Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #523737 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-29 11:59 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 247 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 13:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 18:23 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 17:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:17 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 05:02 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 08:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 15:21 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:55 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:20 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 19:20 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:06 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 09:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 12:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 23:31 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:06 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-02 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 05:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 03:47 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 06:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:42 -0500
Re: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-03 05:33 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 22:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 08:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 19:33 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 16:30 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 19:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 04:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 04:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 14:12 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 16:12 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 18:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 13:25 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-05 21:41 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:34 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 20:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 21:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 15:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 16:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 10:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 16:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 17:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-08 03:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:11 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 16:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:19 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-09 20:09 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 10:59 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-10 00:57 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 11:22 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 09:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 14:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:43 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-06 15:59 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 13:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-07 05:58 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 02:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 02:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 18:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 10:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:40 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 11:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-03 19:27 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 15:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 18:07 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 20:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 03:24 +0000
Re: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-04 04:39 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 18:07 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 13:36 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:21 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:22 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 18:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 19:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:18 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:32 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:02 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:22 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:08 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 19:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 00:26 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 22:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 22:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 04:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:30 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:34 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 21:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 21:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 22:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 19:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 20:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:26 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 09:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 07:34 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 09:28 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 19:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-05 10:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 02:56 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-30 22:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-01 10:11 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 12:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-02 10:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 18:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 16:13 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:07 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 18:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 17:52 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 23:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 22:54 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 22:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 