Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #522259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-20 14:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-20 18:27 -0500 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 24 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 14:29 -0500
Re: Rocky still a delusional kook jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 19:59 +0000
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-20 22:34 +0000
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 17:43 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 23:00 +0000
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-20 19:21 -0400
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 18:39 -0500
Re: Rocky continues to rave jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 00:02 +0000
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:28 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-21 00:51 +0000
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 07:07 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:27 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-21 14:29 +0000
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 11:11 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-21 18:05 +0000
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 13:28 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-21 20:19 +0100
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:16 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:27 -0500
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0qu00bdvr36ou3t216ah8i50nde67o40vm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522509 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:05:21 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mtp48g$iak$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>
>>> OK. The images are at: http://kooktardery.imgur.com/
>
>>And why did you fail to address why the port side wing disappeared right
>>before the CGI entered the South Tower? <G>
>
>>ROTFLMAO because one wing or the other happened to disappear in quite a few
>>videos and it happened because the 9/11 Hoaxsters made their CGI reflective
>>and it reflected the sky.
>
>You want me to look for where the fakers also faked a missing wing in
>that video clip? OK!
>
>Aren't you ashamed that you were fooled so easily? Kooktards are such
>stoopid sheeple.
Sadly, Rocky's mind is such that he doesn't even understand that
he should be ashamed.
I honestly wish that were an insult. But it's an accurate comment
about him, based on his posts.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiu00bpskgd1e05hud8v84m8nrasc2fgu3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522486 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:11:02 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mtp48g$iak$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>> OK. The images are at: http://kooktardery.imgur.com/
>
>And why did you fail to address why the port side wing disappeared right
>before the CGI entered the South Tower? <G>
>
>Video that Michael is not telling us the whole truth about follows:
>
>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
>
>ROTFLMAO because one wing or the other happened to disappear in quite a few
>videos and it happened because the 9/11 Hoaxsters made their CGI reflective
>and it reflected the sky. More on that in the following video:
>
>Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>
How does any of this address that the video you used to support
your claim was altered? Is this really how you are going to admit you
were scammed in regards to the video?
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <08u00b5nosopuafnd5s4385t1e8e69mqmt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522470 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:34:33 +0000 (UTC),
>>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>>>Shall I now post still images from that clip online so that everyone else
>>>can laugh at your kooktarded ass?
>
>> Please do. I would enjoy seeing Roger's melt down over it.
>
>OK. The images are at: http://kooktardery.imgur.com/
Great!
It will be fun to see if Roger is able to admit he was duped. I'm
confident he won't.
>The first three pictures are stills from the normal speed clip of UA 175
>flying into the tower. Note that the plane image is small, blurry and
>double-exposed (likely due to NTSC TV scanning). The rest of the pictures
>are from the slowed playbacks that supposedly show the plane flying in
>front of the cable. Note that somehow, the plane images are much more
>detailed, and are no longer double exposures. How did that happen? They
>did not come from the original normal speed clip!
>
Definitely not. And the cables seem to just vanish then reappear
around the plane. A very obvious sign of tampering.
>In particular, Picture 2 (before doctoring) is the same as Picture 4
>(after doctoring), with a wing aligned with the crane cable. Also, many
>of the doctored plane images look like rushed paste jobs. The cable
>doesn't even reach the jet because the jet image (plus some background)
>was pasted right over it!
That's my conclusion as well.
What is most sad is that Troofers like Rocky actually think
manufactured "evidence" proves their claims.
>
>The kookvid this is from is:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL8cJWyOxWQ&feature=youtu.be&t=26m25s
>(note corrected start time. Rocky doesn't even watch what he posts. He
>is probably told what to post)
An interesting idea you have. Rocky is someone's pawn.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <16guva56iodrs8917leol1vcvmhqh7blgl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522259 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:29:26 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>BTW in the process of posting I changed the subject from "New 9/11
>Pennsylvania Crash Footage Filmed by a Mason!" to "9/11 - The No Plane
>Theory - True or False?" because the No Plane video was so good.
>
The claim is false.
>9/11 - The No Plane Theory - True or False?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xKVrf9cryE
>
>Qualified but beat out by the above video.
