you there are *more* than 34 nukes. Where does your broken brain stop, Ko0k? Billions of intelligent nano-nukes covering every metal surface of the twin towers? Robot "crisis actors" able to withstand the extreme radiation? All of NYC being blow up, replaced by a CGI that we all are fooled by today? LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 12:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: |
| Message-ID | <8n9tvi.sij.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #516227 |
. hi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 11:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) |
| Message-ID | <8n9p7m.it3.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #516094 |
Rocky wrote: > Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: > > Since you have tried to say the outside of the walls of the Twin > Towers were just for looks and that is contradictory to facts I have a few > videos > for you to see: > > The following is a complete playlist so it might take a while to load: > > The playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W i got cher load rye cheer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 05:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qn1oac-n4t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #515938 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > And if all you had to go by was the following photo and knowing the > buildings started out at 110 floors what do you see in the following? The remains of collapsed buildings, kook. However, a single photo is NOT all we have to go on, kook. The facts are some airliners were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed almost 2 hours later. One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Everything else is kook babble. That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble. That there is missing rubble is kook babble. That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble. That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble. That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear devices is kook babble. That there was an EMP is kook babble. That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble. That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything to do with what happened is kook babble. That the scene was radioactive is kook babble. That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima or Nagasaki is kook babble. That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear is kook babble. That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance and still be expected to work is kook babble. That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear bombs is kook babble. That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the airplanes hit the towers is kook babble. That all the video was CGI is kook babble. That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble. That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the windows is kook babble. That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble. That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion is kook babble. There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble. Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature that can be detected anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is kook babble. Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515538 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>wrote in message >
>> You will continue to be minimized, laughed at and dismissed as
>> the broken-brained little kook that you are until you are able to
>> explain how your kooky little scenario can violate several laws
>> of physics.
>
>You mean your laws of Physics and not Newton's laws. I've seen your math
>and how you get miles deep when it should be meters deep is beyond me.
>
So the nukes were at least 37 meters deep?
This is what you really want to claim?
>Plus you can try your hardest to keep your lies about the Ted/Barbara
>bullshit but the fact remains most all those calls were scripted as proven
>by the similarity between flights, the terms that would not be used in real
>life and the fact the scripts had a stewardess making calls when that would
>be the last thing she would have done because of her training.
>
And you know of her training, how?
>In other words you might want to check out what Rebekah Roth stated about
>the obvious scripting of all the calls made on 9/11.01. See:
>"Airline whistleblower solves 9/11"
>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/
Here is where the whole of the page loses all credibility:
"Once on the ground, selected flight attendants and passengers were
guided (or forced) to place cell phone calls, during which they read
from scripts prepared by the perpetrators."
Only one call was made with a cell phone. The rest were made with
sky/air phones.
>
>So, I'll say it again in case you missed it. When you look at all the phone
>calls together the similarities between flights prove something was screwy
Not to the educated mind.
>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then
>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because they
>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking.
That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's
not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention.
>So
>basically the calls made from the four alleged flights were scripted or
>phony phone calls.
And yet, you offer no evidence of this.
>
>Plus if someone really sprayed pepper spray on a flight it would have stunk
>up everywhere on that flight and not just part of it so that wasn't true to
>life either.
