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

Groups > sci.physics > #540520 > unrolled thread

Re: Sänta Hägar

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: Sänta Hägar "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-20 21:10 -0600
    Re: Sänta Hägar moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-21 15:16 +0000
      Re: Sänta Hägar "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-22 14:51 -0600
        Re: Sänta Hägar moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-23 05:10 +0000
        Re: Sänta Hägar "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:58 -0600
        Re: Sänta Hägar Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-24 20:51 +0000

#540520 — Re: Sänta Hägar

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n57p2q$6mi$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:n559nk$4hl$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You don't get it Roger.   YOU are the one who needs to prove your
>>>> crazy theories.    We already know the truth and the truth is not
>>>> anything you're reporting and writing about.
>
>>Ok SE, if you are so fcuking smart then explain why
>>And then explain why
>>And then why didn't NIST explain
>
> K00ktard, you don't get it.  You are the one coming up with some k00ky
> conspiracy theory, so it's up to YOU to prove it, not up to Sarah to
> disprove it.  Just like Sarah said.

Michael, you are forgetting, it is easy to prove that CGIs were used in Nuke 
York City because all you have to do is compare them to real CGIs.  Gawd you 
are Dmub.

Theory of Ghostplane
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

And do not forget why all the videos of a CGI flying into the South Tower 
end so abruptly and that is because they didn't want to show the explosions 
necessary to make the holes that the CGIs could not make.  <G>

Rocky 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#540611

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n57p2q$6mi$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:n559nk$4hl$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get it Roger.   YOU are the one who needs to prove your
>>>>> crazy theories.    We already know the truth and the truth is not
>>>>> anything you're reporting and writing about.
>>
>>>Ok SE, if you are so fcuking smart then explain why
>>>And then explain why
>>>And then why didn't NIST explain
>>
>> K00ktard, you don't get it.  You are the one coming up with some k00ky
>> conspiracy theory, so it's up to YOU to prove it, not up to Sarah to
>> disprove it.  Just like Sarah said.

>Michael, you are forgetting, it is easy to prove that CGIs were used in Nuke 
>York City because all you have to do is compare them to real CGIs.

Yet nobody has proven that CGIs were used in NYC that day.  In fact, you 
proved the exact opposite (using the Duck Test) that CGIs were *not* used!

>And do not forget why all the videos of a CGI flying into the South Tower 
>end so abruptly and that is because they didn't want to show the explosions 
>necessary to make the holes that the CGIs could not make.  <G>

Except that's not true.  Maybe it's true in k00kvids, since we all know 
that all k00kvids are just a pack of lies, so maybe it's true that all
clips of the plane flying into the South Tower are abruptly cut off in
k00kvids.  Just like how k00kvids never show the east penthouse of 
Building 7 collapsing before the rest of the outer wall did.  They don't
want to show that much of the building had already collapsed before the
outer wall did.

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

#540872

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n5954t$ic6$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n57p2q$6mi$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:n559nk$4hl$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't get it Roger.   YOU are the one who needs to prove your
>>>>>> crazy theories.    We already know the truth and the truth is not
>>>>>> anything you're reporting and writing about.
>>>
>>>>Ok SE, if you are so fcuking smart then explain why
>>>>And then explain why
>>>>And then why didn't NIST explain
>>>
>>> K00ktard, you don't get it.  You are the one coming up with some k00ky
>>> conspiracy theory, so it's up to YOU to prove it, not up to Sarah to
>>> disprove it.  Just like Sarah said.
>
>>Michael, you are forgetting, it is easy to prove that CGIs were used in 
>>Nuke
>>York City because all you have to do is compare them to real CGIs.
>
> Yet nobody has proven that CGIs were used in NYC that day.  In fact, you
> proved the exact opposite (using the Duck Test) that CGIs were *not* used!

And you have watched those videos of the alleged jets in slow motion when? 
Dude, you can't talk if you don't know what your talking about.  DUH

>>And do not forget why all the videos of a CGI flying into the South Tower
>>end so abruptly and that is because they didn't want to show the 
>>explosions
>>necessary to make the holes that the CGIs could not make.  <G>
>
> Except that's not true.  Maybe it's true in k00kvids, since we all know
> that all k00kvids are just a pack of lies, so maybe it's true that all
> clips of the plane flying into the South Tower are abruptly cut off in
> k00kvids.  Just like how k00kvids never show the east penthouse of
> Building 7 collapsing before the rest of the outer wall did.  They don't
> want to show that much of the building had already collapsed before the
> outer wall did.

