Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #522738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-22 17:45 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-27 11:38 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 157 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-22 17:45 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Rocky@Lying.Squirrel.com - 2015-09-22 20:24 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-22 23:10 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 07:47 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:46 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 00:54 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 12:52 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 14:13 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 13:49 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 15:18 -0400
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> Admits he posts lies and False Videos. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 18:11 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 15:55 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 17:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:34 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-23 21:31 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 22:51 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-24 09:38 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 09:13 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:19 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 17:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 04:40 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 10:56 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-24 18:16 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 17:16 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 20:07 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-25 05:39 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 08:13 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-25 15:35 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 16:54 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:06 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-26 05:52 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 17:01 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:25 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:05 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-26 11:16 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:23 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 21:05 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 05:32 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 06:03 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 05:44 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-25 14:44 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 13:42 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-26 05:49 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 11:32 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:25 -0500
things that **** y'go noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 16:24 -0700
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-25 10:12 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-26 11:23 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-26 13:55 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-26 18:55 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-26 23:22 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-26 20:52 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:26 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:50 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:57 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 01:38 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 05:57 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:01 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 17:53 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 10:36 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-27 17:15 +0100
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:56 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-27 23:57 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 19:27 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 01:55 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 22:29 -0500
why not ask wTf not noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 12:41 -0700
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 03:30 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 16:20 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 12:13 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-28 19:58 +0100
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 06:30 +0100
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-28 17:56 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 22:15 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 17:33 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-28 19:12 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-29 04:52 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:05 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:18 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 15:51 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 15:26 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:56 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 17:48 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 15:06 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 20:00 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 17:05 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-04 23:02 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 04:07 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 03:40 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:51 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 16:19 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:56 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-05 18:08 +0100
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 12:16 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:20 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-07 09:57 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 17:25 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 07:43 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 08:58 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 10:02 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:31 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:55 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 18:42 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 03:30 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 18:03 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 21:21 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-28 13:32 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 14:52 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 22:20 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 17:28 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-28 17:54 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 03:30 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:32 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:55 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 17:57 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-26 20:51 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 07:54 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 08:56 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:57 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:35 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 10:12 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:40 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 10:51 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:48 -0400
Re: Rocky's latest obsession jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 18:03 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:57 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 17:56 -0700
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:26 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:49 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-27 14:13 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 10:26 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-27 17:17 +0100
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-28 19:58 +0100
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 06:30 +0100
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:56 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-28 13:37 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 09:39 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-29 12:55 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-28 17:44 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-29 12:55 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:01 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-29 15:25 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:22 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:23 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 08:05 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:49 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 18:17 +0000
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:58 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:55 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 21:07 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:48 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 12:03 -0400
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:46 -0500
Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 11:38 -0500
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 05:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <86mdndD0N91RVZrLnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #523263 |
