Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #526895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-19 13:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-10-22 21:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 71 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-19 13:52 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-19 19:53 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 15:57 -0700
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-20 01:01 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-20 02:56 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-19 19:53 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-19 20:22 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-20 00:58 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-20 02:58 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 03:56 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-20 10:01 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 20:41 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-21 09:30 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-21 09:18 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-21 10:59 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-21 16:16 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-21 13:25 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 04:13 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-22 10:06 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-22 15:42 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 19:07 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-22 21:34 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 04:29 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-23 08:45 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:44 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-21 11:35 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-21 20:59 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 04:13 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-22 10:11 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-22 15:51 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-22 17:33 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-22 23:20 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-23 05:15 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-23 10:29 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-23 15:38 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:44 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-24 01:57 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-23 05:22 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-23 11:05 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-23 16:18 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-23 23:49 +0100
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-23 19:35 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:44 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-24 10:42 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-24 17:26 +0100
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-25 00:41 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-24 21:23 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 04:28 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-25 06:35 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-25 14:00 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-25 11:54 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-25 19:06 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-25 14:47 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-26 01:00 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-25 20:52 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-26 17:37 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-26 15:37 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-26 23:24 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-27 15:50 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 15:19 +0000
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 08:32 -0700
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 09:28 -0700
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:04 -0700
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 04:07 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-23 15:43 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-22 23:19 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 04:29 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-23 10:32 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-22 21:47 -0400
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 04:13 -0500
Re: 'US not interested in winning War on Terror' - Hamid Karzai Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-22 21:39 -0400
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 23:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0eddb$kkb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #527717 |
On 23/10/2015 21:18, Bast wrote: > Rocky wrote: >> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >> news:n0cg6c$its$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> Ask anyone who's done a bellyflop off a diving board how "soft" water >>>> is. >>> >>> Yup. Just ask the World Trade Center towers how "soft" those aluminum >>> water balloons (kerosene balloons) are when they come at you at 540 >>> mph. >> >> Riiight. With the wings that you can see right through just like they >> were a CGIs, skipped across the screen just like a CGI and have a >> impacts identical to CGIs. Gee, I wonder why there are so many >> similarities between the jets in Nuke York City and CGIs? <G> >> >> Rocky > > > > > > I'm waiting for some of these idiots to tell us that on the highway at 80 > MPH, a bug doesn't splatter on a car windshield.....But goes right through > leaving a bug shaped hole. > <LOL> > Oh wait,...I'm sure they will say though, that if the car is stationary and > the bug fly's at it at 80 MPH,.....It's goes right through, and comes out > the back window. > > The Nobel committee should be immediately informed, and make sure they get a > nice shiny award for debunking Newton and his silly anti-9/11 physics. > > Momentum of bug at 80mph Momentum of plane at 500+mph --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 19:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0eg46$u5v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #527745 |
Tony Dragon wrote: > On 23/10/2015 21:18, Bast wrote: >> Rocky wrote: >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:n0cg6c$its$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> Ask anyone who's done a bellyflop off a diving board how "soft" >>>>> water is. >>>> >>>> Yup. Just ask the World Trade Center towers how "soft" those aluminum >>>> water balloons (kerosene balloons) are when they come at you at 540 >>>> mph. >>> >>> Riiight. With the wings that you can see right through just like they >>> were a CGIs, skipped across the screen just like a CGI and have a >>> impacts identical to CGIs. Gee, I wonder why there are so many >>> similarities between the jets in Nuke York City and CGIs? <G> >>> >>> Rocky >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm waiting for some of these idiots to tell us that on the highway at >> 80 MPH, a bug doesn't splatter on a car windshield.....But goes right >> through leaving a bug shaped hole. >> <LOL> >> Oh wait,...I'm sure they will say though, that if the car is >> stationary and the bug fly's at it at 80 MPH,.....It's goes right >> through, and comes out the back window. >> >> The Nobel committee should be immediately informed, and make sure they >> get a nice shiny award for debunking Newton and his silly anti-9/11 >> physics. > > Momentum of bug at 80mph > Momentum of plane at 500+mph "Momentum of plane at 500+mph" = ZERO As 757-767 type passenger jets can not fly anywhere near that fast at Sea Level. ....But CGI's on TV can. However as CGI's are only animated images, they have no mass,....therefore ZERO MOMENTUM. It's the whole E=mc2 thing. Which is why when a photon from the Sun, traveling at 186,000 miles per second hits your face,....You don't get knocked off your feet PHOTON PLANES,....Have the same effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8jhl2bdbgj1rv1q3a8n5stg6bsll9tm30n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #527761 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:35:35 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
>Tony Dragon wrote:
>> On 23/10/2015 21:18, Bast wrote:
>>> Rocky wrote:
>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:n0cg6c$its$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ask anyone who's done a bellyflop off a diving board how "soft"
>>>>>> water is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. Just ask the World Trade Center towers how "soft" those aluminum
>>>>> water balloons (kerosene balloons) are when they come at you at 540
>>>>> mph.
