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

Groups > sci.physics > #542604 > unrolled thread

The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it

Started by"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
First post2016-01-01 08:17 -0600
Last post2016-01-01 12:49 -0600
Articles 20 on this page of 42 — 8 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 08:17 -0600
    Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-01 09:53 -0500
      Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-01-01 10:06 -0500
        Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:50 -0600
          Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-01-01 15:13 -0500
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 05:55 -0600
        Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-02 07:20 -0500
          Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2016-01-02 17:10 +0000
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 12:48 -0600
              Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2016-01-02 19:53 +0000
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 16:25 -0600
              Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:14 -0500
      Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 09:08 -0600
        Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:50 -0600
          Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-01 18:05 -0600
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-02 03:17 +0000
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 05:56 -0600
        Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-02 07:20 -0500
          Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 07:39 -0600
          Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-01-02 10:38 -0500
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2016-01-02 17:11 +0000
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 12:48 -0600
              Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-01-02 19:25 -0500
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 04:08 -0600
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 02:16 -0800
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-06 13:41 -0600
                  Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-06 20:15 +0000
                    Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-06 15:11 -0600
                      Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 03:39 -0600
                  Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-08 13:32 -0500
                    Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-08 19:52 +0000
                      Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-09 08:21 -0500
                    Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:36 -0600
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it (Pentagon clock problem) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-06 13:46 -0600
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-03 12:49 -0500
              Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-03 12:10 -0600
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-03 14:14 -0500
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 20:30 +0000
                Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:26 -0600
            Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2016-01-03 13:24 -0500
      Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:49 -0600
    Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:49 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#542604 — The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2016-01-01 08:17 -0600
SubjectThe Pentagon sucked a 757 into it
Message-ID<6oadnRzanc9_FxvLnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757 
were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.

A lot of people say that the wings folded back like a bird and that is why 
no parts from the wings were ever visible.

But a 757 does not have folding wings so a more likely story is that the 
Pentagon sucked a 757 right into it.

And from another link one of the people that testified to a 757 was a "Blast 
Engineer" and what the hell was a blast engineer doing at a site that was 
suppose to have been a crash site?  <G>

So, the gash at Pranksville, PA was there long before the alleged Flight 93 
was there.

So, not only did the Pentagon suck a jet into it but if you use slow motion 
to view the CGIs going into the Twin Towers then both the Twin Towers sucked 
767s into them.

Basically we were told lies about all four of the jets that were supposed to 
have been hijacked on 9/11 so you think the Twin Towers really collapsed 
because of jet fuel?  ROTFLMAO

Rocky

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#542608

FromSarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
Date2016-01-01 09:53 -0500
Message-ID<cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com>
In reply to#542604
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757 
>were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.

Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.   

You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.

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

#542613

From"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
Date2016-01-01 10:06 -0500
Message-ID<n664gh$7ha$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#542608

Sarah Ehrett wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a
>> 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>
> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>
> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.









And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A PLANE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo


Even thought the studio talking head tried to lead him into the official 
farytale talking points.


Now,...Who are we supposed to believe,....actual CNN news footage from that 
morning.....Or  YOU,...an idiot on USENET who only insults people.

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

#542644

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-01 12:50 -0600
Message-ID<fiid8bhr61l4ln2a5eehjoummjt5hnt1hu@4ax.com>
In reply to#542613
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a
>>> 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>>
>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>
>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>
>
>
>
>
>And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A PLANE.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
>

     That's not the claim being made. But your contact with reality is
too weak for you to understand.

>
>Even thought the studio talking head tried to lead him into the official 
>farytale talking points.
>

     Within reality, no one lead him into anything.

>
>Now,...Who are we supposed to believe,....actual CNN news footage from that 
>morning.....Or  YOU,...an idiot on USENET who only insults people. 