"Arc Michael" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aabd9f14-1da4-48d8-a36e-529ca5b98245@googlegroups.com... > On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 8:16:18 AM UTC-7, Bast wrote: >> K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:35:00 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> > wrote: >> > >> > [...] >> > >> >>>> Many videos didn't show up until much later (in particular the >> >>>> Naudet >> >>>> video of Flight 11, but also several videos of UA 175), but that >> >>>> doesn't take away from the fact they played the UA 175 clips they >> >>>> did >> >>>> have over and over. >> >>> >> >>> And I'll bet you forgot to count how many of those videos of UCGI 175 >> >>> had disappearing wings. >> >>> >> >>> There is one thing for sure. The 9/11 Hoaxsters didn't have to worry >> >>> about how shitty their graphics were because people would eat up the >> >>> "Official 9/11 story story story" despite all it's inconsistencies. >> >>> >> >>> Rocky >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not getting a lot of posts apparently, I guess my newsserver is >> >> having problems. >> > >> > Or, as is far more plausible, your news reader can't follow a >> > thread. >> > You're using Outlook Express. That explains a great deal. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, It seems it's not broken enough, as I can still see YOUR post. >> >> But since I have your attention, have you heard ?,.....9/11 was an inside >> job ! > > Bast is rocky, ow lame. Considering you also think there were 19 hijackers your mind is totally blown. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 14:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mu3mkm$7ki$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #523034 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mu1emj$hje$1@pcls7.std.com... >> Now, that's beyond kooktarded. There are thousands and thousands of >> people on the streets of Manhattan every day. Most would have looked up >> when they heard a jet flying low and loud, like the firefighters in the >> Naudet video. A big percentage of New Yorkers were already staring at the >> Twin Towers when the second plane hit. >riiight. Don't forget Newton. For every action there is an opposite >action. At the very very least those CGIs should have lost some speed or >parts but they went straight into the Twin Towers just like a CGI would. They did lose speed. Compare the time from the time of impact with the south wall to the time the first debris started flying out the north wall, to the time the plane traveled the same distance just before impact. The first time is longer. The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous strength to deflect the plane or parts of it. >And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the >explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane. Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it. >> On second rereading, maybe what Bast wrote is technically and devilishly >> true. Just about every single person who saw either jet in person did see >> them on TV, either that evening or over the next several days. The TV >> replayed the events over and over and over again. >And in the process they slowly weeded out the videos where the wing of the >CGI disappears but you still have one of them. <G> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 13:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jb-dnQAG0r1MCJjLnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #523112 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mu3mkm$7ki$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mu1emj$hje$1@pcls7.std.com... > >>> Now, that's beyond kooktarded. There are thousands and thousands of >>> people on the streets of Manhattan every day. Most would have looked up >>> when they heard a jet flying low and loud, like the firefighters in the >>> Naudet video. A big percentage of New Yorkers were already staring at >>> the >>> Twin Towers when the second plane hit. > >>riiight. Don't forget Newton. For every action there is an opposite >>action. At the very very least those CGIs should have lost some speed or >>parts but they went straight into the Twin Towers just like a CGI would. > > They did lose speed. Compare the time from the time of impact with the > south wall to the time the first debris started flying out the north wall, > to the time the plane traveled the same distance just before impact. The > first time is longer. > > The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep > going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous > strength to deflect the plane or parts of it. "enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye bye? And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out about that wing that left the scene of the crime? >>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the >>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane. > > Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking > away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it. But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where there wasn't even the sound of a jet. And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of jets flying into the towers maybe that was just in Nuke York City where people watching never saw or heard any jets. The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is to create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South Tower tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01. 07 - The Key https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds >>> On second rereading, maybe what Bast wrote is technically and devilishly >>> true. Just about every single person who saw either jet in person did >>> see >>> them on TV, either that evening or over the next several days. The TV >>> replayed the events over and over and over again. > >>And in the process they slowly weeded out the videos where the wing of the >>CGI disappears but you still have one of them. <G> > > Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one > with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact? Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major network. <G> Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's first, second or third story. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 05:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mu5blg$8rk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #523134 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mu3mkm$7ki$1@pcls7.std.com... >> >> The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep >> going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous >> strength to deflect the plane or parts of it. >"enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye >bye? Yes, k00ktard, enormous momentum. Momentum depends only on mass and velocity, not whether the object is a hollow aluminum shell. The jets with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were about 240,000 pounds each and were traveling at 460 & 540 mph. Momentum = m*v. (stoopid k00ktards don't understand any science) > And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out >about that wing that left the scene of the crime? Yeah, some other kooktard most likely edited the video. >>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the >>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane. >> >> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking >> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it. >But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where >there wasn't even the sound of a jet. Because of the speed of sound, many a ways away would not hear the plane until after impact. >And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of >jets flying into the towers Bast is wrong about that. >The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon >tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is to >create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South Tower >tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01. They recovered 95% of both those jets. >> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one >> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact? >Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only >so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major >network. <G> No, we already know the kooktards tamper with the videos. Either they just tampered with that one, too, or it's Youtube's video compression or MPEG compression. Either way, it's not real. >Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is >both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's first, >second or third story. <G> I was wrong, the plane cut a 90' hole in the wall. So the wings did go inside (without folding up like a sparrow). That's what I get for believing the kooktards who said there was just an 18' hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jOednW1OSMh2WpvLnZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #523236 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mu5blg$8rk$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mu3mkm$7ki$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> >>> The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep >>> going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous >>> strength to deflect the plane or parts of it. > >>"enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye >>bye? > > Yes, k00ktard, enormous momentum. Momentum depends only on mass and > velocity, not whether the object is a hollow aluminum shell. The jets > with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were about 240,000 pounds each and were > traveling at 460 & 540 mph. Momentum = m*v. > (stoopid k00ktards don't understand any science) I understand that only CGIs can do what was done without any slowdown or breakage whatsoever. >> And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out >>about that wing that left the scene of the crime? > > Yeah, some other kooktard most likely edited the video. Yes, I consider the 9/11 Hoaxsters kooktards too. Especially if they expected us to fall for their very shitty CGIs. >>>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the >>>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane. >>> >>> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking >>> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it. > >>But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where >>there wasn't even the sound of a jet. > > Because of the speed of sound, many a ways away would not hear the plane > until after impact. What impact? CGIs don't make a whole lot of noise. >>And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of >>jets flying into the towers > > Bast is wrong about that. Says someone who is wrong about the Pentagon, wrong about the jet in Nuke York City and wrong about the reason why so very little remained of the Twin Towers and why what remained of the Twin Towers remained standing. >>The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon >>tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is >>to >>create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South >>Tower >>tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01. > > They recovered 95% of both those jets. No, they recovered 100% of them and they were even crashed. DUH. >>> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one >>> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact? > >>Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only >>so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major >>network. <G> > > No, we already know the kooktards tamper with the videos. Either they > just tampered with that one, too, or it's Youtube's video compression or > MPEG compression. Either way, it's not real. riiight. Too bad not everybody thinks that. >>Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is >>both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's >>first, >>second or third story. <G> > > I was wrong, the plane cut a 90' hole in the wall. So the wings did go > inside (without folding up like a sparrow) Guess again. . > That's what I get for believing the kooktards who said there was just an > 18' hole. I hope you are smart enough to figure out the size difference was the 9/11 Hoaxsters use the width of the hole in the Pentagon after most of the wall collapsed. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 20:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <59he0bl7qr266gr7peg0qa9p1qn310nb6i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523271 |
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:32:26 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mu5blg$8rk$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mu3mkm$7ki$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>
>>>> The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep
>>>> going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous
>>>> strength to deflect the plane or parts of it.