>>>>
>>>> Riiight. With the wings that you can see right through just like they
>>>> were a CGIs, skipped across the screen just like a CGI and have a
>>>> impacts identical to CGIs. Gee, I wonder why there are so many
>>>> similarities between the jets in Nuke York City and CGIs? <G>
>>>>
>>>> Rocky
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm waiting for some of these idiots to tell us that on the highway at
>>> 80 MPH, a bug doesn't splatter on a car windshield.....But goes right
>>> through leaving a bug shaped hole.
>>> <LOL>
>>> Oh wait,...I'm sure they will say though, that if the car is
>>> stationary and the bug fly's at it at 80 MPH,.....It's goes right
>>> through, and comes out the back window.
>>>
>>> The Nobel committee should be immediately informed, and make sure they
>>> get a nice shiny award for debunking Newton and his silly anti-9/11
>>> physics.
>>
>> Momentum of bug at 80mph
>> Momentum of plane at 500+mph
>
>
>
>
>"Momentum of plane at 500+mph" = ZERO
You're not pretending. You really are as stupid as you present.
>
>As 757-767 type passenger jets can not fly anywhere near that fast at Sea
>Level.
>
Yes, in fact, they can.
>....But CGI's on TV can. However as CGI's are only animated images, they
>have no mass,....therefore ZERO MOMENTUM.
A CGI? Sure. But the REAL planes on 9/11? Nope.
>It's the whole E=mc2 thing.
The Theory of Relativity? How does that factor in?
>Which is why when a photon from the Sun,
>traveling at 186,000 miles per second hits your face,....You don't get
>knocked off your feet
>
Add that a photon isn't a 757 as well.
>PHOTON PLANES,....Have the same effect.
>
Only in the minds of the mentally ill.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 10:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <TKOdne0jtqJSO7bLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527745 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:n0eddb$kkb$2@dont-email.me... > On 23/10/2015 21:18, Bast wrote: >> Rocky wrote: >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:n0cg6c$its$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> Ask anyone who's done a bellyflop off a diving board how "soft" water >>>>> is. >>>> >>>> Yup. Just ask the World Trade Center towers how "soft" those aluminum >>>> water balloons (kerosene balloons) are when they come at you at 540 >>>> mph. >>> >>> Riiight. With the wings that you can see right through just like they >>> were a CGIs, skipped across the screen just like a CGI and have a >>> impacts identical to CGIs. Gee, I wonder why there are so many >>> similarities between the jets in Nuke York City and CGIs? <G> >>> >>> Rocky >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm waiting for some of these idiots to tell us that on the highway at 80 >> MPH, a bug doesn't splatter on a car windshield.....But goes right >> through >> leaving a bug shaped hole. >> <LOL> >> Oh wait,...I'm sure they will say though, that if the car is stationary >> and >> the bug fly's at it at 80 MPH,.....It's goes right through, and comes >> out >> the back window. >> >> The Nobel committee should be immediately informed, and make sure they >> get a >> nice shiny award for debunking Newton and his silly anti-9/11 physics. >> >> > > Momentum of bug at 80mph > Momentum of plane at 500+mph ROTFLMAO because it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference if the CGI was going 3 times the speed of sound because it still would have only made the damages from the pre-planted explosives and thermate. Don't forget, only CGIs can skip the way they did in Nuke York City and only CGIs can loose a wing the way the CGI did in Nuke York City and only CGIs can fly straight into buildings without loosing parts or slowing down the way the CGIs did in Nuke York City. So CGIs pass the duck test. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 17:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0gbar$dd6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #527897 |