04:35 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 16:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 20:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 08:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:08 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:50 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 21:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 09:16 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:14 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 04:19 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 14:30 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 23:27 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 13:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 14:54 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 16:24 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:46 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:02 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 04:17 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:37 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 18:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 01:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 14:41 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 10:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 17:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-02 20:34 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 19:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:11 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:07 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:19 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 08:27 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-30 00:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:32 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:03 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 17:36 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:59 -0700
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 11:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jui21bl9b0088l1osj60adsn92pdl6frbk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524497 |
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c > >Rocky Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy Troofers are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 19:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <murutp$vnh$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524515 |
Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: >On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >> >>Rocky >Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy >Troofers are wrong. Oh boy, Rocky, you're really in trouble with the Kookmeister now! What will your punishment be for posting a link that not only disagrees with the religion of Twooferism, but one where Papalia says that kooktards insult the memory of the dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <meqdnTK_760yB4zLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524541 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:murutp$vnh$1@pcls7.std.com... > Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: > >>On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >>> >>>Rocky > >>Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy >>Troofers are wrong. > > Oh boy, Rocky, you're really in trouble with the Kookmeister now! What > will your punishment be for posting a link that not only disagrees with > the religion of Twooferism, but one where Papalia says that kooktards > insult the memory of the dead. You are both clowns and if you had kept my quote from that video you would have known exactly what Frank heard and then saw. Frank said "We heard what sounded like a jet engine" which is probably a great description of the noise an underground nuke makes. Then he said you could see the top of building seven and it started to shake. This is consistent with Nuclear Demolitions because WTC2 did the exact same thing and WCBS even recorded an EMP when WTC2 shook. Then it took a few seconds from the jet engine sound and when WTC7 shook to when it started to fall that is proven in the following video with Ashley Banfield: WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg And as I've stated before the above video should be called WTC7: Sound Evidence for an underground Nuke. And don't forget the only way 110 story buildings could leave so much standing at the very bottom of them is if they were really destroyed from the bottom up meaning an underground nuke and not the top down. And this is consistent with Nuclear Demolitions also: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzrescue1.html And the haze coming from the ground is consistent with the area were nukes were detonated in a Nuclear Demolition. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 19:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cge31b5i2u4kr6tf7h1ljk6iptrrrrrs0e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524563 |
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:30:30 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:murutp$vnh$1@pcls7.std.com... >> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: >> >>>On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>>> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >>>> >>>>Rocky >> >>>Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy >>>Troofers are wrong. >> >> Oh boy, Rocky, you're really in trouble with the Kookmeister now! What >> will your punishment be for posting a link that not only disagrees with >> the religion of Twooferism, but one where Papalia says that kooktards >> insult the memory of the dead. > >You are both clowns and if you had kept my quote from that video you would >have known exactly what Frank heard and then saw. You're as bad as Bast. The video doesn't support your claims. In fact it does the exact opposite. Should we bother looking at any more of your self slapping videos, Roger Rocky?