>>
>>>"enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye
>>>bye?
>>
>> Yes, k00ktard, enormous momentum. Momentum depends only on mass and
>> velocity, not whether the object is a hollow aluminum shell. The jets
>> with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were about 240,000 pounds each and were
>> traveling at 460 & 540 mph. Momentum = m*v.
>> (stoopid k00ktards don't understand any science)
>
>I understand that only CGIs can do what was done without any slowdown or
>breakage whatsoever.
>
Michael has pointed out there was a slowdown, dullard. And parts
of the plane clearly experienced breakage. This is obvious in several
videos of the event. More so in the second plane hit as more people
had their cameras filming the towers.
>
>>> And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out
>>>about that wing that left the scene of the crime?
>>
>> Yeah, some other kooktard most likely edited the video.
>
>Yes, I consider the 9/11 Hoaxsters kooktards too. Especially if they
>expected us to fall for their very shitty CGIs.
>
You helped to prove there were no CGIs. One, of many, example:
You'll recall your rant about a lack of a shadow. You linked to a
video wherein the shadow of the plane is easily seen. You've since
abandoned the claim and video, indicating that you know you're wrong
about everything, but lack the mental stability to admit it.
>>>>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the
>>>>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking
>>>> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it.
>>
>>>But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where
>>>there wasn't even the sound of a jet.
>>
>> Because of the speed of sound, many a ways away would not hear the plane
>> until after impact.
>
>What impact? CGIs don't make a whole lot of noise.
>
Which is another way you've helped to prove no CGIs were used.
Each plane made a lot of noise.
>>>And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of
>>>jets flying into the towers
>>
>> Bast is wrong about that.
>
>Says someone who is wrong about the Pentagon, wrong about the jet in Nuke
>York City and wrong about the reason why so very little remained of the Twin
>Towers and why what remained of the Twin Towers remained standing.
>
Where was he wrong? Be specific.
>>>The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
>>>tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is
>>>to
>>>create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South
>>>Tower tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01.
>>
>> They recovered 95% of both those jets.
>
>No, they recovered 100% of them and they were even crashed. DUH.
>
Where is your cite for the recovery of 100% of the jets?
>>>> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one
>>>> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact?
>>
>>>Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only
>>>so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major
>>>network. <G>
>>
>> No, we already know the kooktards tamper with the videos. Either they
>> just tampered with that one, too, or it's Youtube's video compression or
>> MPEG compression. Either way, it's not real.
>
>riiight. Too bad not everybody thinks that.
>
It's real easy to see the one video had been altered. And altered
poorly.
MPEG compression artifacts are well known. The same with
Youtube's compression.
>
>>>Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is
>>>both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's
>>>first,
>>>second or third story. <G>
>>
>> I was wrong, the plane cut a 90' hole in the wall. So the wings did go
>> inside (without folding up like a sparrow)
>
>Guess again.
>.
Was it 91 Feet?
>> That's what I get for believing the kooktards who said there was just an
>> 18' hole.
>
>I hope you are smart enough to figure out the size difference was the 9/11
>Hoaxsters use the width of the hole in the Pentagon after most of the wall
>collapsed.
So you and your lot are using bogus numbers invented after the
wall collapsed. I can accept this admission from you.
