Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #541058 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-23 09:16 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 120 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 09:16 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 08:01 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 10:50 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 09:05 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:49 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 09:18 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-24 18:44 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 15:44 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-25 02:50 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-25 06:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 06:44 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:07 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 08:09 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-26 12:21 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-26 17:36 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 10:39 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-26 14:51 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 16:14 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-26 20:24 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 05:26 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-27 08:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 03:58 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-27 16:32 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-27 16:29 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 01:13 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-31 17:10 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-01 06:46 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 07:32 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-01 17:50 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 12:03 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 01:40 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-28 11:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:57 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 08:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 16:59 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 14:34 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 21:37 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 16:34 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 23:09 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 17:19 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 10:32 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-31 16:54 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-01 06:34 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 00:40 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-03 07:02 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-04 13:20 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:47 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:47 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:46 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 12:36 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:47 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 16:16 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 21:37 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:43 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:57 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-24 03:18 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:44 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 16:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 15:35 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-23 18:25 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-23 17:34 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-24 00:00 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-23 23:48 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:45 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:44 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 08:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-25 07:08 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 06:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:08 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 20:06 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-26 10:38 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-25 09:28 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 09:08 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:10 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:09 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-26 10:20 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-26 09:50 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:37 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:36 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 08:27 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-23 21:43 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 00:49 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 08:29 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-24 09:38 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-24 20:46 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-24 17:00 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 00:43 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-24 19:38 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-25 06:23 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 22:46 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-25 07:10 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 06:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 06:18 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-12-27 02:03 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 05:26 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-24 03:11 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 06:46 -0800
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-24 20:46 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-12-24 15:55 -0500
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-12-25 02:57 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 09:55 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-25 06:07 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 10:03 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-26 00:22 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 19:26 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-26 03:25 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 22:21 -0600
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-26 10:38 +0000
Re: 9/11 was a CGI job "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5kjjh$d5p$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541469 |
On 25/12/2015 12:56, Rocky wrote: > "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message > news:6fcq7b99svmsgagca2bj98fciq1pgj4f33@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:29:22 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:43:01 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>>> >>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>>> streets. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Name one. >>>> >>>> Tony Benetatos, a probationary firefighter of the New York City Fire >>>> Department assigned to the Engine 7/Ladder 1/Battalion 1 Firehouse on >>>> Duane Street in Lower Manhattan. >>>> >>>> Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer >>> >>> >>> Videos? or other proof? >> >> You asked for one and I gave you the names of two people who looked up >> on 9/11 and saw twp planes hit the WTC. > > Better give us the entire story because they clearly looked up to see a > television set instead. <G> > > Rocky > > Can you tell us the altitude of this TV set? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-27 02:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <s93v7b5cm7p3hvr46lbl3h6ord7qun27cn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541469 |
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 06:56:59 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >news:6fcq7b99svmsgagca2bj98fciq1pgj4f33@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:29:22 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:43:01 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video >>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs >>>>>> >>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the >>>>>> streets. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Name one. >>>> >>>> Tony Benetatos, a probationary firefighter of the New York City Fire >>>> Department assigned to the Engine 7/Ladder 1/Battalion 1 Firehouse on >>>> Duane Street in Lower Manhattan. >>>> >>>> Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer >>> >>> >>>Videos? or other proof? >> >> You asked for one and I gave you the names of two people who looked up >> on 9/11 and saw twp planes hit the WTC. > >Better give us the entire story because they clearly looked up to see a >television set instead. <G> Their names should be very familiar to you, Roger. >Rocky >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-27 05:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <gmiv7b5t5ect6ioob1lsdpcaqm9l3hdaiu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541755 |
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 02:03:59 -0500, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 06:56:59 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:6fcq7b99svmsgagca2bj98fciq1pgj4f33@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:29:22 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:43:01 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video
>>>>>>>> and Flight 175 were both CGIs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not according to hundreds of New Yorkers who saw the planes from the
>>>>>>> streets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Name one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony Benetatos, a probationary firefighter of the New York City Fire
>>>>> Department assigned to the Engine 7/Ladder 1/Battalion 1 Firehouse on
>>>>> Duane Street in Lower Manhattan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Videos? or other proof?
>>>
>>> You asked for one and I gave you the names of two people who looked up
>>> on 9/11 and saw twp planes hit the WTC.
>>
>>Better give us the entire story because they clearly looked up to see a
>>television set instead. <G>
>
>Their names should be very familiar to you, Roger.
The learning disability Roger displays is not an act. He honestly
*needs* to be told the same thing many more times than is considered
the norm before he can actually understand.
"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 | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aagn7b54f62h3q9n451qckuf4bvl8fk9lu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541148 |
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>news:n5ete4$99q$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Hägar wrote:
>>> "Rocky" wrote in message
>>> news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11
>>> was
>>> a CGI job" phrase is much more informative.