Huh?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SeSdnU68r_vcBUXInZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515630 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> >>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>wrote in message > >>> You will continue to be minimized, laughed at and dismissed as >>> the broken-brained little kook that you are until you are able to >>> explain how your kooky little scenario can violate several laws >>> of physics. >> >>You mean your laws of Physics and not Newton's laws. I've seen your math >>and how you get miles deep when it should be meters deep is beyond me. >> > > So the nukes were at least 37 meters deep? > This is what you really want to claim? Why not just see for yourself at: >>Plus you can try your hardest to keep your lies about the Ted/Barbara >>bullshit but the fact remains most all those calls were scripted as proven >>by the similarity between flights, the terms that would not be used in >>real >>life and the fact the scripts had a stewardess making calls when that >>would >>be the last thing she would have done because of her training. >> > > And you know of her training, how? Because of another flight attendant you Television Hugger. And I even mention her in the next paragraph. >>In other words you might want to check out what Rebekah Roth stated about >>the obvious scripting of all the calls made on 9/11.01. See: >>"Airline whistleblower solves 9/11" >>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/ > > Here is where the whole of the page loses all credibility: > > > "Once on the ground, selected flight attendants and passengers were > guided (or forced) to place cell phone calls, during which they read > from scripts prepared by the perpetrators." > > > Only one call was made with a cell phone. The rest were made with > sky/air phones. > >> >>So, I'll say it again in case you missed it. When you look at all the >>phone >>calls together the similarities between flights prove something was screwy > > Not to the educated mind. Love is blind are you are not just in love with your Television you probably even sleep with your Television in the room. <G> >>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then >>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because they >>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking. > > That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's > not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention. It is still against what they are taught. >>So >>basically the calls made from the four alleged flights were scripted or >>phony phone calls. > > And yet, you offer no evidence of this. Rebekah Roth sure did and why didn't you bother with her evidence? Oh yeah, that's right you are in love with your Television set and love is blind. >>Plus if someone really sprayed pepper spray on a flight it would have >>stunk >>up everywhere on that flight and not just part of it so that wasn't true >>to >>life either. > > Huh? There was a story about someone being sprayed with pepper spray but that story had to be complete BS because if it were true all sorts of people would have had trouble with it despite where they were in the jet. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 12:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <efdhtal8qptbcskb41nrl7lbq0pq32hgrr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515780 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:43:24 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>>>wrote in message >
>>>> You will continue to be minimized, laughed at and dismissed as
>>>> the broken-brained little kook that you are until you are able to
>>>> explain how your kooky little scenario can violate several laws
>>>> of physics.
>>>
>>>You mean your laws of Physics and not Newton's laws. I've seen your math
>>>and how you get miles deep when it should be meters deep is beyond me.
>>
>> So the nukes were at least 37 meters deep?
>> This is what you really want to claim?
>
>Why not just see for yourself at:
>
At what?
>>>Plus you can try your hardest to keep your lies about the Ted/Barbara
>>>bullshit but the fact remains most all those calls were scripted as proven
>>>by the similarity between flights, the terms that would not be used in
>>>real
>>>life and the fact the scripts had a stewardess making calls when that
>>>would
>>>be the last thing she would have done because of her training.
>>
>> And you know of her training, how?
>
>Because of another flight attendant you Television Hugger. And I even
>mention her in the next paragraph.
Do you mean Rebekah Roth? She's been discredited many times.
Sadly, your intellect is too low to be able to accept this.
I don't mean that as an insult, though I would understand if
people thought I did. It's an accurate commentary about you as you
present yourself.
>
>>>In other words you might want to check out what Rebekah Roth stated about
>>>the obvious scripting of all the calls made on 9/11.01. See:
>>>"Airline whistleblower solves 9/11"
>>>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/
>>
>> Here is where the whole of the page loses all credibility:
>>
>>
>> "Once on the ground, selected flight attendants and passengers were
>> guided (or forced) to place cell phone calls, during which they read
>> from scripts prepared by the perpetrators."
>>
>>
>> Only one call was made with a cell phone. The rest were made with
>> sky/air phones.
>>
Rocky?
>>>So, I'll say it again in case you missed it. When you look at all the
>>>phone
>>>calls together the similarities between flights prove something was screwy
>>
>> Not to the educated mind.
>
>Love is blind are you are not just in love with your Television you probably
>even sleep with your Television in the room. <G>
>
Your avoidance is funny.
Now that you've played, and lost, the avoidance game, please
address the point I raised. Unless it really is too difficult for you.
>>>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then
>>>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because they
>>>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking.
>>
>> That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's
>> not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention.
>
>It is still against what they are taught.
>
And your copy of the regulations that state this is where?
Will you be scanning the applicable page(s) of the regs so that
I, and anyone else with an interest, may verify your claim? Of course
you will. Otherwise people might think you're lying, or using the lies
of another, like Rebekah Roth.
>>>So
>>>basically the calls made from the four alleged flights were scripted or
>>>phony phone calls.
>>
>> And yet, you offer no evidence of this.
>
>Rebekah Roth sure did and why didn't you bother with her evidence? Oh yeah,
>that's right you are in love with your Television set and love is blind.