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 04:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <musslp$2gb$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524563 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> Oh boy, Rocky, you're really in trouble with the Kookmeister now! What >> will your punishment be for posting a link that not only disagrees with >> the religion of Twooferism, but one where Papalia says that kooktards >> insult the memory of the dead. >You are both clowns and if you had kept my quote from that video you would >have known exactly what Frank heard and then saw. >Frank said "We heard what sounded like a jet engine" which is probably a >great description of the noise an underground nuke makes. "Probably a great description of the noise an underground nuke makes" ? What kind of horseshit is that? "Probably"? You don't know so you just made that up? You would probably say "probably a great description of the noise an underground nuke makes" if he said he heard a cat meow! A nuke is a bomb. Bombs go BOOM! Nukes do the same, except much louder (if you survive!) He explicitly said he heard no explosives. He says you Twoofers insult all who died that day. He says you kooky Twoofers are wrong. Get ready for your punishment! >WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions Are you really going to use Papalia as proof then contradict his explicit statement he heard no charges with something that says there were explosions or something? Well, the second is a kookvid so we already know it's lying. Since the title is "Sound Evidence for Explosions" and that must be a lie, just the title is proof there were no explosions, just like Papalia said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 04:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mutbn5$rm5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524515 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >> >> Rocky > > Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy > Troofers are wrong. Oh really ? So what do you think he meant by "hearing a sound like a jet engine" just before WTC 7 began to fall ?? When we ALL KNOW WTC 7 was not hit by any plane (or even a missile) WHAT made the jet engine noise ???? And of course this guy is going to hold back from saying what he really thinks for fear of reprecussions, and the filmed interview was scripted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <muu0gv$g67$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524617 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >Oh really ? >So what do you think he meant by "hearing a sound like a jet engine" just >before WTC 7 began to fall ?? >When we ALL KNOW WTC 7 was not hit by any plane (or even a missile) Just Tower 1. >WHAT made the jet engine noise ???? I don't know. I do know for certain what it was not. The only collapse-related possibility I can think of was it was the sound of the interior collapse of the east part of WTC7, which happened several seconds before the main collapse. It doesn't really make sense that it would sound like a jet engine, however. Where was he when Building 7 collapsed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 10:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NImdnWvmsdqdBo_LnZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524643 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:muu0gv$g67$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: > >>Oh really ? >>So what do you think he meant by "hearing a sound like a jet engine" just >>before WTC 7 began to fall ?? >>When we ALL KNOW WTC 7 was not hit by any plane (or even a missile) > > Just Tower 1. > >>WHAT made the jet engine noise ???? > > I don't know. I do know for certain what it was not. The only > collapse-related possibility I can think of was it was the sound of the > interior collapse of the east part of WTC7, which happened several seconds > before the main collapse. It doesn't really make sense that it would sound > like a jet engine, however. > > Where was he when Building 7 collapsed? ROTFLMAO because you have tried to use this exact shit before when you tried to say why WTC1 shook like a tuning fork about 11 seconds before the lower portion of it was vaporized. The fact is WTC1 had really started to come down when it started to shake why did it just sit there for 11 or 12 seconds first? The same thing happened with WTC7 where it shook first, then sat motionless and then it came down. And it is funny that NIST does not give us any evidence to support the fact WTC7 shook first but Frank did. See: 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c Yep, Frank clearly saw a nuclear demolition and there actually was a few seconds from the shaking to the downward motion just like what happened with WTC1 proving yet another Nuclear Demolition. BTW you have to admit that if a nuke took out the lower floors of WTC7 it could not fall any faster or slower or less symmetrical than it did. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <muu7gr$2f2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524659 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >The fact is WTC1 had really started to come down when it started to shake >why did it just sit there for 11 or 12 seconds first? If you are talking about the video of the firefighters in the lobby running out, the building may have already started collapsing at the upper level, or the individual columns at the impact levels were failing one by one, causing lots of noise/vibrations, or perhaps minor internal collapses not visible from outside yet. >The same thing happened with WTC7 where it shook first, then sat motionless >and then it came down. The inner structure on the east end of WTC7 failed and collapsed first, certainly this would cause plenty of shaking. >Yep, Frank clearly saw a nuclear demolition But you already proved with your excellent duck test there were no nuclear devices! > and there actually was a few >seconds from the shaking to the downward motion as the interior structure of the east end collapsed before the shell of the building did, as can be seen from the east penthouse collapse (which the kookvids always cut out). >BTW you have to admit that if a nuke took out the lower floors of WTC7 it would produce a huge fireball, and a 12,000' mushroom cloud, and a ton of radiation, and an EMP, and a nuclear seismic signature etc. etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q86dnZZUC7AfNY_LnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524664 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:muu7gr$2f2$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>The fact is WTC1 had really started to come down when it started to shake >>why did it just sit there for 11 or 12 seconds first? > > If you are talking about the video of the firefighters in the lobby > running out, the building may have already started collapsing at the > upper level, or the individual columns at the impact levels were failing > one by one, causing lots of noise/vibrations, or perhaps minor internal > collapses not visible