"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 | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 16:24 -0700 |
| Subject | things that **** y'go |
| Message-ID | <554a08c9-ba03-4643-954c-24ecb3bd1ced@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #523360 |
yeah, hm > Michael has pointed out there was a slowdown, dullard. And parts > of the plane clearly experienced breakage. This is obvious in several > videos of the event. More so in the second plane hit as more people > had their cameras filming the towers. > > > > >>> And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out > >>>about that wing that left the scene of the crime? > >> > >> Yeah, some other kooktard most likely edited the video. > > > >Yes, I consider the 9/11 Hoaxsters kooktards too. Especially if they > >expected us to fall for their very shitty CGIs. > > > > You helped to prove there were no CGIs. One, of many, example: > > You'll recall your rant about a lack of a shadow. You linked to a > video wherein the shadow of the plane is easily seen. You've since > abandoned the claim and video, indicating that you know you're wrong > about everything, but lack the mental stability to admit it. > > >>>>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the > >>>>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane. > >>>> > >>>> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking > >>>> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it. > >> > >>>But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where > >>>there wasn't even the sound of a jet. > >> > >> Because of the speed of sound, many a ways away would not hear the plane > >> until after impact. > > > >What impact? CGIs don't make a whole lot of noise. > > > > Which is another way you've helped to prove no CGIs were used. > Each plane made a lot of noise. > > >>>And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of > >>>jets flying into the towers > >> > >> Bast is wrong about that. > > > >Says someone who is wrong about the Pentagon, wrong about the jet in Nuke > >York City and wrong about the reason why so very little remained of the Twin > >Towers and why what remained of the Twin Towers remained standing. > > > > Where was he wrong? Be specific. > > >>>The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon > >>>tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is > >>>to > >>>create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South > >>>Tower tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01. > >> > >> They recovered 95% of both those jets. > > > >No, they recovered 100% of them and they were even crashed. DUH. > > > > Where is your cite for the recovery of 100% of the jets? > > >>>> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one > >>>> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact? > >> > >>>Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only > >>>so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major > >>>network. <G> > >> > >> No, we already know the kooktards tamper with the videos. Either they > >> just tampered with that one, too, or it's Youtube's video compression or > >> MPEG compression. Either way, it's not real. > > > >riiight. Too bad not everybody thinks that. > > > > It's real easy to see the one video had been altered. And altered > poorly. > MPEG compression artifacts are well known. The same with > Youtube's compression. > > > > >>>Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is > >>>both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's > >>>first, > >>>second or third story. <G> > >> > >> I was wrong, the plane cut a 90' hole in the wall. So the wings did go > >> inside (without folding up like a sparrow) > > > >Guess again. > >. > > Was it 91 Feet? > > >> That's what I get for believing the kooktards who said there was just an > >> 18' hole. > > > >I hope you are smart enough to figure out the size difference was the 9/11 > >Hoaxsters use the width of the hole in the Pentagon after most of the wall > >collapsed. > > So you and your lot are using bogus numbers invented after the > wall collapsed. I can accept this admission from you. > > > "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 | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 10:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.306f205c5c11ef6898c2df@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522969 |
In article <mu12s8$u2r$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says... > > BDK wrote: > > In article <mtvoc8$ie5$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says... > >> > >> BDK wrote: > >>> In article <mtvcq6$n75$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid > >>> says... > >>>> > >>>> Rocky wrote: > >>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message > >>>>> news:mtuvvs$3mg$1@dont-email.me... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rocky wrote: > >>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message > >>>>>>> news:mtul9i$kut$1@dont-email.me... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:45:28 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no > >>>>>>>>>> audio > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Published on Feb 17, 2013 > >>>>>>>>>> Video says all. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So what does it say? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Posting youtube videos will no longer be watched. Give your own > >>>>>>>>> comments. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Refusing to watch videos is proof that you have made up your mind > >>>>>>>> and have no desire to be confused by actual facts. > >>>>>>>> And since you won't believe a video, you won't believe anything > >>>>>>>> typed on a page either. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for saving our time replying to your posts > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I tried to warn you about Sarah. BTW I can't believe Kid Wills > >>>>>>> still falls for her shit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Me, I couldn't believe the above video. I mean it was like > >>>>>>> whoever posted the video above was right there with Evan Farbanks > >>>>>>> or maybe Evan Fairbanks finally fessed up to the facts. Either > >>>>>>> way is possible. Rocky > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I actually couldn't care less about this sarah person. > >>>>>> And they are hardly a threat to anyone, anymore than the rest of > >>>>>> the tens of usenet 9/11 debunking troublemakers who post daily. > >>>>>> They implicitly trust that their government will always look after > >>>>>> thier interests first. > >>>>>> And I would ask them ,,...well how's that obamacare working out for > >>>>>> ya ??? I'll keep posting video links and if she doesn't get that > >>>>>> the message for all of them is ,...." 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB " > >>>>>> She smply doesn't have to watch them or even click on my links. > >>>>>> They are all now identified in the subject line and just before the > >>>>>> video. > >>>>> > >>>>> BTW do you remember your video with Judy Woods where she is talking > >>>>> about the strange seismic readings at GZ? I'd like to make sure > >>>>> that Michael from alt.physics sees that one. > >>>>> > >>>>> TIA > >>>>> Rocky > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> i'm not sure what video you are referring to ,but a quick search on > >>>> youtube brings up pages of her videos. > >>>> > >>>> This should be a good one for you, as it has much of her speech. > >>>> And goes into why the towers dustified > >>> > >>> "dustified"? Wow, you're even making up words/terms! > >>> > >>> BTW, you would (If you were sane)expect a building with a lot of > >>> drywall in it to produce a lot of dust when it collapses. > >>> > >>> Since you aren't sane, it "Dustifies". > >>> > >>> WOW. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11 > >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg > >>> > >>> BWHAHAHAHA! Judy Wood? Wow, only the dopiest of Troofers swallow her > >>> nonsense. Congrats! You've made the kOOktards of kOOktards list. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I was asked about her, so I provided a link. > >> I never claimed I think she is my "leader", but she does make a very > >> good point that people must look at what occurred on 9/11, and not go > >> in with pre-conceived ideas about what caused things to happen. > > > > You don't have to go with pre-conceived ideas to understand what > > happened on 911. > > > >> No planes were ever proven either. Unless you want to accept talking > >> heads on TV telling you what to believe. > > > > Thousands of people saw the first plane hit, and many more thousands saw > > the second one. What else would people walking and driving in the NYC > > area be looking at? A handful of people claim it was small planes, or > > there were no windows, etc, but the vast majority saw the jets hit. I > > know someone who saw the jetliner hit the Pentagon. > > > > > Not to see it personally. ??? > The only people in Manhattan that actually saw anything other than an > explosion, admit they saw planes on TV. That has to be the most insanely stupid claim you've ever made. There are thousands upon thousands of people walking and driving all over NYC and the surrounding areas during business hours. > You refer to an Urban Legend, that repeated over and over by the media you > now believe is true. > You are truly insane. > > > As for the pentagon,....I don;t care what kind of drugs you friends take or > what they see when they do. > It was never captured on any video, and > NOBODY saw a plane or debris from a plane at the pentagon,....not even > reporters on the scene. BWHAHAHAHAHA! Insanity rules your life. Get help. > > Only some staged pictures were released to the media the next day. That > consisted of a tiny fraction of what would be left after a crash. Nonsense. > > (but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter overnight > when no one was watching) Wow. I can't even imagine what could have happened to you that would mess your head us as badly as it is. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mu6d69$t6g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #523107 |
BDK wrote: > In article <mu12s8$u2r$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says... >> >> BDK wrote: >>> In article <mtvoc8$ie5$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid >>> says... >>>> >>>> BDK wrote: >>>>> In article <mtvcq6$n75$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid >>>>> says... >>>>>> >>>>>> Rocky wrote: >>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:mtuvvs$3mg$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rocky wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:mtul9i$kut$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:45:28 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no >>>>>>>>>>>> audio >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Published on Feb 17, 2013 >>>>>>>>>>>> Video says all. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what does it say? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Posting youtube videos will no longer be watched. Give your >>>>>>>>>>> own comments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Refusing to watch videos is proof that you have made up your >>>>>>>>>> mind and have no desire to be confused by actual facts. >>>>>>>>>> And since you won't believe a video, you won't believe anything >>>>>>>>>> typed on a page either. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for saving our time replying to your posts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I tried to warn you about Sarah. BTW I can't believe Kid Wills >>>>>>>>> still falls for her shit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Me, I couldn't believe the above video. I mean it was like >>>>>>>>> whoever posted the video above was right there with Evan >>>>>>>>> Farbanks or maybe Evan Fairbanks finally fessed up to the >>>>>>>>> facts. Either way is possible. Rocky >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I actually couldn't care less about this sarah person. >>>>>>>> And they are hardly a threat to anyone, anymore than the rest of >>>>>>>> the tens of usenet 9/11 debunking troublemakers who post daily. >>>>>>>> They implicitly trust that their government will always look >>>>>>>> after thier interests first. >>>>>>>> And I would ask them ,,...well how's that obamacare working out >>>>>>>> for ya ??? I'll keep posting video links and if she doesn't get >>>>>>>> that the message for all of them is ,...." 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE >>>>>>>> JOB " >>>>>>>> She smply doesn't have to watch them or even click on my links. >>>>>>>> They are all now identified in the subject line and just before >>>>>>>> the video. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW do you remember your video with Judy Woods where she is >>>>>>> talking about the strange seismic readings at GZ? I'd like to >>>>>>> make sure that Michael from alt.physics sees that one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> TIA >>>>>>> Rocky >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i'm not sure what video you are referring to ,but a quick search on >>>>>> youtube brings up pages of her videos. >>>>>> >>>>>> This should be a good one for you, as it has much of her speech. >>>>>> And goes into why the towers dustified >>>>> >>>>> "dustified"? Wow, you're even making up words/terms! >>>>> >>>>> BTW, you would (If you were sane)expect a building with a lot of >>>>> drywall in it to produce a lot of dust when it collapses. >>>>> >>>>> Since you aren't sane, it "Dustifies". >>>>> >>>>> WOW. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11 >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg >>>>> >>>>> BWHAHAHAHA! Judy Wood? Wow, only the dopiest of Troofers swallow her >>>>> nonsense. Congrats! You've made the kOOktards of kOOktards list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I was asked about her, so I provided a link. >>>> I never claimed I think she is my "leader", but she does make a very >>>> good point that people must look at what occurred on 9/11, and not go >>>> in with pre-conceived ideas about what caused things to happen. >>> >>> You don't have to go with pre-conceived ideas to understand what >>> happened on 911. >>> >>>> No planes were ever proven either. Unless you want to accept talking >>>> heads on TV telling you what to believe. >>> >>> Thousands of people saw the first plane hit, and many more thousands >>> saw the second one. What else would people walking and driving in the >>> NYC area be looking at? A handful of people claim it was small >>> planes, or there were no windows, etc, but the vast majority saw the >>> jets hit. I know someone who saw the jetliner hit the Pentagon. >> >> >> >> >> Not to see it personally. > > ??? > >> The only people in Manhattan that actually saw anything other than an >> explosion, admit they saw planes on TV. > > That has to be the most insanely stupid claim you've ever made. There > are thousands upon thousands of people walking and driving all over NYC > and the surrounding areas during business hours. > >> You refer to an Urban Legend, that repeated over and over by the media >> you now believe is true. >> > > You are truly insane. > >> >> >> As for the pentagon,....I don;t care what kind of drugs you friends >> take or what they see when they do. >> It was never captured on any video, and >> NOBODY saw a plane or debris from a plane at the pentagon,....not even >> reporters on the scene. > > BWHAHAHAHAHA! Insanity rules your life. Get help. > >> >> Only some staged pictures were released to the media the next day. That >> consisted of a tiny fraction of what would be left after a crash. > > Nonsense. > >> >> (but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter >> overnight when no one was watching) > > Wow. I can't even imagine what could have happened to you that would > mess your head us as badly as it is. <SIGH> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ " Even with this video evidence, some everyday people will still believe the government story. 9/11 changed the world but for the wrong reasons. DO YOU WANT THE TRUTH? ... or are you quite happy watching fake TV and eating fake food.... DO YOU KNOW what your government is capable of ? You only need to look at their past to see what they're doing today and where they're heading for the future. EVERYTHING IS NOT OK. "
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 13:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <75md0b10hop4m9klegqp13opvptkqqrccl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523264 |
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > ><SIGH> >Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the >Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. Yes I have. >He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building collapsed, and >there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon. The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. >9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 18:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mu77lk$5tt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #523278 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> >> <SIGH> >> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the >> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. > > Yes I have. > >> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building >> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. > > Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy > Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon. > > The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: > > " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the > Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has > crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small > enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail > sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around > which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of > the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. > > >> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ Lets see " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. " Ya,.... I can work with that ....NO PLANE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <utljdc-m1o.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #523314 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> <SIGH> >>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the >>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. >> >> Yes I have. >> >>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building >>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. >> >> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy >> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon. >> >> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: >> >> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has >> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small >> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail >> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around >> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of >> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. >> >> >>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ > > > > > > Lets see > " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the > Pentagon. " Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 20:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tcfe0b9hmrkprn6r41j9j9ucp6m2pqu8sn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523319 |
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> <SIGH> >>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the >>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. >>> >>> Yes I have. >>> >>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building >>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. >>> >>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy >>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon. >>> >>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: >>> >>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has >>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small >>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail >>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around >>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of >>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. >>> >>> >>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ >> >> >> >> >> >> Lets see >> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >> Pentagon. " > >Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with >most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook. > > Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 20:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bdhe0b1iter58usbdgqs54qtn89vorhap7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523348 |
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:52:07 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <SIGH>
>>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
>>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I have.
>>>>
>>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building
>>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy
>>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:
>>>>
>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has
>>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small
>>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail
>>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around
>>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
>>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lets see
>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>> Pentagon. "
>>
>>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with
>>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook.
>>
>>
>Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously.
