Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #520084 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-10 09:01 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-10 19:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 283 — 21 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: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-10 09:01 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-10 15:44 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-10 19:07 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 15:17 -0500
Re: Rocky wrong again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-11 20:38 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-11 18:54 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:14 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:48 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 10:33 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:02 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 21:46 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:12 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 19:24 +0100
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 13:36 -0500
Re: Rocky still crazy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 18:54 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 21:19 +0100
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:13 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:31 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-11 14:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-11 17:26 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 03:55 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-11 06:43 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-11 19:22 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-12 06:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 11:47 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-13 07:04 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 05:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-14 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 17:22 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-15 17:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-15 17:39 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-15 19:29 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 09:21 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 08:57 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 15:50 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 20:08 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 16:43 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 16:51 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 21:10 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:29 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 17:20 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:26 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 18:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 21:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:52 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:50 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-17 00:23 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:42 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"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> - 2015-09-17 01:13 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:45 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 16:48 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 21:43 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:50 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 06:51 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:56 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 06:25 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 07:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:09 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 23:00 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:03 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 20:24 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:43 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:01 -0500
9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:29 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:25 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 14:13 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 13:25 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:19 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW #10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 17:00 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 17:09 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:40 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:24 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-18 10:12 -0400
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:35 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-20 09:47 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:44 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:20 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 03:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:11 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 05:09 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 10:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 12:20 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 21:15 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:12 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 17:13 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 22:25 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:48 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:02 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:29 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 18:49 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-21 00:02 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-21 02:27 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-21 03:04 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-22 14:18 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 21:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 15:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 15:59 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:49 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:48 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 15:56 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:18 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:21 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:05 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:22 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:40 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 13:06 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 16:59 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 21:48 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 16:03 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 07:58 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:30 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 17:58 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 05:23 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 13:38 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 03:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:48 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:48 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-24 09:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 13:08 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 17:13 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 21:52 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:46 -0500
planes thereupon none where noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 18:10 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 16:14 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 08:24 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:32 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 15:50 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:32 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:06 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:13 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 17:22 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:33 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:15 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 05:42 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 14:53 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 18:23 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 07:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:07 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 11:24 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:45 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:15 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 05:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:38 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 07:02 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:13 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 21:26 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:13 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 21:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:31 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:57 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:01 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-22 16:19 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:11 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:40 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:11 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:15 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"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> - 2015-09-17 01:12 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 06:44 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:39 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:15 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 22:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:14 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 20:04 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:41 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 22:11 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:14 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 13:07 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-21 18:25 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"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> - 2015-09-21 20:27 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:36 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"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> - 2015-09-22 10:28 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2015-09-22 17:47 +0100
9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 2 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-23 05:27 +0200
9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-23 06:09 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1 "\"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> - 2015-09-23 20:22 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-24 06:53 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b "\"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> - 2015-09-24 01:49 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-25 07:33 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1a Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-24 06:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:27 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"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> - 2015-09-17 17:38 -0400
