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

Groups > sci.physics > #520707 > unrolled thread

If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 12:16 -0500
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 14:09 -0400
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:38 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:51 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:31 -0500
          Re: Rocky's legal woes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:57 +0000
            Re: Rocky's legal woes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:16 -0400
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:40 -0500
                Re: Rocky the stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:27 +0000
                Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:24 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:21 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:09 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:38 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:34 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:39 -0500
            Re: More Rocky delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 21:17 +0000
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:44 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 01:27 +0000
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:05 -0500
                Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-16 14:06 +0000
                  Re: Broken airplanes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 18:04 +0000
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-18 14:05 -0500
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 10:51 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:02 -0400
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:28 -0400
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 11:31 -0400
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:14 -0500
                Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:47 -0400
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:04 -0500
                    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 23:46 -0400
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:22 -0700
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:19 -0400
      Re: smoke and fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:29 +0000
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-13 14:27 -0400
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 11:34 -0700
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:43 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:53 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:59 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:24 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 22:43 -0400
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:50 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:21 -0500
        Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0000
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid Wills is FULL OF SHIT ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 09:35 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:43 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:48 -0700
    Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:26 +0000
      9/11 debunkers, debunked - Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:35 -0400
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:00 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0100
          Re: Rocky denies reality jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:39 +0000
        Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:36 +0000
          Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
            Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 16:03 +0000
              Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:48 -0400
              Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0400
                Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 17:05 +0000
                  Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 20:43 -0400
                    Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 21:15 -0400
                      Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 09:47 -0400
                        Re: How fire works for the ignorant "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:13 -0500
                        Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 18:24 -0400
                          Re: How fire works for the ignorant Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:32 -0700
                            Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:42 -0400
                          Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 22:36 +0000
                            Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 19:57 -0400
                              Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 00:13 +0000
                              Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:43 -0400
                    Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 01:20 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#520707 — If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning?

If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay 
burning afterwards?

Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building 
collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7.

The fact that WTC1 did not stay burning after it was supposed to have 
collapsed because of fire is in the following video:

the Miracle of stairwell B (full documentary)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTRNEVKMY4

Note not only did the alleged collapse of WTC1 fail to crush the Survivors 
in WTC1 but the Survivors didn't even have to worry about fire after WTC1 
floated away.  <G>

Rocky 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#520711

Rocky wrote:
> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
> burning afterwards?
>
> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
> WTC7.





Point of clarification:
WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely 
collapsed because of fire.
Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.

And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, and 
were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel

Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the 
rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS

...That doesn't happen without other help







>
> The fact that WTC1 did not stay burning after it was supposed to have
> collapsed because of fire is in the following video:
>
> the Miracle of stairwell B (full documentary)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTRNEVKMY4
>
> Note not only did the alleged collapse of WTC1 fail to crush the
> Survivors in WTC1 but the Survivors didn't even have to worry about
> fire after WTC1 floated away.  <G>
>
> Rocky

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

#520720

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mt4e1b$7f1$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
> Rocky wrote:
>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>> burning afterwards?
>>
>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
>> WTC7.
>
>
>
> Point of clarification:
> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely 
> collapsed because of fire.
> Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.

Good point and what is even weirder is WTC7 left a pile of debris much 
taller than either of the Twin Towers left and yet the Twin Towers were not 
just twice as tall as WTC7 because the lower floors of the Twin Towers had 
to be built strong enough to support a 63 story building on top of a 47 
story building so there should have been a lot more debris from the Twin 
Towers than we saw from WTC7 but that was not the case.  <G>

And claiming that debris from WTC1 ended up in the basement is completely 
ludicrous because that would assume there were no Survivors in WTC1 but 
there were.  See:

the Miracle of stairwell B (full documentary)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTRNEVKMY4

If WTC7 floated away without leaving a pile of debris people might have 
wondered what happened.  And as long as people think the free standing walls 
of the Twin Towers amount to a pile of debris they are only kidding 
themselves.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, and 
> were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
> So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>
> Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the 
> rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>
> ...That doesn't happen without other help

I wish the exact location of that molten metal had been noted in more than 
one video because the exact location could point to the area between WTC2 
and WTC4 and between WTC1 and WTC3 or under WTC3 and under WTC4.