>
Considering she claims all calls came from cell phones, when it's
been long proved only one did, a claim she's never retracted, the
whole of her claims are suspect.
Add those who have proved several of her outright lies, and,
well, any claim she presents should be viewed as a lie until there is
evidence that any claim is valid.
But you won't be able. You will accept any claim she makes, and
anything anyone states she's claimed, as 100% valid.
>
>>>Plus if someone really sprayed pepper spray on a flight it would have
>>>stunk up everywhere on that flight and not just part of it so that wasn't true
>>>to life either.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>There was a story about someone being sprayed with pepper spray but that
>story had to be complete BS because if it were true all sorts of people
>would have had trouble with it despite where they were in the jet.
Did FNVW mention this? If so, I missed it. If he didn't, then
your desperation to divert attention from the points he raised is
noted.
How's that whole ignoring my posts thing working out for you?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 04:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #515780 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then >>>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because they >>>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking. >> >> That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's >> not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention. >It is still against what they are taught. No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get as much info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane has been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected things, who the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what they want and what they intend to do, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 21:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3042f20f172ff70298ac8a@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #515976 |
In article <mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com says... > > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > > >"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > >>>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then > >>>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because they > >>>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking. > >> > >> That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's > >> not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention. > > >It is still against what they are taught. > > No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get as much > info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane has > been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected things, who > the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what they want and what > they intend to do, etc. They're also taught to make the hijackers like them, by giving them an extra complimentary nut bag. -- Checkmate Official AUK Award Giver-Outer Copyright © 2015 all rights reserved
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 06:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ksOdncKcSKSgM0TInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515976 |
alt.astronomy put back in "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>>>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then >>>>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because >>>>they >>>>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking. >>> >>> That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's >>> not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention. > >>It is still against what they are taught. > > No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get as much > info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane has > been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected things, who > the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what they want and what > they intend to do, etc. You will have to state the source of your bullshit because my source was a genuine flight attendant. <G> One of the other things Rebekah Roth stated was someone was asked where they were and they were not sure but Nuke York City stretches for miles so if they had been over Nuke York City they would have known. There are just too many inconsistencies in the phone calls to prove they were from airborne jets. And do not forget the biggest inconsistency with the Great 9/11 Hoax and that is the following is not a photo of a jet fuel collapse it is a photo of two NCDs or two Nuclear Controlled Demolitions. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 07:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tqejtah6sf6beo858ouc7h7320kc0bjmfi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #516039 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:27:15 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>alt.astronomy put back in
>
And removed.
Your OBSESSION with alt.astronomy is not healthy, Rocky.
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then
>>>>>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because
>>>>>they
>>>>>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking.
>>>>
>>>> That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's
>>>> not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention.
>>
>>>It is still against what they are taught.
>>
>> No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get as much
>> info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane has
>> been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected things, who
>> the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what they want and what
>> they intend to do, etc.
>
>You will have to state the source of your bullshit because my source was a
>genuine flight attendant. <G>
>
The same one who LIED and said all calls were made from cell
phones?
Do you have a CREDIBLE source?
>One of the other things Rebekah Roth stated was someone was asked where they
>were and they were not sure but Nuke York City stretches for miles so if
>they had been over Nuke York City they would have known.
>
If they were allowed to look out a window.
It's possible you've not been in a commercial airliner. The very
back does not have windows.
>There are just too many inconsistencies in the phone calls to prove they
>were from airborne jets.
What inconsistencies are those? Be specific.
>
>And do not forget the biggest inconsistency with the Great 9/11 Hoax and
>that is the following is not a photo of a jet fuel collapse it is a photo of
>two NCDs or two Nuclear Controlled Demolitions.