no asbestos cladding on the main beams noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:38 -0700
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 05:59 +0200
if the planes were not bombs, or if they were bombs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 11:21 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:42 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:19 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-16 07:48 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-15 04:18 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:55 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 17:03 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:38 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:01 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:07 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:44 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 03:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:21 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 05:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:20 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:14 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:56 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-22 03:28 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 03:36 -0500
9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-16 07:37 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:46 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:06 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"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> - 2015-09-17 00:30 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:38 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-16 17:59 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 07:11 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:05 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-14 17:06 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:57 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:31 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:06 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 12:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-11 17:20 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:36 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"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> - 2015-09-12 08:02 -0400
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 05:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 04:18 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-13 04:45 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 16:04 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 16:03 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-14 14:19 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:17 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:54 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 16:01 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:08 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:02 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 02:12 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-17 13:33 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 13:45 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:45 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:46 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:25 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:22 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 11:32 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Stagger Lee <stag@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-16 12:40 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Stagger Lee <stag@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-16 15:28 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:56 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:19 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 14:04 -0700
no bombs that were not planes e.g noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:24 -0700
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 15:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head |
| Message-ID | <97r00blpfcptf24aorr2ag4it4s9k4dp3d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522334 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:25:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc > >Yes Rocky, that is why the building fell. > >You finally got something right. CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view, America! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have remained standing. Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible morning? I don't think so! There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such distances. So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers? The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade Center building collapses: SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained standing. In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale." We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale that's "beyond the pale!" Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian assertions? The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing. According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above. There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed facts * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next. * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity alone. This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that. Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown to be physically impossible! So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM? Conclusions In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse. * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy. * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic. None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth of 9/11. The Bottom Line It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts. The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate. So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect presumptions, is also flawed. The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192 No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate awakenings. The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story," is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study, logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a major purpose of this site. The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and survived... www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 07:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head |
| Message-ID | <4a0ea04ee7b607924cf979a0c8d25c6f@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #522560 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Topaz, in <news:97r00blpfcptf24aorr2ag4it4s9k4dp3d@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:25:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc >> Yes Rocky, that is why the building fell. >> >> You finally got something right. Wow, did... did Roger T.E. Wittekind have a brief moment of sanity? <snicker> > CIA insider tells 911 tru<SMACKAKOOK!> Your continuing to spam that same retarded tripe won't help it become any more fact-based... it's the rantings of a schizophrenic paranoid delusional whacko who refuses to take her meds nor even to acknowledge that she's insane. Kook. LOL Moron. LOL Laughingstock. LOL BTW, your "CIA insider" Susan Lindauer is a delusional schizophrenic nutjob who believes she has psychic abilities and can utter prophecies. She had no connections whatsoever to the CIA... and her only actual connection to anyone who *did* have connections with the CIA was a physician with ties to the middle east. She was a conspiracy theory nutjob even back then, continually pursuing meetings with him to pump him for information. He broke off contact with Lindauer due to what he described as an increasingly "seditious bent" to her discussions. IOW, she went off the rails. She was arrested by the FBI for taking money from the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and indicted for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government... IOW, a spy. She was later arrested at Carswell AFB for psychological evaluation, only released after she was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. She then began k'laming she was a CIA asset... but in reality, she had just known someone years prior (who had cut off all contact with her) who was a CIA asset. She was later yet again found mentally unfit to stand trial and judged to be mentally insane. Psychotic. She was never a CIA agent, she was never a CIA asset. Believe the stupidity that tard spews at your own risk... you'd do well to research her claims completely, given that she's been caught in many, _many_ lies. Par for the course for a psychotic delusional kook... they all lie to sustain their delusions. <https://www.metabunk.org/susan-lindauer.t2494/> <https://web.archive.org/web/20130620221315/http://www.scribd.com/doc/46046645/US-v-Susan-Lindauer-NYSD-448-F-Supp-2d-558-2006> <https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/46046645-us-v-susan-lindauer-nysd-448-f-supp-2d-558-2006-pdf.1445/> "Although defendant denies she is mentally ill, she is plainly aware of what others think, and so, as Dr. Kleinman noted, she "is disposed to dissimulate, i.e., minimize the presence and extent of her psychiatric difficulties, especially to mental health professionals — whom she distrusts and generally dislikes." (Kleinman Report 12/13/05 at 8) She acknowledged to him that if she testifies at her trial she will have to avoid touching on such subjects as her psychic powers, but "also noted that when (metaphorically) attacked by others she has spontaneously uttered prophecies." (Id.at 46) But then, given that you're just as insane as Susan Lindauer, there's little surprise that you'd not only believe her wholly implausible kookbabble, but that you'd accept it wholesale as your own delusion. <snicker> -- Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East Moline, IL. Roger Wittekind (aka 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 shaking 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 building shook, 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 of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID: <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're off your meds, Roget Wittekind. I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. K) Your broken brain has now stated (MID: <YtWdnQvC1PTFNWjInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>) that "liquid freon in the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo [sic] nuclear bomb" (your words). Complete and utter nonsense from your thoroughly broken schizophrenic brain, Roger. 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 | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 15:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head |
| Message-ID | <rde30b5vo2luiqofmfj8gnse0ls1bnplnl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522639 |
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 07:02:31 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
You worthless little turds are all the same. Imagining you proved
something in the past when no one even reads your posts. The only
thing you prove in the present is that you should do the world a favor
and flush yourself down a toilet.