>> The fact that WTC1 did not stay burning after it was supposed to have
>> collapsed because of fire is in the following video:
>>
>> the Miracle of stairwell B (full documentary)
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTRNEVKMY4
>>
>> Note not only did the alleged collapse of WTC1 fail to crush the
>> Survivors in WTC1 but the Survivors didn't even have to worry about
>> fire after WTC1 floated away.  <G>
>>
>> Rocky

Rocky 

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

#520737

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>Rocky wrote:
>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>> burning afterwards?
>>
>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
>> WTC7.
>
>
>
>Point of clarification:
>WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely 
>collapsed because of fire.
>Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>

     No one is claiming fire alone did it. 

>And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, and 
>were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>

     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.

>Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the 
>rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS

     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
metal, but nothing molten.
     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
mentally ill?

>
>...That doesn't happen without other help
>

     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
molten.

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

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

#520757 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES )

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fchbvah52s1r15rtddoscut1cbc3fk3h92@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Point of clarification:
>>WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely
>>collapsed because of fire.
>>Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>
>
>     No one is claiming fire alone did it.

ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT and FYI the following video isn't just a youtube video it 
is video from National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST 
itself!!!!!!!!!!!

NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

NIST IS FULL OF BULLSHIT JUST LIKE YOU AND YOUR REASON WHY THERE WAS A 
MISSING JET IN THE WIDE SHOT FROM CHOPPER 5.

Wow, that means I've caught you in three outright lies.

You claim you had hard evidence of a 757 at Pranksville, PA and you did not.

You claim NIST did not blame the collapse of WTC7 on fire alone but they 
did.

You claim the missing jet in the wide shot could be blamed on the telephoto 
lens but math proves you lied there too.

And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of evidence 
without being specific and you have never proven that the courts ever tried 
to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause which was really the 
problem.

Rocky 

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

#520774 — Re: Rocky's legal woes

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of evidence 
> without being specific and you have never proven that the courts ever tried 
> to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause which was really the 
> problem.

Apparently they did as your stalking ass got hauled into court, fuck wit.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#520782 — Re: Rocky's legal woes

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of
>> evidence without being specific and you have never proven that the
>> courts ever tried to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause
>> which was really the problem.
>
> Apparently they did as your stalking ass got hauled into court, fuck
> wit.




How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8 

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

#520795

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mt4lgg$64d$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of
>>> evidence without being specific and you have never proven that the
>>> courts ever tried to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause
>>> which was really the problem.
>>
>> Apparently they did as your stalking ass got hauled into court, fuck
>> wit.

ROTFLMAO because Beverly Rusk wanted to run me into jail but I was out of 
state so I got to talk to a judge first meaning that trick of her's failed. 
<G>

And I know that Beverly is not real happy with the trick she used to 
confiscate her daughter's daugher because all that did was piss Cheryl off 
instead of force her to move back home with her mother where her mother 
could legally prevent me from talking to her daughter.  See:
 http://slimefest.com/shanna/

And I knew I would win the second jury trial hands down with a verdict of 12 
to 0 because of what I learned from my first jury trial and the evidence I 
collected from the first jury trial that proved Beverly Rusk was a 
pathological liar without a valid reason to lie either.  DUH.


> How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8

Great video and not only have I caught Kid Wills in over 1/2 a dozen lies 
but if I was reading jimp's post I could have caught him in a bunch of lies 
too.  Yep, the fact they are caught in so many lies makes them a liability 
to the 9./11 hoaxsters.

Oh and jimp do not bother to reply to my post since you have already hit the 
limit on how much complete and udder bullshit I can accept from a poster.

Rocky 

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

#520858 — Re: Rocky the stalker

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mt4lgg$64d$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of
>>>> evidence without being specific and you have never proven that the
>>>> courts ever tried to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause
>>>> which was really the problem.
>>>
>>> Apparently they did as your stalking ass got hauled into court, fuck
>>> wit.
> 
> ROTFLMAO because Beverly Rusk wanted to run me into jail but I was out of 
> state so I got to talk to a judge first meaning that trick of her's failed. 