She's looking for anything to hold onto her delusions.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <51bg0b5a02nd0lf4h456gnjsd1g7mq0afs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523364 |
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:26:27 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:52:07 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <SIGH> >>>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the >>>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. >>>>> >>>>> Yes I have. >>>>> >>>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building >>>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy >>>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon. >>>>> >>>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: >>>>> >>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >>>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has >>>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small >>>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail >>>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around >>>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of >>>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lets see >>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >>>> Pentagon. " >>> >>>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with >>>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook. >>> >>> >>Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously. > > She's looking for anything to hold onto her delusions. Maybe she should try looking in a mirror..... Ok, too easy :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i1mg0b59ll3isv0c37hudgsfqe7lqcjapt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523469 |
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:50:12 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets see
>>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>>> Pentagon. "
>>>>
>>>>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with
>>>>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously.
>>
>> She's looking for anything to hold onto her delusions.
>
>Maybe she should try looking in a mirror.....
>
>
>Ok, too easy :)
But accurate.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0utjdc-bqo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #523348 |
In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> <SIGH> >>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the >>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. >>>> >>>> Yes I have. >>>> >>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building >>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. >>>> >>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy >>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon. >>>> >>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: >>>> >>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has >>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small >>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail >>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around >>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of >>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lets see >>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >>> Pentagon. " >> >>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with >>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook. >> >> > Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously. Neither Bast nor Rocky is very bright to say the least, and both are obviously delusional. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 05:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <66Odna5glvtFVprLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #523368 |
"naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:54fe6c73-fac0-4e3a-82ef-c4cec870540f@googlegroups.com... > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+1, > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >>In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> >>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> <SIGH> >> >>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at >> >>>>> the >> >>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. >> >>>> >> >>>> Yes I have. >> >>>> >> >>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building >> >>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. >> >>>> >> >>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy >> >>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the >> >>>> Pentagon. >> >>>> >> >>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: >> >>>> >> >>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >> >>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that >> >>>> has >> >>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are >> >>>> small >> >>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail >> >>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere >> >>>> around >> >>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of >> >>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Lets see >> >>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >> >>> Pentagon. " >> >> >> >>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with >> >>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook. >> >> >> >> >> > Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously. >> >> Neither Bast nor Rocky is very bright to say the least, and both are >> obviously delusional. >> >> >> -- >> Jim Pennino > > Non radiation nukes. > Nukes with no seismic signature > Nukes planted underground & nobody noticed the work > Nukes that need no maintenance > Nukes that affect structures hundreds of feet away, but not close to > People that do not exist > A cast of thousands (crisis actors) > CGI planes that leave wreckage > Phone calls that did not exist > Holes in buildings changing size > Full buildings that had no people in them > Magic thermate > Impossible flying > The worlds media controlled by the government > Giant 3D holograms > Strontium Barium Niobate > Planes that took of that didn't take off > Building that were hit by debris but weren't hit by debris > Buildings that were scheduled for demolition, but were not. > > Do please add to the above list of his delusions, I am sure I have left > many out, oh I have just remembered another. > > Rocky thinks he can control a truck. There is just one major problem with the above. There is no way to explain the near total lack of debris from the Twin Towers, the violent shaking of WTC1 twelve seconds before it was vaporized, the EMP that WCBS recorded 12 seconds before WTC1 was vaporized, why GZ was called Ground Zero, all the deaths by cancer by anything other than a nuke or three and all three of the hot spots that the deniers love to deny. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And no need to mention holograms when all we were really given was the cheapest CGIs money could buy that didn't have any crash dynamics whatsoever and couldn't even keep their wings on the entire time. Oh, and don't forget that the three different stories told by Mike Walter a Pentagon Witness proves he was a lying sack of shit and consistent with other 9/11 lie witnesses. While I can't say 9/11 was an inside job it certainly appears that way with all the bullshit we were fed about it. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 09:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4ktf0bdpri5tki8g1oaf2i9sib7jsrnpnu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523405 |
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 05:57:38 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:54fe6c73-fac0-4e3a-82ef-c4cec870540f@googlegroups.com...
>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+1,
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>> >>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> <SIGH>
>>> >>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at
>>> >>>>> the
>>> >>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Yes I have.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building
>>> >>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy
>>> >>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the
>>> >>>> Pentagon.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>> >>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that
>>> >>>> has
>>> >>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are
>>> >>>> small
>>> >>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail
>>> >>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere
>>> >>>> around
>>> >>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
>>> >>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Lets see
>>> >>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>> >>> Pentagon. "
>>> >>
>>> >>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with
>>> >>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously.
>>>
>>> Neither Bast nor Rocky is very bright to say the least, and both are
>>> obviously delusional.
>>
>> Non radiation nukes.