www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <trduva1ucu1bhsaoam2tg5ftn68259tkrp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522327 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official BS >> on why it collapsed? > >I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd Wills or >Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim that a missile hit it on 9/11. What missile and platform?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 00:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtnv9g$6e4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522348 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official BS >>> on why it collapsed? >> >> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd Wills >> or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist > > Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. > > My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim > that a missile hit it on 9/11. > > What missile and platform? If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the missile. He'll never be able to answer that one, and you can then make a strawman claim that all his answers are wrong. It's all here How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 02:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fm8vvat7noh1eb5coe48vi79flnr681huf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522422 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:02:51 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official BS >>>> on why it collapsed? >>> >>> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd Wills >>> or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist >> >> Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. >> >> My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim >> that a missile hit it on 9/11. >> >> What missile and platform? > > >If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the missile. What missile and platform will do. Got an answer? It seems to be the major point disproving your missile claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 03:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mto9ue$2uo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522437 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:02:51 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official BS >>>>> on why it collapsed? >>>> >>>> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd Wills >>>> or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist >>> >>> Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. >>> >>> My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim >>> that a missile hit it on 9/11. >>> >>> What missile and platform? >> >> >> If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the missile. > > What missile and platform will do. Got an answer? > > It seems to be the major point disproving your missile claim. When someone comes up to you and smacks your head with a baseball bat. Please remind the cops that since you can't tell them the brand of bat or where it was bought,.....that it doesn't exist. If you insist on being stupid, at least be consistant about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 14:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jq630b9jit0tmdjaue33qt7j86hnvv2iui@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522444 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:04:45 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:02:51 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official BS >>>>>> on why it collapsed? >>>>> >>>>> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd Wills >>>>> or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist >>>> >>>> Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. >>>> >>>> My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim >>>> that a missile hit it on 9/11. >>>> >>>> What missile and platform? >>> >>> >>> If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the missile. >> >> What missile and platform will do. Got an answer? >> >> It seems to be the major point disproving your missile claim. > >When someone comes up to you and smacks your head with a baseball bat. >Please remind the cops that since you can't tell them the brand of bat or >where it was bought,.....that it doesn't exi You haven't identified the object. You have no evidence of a missile hitting the Pentagon. In your posit you wouldn't have any evidence it was a baseball bat. >If you insist on being stupid, at least be consistant about it. You've proven you have no answer. Therefore your claims of a missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 21:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtsvs7$a8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522699 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:04:45 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:02:51 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official >>>>>>> BS on why it collapsed? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd >>>>>> Wills or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist >>>>> >>>>> Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. >>>>> >>>>> My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim >>>>> that a missile hit it on 9/11. >>>>> >>>>> What missile and platform? >>>> >>>> >>>> If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the missile. >>> >>> What missile and platform will do. Got an answer? >>> >>> It seems to be the major point disproving your missile claim. >> >> When someone comes up to you and smacks your head with a baseball bat. >> Please remind the cops that since you can't tell them the brand of bat >> or where it was bought,.....that it doesn't exi > > You haven't identified the object. You have no evidence of a missile > hitting the Pentagon. In your posit you wouldn't have any evidence it > was a baseball bat. > > >> If you insist on being stupid, at least be consistant about it. > > You've proven you have no answer. Therefore your claims of a > missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be false. On the contrary. It proves that no passenger plane was ever clearly identified in ANY of the videos. So it is more likley that the projectiles, were missiles that were remote controlled, and designed to create massive fireballs on impact, and destroy themselves almost completely If you know of a video that clearly does prove any of the alledged passenger jets were actually involved in 9/11,....provide a link. Because I have never seen one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 00:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o4c40bhk3913mkv72q0em1ulbb85ho130t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522772 |