Which means you are admitting that your delusional stalking got you
hauled into court.

Face it, you are a jobless, delusional stalker in dire need of
professonal help for your mental issues.

No one is telling you lies; that is a delusion.



-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#520982

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:40:23 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:mt4lgg$64d$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of
>>>> evidence without being specific and you have never proven that the
>>>> courts ever tried to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause
>>>> which was really the problem.
>>>
>>> Apparently they did as your stalking ass got hauled into court, fuck
>>> wit.
>
>ROTFLMAO because Beverly Rusk wanted to run me into jail but I was out of 
>state so I got to talk to a judge first meaning that trick of her's failed. 
><G>
>

     Based on the evidence you provide, she wanted you to leave her
daughter alone. She wasn't opposed to jail, but it wasn't the actual
goal.
     It is possible you've withheld evidence that would support your
current claim.

>And I know that Beverly is not real happy with the trick she used to 
>confiscate her daughter's daugher because all that did was piss Cheryl off 
>instead of force her to move back home with her mother where her mother 
>could legally prevent me from talking to her daughter.  See:
> http://slimefest.com/shanna/
>
>And I knew I would win the second jury trial hands down with a verdict of 12 
>to 0 because of what I learned from my first jury trial and the evidence I 
>collected from the first jury trial that proved Beverly Rusk was a 
>pathological liar without a valid reason to lie either.  DUH.
>

     I firmly believe she was lying when she denied the comment about
inviting you to dinner. But that is only one lie. To the mentally
sound, one lie does not make someone a pathological liar.
     Considering the number of lies that I have caught you in, you
would be far worse than a pathological liar. Add those lies that
other's have caught you in and it's even more clear that you're beyond
the definition of a pathological liar.

>
>> How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8
>
>Great video and not only have I caught Kid Wills in over 1/2 a dozen lies 
>but if I was reading jimp's post I could have caught him in a bunch of lies 
>too.  Yep, the fact they are caught in so many lies makes them a liability 
>to the 9./11 hoaxsters.
>
>Oh and jimp do not bother to reply to my post since you have already hit the 
>limit on how much complete and udder bullshit I can accept from a poster.

     Does his posting the truth really upset you as much as you
present, or is this another of your lies that make you many times
worse than a pathological liar?

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

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

#520974 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES )

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:31:57 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:fchbvah52s1r15rtddoscut1cbc3fk3h92@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Point of clarification:
>>>WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely
>>>collapsed because of fire.
>>>Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>
>>>And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, and 
>>>were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>>>So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>>
>>     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
>>
>>>Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the 
>>>rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>>
>>     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
>>metal, but nothing molten.
>>     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
>>mentally ill?
>>>
>>>...That doesn't happen without other help
>>
>>     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
>>molten.
>
>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT and FYI the following video isn't just a youtube video it 
>is video from National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST 
>itself!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc
>
>NIST IS FULL OF BULLSHIT JUST LIKE YOU AND YOUR REASON WHY THERE WAS A 
>MISSING JET IN THE WIDE SHOT FROM CHOPPER 5.
>

     How does this prove Bast's claim of molten metal?

>Wow, that means I've caught you in three outright lies.
>

     You're the one claiming a k00k video about NIST somehow proves
Bast's claim about molten metal.

>You claim you had hard evidence of a 757 at Pranksville, PA and you did not.
>

     Lair.

>You claim NIST did not blame the collapse of WTC7 on fire alone but they 
>did.
>

     Lair.

>You claim the missing jet in the wide shot could be blamed on the telephoto 
>lens but math proves you lied there too.

     That's not the claim I made. What does your LYING about my claim
gain you?

>
>And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of evidence 
>without being specific and you have never proven that the courts ever tried 
>to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause which was really the 
>problem.
>

     What does your LIE have to do with Bast's claim about molten
metal?