On 24/10/2015 16:42, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:n0eddb$kkb$2@dont-email.me... >> On 23/10/2015 21:18, Bast wrote: >>> Rocky wrote: >>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>> news:n0cg6c$its$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Ask anyone who's done a bellyflop off a diving board how "soft" water >>>>>> is. >>>>> >>>>> Yup. Just ask the World Trade Center towers how "soft" those aluminum >>>>> water balloons (kerosene balloons) are when they come at you at 540 >>>>> mph. >>>> >>>> Riiight. With the wings that you can see right through just like they >>>> were a CGIs, skipped across the screen just like a CGI and have a >>>> impacts identical to CGIs. Gee, I wonder why there are so many >>>> similarities between the jets in Nuke York City and CGIs? <G> >>>> >>>> Rocky >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm waiting for some of these idiots to tell us that on the highway at 80 >>> MPH, a bug doesn't splatter on a car windshield.....But goes right >>> through >>> leaving a bug shaped hole. >>> <LOL> >>> Oh wait,...I'm sure they will say though, that if the car is stationary >>> and >>> the bug fly's at it at 80 MPH,.....It's goes right through, and comes >>> out >>> the back window. >>> >>> The Nobel committee should be immediately informed, and make sure they >>> get a >>> nice shiny award for debunking Newton and his silly anti-9/11 physics. >>> >>> >> >> Momentum of bug at 80mph >> Momentum of plane at 500+mph > > ROTFLMAO because it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference if the CGI > was going 3 times the speed of sound because it still would have only made > the damages from the pre-planted explosives and thermate. > > Don't forget, only CGIs can skip the way they did in Nuke York City and only > CGIs can loose a wing the way the CGI did in Nuke York City and only CGIs > can fly straight into buildings without loosing parts or slowing down the > way the CGIs did in Nuke York City. > > So CGIs pass the duck test. > > Rocky > > Wriggle wriggle --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 00:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0h8fk$3n3$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #527897 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >So CGIs pass the duck test. That's right, Rocky. Your excellent use of the Duck Test proved that there were no CGIs used on 9/11 once and for all! You were such a genius to think of using the Duck Test to disprove all that CGI crap!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 21:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <w9CdnRj9ttXLoLHLnZ2dnUU7-L-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527985 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:n0h8fk$3n3$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>So CGIs pass the duck test. > > That's right, Rocky. Your excellent use of the Duck Test proved that > there were no CGIs used on 9/11 once and for all! You were such a genius > to think of using the Duck Test to disprove all that CGI crap! ROTFLMAO because you have failed to state what you think happened at Pranksville, PA. You have given a bullshit story for both the Pentagon and Nuke York City but you have failed to give a bullshit story for Pranksville, PA. Hint hint. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 04:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <368p2b1r9uuba01imsl6b2ib8nqqsihp5d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #527985 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 00:41:24 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>So CGIs pass the duck test.
>
>That's right, Rocky. Your excellent use of the Duck Test proved that
>there were no CGIs used on 9/11 once and for all! You were such a genius
>to think of using the Duck Test to disprove all that CGI crap!
And the Duck Test proved the claims in the 9/11 k00k videos are
all lies. We mustn't forget that.
Also, with the Duck Test, Rocky PROVED there were no nukes used
on 9/11/01.