>>>
>>>
>>> *** How about: Wockie is a Nut-Job ...
>>> has a nice ring to it, you Loon ...
>>
>>
>> Hagar is a fudge packing butt pirate, still has a most resounding ring.
>>
>> But I personally will stick with the "9/11 was an inside job"
>> As the cgi was only used for one out of 4 alleged "plane" impacts.
>>
>> The other 3 were all propaganda barrages, with faked evidence. e.g. a
>> passport, a bandana, a few small pieces of plane parts, a picture with a
>> white blur,....that all had ellaborate fairytales tied to them.
>
>Actually both Flight 11 which shows up in the Naudet Brothers video and
>Flight 175 were both CGIs so CGI still fits 1/2 of the airplanes used on
>9/11.
>
>And if CGI stood for Citizen Generated Image that might help because most
>the non-citizens already know 9/11 was an elaborate hoax.
And yet, more than a decade later, there is still no evidence of
it being a hoax. Odd that.
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5fnpi$grs$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #541058 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11 was >a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. >And never forget how the big lie operates. >"The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small >one" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie So K00ktard, is that why you keep repeating The Big Lie that 9/11 was faked, with CGIs and magic nukes, over and over again? That won't work, normal people are just too smart to be fooled by your Big Lie because it's simply too absurd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 03:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <l9gn7btiegbglif39ac9mqervfdih74c3s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541058 |
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:16:15 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11 was
>a CGI job" phrase is much more informative.
>
And just as wrong.
>And never forget how the big lie operates.
>
You post it frequently, so it's not likely to be forgotten any
time soon.
>"The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small
>one"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie
>
Is that why you keep LYING about nukes even after you PROVED no
nukes were used on 9/11/2001?
"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 | Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 06:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <KumdnfA5a8bRmOHLnZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541058 |
"Rocky" wrote in message news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com... Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11 was a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. And never forget how the big lie operates. "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie Rocky *** They must have created Holograms, then ... for there are dozens of film clip as well as stills available, most of them purely accidental, taken by a wide host of onlookers, you moronic Wockie twerp ... But then, they were probably all in on the Bush/Cheney conspiracy ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5hleu$s7j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541263 |
On 24/12/2015 14:46, Hägar wrote: > "Rocky" wrote in message > news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > > Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11 was > a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. > > And never forget how the big lie operates. > > "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small > one" > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie > > Rocky > > > > *** They must have created Holograms, then ... for there are dozens > of film clip as well as stills available, most of them purely accidental, > taken by a wide host of onlookers, you moronic Wockie twerp ... > > But then, they were probably all in on the Bush/Cheney conspiracy ... > Don't start him on about holograms again. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 15:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n5hm04$u7k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541263 |
Hägar wrote: > "Rocky" wrote in message > news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > > Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the "9/11 > was > a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. > > And never forget how the big lie operates. > > "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a > small > one" > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie > > Rocky > > > > *** They must have created Holograms, then ... for there are dozens > of film clip as well as stills available, most of them purely > accidental, > taken by a wide host of onlookers, you moronic Wockie twerp ... > > But then, they were probably all in on the Bush/Cheney conspiracy ... And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later. Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be good enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly. Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government types who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination. However they didn't count on that the internet NEVER forgets. With all the cellphones that were available that day, you would think the news sources, and youtube or other websites would have been buried in shots, before the dust even cleared. ....but nope. Maybe because NO ONE had any shots of the "planes".....other than the mainstream media who had them prepared in advance, and STILL pulled the photos and videos because of the obvious flaws.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA57ADF660B1B4stillnolawsuitedmo@208.90.168.18> |
| In reply to | #541331 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:n5hm04$u7k$1@dont-email.me: > > > Hägar wrote: >> "Rocky" wrote in message >> news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >> Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the >> "9/11 was >> a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. >> >> And never forget how the big lie operates. >> >> "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a >> small >> one" >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie >> >> Rocky >> >> >> >> *** They must have created Holograms, then ... for there are dozens >> of film clip as well as stills available, most of them purely >> accidental, >> taken by a wide host of onlookers, you moronic Wockie twerp ... >> >> But then, they were probably all in on the Bush/Cheney conspiracy ... > > > > > And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later. You're either wrong due to ignorance, lying or both. > Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be > good enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly. See above. > Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government > types who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination. > However they didn't count on that the internet NEVER forgets. See above. > With all the cellphones that were available that day, you would think > the news sources, and youtube or other websites would have been buried > in shots, before the dust even cleared. > ....but nope. I can't count how many people walk around Manhattan with their cell phones pointed at the sky. So let me know which kooksite has that "fact". > Maybe because NO ONE had any shots of the "planes".....other than the > mainstream media who had them prepared in advance, and STILL pulled > the photos and videos because of the obvious flaws. Day-yum - you ARE a fruitcake. -- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895. "I have always thought that the reason Dinosaurs were so big is because of the dramatic difference in gravitational strength between that time period and now" - Edmo the paleontologist. This signature was made by SigChanger. You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 09:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ZK6dnclYuaPT-uDLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541421 |