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:41:37 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:04:45 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:02:51 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official >>>>>>>> BS on why it collapsed? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd >>>>>>> Wills or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist >>>>>> >>>>>> Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. >>>>>> >>>>>> My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim >>>>>> that a missile hit it on 9/11. >>>>>> >>>>>> What missile and platform? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the missile. >>>> >>>> What missile and platform will do. Got an answer? >>>> >>>> It seems to be the major point disproving your missile claim. >>> >>> When someone comes up to you and smacks your head with a baseball bat. >>> Please remind the cops that since you can't tell them the brand of bat >>> or where it was bought,.....that it doesn't exi >> >> You haven't identified the object. You have no evidence of a missile >> hitting the Pentagon. In your posit you wouldn't have any evidence it >> was a baseball bat. >> >> >>> If you insist on being stupid, at least be consistant about it. >> >> You've proven you have no answer. Therefore your claims of a >> missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be false. > >On the contrary. No. Your claims of a missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be false. >It proves that no passenger plane was ever clearly identified in ANY of the >videos. There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon. >So it is more likley that the projectiles, were missiles that were remote >controlled, and designed to create massive fireballs on impact, and destroy >themselves almost completely So then, what kind of missile and what platform?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 15:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <80260blec75716jefi1bal624uurv5qhnc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522795 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:57:16 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon. > Only a couple of small parts which could have been put there by hand. The rest of the plane either disappeared somehow or was never there at all. www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtCdnayCwdaMjp7LnZ2dnUU7-Y3OydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522888 |
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:80260blec75716jefi1bal624uurv5qhnc@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:57:16 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> > wrote: > > >>There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon. Yes, and there was also vegetation on one of those trucked in parts that is only found in Brazil meaning the part was really from a crash site of a 757 in Brazil and then trucked to the Pentagon. > Only a couple of small parts which could have been put there by > hand. The rest of the plane either disappeared somehow or was never > there at all. Flights 11 and 77 were both entirely bogus and we can be thankful that Flight 93 was based on a real jet or there would have been no delay on that flight and the White House would have been trashed too. Yes, I think the White House was the fourth target and not WTC7. The 270 or 360 ( two different stories) degree turn going into the Pentagon makes me think that Flight 93 was really intended to hit the Pentagon but they had to substitute Flight 77 for that maneuver instead. And riiight, the alleged hijackers knew that they had to go for the Pentagon instead of the White House when one of their planes was delayed too long on the tarmac. But how did the hijackers communicate with each other if they really existed? That would also explain why the exact time the Pentagon was trashed is inconsistent with times that clocks stopped working. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 03:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u6e70btvq0gqnudi8fmniu92ahh11apsko@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522890 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:59:45 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:80260blec75716jefi1bal624uurv5qhnc@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:57:16 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon.
>
>Yes, and there was also vegetation on one of those trucked in parts that is
>only found in Brazil meaning the part was really from a crash site of a 757
>in Brazil and then trucked to the Pentagon.
>
Where's your link? Without a link, you claim something presented
is a lie. <G>
>
>> Only a couple of small parts which could have been put there by
>> hand. The rest of the plane either disappeared somehow or was never
>> there at all.
>
>Flights 11 and 77 were both entirely bogus and we can be thankful that
>Flight 93 was based on a real jet or there would have been no delay on that
>flight and the White House would have been trashed too. Yes, I think the
>White House was the fourth target and not WTC7.
>
#7 was never a target, as far as can be determined. The fourth
target was likely to have been either the White house or The Capital
building. There is, of course, no way for us to really KNOW.
>The 270 or 360 ( two different stories) degree turn going into the Pentagon
>makes me think that Flight 93 was really intended to hit the Pentagon but
>they had to substitute Flight 77 for that maneuver instead.
>
>And riiight, the alleged hijackers knew that they had to go for the Pentagon
>instead of the White House when one of their planes was delayed too long on
>the tarmac. But how did the hijackers communicate with each other if they
>really existed?
Where do you get the idea they were in communication with anyone
outside of their respective planes?
>
>That would also explain why the exact time the Pentagon was trashed is
>inconsistent with times that clocks stopped working.
Since you didn't provide a link, you're lying. At least by YOUR
standards. <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 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 | 2015-09-24 03:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g6e70bdlb558c0v4njtbfqrvk82n3msb4d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522888 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:17:49 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:57:16 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon.
>>
>
> Only a couple of small parts which could have been put there by
>hand. The rest of the plane either disappeared somehow or was never
>there at all.
Over 90% of the plane was recovered. But you'll already know
that.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndo80bd3bv94u8uf9ronh2bibftdhrp2ck@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522954 |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 03:48:26 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:17:49 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:57:16 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >>wrote: >> >> >>>There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon. >>> >> >> Only a couple of small parts which could have been put there by >>hand. The rest of the plane either disappeared somehow or was never >>there at all. > > Over 90% of the plane was recovered. Probably BS but at least trying to prove something. > But you'll already know that. Something only a worthless piece of shit would say. 9/11 Video of NO PLANE Hitting the Pentagon http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82934657/ www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 04:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l94a0b5b8qbeam15ku3okh8om0n94ckcfm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523004 |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:56:04 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 03:48:26 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
><compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:17:49 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:57:16 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only a couple of small parts which could have been put there by
>>>hand. The rest of the plane either disappeared somehow or was never
>>>there at all.
>>
>> Over 90% of the plane was recovered.
>
> Probably BS but at least trying to prove something.
>
>> But you'll already know that.
>
> Something only a worthless piece of shit would say.