     Since the reporter states the plane went into the Pentagon, I
think we should believe him. Not the LIES you are compelled to post to
Usenet.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#542657

From"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
Date2016-01-01 15:13 -0500
Message-ID<n66mhm$cm0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#542644

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a
>>>> 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the
>>>> Pentagon.
>>>
>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A
>> PLANE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
>>
>
>     That's not the claim being made. But your contact with reality is
> too weak for you to understand.
>
>>
>> Even thought the studio talking head tried to lead him into the
>> official farytale talking points.
>>
>
>     Within reality, no one lead him into anything.
>
>>
>> Now,...Who are we supposed to believe,....actual CNN news footage from
>> that morning.....Or  YOU,...an idiot on USENET who only insults people.
>
>     Since the reporter states the plane went into the Pentagon, I
> think we should believe him. Not the LIES you are compelled to post to
> Usenet.





The reporter say no plane ANYWHERE NEAR,....and that the wall was still 
standing after the explosion.
You can interpret that anyway you want. And deny reality all you want.

But the rest of us who watch the video themselves, and have a basic 
undrstanding of English,...will always know better.


And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A PLANE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo

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

#542746

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-02 05:55 -0600
Message-ID<mkef8b188vakt7co1h4tu1tmudnsjkotac@4ax.com>
In reply to#542657
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 15:13:55 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a
>>>>> 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the
>>>>> Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A
>>> PLANE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
>>>
>>
>>     That's not the claim being made. But your contact with reality is
>> too weak for you to understand.
>>
>>> Even thought the studio talking head tried to lead him into the
>>> official farytale talking points.
>>
>>     Within reality, no one lead him into anything.
>>
>>> Now,...Who are we supposed to believe,....actual CNN news footage from
>>> that morning.....Or  YOU,...an idiot on USENET who only insults people.
>>
>>     Since the reporter states the plane went into the Pentagon, I
>> think we should believe him. Not the LIES you are compelled to post to
>> Usenet.
>
>
>
>
>
>The reporter say no plane ANYWHERE NEAR,....

     No plane crashed anywhere near the Pentagon, meaning it went into
the building. He is very clear about this.

>and that the wall was still 
>standing after the explosion.

     The wall collapsed later. Yes.

>You can interpret that anyway you want. And deny reality all you want.
>

     You're the one who is being dishonest about what was reported.

>But the rest of us who watch the video themselves, and have a basic 
>undrstanding of English,...will always know better.

     I will put my knowledge of English up against yours any time you
wish.

>
>
>And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A PLANE.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo

     That is not his claim.
     Do you understand that every time someone new watches that, they
come to accept that you're mentally ill?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#542757

FromSarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
Date2016-01-02 07:20 -0500
Message-ID<h2gf8b1bom2oo1aa79ntvug3r9ht664vl7@4ax.com>
In reply to#542613
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a
>>> 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>>
>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>
>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A PLANE.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo

Other than the one that hit the Pentagon.   You really should listen
to the cites you link.

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

#542797

FromCujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net>
Date2016-01-02 17:10 +0000
Message-ID<XnsA5837BE648A0Dstillnolawsuitedmo@208.90.168.18>
In reply to#542757
Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in
news:h2gf8b1bom2oo1aa79ntvug3r9ht664vl7@4ax.com: 

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of
>>>> a 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the
>>>> Pentagon. 
>>>
>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>
>>
>>And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A
>>PLANE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
> 
> Other than the one that hit the Pentagon.   You really should listen
> to the cites you link.  

Rocky has such limited entertainment value other than a Usenet punching 
bag, so your suggestion defeats his only marginal purpose. 

-- 
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 COUNSEL PHDS I CAN READ PEOPLE SHE KNOWS NOTHING AND IS ONLY
THERE TO STIR SHIT UP!!!!" - Edmo the calm.