"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote in message news:XnsA57ADF660B1B4stillnolawsuitedmo@208.90.168.18... > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in > news:n5hm04$u7k$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> >> Hägar wrote: >>> "Rocky" wrote in message >>> news:9J6dnaudOPo4J-fLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> >>> Heck with the "9/11 was an inside job" phrase because I think the >>> "9/11 was >>> a CGI job" phrase is much more informative. >>> >>> And never forget how the big lie operates. >>> >>> "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a >>> small >>> one" >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie >>> >>> Rocky >>> >>> >>> >>> *** They must have created Holograms, then ... for there are dozens >>> of film clip as well as stills available, most of them purely >>> accidental, >>> taken by a wide host of onlookers, you moronic Wockie twerp ... >>> >>> But then, they were probably all in on the Bush/Cheney conspiracy ... >> >> >> >> >> And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later. > > You're either wrong due to ignorance, lying or both. You forgot "none of the above" you idiot. Don't forget the cameras on some of the helicopters that were used on 9/11 were WesCam cameras and they certainly take better photos than the CGIs that we saw. DUH 9/11: 16 CGIs which fooled the world http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGI/CGI_aprilfools.html >> Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be >> good enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly. > > See above. Actually Apple has had great 3D video editing software for years before 9/11 called the "Video Toaster" Video Toaster May Be Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread ><http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-06-04/business/9306040005_1_desktop-video-video-effects-ibm-compatible-pcs>< >> Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government >> types who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination. >> However they didn't count on that the internet NEVER forgets. > > See above. Your above bullshit has already been shot down so I get to say see above instead. See above. <G> >> With all the cellphones that were available that day, you would think >> the news sources, and youtube or other websites would have been buried >> in shots, before the dust even cleared. >> ....but nope. > > I can't count how many people walk around Manhattan with their cell > phones pointed at the sky. So let me know which kooksite has that "fact". That doesn't matter because what matters if if those jet were real the technology of the day would have given us much better and consistent videos instead of showing us 3 different CGIs where one of the CGIs was black and another CGI was white. >> Maybe because NO ONE had any shots of the "planes".....other than the >> mainstream media who had them prepared in advance, and STILL pulled >> the photos and videos because of the obvious flaws. > > Day-yum - you ARE a fruitcake. ROTFLMAO because all you have to do to see that CGIs were used in Nuke York City is look how many different CGIs they used and that the CGIs were fully consistent with CGIs in their lack of crash dynamics. DUH. Theory of Ghostplane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc Oh and as a Christmas present to you the jets in Nuke York City were just CGIs with the bogus blips being used the same type of bogus blips that NORAD uses when they track Santa. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #541331 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later. >Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be good >enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly. >Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government types >who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination. Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the impact of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again. From every angle, too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again. They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville over and over and over and over again. The talking heads were talking continuously about it, without saying anything new for the most part, while Flight 175 crashed over and over again, while the towers collapsed over and over and over again. Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times over several days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 10:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iJCdnXNUWMnP9ODLnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541443 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: > >>And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later. >>Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be >>good >>enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly. >>Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government >>types >>who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination. > > Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the impact > of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again. And you never stopped to wonder why they never slowed down or lost any parts? Shame on you for being such a sucker. Theory of Ghostplane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc > From every angle, > too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again. ROTFLMAO because the remains of the Twin Towers do not support a "collapse" at all since they support an MRR nuke that was planted deep underground. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville > over and over and over and over again. And I'll bet you never used Google Earth to see that the crater had been there long before anybody ever claimed Flight 93 went down there. <G> > The talking heads were talking > continuously about it, without saying anything new for the most part, > while Flight 175 crashed over and over again, while the towers collapsed > over and over and over again. ROTFLMAO because that is how lies work. They show you the exact same bullshit over and over and over again and rely on you to miss the fact that Flight 175 was consistent with a CGI and that the remains of the Twin Towers were consistent with an MRR nuke and not a collapse. <G> > Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times over > several days. Riiight. Maybe you should take a look at the following video that we never saw again after 9/11. <G> WNBC saw a missile or small plane in Chopper4 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHhBcZxYqY Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5kjjc$d5p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541481 |
On 25/12/2015 16:03, Rocky wrote: > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >> >>> And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later. >>> Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be >>> good >>> enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly. >>> Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government >>> types >>> who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination. >> >> Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the impact >> of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again. > > And you never stopped to wonder why they never slowed down or lost any > parts? Shame on you for being such a sucker. > > Theory of Ghostplane > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc > > >> From every angle, >> too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again. > > ROTFLMAO because the remains of the Twin Towers do not support a "collapse" > at all since they support an MRR nuke that was planted deep underground. > > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > >> They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville >> over and over and over and over again. > > And I'll bet you never used Google Earth to see that the crater had been > there long before anybody ever claimed Flight 93 went down there. <G> > > >> The talking heads were talking >> continuously about it, without saying anything new for the most part, >> while Flight 175 crashed over and over again, while the towers collapsed >> over and over and over again. > > ROTFLMAO because that is how lies work. They show you the exact same > bullshit over and over and over again and rely on you to miss the fact that > Flight 175 was consistent with a CGI and that the remains of the Twin Towers > were consistent with an MRR nuke and not a collapse. <G> > Can you post a link to the event that they were consistent with so we can compare them. Of course if you can not give us the link your claim is obviously a lie. If it were true you can provide the link. >> Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times over >> several days. > > Riiight. Maybe you should take a look at the following video that we never > saw again after 9/11. <G> > > WNBC saw a missile or small plane in Chopper4 video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHhBcZxYqY > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 00:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5kmjh$boa$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #541481 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later.