>> Nukes with no seismic signature
>> Nukes planted underground & nobody noticed the work
>> Nukes that need no maintenance
>> Nukes that affect structures hundreds of feet away, but not close to
>> People that do not exist
>> A cast of thousands (crisis actors)
>> CGI planes that leave wreckage
>> Phone calls that did not exist
>> Holes in buildings changing size
>> Full buildings that had no people in them
>> Magic thermate
>> Impossible flying
>> The worlds media controlled by the government
>> Giant 3D holograms
>> Strontium Barium Niobate
>> Planes that took of that didn't take off
>> Building that were hit by debris but weren't hit by debris
>> Buildings that were scheduled for demolition, but were not.
>>
>> Do please add to the above list of his delusions, I am sure I have left
>> many out, oh I have just remembered another.
>>
>> Rocky thinks he can control a truck.
>
>There is just one major problem with the above.
For you the truth is a problem. We know.
>There is no way to explain
>the near total lack of debris from the Twin Towers,
There was no lack of debris.
>the violent shaking of
>WTC1 twelve seconds before it was vaporized,
It wasn't vaporized.
>the EMP that WCBS recorded 12
>seconds before WTC1 was vaporized,
There was no EMP.
>why GZ was called Ground Zero,
For the very reasons and definitions I've already posted.
>all the
>deaths by cancer by anything other than a nuke or three and all three of the
>hot spots that the deniers love to deny.
There were no such hot spots.
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
You keep posting a link to an image to PROVES your claims wrong.
Again I'll ask, and again you'll prove you have a problem with the
truth, why do you post a link to a picture you KNOW proves your claims
wrong?
>And no need to mention holograms when all we were really given was the
>cheapest CGIs money could buy that didn't have any crash dynamics whatsoever
>and couldn't even keep their wings on the entire time.
>
No CGIs were used. You helped to prove this.
>Oh, and don't forget that the three different stories told by Mike Walter a
>Pentagon Witness proves he was a lying sack of shit and consistent with
>other 9/11 lie witnesses.
The stories have been consistent.
>
>While I can't say 9/11 was an inside job it certainly appears that way with
>all the bullshit we were fed about it.
If we accept the bullshit you present, then yes. If we stick with
reality, no.
"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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a2nldc-an1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #523405 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:54fe6c73-fac0-4e3a-82ef-c4cec870540f@googlegroups.com... >> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+1, >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >>> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> > >>> >>In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> <SIGH> >>> >>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at >>> >>>>> the >>> >>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Yes I have. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building >>> >>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy >>> >>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the >>> >>>> Pentagon. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >>> >>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that >>> >>>> has >>> >>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are >>> >>>> small >>> >>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail >>> >>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere >>> >>>> around >>> >>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of >>> >>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lets see >>> >>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the >>> >>> Pentagon. " >>> >> >>> >>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with >>> >>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously. >>> >>> Neither Bast nor Rocky is very bright to say the least, and both are >>> obviously delusional. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jim Pennino >> >> Non radiation nukes. >> Nukes with no seismic signature >> Nukes planted underground & nobody noticed the work >> Nukes that need no maintenance >> Nukes that affect structures hundreds of feet away, but not close to >> People that do not exist >> A cast of thousands (crisis actors) >> CGI planes that leave wreckage >> Phone calls that did not exist >> Holes in buildings changing size >> Full buildings that had no people in them >> Magic thermate >> Impossible flying >> The worlds media controlled by the government >> Giant 3D holograms >> Strontium Barium Niobate >> Planes that took of that didn't take off >> Building that were hit by debris but weren't hit by debris >> Buildings that were scheduled for demolition, but were not. >> >> Do please add to the above list of his delusions, I am sure I have left >> many out, oh I have just remembered another. >> >> Rocky thinks he can control a truck. > > There is just one major problem with the above. There is no way to explain > the near total lack of debris from the Twin Towers, the violent shaking of > WTC1 twelve seconds before it was vaporized, the EMP that WCBS recorded 12 > seconds before WTC1 was vaporized, why GZ was called Ground Zero, all the > deaths by cancer by anything other than a nuke or three and all three of the > hot spots that the deniers love to deny. There is actually a very simple explaination; all the things you claim are delusions or lies, kook. > And no need to mention holograms when all we were really given was the > cheapest CGIs money could buy that didn't have any crash dynamics whatsoever > and couldn't even keep their wings on the entire time. Just yet more delusions or lies, kook. > Oh, and don't forget that the three different stories told by Mike Walter a > Pentagon Witness proves he was a lying sack of shit and consistent with > other 9/11 lie witnesses. In the non-delusional world such is called an unreliable witness and their story is dismissed, kook. > While I can't say 9/11 was an inside job it certainly appears that way with > all the bullshit we were fed about it. The only bullshit is your delusional fantasies, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web