ROTFLMAO.  There are hours and hours of TV from most all the news channels 
and they all do about the exact same thing and that is not let you see that 
explosions were necessary to make the holes in the Twin Towers that the CGIs 
could not.  DUH

And even if you want to talk about the order that WTC 7 came down look at 
how NIST avoids how fast WTC7 came down.  They use an overall average to 
avoid the fact that for the first 100 feet WTC7 came down at a speed 
comparable to a CD or ND where ND is not Nuclear Demolition but Nuclear 
Destruction.

Rocky 

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

#540961

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n5954t$ic6$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Ok SE, if you are so fcuking smart then explain why
>>>>>And then explain why
>>>>>And then why didn't NIST explain
>>>>
>>>> K00ktard, you don't get it.  You are the one coming up with some k00ky
>>>> conspiracy theory, so it's up to YOU to prove it, not up to Sarah to
>>>> disprove it.  Just like Sarah said.
>>
>>>Michael, you are forgetting, it is easy to prove that CGIs were used in 
>>>Nuke
>>>York City because all you have to do is compare them to real CGIs.
>>
>> Yet nobody has proven that CGIs were used in NYC that day.  In fact, you
>> proved the exact opposite (using the Duck Test) that CGIs were *not* used!

>And you have watched those videos of the alleged jets in slow motion when? 

I watched the clip in one of your kookvids (the one you used to prove all
kookvids are lies) and it showed the plane fly behind the crane at full 
speed, then slower, then slower, then slower.  But when I took still 
frames of the full speed portion and the slowed portion, it was obvious
the slowed portion was altered.  The blurry jet image was replaced by a 
much higher quality image.  How can the quality of a video magically
improve?  It can't, it was faked.

You took that fact to prove that *all* kookvids have been tampered with,
and are thus lies.  You're such a genius!  So now there is no reason to
even watch a k00kvid, unless you are trying to see _how_ they lied, or
_how_ they tampered with the video or something.

>>>And do not forget why all the videos of a CGI flying into the South Tower
>>>end so abruptly and that is because they didn't want to show the 
>>>explosions
>>>necessary to make the holes that the CGIs could not make.  <G>
>>
>> Except that's not true.  Maybe it's true in k00kvids, since we all know
>> that all k00kvids are just a pack of lies, so maybe it's true that all
>> clips of the plane flying into the South Tower are abruptly cut off in
>> k00kvids.  Just like how k00kvids never show the east penthouse of
>> Building 7 collapsing before the rest of the outer wall did.  They don't
>> want to show that much of the building had already collapsed before the
>> outer wall did.

>ROTFLMAO.  There are hours and hours of TV from most all the news channels 
>and they all do about the exact same thing and that is not let you see that 
>explosions were necessary to make the holes in the Twin Towers that the CGIs 
>could not.  DUH

You're babbling, kooktard.  If you can find an honest video with a 
discrepancy, point it out.  Not a k00kvid, you already proved they are
all lies so no reason for me to waste my time with 4 hours of lies.

>And even if you want to talk about the order that WTC 7 came down look at 
>how NIST avoids how fast WTC7 came down.  They use an overall average to 
>avoid the fact that for the first 100 feet WTC7 came down at a speed 
>comparable to a CD or ND where ND is not Nuclear Demolition but Nuclear 
>Destruction.

Once again you kookclaim the collapse is "comparable to a Nuclear Demolition"
but you *still* haven't shown me another "Nuclear Demolition" to compare
it to!

The point is the k00kvids never show the start of the collapse (the east
penthouse going).  By the time we saw "the building" collapse, much of it,
the inside, and maybe the south wall, was already gone, and the "collapse"
was just the remaining outer shell going.  With the rest of the building
already gone, it's not surprising the shell collapsed at freefall.