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

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

#521008 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES)

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2c4dvalelukgdicaa988ksan019lh97m6m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:31:57 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:fchbvah52s1r15rtddoscut1cbc3fk3h92@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Point of clarification:
>>>>WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely
>>>>collapsed because of fire.
>>>>Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>>
>>>>And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, 
>>>>and
>>>>were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>>>>So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>>>
>>>     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
>>>
>>>>Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the
>>>>rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>>>
>>>     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
>>>metal, but nothing molten.
>>>     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
>>>mentally ill?
>>>>
>>>>...That doesn't happen without other help
>>>
>>>     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
>>>molten.
>>
>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT and FYI the following video isn't just a youtube video 
>>it
>>is video from National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST
>>itself!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc
>>
>>NIST IS FULL OF BULLSHIT JUST LIKE YOU AND YOUR REASON WHY THERE WAS A
>>MISSING JET IN THE WIDE SHOT FROM CHOPPER 5.
>>
>
>     How does this prove Bast's claim of molten metal?

If you really want I can point to three people that testified to molten 
metal.  The CEO of "Controlled Demolitions INC", Alison Geyh and the mayor 
of Nuke York City himself.  But there is no doubt that the molten metal was 
really from where 3 nukes were detonated.

And in the following photo you can even see a haze coming from the three 
spots where people found molten metal:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And do not give me that crap about nobody was in direct contact with the 
radiation from those nukes because the ones that were got vaporized.  There 
was plenty of radiation in the air and even the way the USGS shipped their 
samples elsewhere for testing proves they did not want their samples tainted 
by the airborne radiation at Ground Zero.  <G>


>>Wow, that means I've caught you in three outright lies.
>>
>
>     You're the one claiming a k00k video about NIST somehow proves
> Bast's claim about molten metal.

Look above idiot.


>>You claim you had hard evidence of a 757 at Pranksville, PA and you did 
>>not.
>>
>
>     Lair.

ROTFLMAO because all I have to do is find your link and prove there was no 
hard evidence in it.  They had a photo of where Flight 93 was supposed to 
have gone down but no debris field was visible and you never asked yourself 
why.  Why?

>>You claim NIST did not blame the collapse of WTC7 on fire alone but they
>>did.
>>
>
>     Lair.

That was in a reply to Bast where you claimed:  "No one is claiming fire 
alone did it."  And we both proved you were wrong on that one and I even 
used a video from NIST itself to prove you lied.  <G>


>>You claim the missing jet in the wide shot could be blamed on the 
>>telephoto
>>lens but math proves you lied there too.
>
>     That's not the claim I made. What does your LYING about my claim
> gain you?

Your exact claim was something about a jet giong 300 to 500 mph and don't 
worry in the post where I prove you use bullshit I also quote you.


>>And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of 
>>evidence
>>without being specific and you have never proven that the courts ever 
>>tried
>>to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause which was really the
>>problem.
>>
>
>     What does your LIE have to do with Bast's claim about molten
> metal?

The above means you are just total bullshit and you have to stay that way 
because the made for prime time TV "The great Prime Time 9/11 Hijacker's 
Movie" was bullshit to start with.

Let me say this again.  It doesn't matter who started the complete and udder 
bullshit. only that bullshit from people like you is needed to keep the 
original bullshit going and going and going.

"9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film." and it 
needs liars like you Kid Wills to keep the lies alive.

BTW both dmaster and the Ediot have been caught in a shit load of lies just 
like you and look at them.  They decided not to lie so much so they don't 
post very much either.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#521181 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES)

