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

Groups > sci.physics > #527085 > unrolled thread

Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-20 16:35 -0500
    Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-20 22:46 +0100
      Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-20 17:13 -0500
        Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-20 23:39 +0100
          Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-20 19:14 -0400
            Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-20 19:38 -0400
            Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-21 06:36 +0100
              Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-25 13:22 -0500
                Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-25 22:33 +0000
                  Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-25 17:52 -0500
                    Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-25 23:48 +0000
                      Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-25 20:40 -0500
                        Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-26 06:42 +0000
        Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-20 23:12 +0000
          Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-21 15:04 -0500
            Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-22 02:40 +0000
              Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-22 15:00 -0500
    Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-20 23:01 +0000
      Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 16:48 -0700
      Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-21 15:15 -0500
        Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-21 17:54 -0400
        Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-21 19:45 -0400
          Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-21 21:07 -0400
            Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-22 02:55 +0000
              Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-21 23:05 -0400
                Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:34 +1100
              Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-22 15:34 -0500
          Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-22 19:09 +0000
            Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-22 14:46 -0500
              Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-23 19:34 -0400
                Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:45 -0500
          Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-22 21:38 -0400
        Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-22 02:52 +0000
          Re: Donald Trump is sort of right. 9/11 was pre-planned "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-22 15:12 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#527277

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:15:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>If you really were smart you would know that a deep underground nuke have a 
>"vaporization range", a spread pattern that can change by the surrounding 
>rock 

Roger, you told everyone a month ago that the supposed nukes tunneled
their way to the surface before they detonated in the air.   How does
your previous statement square with your claims now that involve 
whatever you mean by " surrounding rock " ?


>And because the jets were not needed to vaporize the Twin Towers since nukes 
>were used for that it 

That is a false premise, Rocky. 

>is pretty easy to see that the jets were just part of 
>the lies 

You keep saying no jets flew into the Twin Towers.  Thousands and
thousands of New Yorkers who were witnesses to the attack in Manhattan
that day want to strangle you and throw you in the river for being so
irreverent  to the tragedy which touched so many of their lives.  

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

#527310

Rocky wrote:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:n06h3r$j2u$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n03rua$d8t$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 19/10/2015 22:14, Rocky wrote:
>>
>>>>> What about the bullshit about jets that resemble CGIs in everyway
>>>>> and blown
>>>>> up buildings that resemble nuclear demolitions instead of collapses?
>>>>>
>>>> Do please give an example of a nuclear demolition so we can compare
>>>> them to 911.
>>
>>> People have already posted what real airliner crashes look like and
>>> that didn't make you any smarter so why are you asking for something
>>> that will not do you any good?
>>
>> So, you can't answer Tony's question what a nuclear demolition looks
>> like? Why is that?  Is it because there is no such thing?
>
> If you really were smart you would know that a deep underground nuke
> have a "vaporization range", a spread pattern that can change by the
> surrounding rock and is the only thing that can leave behind the near
> total destruction of the Twin Towers in the following:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> And because the jets were not needed to vaporize the Twin Towers since
> nukes were used for that it is pretty easy to see that the jets were
> just part of the lies told by a series of corporations bent on throwing
> the US into endless debt.
>
> And real jets do not skip across the sky the way CGIs do.  See:  "TV
> Fakery test runs minutes before live 2nd WTC hit?"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuYe4kZUwLo
>
> Rocky





100% WTC 9/11 Military Plane Attack Evidence - 12 Witness Reactions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k

Eyewitnesses say there were no passenger jets. But gray unmarked things with 
no windows.

Still seems  a cruise type missile would be what the people in the above 
video are describing.

The victims families want and deserve the truth.
And to know that those really responsible for 9/11, and the cover-up, are 
held fully accountable.