>
>New 9/11 Pennsylvania Crash Footage Filmed by a Mason!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU6V4FNkySY
>
As if the service organization to which the filmer belongs is at
all relevant.
BTW, the woman seems surprised that the smoke from an explosion
looks a lot like the smoke from a different explosion. I find that
amusing.
>Talking about some of the 9/11 fcukups and these are just by three
>helicopters out on the morning of 9/11/01..
>
>Chopper 2 or WCBS recorded the EMP by their AM receiver that we were not
>supposed to see that just happened to be at the exact same time the ground
>shook under WTC1.
>
That is impossible. There were no EMPS and they didn't us AM.
This has been explained to you MANY times.
>Chopper 4 showed us a ball instead of a jet because someone at that station
>didn't feel right putting a CGI of a jet in their video.
I await your evidence that anyone held such a feeling. If your
claim is nothing more than more evidence of your mental defects,
you'll offer no evidence.
>And if you listen
>to the audio from channel 4 at the time of the alleged impact of the South
>Tower Channel 4 don't even acknowledge the presence of a jet. See for
>yourself at:
> https://youtu.be/BswpAgwBNEw?t=1m2s
>
The jet hit from the other side of the building, stupid. Its
approach was masked by the smoke from the first impact.
>Chopper 5 showed us a missing jet in the wide shot and then they even pulled
>the plug when they thought the CGI went all the way through the South Tower
>when it just happened to be exactly what the napalm cannon pushed out the
>north side of the South tower.
>
I'm still waiting for your evidence of the use of napalm. It's
been close to a week since I first saw you make this claim and
requested the evidence. Since your claim was, and is, a lie, you've
offered only avoidance, when you've been able to offer anything at
all.
>And I'm sure if I looked hard enough provided our government hasn't removed
>them yet, I could find other videos from choppers that didn't add a CGI at
>all to their videos. See:
>
>9/11 no planes compilation - interesting!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw
>
A collection of videos all taken from a perspective where the
plane can't be seen isn't, the mentally stable mind, evidence that no
planes were used.
>And we can't forget about the fcukups from the people that added CGIs to
>dozens of videos because they added a black jet that should have been white
>because it was in direct sunlight.
>
Where are these phantom videos? As of my writing this, you've yet
to offer them for review.
>Or they added jets with disappearing wings that flew in and out of cranes as
>proven by: ( note: the video shows the disappearing wing after the trick
>with the crane )
I was able to prove, using the video you used to link to, that
the wing did not disappear.
>
>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
>
>And this video is very interesting because it doesn't show a jet but it
>shows helicopters that are not in other alleged impact videos.
Did you noticed the tall building between the camera and the
location of the helicopter in some of the videos? Did you notice the
smoke blocking the view of the helicopter in the others?
Of course you did. But you are so mentally screwed up, you are
truly unable to admit it.
>
>9/11 Black Plane Hits WTC2 (Slightly Cut Off)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEcA-vAtn74
>
I don't see a black plane. I do see a plane that is in shadow.
>And here is another great video with all sorts of reasons he is inclined to
>believe none of the jets we were told about on 9/11/01 existed. <G>
>
>( Video now the first one mentioned in this post )
>
>And we can't forget this video because it involves a real airplane instead
>of a CGI.
>
>911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6ZQUWvDFs
>
Your LIE regarding this video has already been exposed. What do
you believe you gain from continuing to LIE?
>And back to the subject of nukes. Now I have to add, thanks to Michael
>Moroney that there are off-center physics, pure luck physics, and large mass
>physics with the only large mass from the Twin Towers being above or below
>the vaporization area of a deep underground nuke.
How was it possible for these nukes to vaporize only the middle
sections of the towers? How did they fail to damage the lower sections
on their way to the middle?
Please stay within the confines of reality. None of the cartoon
physics of which you are so fond.
>
>Here is the quote I'm referring to:
>"And there is nothing scientific at all about your "off-center" collapse",
>"pure luck" or "large mass" without evidence of a large mass. <G>"
>
>and here is the link to the post:
> news:jP6dnYJUMtPmS2PInZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Please post MIDs in the correct format. If such is beyond the
means of your mental defects, well, I guess you'll never be able. And
that is very sad.
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web