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
You keep linking to a picture that proves your claims wrong. Why
is that?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-949A65.09565823082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #516061 |
> >One of the other things Rebekah Roth stated was someone was asked where they > >were and they were not sure but Nuke York City stretches for miles so if > >they had been over Nuke York City they would have known. Maybe they were over Ohmtown. Did anyone look like a dog? How often have you tried to recognise ground features from a height? Much of the ground looks like a forest: suburban and urban trees are higher than many buildings; viewed obliquely you see tree tops rather than buildings. If I look down here from surrounding hills (2000 to 4000 feet) it's hard to pick out any major landmarks. You should try it before you talk. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/AlumRockViewSiliconValley_w.j pg > >There are just too many inconsistencies in the phone calls to prove they > >were from airborne jets. All the families who lost a loved one after speaking with them were actually CIA plants. -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian. That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qNSdnUgT65MJYETInZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516116 |
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:chine.bleu-949A65.09565823082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... >> >One of the other things Rebekah Roth stated was someone was asked where >> >they >> >were and they were not sure but Nuke York City stretches for miles so if >> >they had been over Nuke York City they would have known. > > Maybe they were over Ohmtown. Did anyone look like a dog? > > How often have you tried to recognise ground features from a height? Much > of the > ground looks like a forest: suburban and urban trees are higher than many > buildings; viewed obliquely you see tree tops rather than buildings. > > If I look down here from surrounding hills (2000 to 4000 feet) it's hard > to pick > out any major landmarks. You should try it before you talk. > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/AlumRockViewSiliconValley_w.jpg Link fixed and that still looks like a city to me. >> >There are just too many inconsistencies in the phone calls to prove they >> >were from airborne jets. > > All the families who lost a loved one after speaking with them were > actually CIA > plants. Do you really think Barabra Olson died? Chances are she might have had a new face and allowed to go back to her hubby as some people suggest. https://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/the-barbara-olson-mystery-deepens-did-ted-olson-re-marry-his-dead-wife-barbara-olson-by-another-name/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-2EA953.10462023082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #516131 |
In article <qNSdnUgT65MJYETInZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > "Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:chine.bleu-949A65.09565823082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > >> >One of the other things Rebekah Roth stated was someone was asked where > >> >they > >> >were and they were not sure but Nuke York City stretches for miles so if > >> >they had been over Nuke York City they would have known. > > > > Maybe they were over Ohmtown. Did anyone look like a dog? > > > > How often have you tried to recognise ground features from a height? Much > > of the > > ground looks like a forest: suburban and urban trees are higher than many > > buildings; viewed obliquely you see tree tops rather than buildings. > > > > If I look down here from surrounding hills (2000 to 4000 feet) it's hard > > to pick > > out any major landmarks. You should try it before you talk. > > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/AlumRockViewSiliconValle > > y_w.jpg > > Link fixed and that still looks like a city to me. Do you recognise King and Story? > >> >There are just too many inconsistencies in the phone calls to prove they > >> >were from airborne jets. > > > > All the families who lost a loved one after speaking with them were > > actually CIA > > plants. > > Do you really think Barabra Olson died? Chances are she might have had a > new face and allowed to go back to her hubby as some people suggest. Them gosh darn reanimator. They get up to all kinds of hijinks. -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian. That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ca-dnVgoLJwRlEfInZ2dnUU7-emdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516153 |
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:chine.bleu-2EA953.10462023082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > > Them gosh darn reanimator. They get up to all kinds of hijinks. This just in and it shows after the millions of dollars we paid NIST they gave us complete and udder bullshit about why so very little remained of the Twin Towers. "NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence" Published on Jun 28, 2015 ... "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." https://youtu.be/zvCuMULutHs?list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d4fpac-km4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #516162 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > This just in and it shows after the millions of dollars we paid NIST they > gave us complete and udder bullshit about why so very little remained of the > Twin Towers. In the real world of sane people there was a huge amount of rubble that took a very long time to haul away, kook. The facts are some airliners were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed almost 2 hours later. One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Everything else is kook babble. That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble. That there is missing rubble is kook babble. That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble. That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble. That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear devices is kook babble. That there was an EMP is kook babble. That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble. That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything to do with what happened is kook babble. That the scene was radioactive is kook babble. That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima or Nagasaki is kook babble. That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear is kook babble. That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance and still be expected to work is kook babble. That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear bombs is kook babble. That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the airplanes hit the towers is kook babble. That all the video was CGI is kook babble. That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble. That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the windows is kook babble. That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble. That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion is kook babble. There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble. Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature that can be detected anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is kook babble. Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web