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

#527339

In article <n097vl$l4l$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
> 
> Rocky wrote:
> > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> > news:n06h3r$j2u$1@pcls7.std.com...
> >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:n03rua$d8t$1@dont-email.me...
> >>>> On 19/10/2015 22:14, Rocky wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> What about the bullshit about jets that resemble CGIs in everyway
> >>>>> and blown
> >>>>> up buildings that resemble nuclear demolitions instead of collapses?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Do please give an example of a nuclear demolition so we can compare
> >>>> them to 911.
> >>
> >>> People have already posted what real airliner crashes look like and
> >>> that didn't make you any smarter so why are you asking for something
> >>> that will not do you any good?
> >>
> >> So, you can't answer Tony's question what a nuclear demolition looks
> >> like? Why is that?  Is it because there is no such thing?
> >
> > If you really were smart you would know that a deep underground nuke
> > have a "vaporization range", a spread pattern that can change by the
> > surrounding rock and is the only thing that can leave behind the near
> > total destruction of the Twin Towers in the following:
> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
> >
> > And because the jets were not needed to vaporize the Twin Towers since
> > nukes were used for that it is pretty easy to see that the jets were
> > just part of the lies told by a series of corporations bent on throwing
> > the US into endless debt.
> >
> > And real jets do not skip across the sky the way CGIs do.  See:  "TV
> > Fakery test runs minutes before live 2nd WTC hit?"
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuYe4kZUwLo
> >
> > Rocky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% WTC 9/11 Military Plane Attack Evidence - 12 Witness Reactions
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k
> 
> Eyewitnesses say there were no passenger jets. But gray unmarked things with 
> no windows.
> 
> Still seems  a cruise type missile would be what the people in the above 
> video are describing.
> 
> The victims families want and deserve the truth.
> And to know that those really responsible for 9/11, and the cover-up, are 
> held fully accountable.

Troofer kOOkvids aren't proof of anything, except your gullibility.

-- 
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]

#527364

BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> writes:

>Troofer kOOkvids aren't proof of anything, except your gullibility.

Don't you remember, Bast?  Your buddy Rocky proved that all kookvids are
nothing but lies!

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

#527371

In article <n09j6j$rgg$3@pcls7.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com 
says...
> 
> BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> writes:
> 
> >Troofer kOOkvids aren't proof of anything, except your gullibility.
> 
> Don't you remember, Bast?  Your buddy Rocky proved that all kookvids are
> nothing but lies!

It's beyond great when the Troofers prove each other's claims are 
bullshit. 

-- 
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]

#527377

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:05:57 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:

>In article <n09j6j$rgg$3@pcls7.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com 
>says...
>> 
>> BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> writes:
>> 
>> >Troofer kOOkvids aren't proof of anything, except your gullibility.
>> 
>> Don't you remember, Bast?  Your buddy Rocky proved that all kookvids are
>> nothing but lies!
>
>It's beyond great when the Troofers prove each other's claims are 
>bullshit. 

It's even better when the get into a kOOkfight ™ over their conflicting claims.

Shill #2
--
"God rest ye merry Truther kooks, let nothing you dismay
Remember the Conspiracy that happened on this day
The towers were an inside job since Cheney got his way
Oh tidings of nonsense and woo, nonsense and woo
Oh tidings of nonsense and woo

A missile hit the Pentagon, of that you can be sure
The other planes were holograms, just check with Michael Moore
And tales of nano-thermite dust we'll make the world endure
Oh tidings of nonsense and woo, nonsense and woo
Oh tidings of nonsense and woo".

 raven1 11Sep2011

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

#527506

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n09j6j$rgg$3@pcls7.std.com...
> BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> writes:
>
>>Troofer kOOkvids aren't proof of anything, except your gullibility.
>
> Don't you remember, Bast?  Your buddy Rocky proved that all kookvids are
> nothing but lies!

But you failed to notice people had to be kicked out of GZ after they 
rescued the people under the vaporization range of a deep underground nuke 
and after WTC7 was nuked.

Besides how in the hell are you going to try to keep a dozen people from 
being rescued when the people that were trapped had walkie talkies and were 
talking directly to other First Responders?

It is way too obvious that the following is not a "Collapse" and you would 
know that too if you ever saw a real fire induced collapse.  DUH
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Same with all four of the bogus jet stories.  You would know we were lied to 
about them if you ever saw a real crash.

