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

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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#542798

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in
news:n68qq1$kna$1@dont-email.me: 

> 
> 
> 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.. 

Thanks for the gift of your incoherence. 

-- 
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.
 "Ed Wollmann is a man of substance! Unfortunately, that substance is 
shit." - Mr. Doobie just before having to apologize to shit worldwide.

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

#542824

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>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.. 
>

     No one has made such a claim. 
     Do you honestly think your deception is going to benefit you?

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

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

#542861

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> 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..
>>
>
>     No one has made such a claim.
>     Do you honestly think your deception is going to benefit you?





You better read back, as the claim was "There was debris on the highway as 
well."
QUOTE,UNQUOTE.

So,.... this" plane" was already falling apart and leaving pieces in its 
wake, well before it even supposedly hit the pentagon.

Makes you wonder how a plane losing pieces could still hit a target with 
accuracy.
...Or even get there to begin with.

I guess that's just another one of them 9/11 fairytale mysteries we just 
have to accept, with blind faith.

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

#542904

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 19:25:18 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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..
>>
>>     No one has made such a claim.
>>     Do you honestly think your deception is going to benefit you?
>
>
>
>You better read back, as the claim was "There was debris on the highway as 
>well."
>QUOTE,UNQUOTE.

     Way to PROVE you lied.

>
>So,.... this" plane" was already falling apart and leaving pieces in its 
>wake, well before it even supposedly hit the pentagon.
>

     Again, no one made such a claim. Your lying is not the benefit
you believe it to be. Honest.

>Makes you wonder how a plane losing pieces could still hit a target with 
>accuracy.

     Accuracy? Considering how little damage was actually done, only a
completely nutter would claim the plane hit with any accuracy. But it
did hit the Pentagon. 

>...Or even get there to begin with.
>

     By flying, as planes do.

>I guess that's just another one of them 9/11 fairytale mysteries we just 
>have to accept, with blind faith.
>

     Like we should accept your version on blind faith? As of the time
I write this, you've not offer any evidence for any of your claims.
What you have tried to present has been proved wrong. Each and every
time.

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

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

#542905

suck is just an expression
blpw dammit blow

In article <n69pl4$age$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> 
wrote:

> K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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..
> >>
> >
> >     No one has made such a claim.
> >     Do you honestly think your deception is going to benefit you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better read back, as the claim was "There was debris on the highway as 
> well."
> QUOTE,UNQUOTE.
> 
> So,.... this" plane" was already falling apart and leaving pieces in its 
> wake, well before it even supposedly hit the pentagon.
> 
> Makes you wonder how a plane losing pieces could still hit a target with 
> accuracy.
> ...Or even get there to begin with.
> 
> I guess that's just another one of them 9/11 fairytale mysteries we just 
> have to accept, with blind faith.

arf meow arf  -  everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple

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

#543478

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...
> joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I'm still laughing at their foolish attempt to fool the masses.
>
> And of course there's a bunch of us here laughing and being entertained by
> the Troofers here, spewing their scientifically impossible, unsupported
> crap and their feeble attempts at trying to fool the masses.
>
>> Dont be scared to voice your own opinion instead of their brain washing.
>
> It truly is sad how the Troofer sheeple are unable to form their own
> opinions, brainwashed by the kookmasters who tell them what to think with
> 4 hour kook videos, as they are no longer able to think for themselves.
>
>>I'll bet you also believe that Man has survived a trip to the moon and 
>>that
>>Nagasaki and Hiroshima were supposedly hit with nuclear bombs. Its time
>>for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
>
> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
> explosives!

The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one.  Even 
historians agree that the second bomb was a fire bomb and we were the ones 
that paid to rebuild Japan so we obviously didn't win the war with Japan. 
DUH

And not only did the Pentagon suck a 757 into it but : . .

The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x73867Rocky

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

#543491

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
>> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
>> explosives!

>The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one.  Even 
>historians agree that the second bomb was a fire bomb and we were the ones 
>that paid to rebuild Japan so we obviously didn't win the war with Japan. 
>DUH

A B-29 was able to carry a 21,000 ton firebomb?

>The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think

It's not crazy, it's just a great big fat lie.  (and you fell for it!)

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

#543516

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n6jsll$cc0$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
>>> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
>>> explosives!
>
>>The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one.  Even
>>historians agree that the second bomb was a fire bomb and we were the ones
>>that paid to rebuild Japan so we obviously didn't win the war with Japan.
>>DUH
>
> A B-29 was able to carry a 21,000 ton firebomb?