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:09:15 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:2c4dvalelukgdicaa988ksan019lh97m6m@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:31:57 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fchbvah52s1r15rtddoscut1cbc3fk3h92@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Point of clarification:
>>>>>WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever completely
>>>>>collapsed because of fire.
>>>>>Only those  3 in NYC on 9/11.
>>>>
>>>>>And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned out, 
>>>>>and
>>>>>were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke.
>>>>>So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel
>>>>
>>>>     Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down.
>>>>
>>>>>Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in  the
>>>>>rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS
>>>>
>>>>     Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot
>>>>metal, but nothing molten.
>>>>     Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're
>>>>mentally ill?
>>>>>
>>>>>...That doesn't happen without other help
>>>>
>>>>     And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal
>>>>molten.
>>>
>>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT and FYI the following video isn't just a youtube video 
>>>it
>>>is video from National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST
>>>itself!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc
>>>
>>>NIST IS FULL OF BULLSHIT JUST LIKE YOU AND YOUR REASON WHY THERE WAS A
>>>MISSING JET IN THE WIDE SHOT FROM CHOPPER 5.
>>>
>>
>>     How does this prove Bast's claim of molten metal?
>
>If you really want I can point to three people that testified to molten 
>metal.  The CEO of "Controlled Demolitions INC", Alison Geyh and the mayor 
>of Nuke York City himself.  

     Did not claim molten metal.

>But there is no doubt that the molten metal was 
>really from where 3 nukes were detonated.
>

     Whereas no nukes were used, there is much doubt.

>And in the following photo you can even see a haze coming from the three 
>spots where people found molten metal:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

     There was no molten metal found.

>And do not give me that crap about nobody was in direct contact with the 
>radiation from those nukes because the ones that were got vaporized.  

     Since there were no nukes, no one could have been in contact,
direct or indirect, with the radiation.

>There 
>was plenty of radiation in the air and even the way the USGS shipped their 
>samples elsewhere for testing proves they did not want their samples tainted 
>by the airborne radiation at Ground Zero.  <G>
>

     It proves no such thing. But you are still free to provide
evidence that it does.
     I'm (still) waiting...

>
>>>Wow, that means I've caught you in three outright lies.
>>
>>     You're the one claiming a k00k video about NIST somehow proves
>> Bast's claim about molten metal.
>
>Look above idiot.
>

     You proved yourself a liar. Again.

>
>>>You claim you had hard evidence of a 757 at Pranksville, PA and you did 
>>>not.
>>>
>>
>>     Lair.
>
>ROTFLMAO because all I have to do is find your link and prove there was no 
>hard evidence in it.  They had a photo of where Flight 93 was supposed to 
>have gone down but no debris field was visible and you never asked yourself 
>why.  Why?
>

     Why, like exactly, are you lying?

>>>You claim NIST did not blame the collapse of WTC7 on fire alone but they
>>>did.
>>
>>     Lair.
>
>That was in a reply to Bast where you claimed:  "No one is claiming fire 
>alone did it."  And we both proved you were wrong on that one and I even 
>used a video from NIST itself to prove you lied.  <G>
>

     Liar.
     NIST factored in the damaged caused by the impact of the planes.
     Would you like to try a different lie?

>
>>>You claim the missing jet in the wide shot could be blamed on the 
>>>telephoto lens but math proves you lied there too.
>>
>>     That's not the claim I made. What does your LYING about my claim
>> gain you?
>
>Your exact claim was something about a jet giong 300 to 500 mph and don't 
>worry in the post where I prove you use bullshit I also quote you.
>

     Could you write that in a language I know?

>>>And then in my personal life you claim I didn't follow the rules of 
>>>evidence
>>>without being specific and you have never proven that the courts ever 
>>>tried
>>>to properly apply the definition of Probable Cause which was really the
>>>problem.
>>
>>     What does your LIE have to do with Bast's claim about molten
>> metal?
>
>The above means you are just total bullshit and you have to stay that way 
>because the made for prime time TV "The great Prime Time 9/11 Hijacker's 
>Movie" was bullshit to start with.
>

     So you claim. Odd that as of the time I write this, you've
offered noting in the way of valid, verifiable evidence.

>Let me say this again.  It doesn't matter who started the complete and udder 
>bullshit. only that bullshit from people like you is needed to keep the 
>original bullshit going and going and going.
>

     You'll note I'm countering your bull shit. 
     Once again you've been caught in a lie.