>
I don't recall you making the claim.
>9/11 Video of NO PLANE Hitting the Pentagon
>http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82934657/
>
Note the video doesn't show a man named Charles bending over and
igniting his own flatulence. If you're consistent with your standards,
you must now claim this is what happened.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 15:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <e1bb0bdd9usto2136r8blp36q9l8hs5a5o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523090 |
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 04:18:05 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't recall you making the claim. > >>9/11 Video of NO PLANE Hitting the Pentagon >>http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82934657/ >> > > Note the video doesn't show a man named Charles bending over and >igniting his own flatulence. If you're consistent with your standards, >you must now claim this is what happened. It shows the explosion but there is no plane. And it was at first banned by the FBI but somehow it is now available. www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 17:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q8hb0bdk9g783m8opc76bhiaqut0jcerlj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523157 |
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:21:03 -0500, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 04:18:05 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
><compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't recall you making the claim.
>>
>>>9/11 Video of NO PLANE Hitting the Pentagon
>>>http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82934657/
>>>
>>
>> Note the video doesn't show a man named Charles bending over and
>>igniting his own flatulence. If you're consistent with your standards,
>>you must now claim this is what happened.
>
> It shows the explosion but there is no plane.
And no man named Charles. By your standards, it has been proved
Charles did it.
>And it was at first
>banned by the FBI but somehow it is now available.
>
It wasn't ever banned. Not being released isn't banned. Not to
the educated.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 06:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mu0ip6$vbm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522795 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:41:37 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:04:45 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:02:51 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official >>>>>>>>> BS on why it collapsed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd >>>>>>>> Wills or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim >>>>>>> that a missile hit it on 9/11. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What missile and platform? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the >>>>>> missile. >>>>> >>>>> What missile and platform will do. Got an answer? >>>>> >>>>> It seems to be the major point disproving your missile claim. >>>> >>>> When someone comes up to you and smacks your head with a baseball >>>> bat. Please remind the cops that since you can't tell them the brand >>>> of bat or where it was bought,.....that it doesn't exi >>> >>> You haven't identified the object. You have no evidence of a missile >>> hitting the Pentagon. In your posit you wouldn't have any evidence it >>> was a baseball bat. >>> >>> >>>> If you insist on being stupid, at least be consistant about it. >>> >>> You've proven you have no answer. Therefore your claims of a >>> missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be false. >> >> On the contrary. > > No. Your claims of a missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be > false. > >> It proves that no passenger plane was ever clearly identified in ANY >> of the videos. > > There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 06:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mu0js8$3c3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522795 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:41:37 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:04:45 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:02:51 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:13:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All agree that no planes hit building 7. So what is the official >>>>>>>>> BS on why it collapsed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have posted this a few times already and the clowns like Kidd >>>>>>>> Wills or Sarah the Stalker like to deny it exist >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Liar. I have never commented on Building 7 collapse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My question to you remains the same. The Pentagon and your claim >>>>>>> that a missile hit it on 9/11. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What missile and platform? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I were you I'd ask the name of the person who painted the >>>>>> missile. >>>>> >>>>> What missile and platform will do. Got an answer? >>>>> >>>>> It seems to be the major point disproving your missile claim. >>>> >>>> When someone comes up to you and smacks your head with a baseball >>>> bat. Please remind the cops that since you can't tell them the brand >>>> of bat or where it was bought,.....that it doesn't exi >>> >>> You haven't identified the object. You have no evidence of a missile >>> hitting the Pentagon. In your posit you wouldn't have any evidence it >>> was a baseball bat. >>> >>> >>>> If you insist on being stupid, at least be consistant about it. >>> >>> You've proven you have no answer. Therefore your claims of a >>> missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be false. >> >> On the contrary. > > No. Your claims of a missile hitting the Pentagon are found to be > false. > >> It proves that no passenger plane was ever clearly identified in ANY >> of the videos. > > There were parts of an American Airlines plane in the Pentagon. > And yet they were never displayed or were otherwise visible ? But we are TOLD they were there. Oh,.... other than a few pieces of unidentifiable scrap metal that could have come from anywhere, and stored in a few crates. That a CNN reporter on the scene minutes after the explosion occurred COULD NOT SEE any signs of a plane. 9/11 CNN No Plane at Pentagon Original Footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo ....By people who despite an annual budget of multiple trillions of dollars, couldn't even manage to have a closed circuit TV camera system, of the same quality that most corner gas stations set up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web