>>>Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be
>>>good
>>>enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly.
>>>Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government
>>>types
>>>who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination.
>>
>> Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the impact
>> of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again.
>And you never stopped to wonder why they never slowed down or lost any
>parts?
Don't change the subject. The news media went on replay of the events
over and over and over again since before the towers collapsed. Besides,
I already told you how to see how the plane slowed down, plus you can see
parts fly out the north face.
> Shame on you for being such a sucker.
You're the sucker for believing all those kookvids being fed to you, even
after you proved they are all lies. Actually, I can think of a better
word for you than 'sucker' for believing them. It's 'sheeple'.
Don't forget to baa the next time you're given a new kookvid that feeds
you more lies.
>> From every angle,
>> too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again.
>ROTFLMAO because the remains of the Twin Towers do not support a "collapse"
>at all since they support an MRR nuke that was planted deep underground.
But you already proved (with the Duck Test!!) no nukes were used.
BTW you never did explain what MRR nukes were. ("Magical R___ R___ Nukes",
right?)
>> They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville
>> over and over and over and over again.
>And I'll bet you never used Google Earth to see that the crater had been
>there long before anybody ever claimed Flight 93 went down there. <G>
Evidence? I didn't think so.
>ROTFLMAO because that is how lies work. They show you the exact same
>bullshit over and over and over again and rely on you to miss the fact that
>Flight 175 was consistent with a CGI and that the remains of the Twin Towers
>were consistent with an MRR nuke and not a collapse. <G>
You already proved (with the Duck Test again!!!) no CGIs were used,
either, as well as no nukes.
>> Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times over
>> several days.
>Riiight. Maybe you should take a look at the following video that we never
>saw again after 9/11. <G>
Well, if "we never saw it again" why are you directing me to a kookvid
which supposedly has it?
The point stands. They were replaying Flight 175 crashing into the
South Tower over and over and over again starting from about a minute
after the actual impact. No time for anyone to create a CGI, much less
get it into all those different cameras that were all watching the
North Tower burn.
Have a Very Merry Kookmas for you and all your kooktard friends!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 19:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kLGdneVudb0FceDLnZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541554 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:n5kmjh$boa$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>>And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later.
>>>>Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be
>>>>good
>>>>enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly.
>>>>Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government
>>>>types
>>>>who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination.
>>>
>>> Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the
>>> impact
>>> of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again.
>
>>And you never stopped to wonder why they never slowed down or lost any
>>parts?
>
> Don't change the subject. The news media went on replay of the events
> over and over and over again since before the towers collapsed. Besides,
> I already told you how to see how the plane slowed down, plus you can see
> parts fly out the north face.
ROTFLMAO because only an idiot would think CGIs could only be used on one
side of the building. <G>
So it was a CGI in and a CGI out because the videos that were not altered do
not have CGIs on either side of the South Tower. <G>
>> Shame on you for being such a sucker.
>
> You're the sucker for believing all those kookvids being fed to you, even
> after you proved they are all lies. Actually, I can think of a better
> word for you than 'sucker' for believing them. It's 'sheeple'.
> Don't forget to baa the next time you're given a new kookvid that feeds
> you more lies.
All you proved was the real culprits altered the so called original videos
to try and cover up their fcuk ups. BFD.
>>> From every angle,
>>> too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again.
>
>>ROTFLMAO because the remains of the Twin Towers do not support a
>>"collapse"
>>at all since they support an MRR nuke that was planted deep underground.
>
> But you already proved (with the Duck Test!!) no nukes were used.
> BTW you never did explain what MRR nukes were. ("Magical R___ R___ Nukes",
> right?)
And yet you have no valid explanation for why two 110 story buildings
collapsed to a pile of rubble that was less than a floor high and don't give
me that basement bullshit without photos. <G>
>>> They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville
>>> over and over and over and over again.