>"9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film." and it 
>needs liars like you Kid Wills to keep the lies alive.
>
>BTW both dmaster and the Ediot have been caught in a shit load of lies just 
>like you and look at them.  They decided not to lie so much so they don't 
>post very much either.  <G>
>

     They've already accepted that your mental illness and learning
disability mean you'll never accept the truth. I've accepted this as
well, but still find exposing your lies and delusions
entertaining.Once you cease to entertain me, I'll join them in
disregarding you.
     Speaking of disregarding someone... 
     How is that whole ignoring my posts thing working out for you,
Roger? <G>

"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he claims nukes were used on
9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

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

#521138 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES )

"dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:7ca018d9-7c00-4e97-b010-9306139abcc8@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:32:51 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
> ...
>> You claim you had hard evidence of a 757 at Pranksville, PA and you did 
>> not.
> ...
>> Rocky
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere 
around until the FBI showed up.

Hell, someone even took a photo of a van at Church and Murray with people 
unloading something and they had the nerve to leave their two wheeler next 
to the debris they dropped off under a construction canopy.

Well, they didn't just drop off a engine under a canopy they also left us a 
can of pea or more like bullshit.  <G>

Link that shows a two wheeler and the van that dropped off the planted 
engine that could not have come from the jet it was supposed to come from.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Xglkn6WutQ/U_UJFUIbKKI/AAAAAAAAChE/YEjvlVe2faA/s1600/Pickup%2Bor%2Bdelivery%3F.jpg 

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

#521139 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES )

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message 
news:VdOdnZ8TseACsmrInZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
> news:7ca018d9-7c00-4e97-b010-9306139abcc8@googlegroups.com...
>> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:32:51 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
>> ...
>>> You claim you had hard evidence of a 757 at Pranksville, PA and you did 
>>> not.
>> ...
>>> Rocky
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1
>
> ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere 
> around until the FBI showed up.
>
> Hell, someone even took a photo of a van at Church and Murray with people 
> unloading something and they had the nerve to leave their two wheeler next 
> to the debris they dropped off under a construction canopy.
>
> Well, they didn't just drop off a engine under a canopy they also left us 
> a can of pea or more like bullshit.  <G>
>
> Link that shows a two wheeler and the van that dropped off the planted 
> engine that could not have come from the jet it was supposed to come from.

Ok, I have a better link:
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-1412144-1561.htm

Then look for the big photo that starts with "Pickup or delivery?" not too 
far down from the top of the page.

Rocky 

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

#521150 — Re: More Rocky delusions

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere 
> around until the FBI showed up.

Right, there are scrape yards filled with airplane debris all over
the country just waiting for someone to show up asking for truck
loads of some particular airplane type.

Do you have the slightest clue how much an airliner engine weighs,
you babbling, retarded, lunatic?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#521188 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES )

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:34:56 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
>news:7ca018d9-7c00-4e97-b010-9306139abcc8@googlegroups.com...
>> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:32:51 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
>> ...
>>> You claim you had hard evidence of a 757 at Pranksville, PA and you did 
>>> not.
>> ...
>>> Rocky
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1
>
>ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere 
>around until the FBI showed up.
>

     Liar.

>Hell, someone even took a photo of a van at Church and Murray with people 
>unloading something and they had the nerve to leave their two wheeler next 
>to the debris they dropped off under a construction canopy.

     According to people on the scene, they were loading, not
unloading. But provide your evidence that counters their claims.

>
>Well, they didn't just drop off a engine under a canopy they also left us a 
>can of pea or more like bullshit.  <G>

     Liar.

>
>Link that shows a two wheeler and the van that dropped off the planted 
>engine that could not have come from the jet it was supposed to come from.
>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Xglkn6WutQ/U_UJFUIbKKI/AAAAAAAAChE/YEjvlVe2faA/s1600/Pickup%2Bor%2Bdelivery%3F.jpg 
>

     Liar.

"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he claims nukes were used on
9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

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

#521200 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES )

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

>ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere 
>around until the FBI showed up.

Plenty of debris outside the Pentagon, but most of the plane went into
the building.

>Hell, someone even took a photo of a van at Church and Murray with people 
>unloading something and they had the nerve to leave their two wheeler next 
>to the debris they dropped off under a construction canopy.