Once again, the fact that a CGI skips across the screen and real jets do 
not, CGIs lose wings and keep flying and CGIs do not lose any parts or speed 
proves the two jets in Nuke York City were both very bad CGIs on top of 
that.

But what I can't figure out is why you think kerosene has the exact same 
destructive prosperities as nukes?
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And you fail to see what a deep underground nuke can do even after someone 
from alt.conspiracy post videos proving that deep underground nukes do not 
have to have a flash or an air blast wave.  DUH
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#527488

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:

>The victims families want and deserve the truth.
>And to know that those really responsible for 9/11, and the cover-up, are 
>held fully accountable.

So why do you tell those people whose loved ones died as passengers on the
jets (never to their faces, of course) that they couldn't have died on 
those jets, because there were no jets?

Why do you tell those people whose loved ones died jumping from the towers
that they didn't die jumping from the towers, people were throwing things
out the windows instead?

Why do you tell those people who were rescued from the rubble that they
weren't rescued from the rubble, because there were no rescuers allowed on
site the first few days?

Why do you deny the simple fact that nearly 3,000 people were murdered by
19 crazed radical Muslim terrorists who hijacked four planes and 
deliberately crashed them, destroying the World Trade Center and damaging
the Pentagon?

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

#527491

Since your reply will not be seen by Bast, because you removed alt.astronomy 
I decided to answer for her.

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n0bc9e$prk$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>
>>The victims families want and deserve the truth.
>>And to know that those really responsible for 9/11, and the cover-up, are
>>held fully accountable.
>
> So why do you tell those people whose loved ones died as passengers on the
> jets (never to their faces, of course) that they couldn't have died on
> those jets, because there were no jets?

Flight 93 and Flight 175 were both real but their hijackings forced them to 
land in Cleveland where certain people were forced to make phone calls.

Don't forget as with any bullshit story there has to be some truth or even 
you might see right through it.

> Why do you tell those people whose loved ones died jumping from the towers
> that they didn't die jumping from the towers, people were throwing things
> out the windows instead?

You can't think of it that way.  There might have been real jumpers but they 
were not the ones that waved to get the attention of cameras first since 
those were all part of the psy-op.

> Why do you tell those people who were rescued from the rubble that they
> weren't rescued from the rubble, because there were no rescuers allowed on
> site the first few days?

The two days after 9/11 nobody at all was recued because nobody was allowed 
on GZ because of the radiation.  Any rescues happened and had to happen 
before everybody was kicked off GZ after WTC7 and Fiterman Hall were nuked. 
DUH.

> Why do you deny the simple fact that nearly 3,000 people were murdered

You really should google the term "VicSims" because you will learn a lot.


> by
> 19 crazed radical Muslim terrorists who hijacked four planes and
> deliberately crashed them, destroying the World Trade Center and damaging
> the Pentagon?

You should have been watching the news closer.  Just as Jamie on CNN stated 
there was no visible wreckage of a 757 any where near the Pentagon and 757s 
don't just disappear like you have been led to believe.

The crashes everybody saw were just bad CGIs that didn't slow down at all or 
loose any parts.

The collapses you saw were way too fast to be collapses and didn't leave 
enough rubble to be collapses but they are consistent with Nuclear 
Demolitions and if you knew more about how deep underground nukes worked you 
would know that too.

I've told you before try to find more information about deep underground 
nukes and you will not be able to.  That info is dangerous because it would 
help prove the only country to nuke another country also nuked themselves on 
9/11.

Rocky 

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

#527759

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:46:30 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>Since your reply will not be seen by Bast, because you removed alt.astronomy 
>I decided to answer for her.
>
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n0bc9e$prk$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>The victims families want and deserve the truth.
>>>And to know that those really responsible for 9/11, and the cover-up, are
>>>held fully accountable.
>>
>> So why do you tell those people whose loved ones died as passengers on the
>> jets (never to their faces, of course) that they couldn't have died on
>> those jets, because there were no jets?
>
>Flight 93 and Flight 175 were both real but their hijackings forced them to 
>land in Cleveland where certain people were forced to make phone calls.