from outside yet. There were bombs going off all the time in both the Twin Towers and you clearly confused that with when the Twin Towers were vaporized. Dig this video with Ashley Banfield about secondary explosions: 9/11: Ashleigh Banfield reports secondary explosions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeGCusfqF8c >>The same thing happened with WTC7 where it shook first, then sat >>motionless >>and then it came down. > > The inner structure on the east end of WTC7 failed and collapsed first, > certainly this would cause plenty of shaking. Even if that were true you have yet to explain why it sat there for 9 to 11 seconds before it started to fall. And NIST didn't even bother to explain the shaking that Frank talked about either. >>Yep, Frank clearly saw a nuclear demolition > > But you already proved with your excellent duck test there were no > nuclear devices! I keep telling you until you can explain the remains of the Twin Towers without claiming they ended up in the basement because they did not end up in the basement then do so. Until then Nukes are the only possible explanation for all the BIG lies told about 9/11/01. DUH http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >> and there actually was a few >>seconds from the shaking to the downward motion > > as the interior structure of the east end collapsed before the shell of > the building did, as can be seen from the east penthouse collapse (which > the kookvids always cut out). But what about the shaking of the building? It shook just like it would in a nuclear demolition. And do not forget that all we saw on 9/11 is that our government learned how to use nukes right in front of our eyes without anybody knowing it except others that have used nukes. DUH >>BTW you have to admit that if a nuke took out the lower floors of WTC7 it > > would produce a huge fireball, and a 12,000' mushroom cloud, and a ton of > radiation, and an EMP, and a nuclear seismic signature etc. etc. And again, if might have done all that in the 9 to 11 seconds while it was still underground. Plus there was one person that claimed to have seen a flash when WTC7 was destroyed so your flash bullshit is just that. Plus if you notice a lot of the videos taken of WTC7 the smoke jumps all the sudden just like flashes were edited out of many of those videos if not all of them. <G> And again since you failed to answer my point. WTC7 could not have collapsed any faster or slower or less symmetrical than it did if it were nuked so it had to be nuked. Especially after hearing that it shook first and other videos can be used to prove there was a big delay from the sound and shaking to when WTC7 finally started to come down meaning it was consistent with a nuclear demolition. BTW I'm waiting for two things from you. 1. A photo of one of the CGIs used in Nuke York City to go with your photo of a real 767. 2. A link that proves underground nukes in solid rock are no different than above ground nukes. <G> And I already now that the only possible explanation for the remains of the Twin Towers is a Nuclear Demolition: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <muudrr$ad8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524675 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >BTW I'm waiting for two things from you. >1. A photo of one of the CGIs used in Nuke York City to go with your photo >of a real 767. Since there were no CGIs, I cannot do this. I'm sure Google Images has plenty of photos of UA 175 just before impact. >2. A link that proves underground nukes in solid rock are no different than >above ground nukes. <G> K00ktard, it was you who made the outlandish claim of no EMPs from underground nukes, so it's up to you to support that claim (if you can... <snicker>). I'm waiting.... and once again, actual proof, no lie-packed kookvids.... And I already supplied you with a link how relatively shallow nukes in solid rock produce "retarcs" of rock rubble, which was never seen at Ground Zero. Besides, one as shallow as 77 meters would break through, producing a fireball, a 12,000' mushroom cloud and radiation galore... "Sedan" did...and they drilled down nearly 200 meters for that one...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 13:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gMOdnVhI67UgXY_LnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524692 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:muudrr$ad8$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>BTW I'm waiting for two things from you. > >>1. A photo of one of the CGIs used in Nuke York City to go with your >>photo >>of a real 767. > > Since there were no CGIs, I cannot do this. Then use whatever you think was a real jet in Nuke York City on 9/11/01. DUH > I'm sure Google Images has plenty of photos of UA 175 just before impact. Yes, but they also have missing wings and you don't trust those so you had better find one you are happy with. >>2. A link that proves underground nukes in solid rock are no different >>than >>above ground nukes. <G> > > K00ktard, it was you who made the outlandish claim of no EMPs from > underground nukes, Oh and I'll bet you think that an FM transmitter would work just as well 70 meters underground in solid rock as it does 70 meters above ground. Boy there you go again proving you are a hypocrite. > And I already supplied you with a link how relatively shallow nukes in > solid rock produce "retarcs" of rock rubble, riiight. the only link I saw was one in dirt and not solid rock. When did that link change or you are pulling a 9/11 on me where your stories change over time just like the government's stories on 9/11 change over time. Again, you have no proof whatsoever that you know what a nuke in solid rock would do. You keep saying to know but you can't prove it. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 21:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <muun6k$g18$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524707 |