>
>>And I'll bet you never used Google Earth to see that the crater had been
>>there long before anybody ever claimed Flight 93 went down there. <G>
>
> Evidence? I didn't think so.
You have had the evidence right in front of your face all the time. You
just bend the laws of physics so jets can crash without slowing down and
buildings can be vaporized by falling into a basement without any evidence
that they fell into the basement. <G>
>>ROTFLMAO because that is how lies work. They show you the exact same
>>bullshit over and over and over again and rely on you to miss the fact
>>that
>>Flight 175 was consistent with a CGI and that the remains of the Twin
>>Towers
>>were consistent with an MRR nuke and not a collapse. <G>
>
> You already proved (with the Duck Test again!!!) no CGIs were used,
> either, as well as no nukes.
But all you did was tell unsupported lies just like your friends in the
media.
>>> Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times
>>> over
>>> several days.
>
>>Riiight. Maybe you should take a look at the following video that we
>>never
>>saw again after 9/11. <G>
>
> Well, if "we never saw it again" why are you directing me to a kookvid
> which supposedly has it?
And your proof that Flight 93 crashed in Pranksville/Shanksville is what?
<G>
> The point stands. They were replaying Flight 175 crashing into the
> South Tower over and over and over again starting from about a minute
> after the actual impact. No time for anyone to create a CGI, much less
> get it into all those different cameras that were all watching the
> North Tower burn.
ROTFLMAO because they could have been prepared even before the South Tower
was hit.
BTW with a 3D image of Nuke York City, with locations for the CGI used for
the jet and the CGIs for the flying debris they could have pumped out faked
videos by the dozens and they had different crews working on the CGIs
because there were multiple CGIs used for the bogus Flight 175. <G>
> Have a Very Merry Kookmas for you and all your kooktard friends!
Oh, I'll let you have your own wishes back because they don't fit me anyway.
Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 03:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5l1bq$d0s$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #541572 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:n5kmjh$boa$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later.
>>>>>Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be
>>>>>good
>>>>>enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly.
>>>>>Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government
>>>>>types
>>>>>who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the
>>>> impact
>>>> of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again.
>>
>>>And you never stopped to wonder why they never slowed down or lost any
>>>parts?
>>
>> Don't change the subject. The news media went on replay of the events
>> over and over and over again since before the towers collapsed. Besides,
>> I already told you how to see how the plane slowed down, plus you can see
>> parts fly out the north face.
>ROTFLMAO because only an idiot would think CGIs could only be used on one
>side of the building. <G>
>So it was a CGI in and a CGI out because the videos that were not altered do
>not have CGIs on either side of the South Tower. <G>
Get back on topic. How could they "pull" the videos if they were playing
them over and over again starting from minutes after Flight 175 crashed
into the South Tower.
>>> Shame on you for being such a sucker.
>>
>> You're the sucker for believing all those kookvids being fed to you, even
>> after you proved they are all lies. Actually, I can think of a better
>> word for you than 'sucker' for believing them. It's 'sheeple'.
>> Don't forget to baa the next time you're given a new kookvid that feeds
>> you more lies.
>All you proved was the real culprits altered the so called original videos
>to try and cover up their fcuk ups. BFD.
Which proves all kookvids are fake, just like you showed us!
>>>> From every angle,
>>>> too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again.
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because the remains of the Twin Towers do not support a
>>>"collapse"
>>>at all since they support an MRR nuke that was planted deep underground.
>>
>> But you already proved (with the Duck Test!!) no nukes were used.
>> BTW you never did explain what MRR nukes were. ("Magical R___ R___ Nukes",
>> right?)
>And yet you have no valid explanation for why two 110 story buildings
>collapsed to a pile of rubble that was less than a floor high and don't give
>me that basement bullshit without photos. <G>
You still don't have an explanation for what your imaginary "MRR Nukes"
are?
>>>> They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville
>>>> over and over and over and over again.
>>
>>>And I'll bet you never used Google Earth to see that the crater had been
>>>there long before anybody ever claimed Flight 93 went down there. <G>
>>
>> Evidence? I didn't think so.
>You have had the evidence right in front of your face all the time.
So you don't have any evidence, otherwise you would have provided it.
So now we know it was just a field, with no crater or hole before 9/11.
>> You already proved (with the Duck Test again!!!) no CGIs were used,
>> either, as well as no nukes.
>But all you did was tell unsupported lies just like your friends in the
>media.
No, saying CGIs and nukes were used is lying, because you proved that!
Great job!!
>>>> Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times
>>>> over
>>>> several days.
>>
>>>Riiight. Maybe you should take a look at the following video that we
>>>never
>>>saw again after 9/11. <G>
>>
>> Well, if "we never saw it again" why are you directing me to a kookvid
>> which supposedly has it?