"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 | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 06:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1uudnT1AKLxVI7HLnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527985 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:n0h8fk$3n3$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>So CGIs pass the duck test. > > That's right, Rocky. Your excellent use of the Duck Test proved that > there were no CGIs used on 9/11 once and for all! You were such a genius > to think of using the Duck Test to disprove all that CGI crap! ROTFLMAO because all you did was prove you never saw the CGIs fly into the Twin Towers in slow motion. <G> Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE The video of the North Tower shows extra explosives being used to knock out the roadrunner shaped hole after it was hit by a very poorly done CGI. And most all if not all of the videos of the South Tower were taken off the South Tower right after the CGI impacted the South Tower to avoid showing that same series of explosions and use of thermate that we saw during the Naudet Brother's video. But there was at least one video taken of the South Tower that shows white smoke from thermate that was needed to cut out the road runner shaped hole in the South Tower after it was hit by a CGI. NO PLANES MOVIE ( indexed to start at the MISSING WING ) https://youtu.be/p1D1C94eE8U?t=56m56s So, not only was the skipping across the sky of Flight 175 consistent with a CGI, the disappearing wing of Flight 175 consistent with a CGI, the slow motion impacts consistent with CGIs but the explosions and white smoke after the CGI impacted the Twin Towers was also consistent with CGIs. So I'll say it again and again. If you still think that real jets were used in Nuke York City all that proves if you have never seen the CGI impacts in slow motion. Your 500 mph jet in slow motion does not show a 500 mph crash in slow motion but a CGI going into a building instead. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0in9t$q0o$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #528022 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:n0h8fk$3n3$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>So CGIs pass the duck test. >> >> That's right, Rocky. Your excellent use of the Duck Test proved that >> there were no CGIs used on 9/11 once and for all! You were such a genius >> to think of using the Duck Test to disprove all that CGI crap! >ROTFLMAO because all you did was prove you never saw the CGIs fly into the >Twin Towers in slow motion. <G> And you proved that all kꙩkvids are full of lies! Great job!! >Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL Since that's a kꙩkvid, we already know whatever you're claiming is a lie, because you proved it! >The video of the North Tower shows extra explosives being used to knock out >the roadrunner shaped hole after it was hit by a very poorly done CGI. So that's a lie, too. >And most all if not all of the videos of the South Tower were taken off the >South Tower right after the CGI impacted the South Tower to avoid showing >that same series of explosions and use of thermate that we saw during the >Naudet Brother's video. We already know that's a lie, even before you proved that all kꙩkvids are lies. >But there was at least one video taken of the South Tower that shows white >smoke from thermate that was needed to cut out the road runner shaped hole >in the South Tower after it was hit by a CGI. >NO PLANES MOVIE >( indexed to start at the MISSING WING ) Is that the kꙩkvid that I showed how the clip with the crane was hacked to try to make it look like the plane flew in front of the crane? Doesn't matter, since you already proved it is full of lies anyway. Since we know it is a lie, we know that no thermate was involved. >So I'll say it again and again. "Look at this kꙩkvid, which is full of lies (which I proved) but ignore the fact that it is lying to you!" Seriously, Rocky, why do you keep posting links to kꙩkvids that both you and I (and all other readers here) already know are just a pack of lies? Remember, you proved that, with the excellent use of the Duck Test!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 11:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UNqdnZgKsYcRlLDLnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #528027 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:n0in9t$q0o$1@pcls7.std.com... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:n0h8fk$3n3$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>So CGIs pass the duck test. >> >> That's right, Rocky. Your excellent use of the Duck Test proved that >> there were no CGIs used on 9/11 once and for all! You were such a genius >> to think of using the Duck Test to disprove all that CGI crap! >ROTFLMAO because all you did was prove you never saw the CGIs fly into the >Twin Towers in slow motion. <G> And you proved that all k?kvids are full of lies! Great job!! >Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL Since that's a k?kvid, we already know whatever you're claiming is a lie, because you proved it! >The video of the North Tower shows extra explosives being used to knock out >the roadrunner shaped hole after it was hit by a very poorly done CGI. So that's a lie, too. >And most all if not all of the videos of the South Tower were taken off the >South Tower right after the CGI impacted the South Tower to avoid showing >that same series of explosions and use of thermate that we saw during the >Naudet Brother's video. We already know that's a lie, even before you proved that all k?kvids are lies. >But there was at least one video taken of the South Tower that shows white >smoke from thermate that was needed to cut out the road runner shaped hole >in the South Tower after it was hit by a CGI. >NO PLANES MOVIE >( indexed to start at the MISSING WING ) Is that the k?kvid that I showed how the clip with the crane was hacked to try to make it look like the plane flew in front of the crane? Doesn't matter, since you already proved it is full of lies anyway. Since we know it is a lie, we know that no thermate was involved. >So I'll say it again and again. "Look at this k?kvid, which is full of lies (which I proved) but ignore the fact that it is lying to you!" Seriously, Rocky, why do you keep posting links to k?kvids that both you and I (and all other readers here) already know are just a pack of lies? Remember, you proved that, with the excellent use of the Duck Test!! ============================ ROTFLMAO because the fact is you are afraid to see what you think was a real jet in slow motion. <G> Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE And again, I'm still waiting for your story about why Flight 93 never left any parts at Pranksville or Shanksville, PA. And don't give me that story about so much of it was found because I know it really landed in Cleveland. And the following video gives us a real good reason why the tail sections never left marks on either of the Twin Towers. And we can add that the tail sections never left a mark on the Pentagon or in Prankville, PA either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWcARHV71bU Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 19:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0j984$bn6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #528047 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >ROTFLMAO because the fact is you are afraid to see what you think was a real >jet in slow motion. <G> No, why would I want to watch a 4h32m kookvid after you already proved that all koovids are lies? What ghost are you chasing this time? More MPEG artifacts? Or the fact that TV images aren't a constant stream of motion but 30 still frames per second? >And again, I'm still waiting for your story about why Flight 93 never left >any parts at Pranksville or Shanksville, PA. And don't give me that story >about so much of it was found because I know it really landed in Cleveland. And I already answered you several times that 95% of Flight 93 (plus enough of each body to be identified) was recovered from Shanksville, some pieces buried over 30' deep. You cannot disprove that. And it was Delta Flight 1989 that landed in Cleveland, after mistakenly being believe to have been hijacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 14:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gdudnZjqsbCor7DLnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #528063 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:n0j984$bn6$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>ROTFLMAO because the fact is you are afraid to see what you think was a >>real >>jet in slow motion. <G> > > No, why would I want to watch a 4h32m kookvid after you already proved > that all koovids are lies? > > What ghost are you chasing this time? More MPEG artifacts? Or the fact > that TV images aren't a constant stream of motion but 30 still frames per > second? > >>And again, I'm still waiting for your story about why Flight 93 never left >>any parts at Pranksville or Shanksville, PA. And don't give me that story >>about so much of it was found because I know it really landed in >>Cleveland. > > And I already answered you several times that 95% of Flight 93 (plus > enough of each body to be identified) was recovered from Shanksville, > some pieces buried over 30' deep. You cannot disprove that. And it was > Delta Flight 1989 that landed in Cleveland, after mistakenly being believe > to have been hijacked. Too bad you can't offer one photo to prove anything crashed at Pranksville or Shanksville, PA. ROTFLMAO because so many of your bullshit stories are just that complete bullshit without any photos or videos or photos at the wrong location or videos without a date/time stamp. And talking about photos at the wrong airport and videos with no date and time stamp see: "Part 2 THE HIJACKERS Airport security Cameras" https://youtu.be/dWUzfJGmt5U?t=1h16m44s Michael your story was BS from the start and I love the way there are so many different excuses for why the debris from the jet that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon was neither inside or outside the Pentagon. Or why none of the Television Set Huggers like you can offer one photo from Pranksville that looks like a jet crashed there. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 01:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0jtvt$eeo$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #528068 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >Too bad you can't offer one photo to prove anything crashed at Pranksville >or Shanksville, PA. Plenty of photos available. Just look. >ROTFLMAO because so many of your bullshit stories are just that complete >bullshit without any photos or videos or photos at the wrong location or >videos without a date/time stamp. You have yet to provide any evidence of your kookclaims such as Flight 93 landing in Cleveland or whatever. >And talking about photos at the wrong airport and videos with no date and >time stamp see: Nobody is interested in your 4 hour kookvids full of lies (which you yourself proved!) >Michael your story was BS from the start and I love the way there are so >many different excuses for why the debris from the jet that was supposed to >have hit the Pentagon was neither inside or outside the Pentagon. They recovered 95% of that plane, mostly from inside.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 20:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZqidnZRgNpMQGrDLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #528128 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:n0jtvt$eeo$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>Too bad you can't offer one photo to prove anything crashed at Pranksville >>or Shanksville, PA. > > Plenty of photos available. Just look. ROTFLMAO because all I found was a site titled "Hunt the Boeing II Shanksville edition!" See: http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html >>ROTFLMAO because so many of your bullshit stories are just that complete >>bullshit without any photos or videos or photos at the wrong location or >>videos without a date/time stamp. > > You have yet to provide any evidence of your kookclaims such as Flight 93 > landing in Cleveland or whatever. Well, it had to land somewhere since it didn't land at Shankville which can now be called Pranksville. >>And talking about photos at the wrong airport and videos with no date and >>time stamp see: Riiight. So you remember that the security camera footage was from the wrong airport and the video camera footage didn't have a date/time stamp on it so it could have been from anywhere? > Nobody is interested in your 4 hour kookvids full of lies (which you > yourself proved!) And yet you can't state how? >>Michael your story was BS from the start and I love the way there are so >>many different excuses for why the debris from the jet that was supposed >>to >>have hit the Pentagon was neither inside or outside the Pentagon. > > They recovered 95% of that plane, mostly from inside. inside? inside what? inside the hanger where they put the Boeing for people on it to make their very last phone calls? And yet none of the photos prove anything was recovered. As a matter of fact the photos at the "Hunt the Boeing II" website don't show any remains of a 757. See for yourself at: http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0lodc$1u5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #528136 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:n0jtvt$eeo$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>Too bad you can't offer one photo to prove anything crashed at Pranksville >>>or Shanksville, PA. >> >> Plenty of photos available. Just look. >ROTFLMAO because all I found was a site titled "Hunt the Boeing II >Shanksville edition!" See: You have to search some place like Google, not whatever "kOOksites only" server you're using. >> You have yet to provide any evidence of your kookclaims such as Flight 93 >> landing in Cleveland or whatever. Just handwaving. >Well, it had to land somewhere since it didn't land at Shankville which can >now be called Pranksville. So you don't have any evidence that it landed in Cleveland, or anywhere else. On the other hand, a big smoking crater with 95% of a 757 in it is evidence that it crashed (not landed!) in Shanksville. If you weren't lying, you'd have some evidence, wouldn't you? And of course, if it did land safely, where are the passengers and crew? (Here comes more handwaving, Rocky will kookclaim they're chained to a wall, upside down, in a cave below Guatanamo Bay, or some such kooktarded crap) >> Nobody is interested in your 4 hour kookvids full of lies (which you >> yourself proved!) >And yet you can't state how? Nobody is going to watch your 4 hour kookvids full of lies. >>>Michael your story was BS from the start and I love the way there are so >>>many different excuses for why the debris from the jet that was supposed >>>to >>>have hit the Pentagon was neither inside or outside the Pentagon. >> >> They recovered 95% of that plane, mostly from inside. >inside? inside what? inside the hanger where they put the Boeing for >people on it to make their very last phone calls? You know where I mean. Oh, where are _those_ passengers and crew? Are they in the same cave as Flight 93's passengers? >And yet none of the photos prove anything was recovered. As a matter of >fact the photos at the "Hunt the Boeing II" website don't show any remains Nobody is interested in your lying kooksites. You have been provided evidence, which you are ignoring.