Just when you thought Roger Rocky can't get any more insane ...  

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

#527774

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:34:09 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:46:30 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Since your reply will not be seen by Bast, because you removed alt.astronomy 
>>I decided to answer for her.
>>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>>news:n0bc9e$prk$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>>The victims families want and deserve the truth.
>>>>And to know that those really responsible for 9/11, and the cover-up, are
>>>>held fully accountable.
>>>
>>> So why do you tell those people whose loved ones died as passengers on the
>>> jets (never to their faces, of course) that they couldn't have died on
>>> those jets, because there were no jets?
>>
>>Flight 93 and Flight 175 were both real but their hijackings forced them to 
>>land in Cleveland where certain people were forced to make phone calls.
>
>Just when you thought Roger Rocky can't get any more insane ...  

     You should ask him to prove his claim about Cleveland. Others
have, and as of the time I write this, he's not done so. Maybe he will
finally prove his lie to be the truth if you ask.
     OK, it's not likely, but what the heck...


"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]

#527576

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:45:57 -0400, "The Fat Lesbian known as Bast"
<fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:

>
>100% WTC 9/11 Military Plane Attack Evidence - 12 Witness Reactions
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k
>
>Eyewitnesses say there were no passenger jets. But gray unmarked things with 
>no windows.

Military aircraft have windows and are marked, Fat Lesbian Bast.  

So now what?   

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

#527363

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n06h3r$j2u$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:n03rua$d8t$1@dont-email.me...

>>>> Do please give an example of a nuclear demolition so we can compare them
>>>> to 911.
>>
>>>People have already posted what real airliner crashes look like and that
>>>didn't make you any smarter so why are you asking for something that will
>>>not do you any good?
>>
>> So, you can't answer Tony's question what a nuclear demolition looks like?
>> Why is that?  Is it because there is no such thing?

>If you really were smart you would know that a deep underground nuke have a 
<snip evasion>

K⊙⊙ktard, why don't you simply answer Tony's question!
Give an example of a nuclear demolition so we can compare it to 911.

We know the answer, of course.  There is no such thing as a nuclear 
demolition!  (Why would there be?  Those guys who demolish buildings with
regular explosives are _really good_)

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

#527497

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n09j0v$rgg$2@pcls7.std.com...
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:n06h3r$j2u$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:n03rua$d8t$1@dont-email.me...

>>>> Do please give an example of a nuclear demolition so we can compare 
>>>> them
>>>> to 911.
>>
>>>People have already posted what real airliner crashes look like and that
>>>didn't make you any smarter so why are you asking for something that will
>>>not do you any good?
>>
>> So, you can't answer Tony's question what a nuclear demolition looks 
>> like?
>> Why is that?  Is it because there is no such thing?

>If you really were smart you would know that a deep underground nuke have a
<snip evasion>

K??ktard, why don't you simply answer Tony's question!
Give an example of a nuclear demolition so we can compare it to 911.

We know the answer, of course.  There is no such thing as a nuclear
demolition!  (Why would there be?  Those guys who demolish buildings with
regular explosives are _really good_)

  ===============================

Only a nuke can vaporize the Twin Towers the way they were vaporized where 
they appeared to keep standing but in reality they were pulverized and 
crushed by the part of the Twin Towers the small nukes could not vaporize.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And if you go back and watch the destruction of WTC1 you will even notice 
that the vaporization of the lower part of the North Tower was a second or 
two late because they had to destroy from the alleged impact area upwards 
first.  Meaning what you really saw was a standard controlled demolition 
above the alleged impact area on top of a nuclear demolition that was a 
second or two late and took care of the area below the alleged impact area.

And even though the top of the Twin Towers were not vaporized by the nuke 
they would end up being vaporized before they made it to the ground and that 
is why the enormous TV tower that was on top of WTC1 was nowhere to be 
found.  DUH
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web