>And your proof that Flight 93 crashed in Pranksville/Shanksville is what?
Changing the subject once again. How could that video that "was never
seen again" be in your kookvid for all to see?
>> The point stands. They were replaying Flight 175 crashing into the
>> South Tower over and over and over again starting from about a minute
>> after the actual impact. No time for anyone to create a CGI, much less
>> get it into all those different cameras that were all watching the
>> North Tower burn.
>ROTFLMAO because they could have been prepared even before the South Tower
>was hit.
And just how were those CGIs gotten into hundreds of video cameras all
over NYC? You never did answer that!
>> Have a Very Merry Kookmas for you and all your kooktard friends!
>Oh, I'll let you have your own wishes back because they don't fit me anyway.
That's the funny thing about you kooks. You don't even realize you're
kooks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 22:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6badnZe87OTfi-PLnZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #541585 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:n5l1bq$d0s$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n5kmjh$boa$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later.
>>>>>>Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be
>>>>>>good
>>>>>>enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly.
>>>>>>Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government
>>>>>>types
>>>>>>who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the
>>>>> impact
>>>>> of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again.
>>>
>>>>And you never stopped to wonder why they never slowed down or lost any
>>>>parts?
>>>
>>> Don't change the subject. The news media went on replay of the events
>>> over and over and over again since before the towers collapsed.
>>> Besides,
>>> I already told you how to see how the plane slowed down, plus you can
>>> see
>>> parts fly out the north face.
>
>>ROTFLMAO because only an idiot would think CGIs could only be used on one
>>side of the building. <G>
>
>>So it was a CGI in and a CGI out because the videos that were not altered
>>do
>>not have CGIs on either side of the South Tower. <G>
>
> Get back on topic. How could they "pull" the videos if they were playing
> them over and over again starting from minutes after Flight 175 crashed
> into the South Tower.
They pulled the fcukups and modified the ones that needed more screams and
chants of "The plane, the plane" just like that guy from Fantasy Island used
to cry out. See:
Fantasy Island TV Show Opening Theme Season One 1978
https://youtu.be/1x_QbVDlLbI?t=33s
>>>> Shame on you for being such a sucker.
>>>
>>> You're the sucker for believing all those kookvids being fed to you,
>>> even
>>> after you proved they are all lies. Actually, I can think of a better
>>> word for you than 'sucker' for believing them. It's 'sheeple'.
>>> Don't forget to baa the next time you're given a new kookvid that feeds
>>> you more lies.
>
>>All you proved was the real culprits altered the so called original videos
>>to try and cover up their fcuk ups. BFD.
>
> Which proves all kookvids are fake, just like you showed us!
You have had the evidence right in front of your face all the time but you
are too adicted to wanting to see a real crash to admit you never saw a real
jet go into the Twin Towers.
>>>>> From every angle,
>>>>> too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again.
>>>
>>>>ROTFLMAO because the remains of the Twin Towers do not support a
>>>>"collapse"
>>>>at all since they support an MRR nuke that was planted deep underground.
>>>
>>> But you already proved (with the Duck Test!!) no nukes were used.
>>> BTW you never did explain what MRR nukes were. ("Magical R___ R___
>>> Nukes",
>>> right?)
>
>>And yet you have no valid explanation for why two 110 story buildings
>>collapsed to a pile of rubble that was less than a floor high and don't
>>give
>>me that basement bullshit without photos. <G>
>
> You still don't have an explanation for what your imaginary "MRR Nukes"
> are?
Imaginary or not nothing else explains why the Twin Towers were vaporized
better than MRR nukes so there must be some truth to them.
>>>>> They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville
>>>>> over and over and over and over again.
>>>
>>>>And I'll bet you never used Google Earth to see that the crater had been
>>>>there long before anybody ever claimed Flight 93 went down there. <G>
>>>
>>> Evidence? I didn't think so.
>
>>You have had the evidence right in front of your face all the time.
>
> So you don't have any evidence, otherwise you would have provided it.
> So now we know it was just a field, with no crater or hole before 9/11.
Where did that piece of bullshit come from? You should know how to work
Google Earth to see for yourself that we were lied to about what caused that
gash in Pranksville, PA.
>>> You already proved (with the Duck Test again!!!) no CGIs were used,
>>> either, as well as no nukes.
>
>>But all you did was tell unsupported lies just like your friends in the
>>media.
>
> No, saying CGIs and nukes were used is lying, because you proved that!
> Great job!!
Only in your mind. Don't forget you have nothing to say the CGIs were real
jets or that MRR nukes do not exist. <G>
>>>>> Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times
>>>>> over
>>>>> several days.
>>>
>>>>Riiight. Maybe you should take a look at the following video that we
>>>>never
>>>>saw again after 9/11. <G>
>>>
>>> Well, if "we never saw it again" why are you directing me to a kookvid
>>> which supposedly has it?