On 05/10/2015 19:25, Rocky wrote: > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:muudrr$ad8$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>> BTW I'm waiting for two things from you. >> >>> 1. A photo of one of the CGIs used in Nuke York City to go with your >>> photo >>> of a real 767. >> >> Since there were no CGIs, I cannot do this. > > Then use whatever you think was a real jet in Nuke York City on 9/11/01. > DUH > > >> I'm sure Google Images has plenty of photos of UA 175 just before impact. > > Yes, but they also have missing wings and you don't trust those so you had > better find one you are happy with. > > >>> 2. A link that proves underground nukes in solid rock are no different >>> than >>> above ground nukes. <G> >> >> K00ktard, it was you who made the outlandish claim of no EMPs from >> underground nukes, > > Oh and I'll bet you think that an FM transmitter would work just as well 70 > meters underground in solid rock as it does 70 meters above ground. Boy > there you go again proving you are a hypocrite. > > >> And I already supplied you with a link how relatively shallow nukes in >> solid rock produce "retarcs" of rock rubble, > > riiight. the only link I saw was one in dirt and not solid rock. When did > that link change or you are pulling a 9/11 on me where your stories change > over time just like the government's stories on 9/11 change over time. > > Again, you have no proof whatsoever that you know what a nuke in solid rock > would do. You keep saying to know but you can't prove it. > > Rocky > > I await your proof. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lLadnRpe7p1DDI_LnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524617 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message news:mutbn5$rm5$1@dont-email.me... > > > Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >>> >>> Rocky >> >> Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy >> Troofers are wrong. > > > > > > Oh really ? > So what do you think he meant by "hearing a sound like a jet engine" just > before WTC 7 began to fall ?? > When we ALL KNOW WTC 7 was not hit by any plane (or even a missile) > > WHAT made the jet engine noise ???? > > > And of course this guy is going to hold back from saying what he really > thinks for fear of reprecussions, and the filmed interview was scripted. The other funny thing is people claim the alarms at the World Trade Center were in test mode but what if they were not really in test mode? That would mean that the alarms themselves were telling people of the imminent destruction of WTC7. And we can go one step further. There was even a specific alarm code like 7 fast tones for a nuclear destruction and that too was in a video at one time but just like the video that showed a Geiger Counter going off at Ground Zero that video might have been removed by the government shills too. Either way there is still plenty of evidence that proves nukes were used at Ground Zero with the main two being why Ground Zero was really called Ground Zero and nothing else can explain why the walls furthest from where the molten metal was found stood from 6 to 8 floors high.. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 12:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muu8n1$fr1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524652 |
Rocky wrote: > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message > news:mutbn5$rm5$1@dont-email.me... >> >> >> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >>>> >>>> Rocky >>> >>> Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy >>> Troofers are wrong. >> >> >> >> >> >> Oh really ? >> So what do you think he meant by "hearing a sound like a jet engine" >> just before WTC 7 began to fall ?? >> When we ALL KNOW WTC 7 was not hit by any plane (or even a missile) >> >> WHAT made the jet engine noise ???? >> >> >> And of course this guy is going to hold back from saying what he really >> thinks for fear of reprecussions, and the filmed interview was >> scripted. > > The other funny thing is people claim the alarms at the World Trade > Center were in test mode but what if they were not really in test mode? > That would mean that the alarms themselves were telling people of the > imminent destruction of WTC7. There is no such think that ANY commercial building would be carrying out fire alarm tests for more than a few minutes. The laws and fire insurance regulations would never allow it. Any building system that couldn't be tested and problems isolated in minutes would be declared unsafe and evacuted. There is your RED FLAG that the rest of what follows is going to be a pile of horse-shit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 17:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <i1q51b9dnbo31h8p3vp5sf7r8rf6v61isb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524671 |
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:34:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >There is no such think that ANY commercial building would be carrying out >fire alarm tests for more than a few minutes. That is not true and anyone who has ever worked in a commercial building will tell you the same thing. Apparently you've always been a bum and mentally unstable, ie working the system. >The laws and fire insurance regulations would never allow it. I happen to be well versed in Fire alarm/ fire insurance regulations. Would you kindly point out where in any manual it states that laws and regulations do not allow for more than "a few minutes" to be used when ire alarm testing in commercial buildings? >Any building system that couldn't be tested and problems isolated in minutes >would be declared unsafe and evacuted. LOL. Keep digging with your shovel Bast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 20:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muv3fc$u4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524758 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:34:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > >> There is no such think that ANY commercial building would be carrying >> out fire alarm tests for more than a few minutes. > > That is not true and anyone who has ever worked in a commercial > building will tell you the same thing. > > Apparently you've always been a bum and mentally unstable, ie working > the system. > >> The laws and fire insurance regulations would never allow it. > > I happen to be well versed in Fire alarm/ fire insurance regulations. > Would you kindly point out where in any manual it states that laws and > regulations do not allow for more than "a few minutes" to be used > when ire alarm testing in commercial buildings? > > >> Any building system that couldn't be tested and problems isolated in >> minutes would be declared unsafe and evacuted. > > > LOL. Keep digging with your shovel Bast. Well, you are just an expert in every area, aren't you. What a special little snowflake you are. But I just happen to be an engineer,....and an electrical one at that. So I know what happens when those systems are tested. And NOBODY would ever dare completely shut down an alarm system in a commercial highrise, while it was occupied. Even during power failures, those systems have to go to battery/generator backup. Silverstein would have never got his insurance to pay a cent if there was even a rumor that the alarms were disabled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 21:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b6761bd27ukibfvu9tuf3qiah5cdjvoaur@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524800 |