If one part of the story is a lie why not all of it?

>>The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
>
> It's not crazy, it's just a great big fat lie.  (and you fell for it!)

And yet you failed to address why the jets we saw fly into the Twin Towers 
are consistent with CGIs with their no slowdown on impact, no crash dynamics 
on impact and disappearing wings in flight.  ROTFLMAO

The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x73867

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

#543620

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:11:18 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n6jsll$cc0$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
>>>> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
>>>> explosives!
>>
>>>The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one.  Even
>>>historians agree that the second bomb was a fire bomb and we were the ones
>>>that paid to rebuild Japan so we obviously didn't win the war with Japan.
>>>DUH
>>
>> A B-29 was able to carry a 21,000 ton firebomb?
>
>If one part of the story is a lie why not all of it?
>

     Note that Run Away Roger has admitted the whole of his story is a
lie.
     He has claimed that real jets and CGIs hit the twin towers. Since
there is no possible way for both of his claims to be true, and he's
never claimed either claim was made in error, one MUST be lie. Run
Away Roger has allowed himself no other options.
     And, as he writes above, "If one part of the story is a lie why
not all of it?"

     Way to admit you've been lying about the whole thing the whole
time, Roger!
     Now run away. You have no choice. 

>>>The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
>>
>> It's not crazy, it's just a great big fat lie.  (and you fell for it!)
>
>And yet you failed to address why the jets we saw fly into the Twin Towers 
>are consistent with CGIs 

     Show us the video(s) you used to make the claim they are
consistent with CGI.

>with their no slowdown on impact, no crash dynamics 
>on impact and disappearing wings in flight.  ROTFLMAO

     1) As has been PROVED, using videos you linked to, the planes did
slow down on impact.
     2) The crash dynamics are as one would expect.
     3) Using video you linked to, I was able to PROVE no wings
disappeared.

     Would you like to try a different lie, or will you opt to run
away from the TRUTH I've posted?


"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]

#543861

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:41:02 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'm still laughing at their foolish attempt to fool the masses.
>>
>> And of course there's a bunch of us here laughing and being entertained by
>> the Troofers here, spewing their scientifically impossible, unsupported
>> crap and their feeble attempts at trying to fool the masses.
>>
>>> Dont be scared to voice your own opinion instead of their brain washing.
>>
>> It truly is sad how the Troofer sheeple are unable to form their own
>> opinions, brainwashed by the kookmasters who tell them what to think with
>> 4 hour kook videos, as they are no longer able to think for themselves.
>>
>>>I'll bet you also believe that Man has survived a trip to the moon and 
>>>that
>>>Nagasaki and Hiroshima were supposedly hit with nuclear bombs. Its time
>>>for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
>>
>> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
>> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
>> explosives!
>
>The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one. 

We built two, you dopey Troofer.   LOL.   

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

#543878

Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes:

>On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:41:02 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>>news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...

>>> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
>>> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
>>> explosives!
>>
>>The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one. 

>We built two, you dopey Troofer.   LOL.   

There actually was a third one that would have been ready less than two
weeks after Nagasaki, had Japan not surrendered.  It was eventually
detonated at Bikini in 1946 after becoming the "Demon Core" used in the
"tickling the dragon's tail" experiments that killed a couple scientists.

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

#543995

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:52:07 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:41:02 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>>> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
>>>> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
>>>> explosives!
>>>
>>>The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one. 
>
>>We built two, you dopey Troofer.   LOL.   
>
>There actually was a third one that would have been ready less than two
>weeks after Nagasaki, had Japan not surrendered. 

The US had the materials at the time to make a third bomb but with
regards to Japan we only built TWO.   

Japan however had their own fully assembled nuclear bomb.  The US
found it while occupying Japan.   I saw a picture of it years ago, big
sucker.  


> It was eventually
>detonated at Bikini in 1946 after becoming the "Demon Core" used in the
>"tickling the dragon's tail" experiments that killed a couple scientists.