>
>>And your proof that Flight 93 crashed in Pranksville/Shanksville is what?
>
> Changing the subject once again. How could that video that "was never
> seen again" be in your kookvid for all to see?
Now your the one changing the subject. Don't forget youtube can bring up
videos that the media tried to supress and I'll bet some of the really good
videos have been supressed anyway.
>>> The point stands. They were replaying Flight 175 crashing into the
>>> South Tower over and over and over again starting from about a minute
>>> after the actual impact. No time for anyone to create a CGI, much less
>>> get it into all those different cameras that were all watching the
>>> North Tower burn.
>
>>ROTFLMAO because they could have been prepared even before the South Tower
>>was hit.
>
> And just how were those CGIs gotten into hundreds of video cameras all
> over NYC? You never did answer that!
Better recount. Only professional cameras were used and some of those
videos were ready to be picked up before the Twin Towers were vaporized.
How else do you think they got them on the news so quickly?
>>> Have a Very Merry Kookmas for you and all your kooktard friends!
>
>>Oh, I'll let you have your own wishes back because they don't fit me
>>anyway.
>
> That's the funny thing about you kooks. You don't even realize you're
> kooks.
"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 10:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5lqib$bj6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541590 |
On 26/12/2015 04:21, Rocky wrote:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:n5l1bq$d0s$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n5kmjh$boa$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:n5imf8$grl$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet all the videos/photos, came out weeks later.
>>>>>>> Photoshop and video-editing can take weeks for most people to do to be
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> enough where the manipulation can't be spotted instantly.
>>>>>>> Even the ones that were released were quickly pulled by the government
>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>> who knew the editing would be spotted after some examination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly. That day, and for several days afterward, they showed the
>>>>>> impact
>>>>>> of Flight 175 over and over and over and over again.
>>>>
>>>>> And you never stopped to wonder why they never slowed down or lost any
>>>>> parts?
>>>>
>>>> Don't change the subject. The news media went on replay of the events
>>>> over and over and over again since before the towers collapsed.
>>>> Besides,
>>>> I already told you how to see how the plane slowed down, plus you can
>>>> see
>>>> parts fly out the north face.
>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because only an idiot would think CGIs could only be used on one
>>> side of the building. <G>
>>
>>> So it was a CGI in and a CGI out because the videos that were not altered
>>> do
>>> not have CGIs on either side of the South Tower. <G>
>>
>> Get back on topic. How could they "pull" the videos if they were playing
>> them over and over again starting from minutes after Flight 175 crashed
>> into the South Tower.
>
> They pulled the fcukups and modified the ones that needed more screams and
> chants of "The plane, the plane" just like that guy from Fantasy Island used
> to cry out. See:
>
> Fantasy Island TV Show Opening Theme Season One 1978
> https://youtu.be/1x_QbVDlLbI?t=33s
>
>
>>>>> Shame on you for being such a sucker.
>>>>
>>>> You're the sucker for believing all those kookvids being fed to you,
>>>> even
>>>> after you proved they are all lies. Actually, I can think of a better
>>>> word for you than 'sucker' for believing them. It's 'sheeple'.
>>>> Don't forget to baa the next time you're given a new kookvid that feeds
>>>> you more lies.
>>
>>> All you proved was the real culprits altered the so called original videos
>>> to try and cover up their fcuk ups. BFD.
>>
>> Which proves all kookvids are fake, just like you showed us!
>
> You have had the evidence right in front of your face all the time but you
> are too adicted to wanting to see a real crash to admit you never saw a real
> jet go into the Twin Towers.
>
>>>>>> From every angle,
>>>>>> too. They showed the towers collapsing over and over and over again.
>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because the remains of the Twin Towers do not support a
>>>>> "collapse"
>>>>> at all since they support an MRR nuke that was planted deep underground.
>>>>
>>>> But you already proved (with the Duck Test!!) no nukes were used.
>>>> BTW you never did explain what MRR nukes were. ("Magical R___ R___
>>>> Nukes",
>>>> right?)
>>
>>> And yet you have no valid explanation for why two 110 story buildings
>>> collapsed to a pile of rubble that was less than a floor high and don't
>>> give
>>> me that basement bullshit without photos. <G>
>>
>> You still don't have an explanation for what your imaginary "MRR Nukes"
>> are?
>
> Imaginary or not nothing else explains why the Twin Towers were vaporized
> better than MRR nukes so there must be some truth to them.
>
There you have it from Rocky.
There must be some truth in something that might be imaginary.
>>>>>> They showed the burning Pentagon and the smoking crater in Shanksville
>>>>>> over and over and over and over again.
>>>>
>>>>> And I'll bet you never used Google Earth to see that the crater had been
>>>>> there long before anybody ever claimed Flight 93 went down there. <G>
>>>>
>>>> Evidence? I didn't think so.