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:12:50 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:34:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> There is no such think that ANY commercial building would be carrying >>> out fire alarm tests for more than a few minutes. >> >> That is not true and anyone who has ever worked in a commercial >> building will tell you the same thing. >> >> Apparently you've always been a bum and mentally unstable, ie working >> the system. >> >>> The laws and fire insurance regulations would never allow it. >> >> I happen to be well versed in Fire alarm/ fire insurance regulations. >> Would you kindly point out where in any manual it states that laws and >> regulations do not allow for more than "a few minutes" to be used >> when ire alarm testing in commercial buildings? >> >> >>> Any building system that couldn't be tested and problems isolated in >>> minutes would be declared unsafe and evacuted. >> >> >> LOL. Keep digging with your shovel Bast. > >Well, you are just an expert in every area, aren't you. >What a special little snowflake you are. > >But I just happen to be an engineer,....and an electrical one at that. LOLOL! Sure you are. What school and degree, Bast? And what does "spectrum" mean to you? Think outside the box, Bast. >So I know what happens when those systems are tested. > >And NOBODY would ever dare completely shut down an alarm system in a >commercial highrise, while it was occupied. You fraud. An "engineer" would know that fire suppression systems are not shut down during alarm system testing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 11:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.307db0663149b43198c315@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524808 |
In article <b6761bd27ukibfvu9tuf3qiah5cdjvoaur@4ax.com>, ninety7gt@cox.net says... > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:12:50 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: > >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:34:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> There is no such think that ANY commercial building would be carrying > >>> out fire alarm tests for more than a few minutes. > >> > >> That is not true and anyone who has ever worked in a commercial > >> building will tell you the same thing. > >> > >> Apparently you've always been a bum and mentally unstable, ie working > >> the system. > >> > >>> The laws and fire insurance regulations would never allow it. > >> > >> I happen to be well versed in Fire alarm/ fire insurance regulations. > >> Would you kindly point out where in any manual it states that laws and > >> regulations do not allow for more than "a few minutes" to be used > >> when ire alarm testing in commercial buildings? > >> > >> > >>> Any building system that couldn't be tested and problems isolated in > >>> minutes would be declared unsafe and evacuted. > >> > >> > >> LOL. Keep digging with your shovel Bast. > > > >Well, you are just an expert in every area, aren't you. > >What a special little snowflake you are. > > > >But I just happen to be an engineer,....and an electrical one at that. > > LOLOL! Sure you are. What school and degree, Bast? She changed a fuse once. > > And what does "spectrum" mean to you? Think outside the box, Bast. > > >So I know what happens when those systems are tested. > > > >And NOBODY would ever dare completely shut down an alarm system in a > >commercial highrise, while it was occupied. > > You fraud. An "engineer" would know that fire suppression systems > are not shut down during alarm system testing. All she knows is Troofery. She is a real expert in that. -- 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 | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 15:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ng881bdr0paplhavo8p46dck2ronjdovpp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524906 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:18:47 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <b6761bd27ukibfvu9tuf3qiah5cdjvoaur@4ax.com>, >ninety7gt@cox.net says... >> >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:12:50 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:34:59 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> There is no such think that ANY commercial building would be carrying >> >>> out fire alarm tests for more than a few minutes. >> >> >> >> That is not true and anyone who has ever worked in a commercial >> >> building will tell you the same thing. >> >> >> >> Apparently you've always been a bum and mentally unstable, ie working >> >> the system. >> >> >> >>> The laws and fire insurance regulations would never allow it. >> >> >> >> I happen to be well versed in Fire alarm/ fire insurance regulations. >> >> Would you kindly point out where in any manual it states that laws and >> >> regulations do not allow for more than "a few minutes" to be used >> >> when ire alarm testing in commercial buildings? >> >> >> >> >> >>> Any building system that couldn't be tested and problems isolated in >> >>> minutes would be declared unsafe and evacuted. >> >> >> >> >> >> LOL. Keep digging with your shovel Bast. >> > >> >Well, you are just an expert in every area, aren't you. >> >What a special little snowflake you are. >> > >> >But I just happen to be an engineer,....and an electrical one at that. >> >> LOLOL! Sure you are. What school and degree, Bast? > >She changed a fuse once. Truly an accomplishment for her. >> And what does "spectrum" mean to you? Think outside the box, Bast. >> >> >So I know what happens when those systems are tested. >> > >> >And NOBODY would ever dare completely shut down an alarm system in a >> >commercial highrise, while it was occupied. >> >> You fraud. An "engineer" would know that fire suppression systems >> are not shut down during alarm system testing. > >All she knows is Troofery. She is a real expert in that. LOL. We'll see if she comes up with her degree, school, and what "spectrum" means to an electrical engineer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web