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

#542825

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-02 12:48 -0600
Message-ID<ur6g8b5uh85qcsjov7nkv3vuc57ba2tlo1@4ax.com>
In reply to#542797
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 17:10:47 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
<cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote:

>Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in
>news:h2gf8b1bom2oo1aa79ntvug3r9ht664vl7@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of
>>>>> a 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the
>>>>> Pentagon. 
>>>>
>>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A
>>>PLANE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
>> 
>> Other than the one that hit the Pentagon.   You really should listen
>> to the cites you link.  
>
>Rocky has such limited entertainment value other than a Usenet punching 
>bag, so your suggestion defeats his only marginal purpose. 

     While your commentary is accurate, Sarah was replying to Bast.
     It's easy to confuse the two. They're both bat guano crazy.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#542835

FromCujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net>
Date2016-01-02 19:53 +0000
Message-ID<XnsA583976822D07stillnolawsuitedmo@208.90.168.18>
In reply to#542825
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in 
news:ur6g8b5uh85qcsjov7nkv3vuc57ba2tlo1@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 17:10:47 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
> <cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote:
> 
>>Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:h2gf8b1bom2oo1aa79ntvug3r9ht664vl7@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of
>>>>>> a 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the
>>>>>> Pentagon. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>>>>
>>>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A
>>>>PLANE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
>>> 
>>> Other than the one that hit the Pentagon.   You really should listen
>>> to the cites you link.  
>>
>>Rocky has such limited entertainment value other than a Usenet punching 
>>bag, so your suggestion defeats his only marginal purpose. 
> 
>      While your commentary is accurate, Sarah was replying to Bast.
>      It's easy to confuse the two. They're both bat guano crazy.

Gack. I have set up my reader so that read posts do not appear in my 
feed. That's the second time in a week...

-- 
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.
 "Nope, all my prophecy belongs to the logical analysis of astrological
and psychological data." - Edmo dreams of becoming a cautionary tale.

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

#542848

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-02 16:25 -0600
Message-ID<ljjg8b9kna9iok2ur6sktt8b69uo5i6q6j@4ax.com>
In reply to#542835
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 19:53:01 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
<cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote:

[...]

>>>>>And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A
>>>>>PLANE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
>>>> 
>>>> Other than the one that hit the Pentagon.   You really should listen
>>>> to the cites you link.  
>>>
>>>Rocky has such limited entertainment value other than a Usenet punching 
>>>bag, so your suggestion defeats his only marginal purpose. 
>> 
>>      While your commentary is accurate, Sarah was replying to Bast.
>>      It's easy to confuse the two. They're both bat guano crazy.
>
>Gack. I have set up my reader so that read posts do not appear in my 
>feed. That's the second time in a week...

     It can be easy to confuse them. Neither makes any rational sense.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#543137

From"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
Date2016-01-04 18:14 -0500
Message-ID<n6eu7v$ujg$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#542825

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 17:10:47 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
> <cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote:
>
>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:h2gf8b1bom2oo1aa79ntvug3r9ht664vl7@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:06:06 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of
>>>>>> a 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the
>>>>>> Pentagon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>>>>
>>>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And yet the reporter on the scene that morning said NO SIGNS OF A
>>>> PLANE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWHHid0Pmo
>>>
>>> Other than the one that hit the Pentagon.   You really should listen
>>> to the cites you link.
>>
>> Rocky has such limited entertainment value other than a Usenet punching
>> bag, so your suggestion defeats his only marginal purpose.
>
>     While your commentary is accurate, Sarah was replying to Bast.
>     It's easy to confuse the two. They're both bat guano crazy.





Seems you people all seem to get confused eaily.
You all must be a riot to watch at a shiny object convention.

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

#542618

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2016-01-01 09:08 -0600
Message-ID<OMidnddpEat-CxvLnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#542608
"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757
>>were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>
> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.

But no wing parts and no parts at all "shortly after" because they were 
props that had to be moved into location from vans for a photo op after the 
alleged 757 was sucked into the Pentagon.

> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.