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

#543984

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:32:27 -0500, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:41:02 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>>news:n6jjfo$un8$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm still laughing at their foolish attempt to fool the masses.
>>>
>>> And of course there's a bunch of us here laughing and being entertained by
>>> the Troofers here, spewing their scientifically impossible, unsupported
>>> crap and their feeble attempts at trying to fool the masses.
>>>
>>>> Dont be scared to voice your own opinion instead of their brain washing.
>>>
>>> It truly is sad how the Troofer sheeple are unable to form their own
>>> opinions, brainwashed by the kookmasters who tell them what to think with
>>> 4 hour kook videos, as they are no longer able to think for themselves.
>>>
>>>>I'll bet you also believe that Man has survived a trip to the moon and 
>>>>that
>>>>Nagasaki and Hiroshima were supposedly hit with nuclear bombs. Its time
>>>>for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
>>>
>>> Of course!  A B-29 bomber dropped a 16,000 ton bomb on Hiroshima!  And
>>> three days later, another B-29 dropped another bomb with 21,000 tons of
>>> explosives!
>>
>>The second bomb was a crock of shit because we only built one. 
>
>We built two, you dopey Troofer.   LOL.   

     The U.S. built at least three before the end of WWII. There was
the one tested in July of 1945, and the two dropped on Japan in August
of 1945.
     A fourth one was being built when Japan surrendered.

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

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

#543480 — Re: The Pentagon sucked a 757 into it (Pentagon clock problem)

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n6ja1r$9jk$1@pcls7.std.com...
> joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 4:45:23 PM UTC-5, BDK wrote:
>>> In article <n6gr5j$p3m$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
>>>
>>> > Must be, since no planes crashed here.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but a plane DID crash into the Pentagon.
>
>>When did that happen?
>
> September 11, 2001, at about 9:37 AM.  You been under a rock this whole
> time?

ROTFLMAO because that time was not supported by stopped clocks.  See:

From: "Rocky"
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:56 AM
Subject: 9/11: The Pentagon Clock Problem points to another 9/11 fairytale

If you think you know when the Pentagon was hit by a jet guess again because
there is a problem with that part of the Official 9/11 fairytale too.

The damage done to the Pentagon really started about 6 minutes before the
9/11 Commission claimed the Pentagon was attacked.  Link at bottom of post.

Because of "The Pentagon clock problem" I believe that Flight 93 was going
to be blamed for the damage done to the Pentagon but that flight took off
too late and so the Hijacker Hoaxsters had to make changes on the fly but
people had already started destroying the Pentagon before the bogus blip on
the radar made it there.

"The Pentagon clock problem"
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x13460

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

#542929

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>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 ?

Maybe you should stop watching cartoons.

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

#542933

"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:5pni8blftfss9grd4qnhm1v37ekleu33km@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>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 ?
>
> Maybe you should stop watching cartoons.

ROTFLMAO because every video of a jet flying in to the Twin Towers was a 
cartoon and you are the one that can not handle those cartoons.

The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x73867

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

#542949

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:10:21 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
>news:5pni8blftfss9grd4qnhm1v37ekleu33km@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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 ?
>>
>> Maybe you should stop watching cartoons.
>
>ROTFLMAO because every video of a jet flying in to the Twin Towers

Hey Idiot, we are speaking about the PENTAGON.  

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

#542964

On 03/01/2016 18:10, Rocky wrote:
> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5pni8blftfss9grd4qnhm1v37ekleu33km@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>>
>> Maybe you should stop watching cartoons.
>
> ROTFLMAO because every video of a jet flying in to the Twin Towers was a
> cartoon and you are the one that can not handle those cartoons.
>
> The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
>   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x73867
>

Evasion noted.
Your reply in no way answers or refers to the pentagon plane.

I await one of your usual answers.

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

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

#542967

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:10:21 -0600, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
>news:5pni8blftfss9grd4qnhm1v37ekleu33km@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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 ?
>>
>> Maybe you should stop watching cartoons.
>
>ROTFLMAO because every video of a jet flying in to the Twin Towers was a 
>cartoon and you are the one that can not handle those cartoons.
>
>The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x73867

     Um, outside of your delusions, the Pentagon and the Twin Towers
were and are not the same. Honest.
     But in regards to the towers, you've openly admitted the jets
were real. Please see Message-ID:
<n6CdnVTCU5XqSRrLnZ2dnUU7-W2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 for your open admission.
     Unless you're going to claim you lied in the post I reference,
you'll have to state you're lying when you claim the jets weren't
real.
     How will you live up to your name of Run Away Roger? Time will
tell.


"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]

#542940

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:38:52 -0500, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>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 ?

Did I say the debris was from the plane?   No.   Flight 77 hit a
number of objects before it crashed into the Pentagon.  

Here's a couple of images of debris on the highway. 


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pBzXmIjuL28/UM5RxY5zH8I/AAAAAAAAAQY/fBTWZ10L14c/s1600/88C1F955F2.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2InAGlY3rNg/UZHsW4anBFI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/gPmdmaNtUgY/s1600/Pentagon+debris.jpg

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web