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <w6-dncgijof2ErPLnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #528254 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:n0lodc$1u5$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:n0jtvt$eeo$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>Too bad you can't offer one photo to prove anything crashed at >>>>Pranksville >>>>or Shanksville, PA. >>> >>> Plenty of photos available. Just look. > >>ROTFLMAO because all I found was a site titled "Hunt the Boeing II >>Shanksville edition!" See: > > You have to search some place like Google, not whatever "kOOksites only" > server you're using. > >>> You have yet to provide any evidence of your kookclaims such as Flight >>> 93 >>> landing in Cleveland or whatever. Just handwaving. It obviously had to land somewhere so people could rattle off their scripted phone calls since they couldn't do that airborne. DUH >>Well, it had to land somewhere since it didn't land at Shankville which >>can >>now be called Pranksville. > > So you don't have any evidence that it landed in Cleveland, or anywhere > else. On the other hand, a big smoking crater with 95% of a 757 in it > is evidence that it crashed (not landed!) in Shanksville. PHOTOS PHOTOS PHOTOS. Why is it you keep forgetting that you do not have any photos to support your above BS. And do not forget Google Earth can be used to prove that crator was there before the big lie about Flight 93 crashed there was started. > If you weren't lying, you'd have some evidence, wouldn't you? ROTFLMAO because all I have to do it put the link you pulled out back in. See: "Hunt the Boeing II Shanksville edition!" http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html > And of course, if it did land safely, where are the passengers and crew? > (Here comes more handwaving, Rocky will kookclaim they're chained to a > wall, upside down, in a cave below Guatanamo Bay, or some such kooktarded > crap) Wait a second. What makes you think there were real people on jets that never crashed? Did you fail to look up VicSims again? I'll bet you did. >>> Nobody is interested in your 4 hour kookvids full of lies (which you >>> yourself proved!) > >>And yet you can't state how? > > Nobody is going to watch your 4 hour kookvids full of lies. ROTFLMAO because NIST didn't even try to explain why so much of the Twin Towers floated away and why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were wiped out by a nuke that was not directly under them. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>>>Michael your story was BS from the start and I love the way there are so >>>>many different excuses for why the debris from the jet that was supposed >>>>to >>>>have hit the Pentagon was neither inside or outside the Pentagon. >>> >>> They recovered 95% of that plane, mostly from inside. > >>inside? inside what? inside the hanger where they put the Boeing for >>people on it to make their very last phone calls? > > You know where I mean. Oh, where are _those_ passengers and crew? > Are they in the same cave as Flight 93's passengers? What passengers and crew? Flight 77 and Flight 11 never even departed on 9/11/01. >>And yet none of the photos prove anything was recovered. As a matter of >>fact the photos at the "Hunt the Boeing II" website don't show any remains > > Nobody is interested in your lying kooksites. You have been provided > evidence, which you are ignoring. Riiight. No photos of a 757 at Prankville, PA or at the Pentagon. And then the videos where Flight 175 skips across the sky, loses a wing, melts into the South Tower and then explosion and white smoke shows up after the alleged impact all say that the Flight 175 you saw was just a CGI. And again if the North Tower had really been a collapse you would have seen that great big Radio Antenna on top of the pile but you don't see the Radio Antenna or a great big pile because the North Tower wasn't a "Collapse" but a Nuclear Demolition instead. 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 | 2015-10-26 23:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0mcns$hca$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #528341 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:n0lodc$1u5$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:n0jtvt$eeo$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>Too bad you can't offer one photo to prove anything crashed at >>>>>Pranksville >>>>>or Shanksville, PA. >>>> >>>> Plenty of photos available. Just look. >> >>>ROTFLMAO because all I found was a site titled "Hunt the Boeing II >>>Shanksville edition!" See: >> >> You have to search some place like Google, not whatever "kOOksites only" >> server you're using. >> >>>> You have yet to provide any evidence of your kookclaims such as Flight >>>> 93 >>>> landing in Cleveland or whatever. Just handwaving. >It obviously "Obviously". Evidence of a false authority, begging the question, circular reasoning or assuming facts without evidence argument. > had to land somewhere so people could rattle off their scripted >phone calls since they couldn't do that airborne. DUH ...and the answer is: Assuming facts without evidence argument. You would have to prove your kookclaim that "people rattled off scripted phone calls" first. Which you can't, of course. >>>Well, it had to land somewhere since it didn't land at Shankville which >>>can >>>now be called Pranksville. >> >> So you don't have any evidence that it landed in Cleveland, or anywhere >> else. On the other hand, a big smoking crater with 95% of a 757 in it >> is evidence that it crashed (not landed!) in Shanksville. >PHOTOS PHOTOS PHOTOS. Yes, you can provide photos to prove your kookclaim that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, if you think doing so actually proves that. But real proof, not kooksites. >And do not forget Google Earth can be used to prove that crator was there >before the big lie about Flight 93 crashed there was started. Evidence? (Google Earth URL) >> If you weren't lying, you'd have some evidence, wouldn't you? >ROTFLMAO because all I have to do it put the link you pulled out back in. K00ksites are not evidence. They are only the opinions of yet another kooktard. >> And of course, if it did land safely, where are the passengers and crew? >> (Here comes more handwaving, Rocky will kookclaim they're chained to a >> wall, upside down, in a cave below Guatanamo Bay, or some such kooktarded >> crap) >Wait a second. What makes you think there were real people on jets that >never crashed? Did you fail to look up VicSims again? I'll bet you did. Because their loved ones kissed the passengers goodbye at the security gate, there was plenty of evidence they actually boarded the planes, plenty of evidence the planes did in fact take off, and last but not least, their bodies or DNA was found at the crash sites. >>>> Nobody is interested in your 4 hour kookvids full of lies (which you >>>> yourself proved!) >> >>>And yet you can't state how? >> >> Nobody is going to watch your 4 hour kookvids full of lies. >ROTFLMAO because NIST didn't even try to explain why so much of the Twin Don't change the subject. We're discussing how kookvids are full of lies. >>>> They recovered 95% of that plane, mostly from inside. >> >>>inside? inside what? inside the hanger where they put the Boeing for >>>people on it to make their very last phone calls? >> >> You know where I mean. Oh, where are _those_ passengers and crew? >> Are they in the same cave as Flight 93's passengers? >What passengers and crew? Flight 77 and Flight 11 never even departed on >9/11/01. Evidence?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 15:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Be2dndOTOpNGfrLLnZ2dnUU7-LednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #528254 |
"dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:37d98bc6-dfeb-417b-bd8a-36963d68bce7@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:37:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > ... >> Nobody is interested in your lying kooksites. You have been provided >> evidence, which you are ignoring. > > For actual evidence and photo summaries, see: > > https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2 > https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page3 > > Dan (Woj...) ROTFLMAO because Google Earth proves that gash was there long before the rumored Flight 93 was supposed to have crashed there meaning the 9/11 Hoaxsters will have to add to their lies again like they have done so many times already. And do not forget the similarities between the phone calls from the different jets and the inconsistencies of the phone calls with real life because both those help prove all those calls were scripted. http://www.methodicalillusion.com/ AND The Flight 93 Hoax - Strangest Plane Crash Ever http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2011/02/the-flight-93-hoax-strangest-plane-crash-ever-391827.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0qp1s$8pt$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #528254 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:10:21 -0700 (PDT), dmaster ><dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:37:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>... >>> Nobody is interested in your lying kooksites. You have been provided >>> evidence, which you are ignoring. >> >>For actual evidence and photo summaries, see: >> >>https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2 >>https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page3 >> >>Dan (Woj...) > It will be interesting to see how Roger LIES about the evidence. No, he had the typical k00ktard response. First, he demands Evidence! PHOTOS! PHOTOS! PHOTOS! He gets his evidence and photos. He doesn't address them at all, instead he starts talking about something else, an unsubstantiated claim that the Flight 93 crater existed before 9/11. DIVERT! DIVERT! DIVERT!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web