And yet it is you who thinks Newton's three laws of physics should not be 
applied to any of the jets or buildings on 9/11.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

SE you are the crazy one because 9/11 is the only time ever that the 
Newton's 3 laws of motion were violated.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

Rocky

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

#542645

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-01 12:50 -0600
Message-ID<viid8bdu8nfuorpif1ecaaqcgqo2vreba0@4ax.com>
In reply to#542618
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 09:08:29 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
>news:cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757
>>>were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>>
>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>
>But no wing parts and no parts at all "shortly after" because they were 
>props that had to be moved into location from vans for a photo op after the 
>alleged 757 was sucked into the Pentagon.
>

     And your VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence for this is what?

>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>
>And yet it is you who thinks Newton's three laws of physics should not be 
>applied to any of the jets or buildings on 9/11.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>

     Um, no. At no point has Sarah made such a claim. But you'll
provide a quote and MID (in the PROPER format), unless you would
rather admit you're lying. The choice is yours.

>SE you are the crazy one because 9/11 is the only time ever that the 
>Newton's 3 laws of motion were violated.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

     You claim they were, but to the educated and mentally stable they
were not.
     But provide valid, verifiable evidence that any law of Newtonian
Physics were violated on 9/11/2001. You don't even have to limit
yourself to his three laws of motion.
     You won't do so, of course. You'll run away as you ALWAYS do.
It's how you earned the name Run Away Roger.


"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]

#542691

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2016-01-01 18:05 -0600
Message-ID<cPSdna5r59tZiRrLnZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#542645
alt.astronomy put back in

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:viid8bdu8nfuorpif1ecaaqcgqo2vreba0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 09:08:29 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757
>>>>were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>
>>But no wing parts and no parts at all "shortly after" because they were
>>props that had to be moved into location from vans for a photo op after 
>>the
>>alleged 757 was sucked into the Pentagon.
>>
>
>     And your VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence for this is what?
>
>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>
>>And yet it is you who thinks Newton's three laws of physics should not be
>>applied to any of the jets or buildings on 9/11.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>>
>
>     Um, no. At no point has Sarah made such a claim. But you'll
> provide a quote and MID (in the PROPER format), unless you would
> rather admit you're lying. The choice is yours.

Oh bullshit from you as usual.  Here is the quote from her post and mine:
>>>>ROTFLMAO because why should reality be different  for an 8 hour period?
>>>
>>> Reality doesn't change but you seem to think it does which is one of
>>> the disconnects of you Troofers.
>>
>>Newton's laws of physics
>
> Not in the discussion, Roger.

Ok so you are telling me that Newton doesn't have anything to do with
reality?  Do you even know who Newton was?  Here let me help you.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

You basically just told me why you are such a complete idiot.

Rocky

---------------------------------------

End of quote and since your BS continues with you missing the fact that SE 
doesn't consider reality and Newton's three laws of physics the same it was 
deleted.

Rocky

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

#542721

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-01-02 03:17 +0000
Message-ID<n67fft$qci$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#542691
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>End of quote and since your BS continues with you missing the fact that SE 
>doesn't consider reality and Newton's three laws of physics the same it was 
>deleted.

You did such a great job proving that the videos were all consistent with
Newton's Laws, and were not consistent with CGIs!  Your continued genius
constantly amazes me!  So not only did you prove CGIs weren't used by
using the Duck Test, you proved the videos were consistent with Newton's
Laws and not consistent with CGIs.  Well that certainly eliminates CGIs
from possibility, two different proofs disproving CGIs!  Such a super 
genius!

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

#542747

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-02 05:56 -0600
Message-ID<8mef8b5bnvqia5uvt6ned9k4eq0rkd6ejg@4ax.com>
In reply to#542691
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:05:31 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>alt.astronomy put back in
>

     And removed as it has no bearing on this discussion.
     Seek professional mental health care regarding your OBSESSION
with alt.astronomy.