K00ktard, that little dolly isn't going to move that big engine part.
Those engines weigh 4-5 tons each.  I'll give you the benefit of a doubt
and say that part weighs just a ton.  It still won't lift it.  Even then
that engine part is too big to get the lip of the dolly under and support
it.

Flunk!

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

#521211 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES )

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mt7s5p$o6f$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere
>>around until the FBI showed up.
>
> Plenty of debris outside the Pentagon, but most of the plane went into
> the building.

riiight.  And I suppose you are going to tell me that the 757 folded it's 
wings back just like a bird going into a birdhouse and neatly tucked it's 
wings and engines into a small hole even though no real jet has ever been 
seen doing that before or since.  <G>

Do you have any idea how fast those wings and engines would have to whip 
around to do something like that?  Or how fragile wings really are? 
Obviously you don't.

When in reality if it really hit those light poles it should have ripped the 
fuel tanks wide open and spilled jet fuel all over the place.

Sorry but that bullshit about the Pentagon was way too hokey for me to fall 
for especially after I heard this on CNN:

9/11 Pentagon Reality Check 16: CNN's JAMIE MCINTYRE
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHeYFTPG4KQ

 >>Hell, someone even took a photo of a van at Church and Murray with people
>>unloading something and they had the nerve to leave their two wheeler next
>>to the debris they dropped off under a construction canopy.
>
> K00ktard, that little dolly isn't going to move that big engine part.
> Those engines weigh 4-5 tons each.  I'll give you the benefit of a doubt
> and say that part weighs just a ton.  It still won't lift it.  Even then
> that engine part is too big to get the lip of the dolly under and support
> it.

ROTFLMAO true if that were a real engine but it was probably hollowed out so 
they could move it around.  Hell, it only took one person to move a lot of 
the parts out onto the lawn of the Pentagon for a photo op there.

And I've already told you that the 9/11 hoaxsters were setup to make 
hundreds if not thousands of bogus videos but their 3D layout of Nuke York 
City only took care of buildings so when they ran into a video with a crane 
in it they had problems adding a CGI to that video.  Here see for yourself.

Believe Your Own Eyes - 9/11 - No "Planes" Were Ever Used.mp4
( Time indexed to start at 25:58 )
 https://youtu.be/IL8cJWyOxWQ?t=25m58s

"9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film."

Oh yeah, if you want to continue with your lies you will have to see that 
there is a difference between nukes detonated in rock and nukes detonated in 
dirt.

And you will have to give me some explanation for why there were so many 
survivors in the North Tower.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#521456 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES )

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mt7s5p$o6f$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because just like with the Pentagon there was no debris anywhere
>>>around until the FBI showed up.
>>
>> Plenty of debris outside the Pentagon, but most of the plane went into
>> the building.

>riiight.  And I suppose you are going to tell me that the 757 folded it's 
>wings back just like a bird going into a birdhouse and neatly tucked it's 
>wings and engines into a small hole even though no real jet has ever been 
>seen doing that before or since.  <G>

The body of the plane definitely entered the building, which is why all 
its debris was there. I believe one wing went through the wall but the 
other hit the ground and disintegrated just before impact.

>And I've already told you that the 9/11 hoaxsters were setup to make 
>hundreds if not thousands of bogus videos but their 3D layout of Nuke York 
>City only took care of buildings so when they ran into a video with a crane 
>in it they had problems adding a CGI to that video.  Here see for yourself.

>Believe Your Own Eyes - 9/11 - No "Planes" Were Ever Used.mp4
>( Time indexed to start at 25:58 )
> https://youtu.be/IL8cJWyOxWQ?t=25m58s

That video clip has definitely been tampered with, kooktard.  Did you 
think nobody would notice?

p.s. Your start point is off.

>Oh yeah, if you want to continue with your lies you will have to see that 
>there is a difference between nukes detonated in rock and nukes detonated in 
>dirt.

Yup, one in rock will definitely couple its distinctive nuclear signature
to the earth better, so that seismometers worldwide will have an even
easier time detecting the nuclear explosions.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web