>>
>>> You have had the evidence right in front of your face all the time.
>>
>> So you don't have any evidence, otherwise you would have provided it.
>> So now we know it was just a field, with no crater or hole before 9/11.
>
> Where did that piece of bullshit come from? You should know how to work
> Google Earth to see for yourself that we were lied to about what caused that
> gash in Pranksville, PA.
>
>
>>>> You already proved (with the Duck Test again!!!) no CGIs were used,
>>>> either, as well as no nukes.
>>
>>> But all you did was tell unsupported lies just like your friends in the
>>> media.
>>
>> No, saying CGIs and nukes were used is lying, because you proved that!
>> Great job!!
>
> Only in your mind. Don't forget you have nothing to say the CGIs were real
> jets or that MRR nukes do not exist. <G>
>
>>>>>> Nothing could possibly be "quickly pulled" after airing so many times
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> several days.
>>>>
>>>>> Riiight. Maybe you should take a look at the following video that we
>>>>> never
>>>>> saw again after 9/11. <G>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if "we never saw it again" why are you directing me to a kookvid
>>>> which supposedly has it?
>>
>>> And your proof that Flight 93 crashed in Pranksville/Shanksville is what?
>>
>> Changing the subject once again. How could that video that "was never
>> seen again" be in your kookvid for all to see?
>
> Now your the one changing the subject. Don't forget youtube can bring up
> videos that the media tried to supress and I'll bet some of the really good
> videos have been supressed anyway.
>
>
>>>> The point stands. They were replaying Flight 175 crashing into the
>>>> South Tower over and over and over again starting from about a minute
>>>> after the actual impact. No time for anyone to create a CGI, much less
>>>> get it into all those different cameras that were all watching the
>>>> North Tower burn.
>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because they could have been prepared even before the South Tower
>>> was hit.
>>
>> And just how were those CGIs gotten into hundreds of video cameras all
>> over NYC? You never did answer that!
>
> Better recount. Only professional cameras were used and some of those
> videos were ready to be picked up before the Twin Towers were vaporized (sic).
There have been many, obviously non professional videos.
> How else do you think they got them on the news so quickly?
>
I think you should learn how news gathering is done.
>
>>>> Have a Very Merry Kookmas for you and all your kooktard friends!
>>
>>> Oh, I'll let you have your own wishes back because they don't fit me
>>> anyway.
>>
>> That's the funny thing about you kooks. You don't even realize you're
>> kooks.
>
> "
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 07:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j14t7bh3a446rv6la76066bhp5rtrlhd3h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #541633 |
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 10:38:29 +0000, Tony Dragon
<tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> You still don't have an explanation for what your imaginary "MRR Nukes"
>>> are?
>>
>> Imaginary or not nothing else explains why the Twin Towers were vaporized
>> better than MRR nukes so there must be some truth to them.
>
>There you have it from Rocky.
>There must be some truth in something that might be imaginary.
>
The imaginary is all he has. A prime example is the imaginary
physics that occurred for only a few seconds on 9/11/2001 that permits
his delusions to exist.
[...]
>>>>> The point stands. They were replaying Flight 175 crashing into the
>>>>> South Tower over and over and over again starting from about a minute
>>>>> after the actual impact. No time for anyone to create a CGI, much less
>>>>> get it into all those different cameras that were all watching the
>>>>> North Tower burn.
>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO because they could have been prepared even before the South Tower
>>>> was hit.
>>>
>>> And just how were those CGIs gotten into hundreds of video cameras all
>>> over NYC? You never did answer that!
>>
>> Better recount. Only professional cameras were used and some of those
>> videos were ready to be picked up before the Twin Towers were vaporized (sic).
>
>There have been many, obviously non professional videos.
>
I recall seeing one that was taken from a window or balcony from
at least a mile away. I don't know, but as I recall, the quality was
on par with that of home VHS camera of the time. It's been years since
I last saw it, so I can't guarantee 100% accuracy regarding every
detail, but I will be far closer to accuracy that "Run Away Roger"
[1].
In the video a female was heard to say something like, "I don't
know. Maybe an explosion? Maybe..." She cuts off because she could see
the second plane heading to the second tower.
There is a small dot seen heading towards the second tower. Since
the whole field of view for the camera was shown, a dot was as good as
one could have hoped to see. I don't recall the camera zooming in at
any time.
In the video we saw the explosion of the plane. Shortly after we
heard it.
It was certainly not a professionally produced video.
>> How else do you think they got them on the news so quickly?
>
>I think you should learn how news gathering is done.
Unfortunately, the learning disability Rogers displays is not an
act. Learning may honestly be so difficult for him that he sees no
point in trying.
[1] Anytime someone brings up valid, verifiable evidence that proves
Roger wrong, he "runs away" from the evidence. I have opted to call
him "Run Away Roger" in honor of his extreme cowardly nature.
"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] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web