>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:viid8bdu8nfuorpif1ecaaqcgqo2vreba0@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 09:08:29 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757
>>>>>were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>>
>>>But no wing parts and no parts at all "shortly after" because they were
>>>props that had to be moved into location from vans for a photo op after 
>>>the
>>>alleged 757 was sucked into the Pentagon.
>>
>>     And your VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence for this is what?
>>

 
     Note that Roger has lived up to his name of Run Away Roger once
again.


>>>> You constant denial of the truth isn't healthy for you.
>>>
>>>And yet it is you who thinks Newton's three laws of physics should not be
>>>applied to any of the jets or buildings on 9/11.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>>
>>     Um, no. At no point has Sarah made such a claim. But you'll
>> provide a quote and MID (in the PROPER format), unless you would
>> rather admit you're lying. The choice is yours.
>
>Oh bullshit from you as usual.  Here is the quote from her post and mine:


     Note that Roger has lived up to his name of Run Away Roger once
again.
  
     Your admission that you're lying is noted and accepted.

>>>>>ROTFLMAO because why should reality be different  for an 8 hour period?
>>>>
>>>> Reality doesn't change but you seem to think it does which is one of
>>>> the disconnects of you Troofers.
>>>
>>>Newton's laws of physics
>>
>> Not in the discussion, Roger.
>
>Ok so you are telling me that Newton doesn't have anything to do with
>reality?  Do you even know who Newton was?  Here let me help you.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
>You basically just told me why you are such a complete idiot.
>
>Rocky
>
>---------------------------------------
>
>End of quote 

     And nowhere does she mention Newton's laws of physics, let alone
deny them.
     Way to PROVE yourself the liar you are.
     Your default admission above was enough, but that you've
presented undeniable evidence of your lie is so much better! Please
continue to prove that you've been lying the whole time.

>and since your BS continues with you missing the fact that SE 
>doesn't consider reality and Newton's three laws of physics the same it was 
>deleted.

     Note that Roger has lived up to his name of Run Away Roger once
again.

     Don't you get tired of running away all the time?


"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]

#542758

FromSarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
Date2016-01-02 07:20 -0500
Message-ID<o4gf8b5nmdndu6svrfn7afqfkn9qbr1jog@4ax.com>
In reply to#542618
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 09:08:29 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
>news:cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757
>>>were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>>
>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>
>But no wing parts and no parts at all "shortly after"

Yes there were.  There was debris on the highway as well.

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

#542770

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-02 07:39 -0600
Message-ID<knkf8b9m8585tcgiodr26ggei066qsu569@4ax.com>
In reply to#542758
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 07:20:47 -0500, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 09:08:29 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
>>news:cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a 757
>>>>were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>
>>But no wing parts and no parts at all "shortly after"
>
>Yes there were.  There was debris on the highway as well.   

     But, but but... The Gov'mint put them there. Even though none of
the hundreds of people watching the area saw this. The numerous video
cameras recording the events after the attack all failed to record one
part being put in place.
     But then, that PROVES it, ya know. There's no way the Gov'mint
would allow such evidence to be seen, so we all know it happened!
     Sorry. I was channeling my inner Bast.
     Now I feel dirty.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#542784

From"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
Date2016-01-02 10:38 -0500
Message-ID<n68qq1$kna$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#542758

Sarah Ehrett wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 09:08:29 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:cl4d8b5vb06kbp10t7ean9fso8e5n3ra4d@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:17:16 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I've seen all sorts of different stories about why no parts of a
>>>> 757 were seen shortly after one was supposed to have his the
>>>> Pentagon.
>>>
>>> Roger, there were parts of a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon.
>>
>> But no wing parts and no parts at all "shortly after"
>
> Yes there were.  There was debris on the highway as well.





Huh?
Are you now claiming the "plane" was falling apart as is left it's original 
airport,....and left a trail of debris all the way ?

Sort of like Hansel and Grettle left a trail of bread crumbs so they could 
find their way home.
....You are getting your fairytales mixed up..

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web