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

#541243

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:51:28 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>>>> K00ktard, you don't get it.  You are the one coming up with some k00ky
>>>> conspiracy theory, so it's up to YOU to prove it, not up to Sarah to
>>>> disprove it.  Just like Sarah said.
>>
>>>Michael, you are forgetting, it is easy to prove that CGIs were used in 
>>>Nuke
>>>York City because all you have to do is compare them to real CGIs.
>>
>> Yet nobody has proven that CGIs were used in NYC that day.  In fact, you
>> proved the exact opposite (using the Duck Test) that CGIs were *not* used!
>
>And you have watched those videos of the alleged jets in slow motion when? 
>Dude, you can't talk if you don't know what your talking about.  DUH
>

     Oh, the irony!

>>>And do not forget why all the videos of a CGI flying into the South Tower
>>>end so abruptly and that is because they didn't want to show the 
>>>explosions
>>>necessary to make the holes that the CGIs could not make.  <G>
>>
>> Except that's not true.  Maybe it's true in k00kvids, since we all know
>> that all k00kvids are just a pack of lies, so maybe it's true that all
>> clips of the plane flying into the South Tower are abruptly cut off in
>> k00kvids.  Just like how k00kvids never show the east penthouse of
>> Building 7 collapsing before the rest of the outer wall did.  They don't
>> want to show that much of the building had already collapsed before the
>> outer wall did.
>
>ROTFLMAO.  There are hours and hours of TV from most all the news channels 
>and they all do about the exact same thing and that is not let you see that 
>explosions were necessary to make the holes in the Twin Towers that the CGIs 
>could not.  DUH
>

     So the lack of anyone showing these phantom explosions prove
these phantom explosions existed?
     Please tell my I've misunderstood your point.

>And even if you want to talk about the order that WTC 7 came down look at 
>how NIST avoids how fast WTC7 came down.  They use an overall average to 
>avoid the fact that for the first 100 feet WTC7 came down at a speed 
>comparable to a CD or ND where ND is not Nuclear Demolition but Nuclear 
>Destruction.

     Please link to an example of another building being demolished by
a nuclear explosion so that we might compare it to #7, as you seem to
have done. Unless, of course, you're lying.


"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]

#541329

On 22/12/2015 20:51, Rocky wrote:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:n5954t$ic6$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n57p2q$6mi$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:n559nk$4hl$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't get it Roger.   YOU are the one who needs to prove your
>>>>>>> crazy theories.    We already know the truth and the truth is not
>>>>>>> anything you're reporting and writing about.
>>>>
>>>>> Ok SE, if you are so fcuking smart then explain why
>>>>> And then explain why
>>>>> And then why didn't NIST explain
>>>>
>>>> K00ktard, you don't get it.  You are the one coming up with some k00ky
>>>> conspiracy theory, so it's up to YOU to prove it, not up to Sarah to
>>>> disprove it.  Just like Sarah said.
>>
>>> Michael, you are forgetting, it is easy to prove that CGIs were used in
>>> Nuke
>>> York City because all you have to do is compare them to real CGIs.
>>
>> Yet nobody has proven that CGIs were used in NYC that day.  In fact, you
>> proved the exact opposite (using the Duck Test) that CGIs were *not* used!
>
> And you have watched those videos of the alleged jets in slow motion when?
> Dude, you can't talk if you don't know what your talking about.  DUH

Can anybody send me a Mk 5 Irony Meter, my Mk's just gone into overload.

>
>>> And do not forget why all the videos of a CGI flying into the South Tower
>>> end so abruptly and that is because they didn't want to show the
>>> explosions
>>> necessary to make the holes that the CGIs could not make.  <G>
>>
>> Except that's not true.  Maybe it's true in k00kvids, since we all know
>> that all k00kvids are just a pack of lies, so maybe it's true that all
>> clips of the plane flying into the South Tower are abruptly cut off in
>> k00kvids.  Just like how k00kvids never show the east penthouse of
>> Building 7 collapsing before the rest of the outer wall did.  They don't
>> want to show that much of the building had already collapsed before the
>> outer wall did.
>
> ROTFLMAO.  There are hours and hours of TV from most all the news channels
> and they all do about the exact same thing and that is not let you see that
> explosions were necessary to make the holes in the Twin Towers that the CGIs
> could not.  DUH
>

I wonder why that would be, I know these explosions didn't exist.

> And even if you want to talk about the order that WTC 7 came down look at
> how NIST avoids how fast WTC7 came down.  They use an overall average to
> avoid the fact that for the first 100 feet WTC7 came down at a speed
> comparable to a CD or ND where ND is not Nuclear Demolition but Nuclear
> Destruction.
>
> Rocky
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web