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

Groups > sci.physics > #520554 > unrolled thread

Re: Plane truth

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 18:36 -0500
    Re: Plane truth jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 00:12 +0000
      Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 20:56 -0400
        Re: Plane truth Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:03 -0400
        Re: Plane delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:39 +0000
      Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
    Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
      Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:13 -0500
        Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:00 -0500
        Re: more delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:41 +0000

#520554 — Re: Plane truth

"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:gleuualfua2nhia16n6soqvntrfmg0v24d@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:30:16 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>ROTFLMAO because you forgot to notice that neither of the bogus jets in 
>>Nuke
>>York City
>
> You've run away from these questions for quite some time, Roger.
>
> What happened to the passengers on Flight 175 ?   Two of whom were from my
> son's alma mater.
>
> What happened to the passengers on Flight 77 ?  You remember Barbara 
> Olson?
> Did she just say "poof "  and disappear?

What I'd like to know is how could Barbara Olson fly on a jet that never 
took off on 9/11?

If you had been watching the news close on 9/11/01 you would have noticed 
that the crap we were told about the Pentagon was inconsistent with a crash 
of a commercial jet.

But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains why the 
hole was so close to the ground.

Rocky 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#520563

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains why the 
> hole was so close to the ground.

How is that, you delusional fuckwit?

If airliners can't get close to the ground, how do they ever land,
you delusional fuckwit?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#520568

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains
>> why the hole was so close to the ground.
>
> How is that, you delusional fuckwit?
>
> If airliners can't get close to the ground, how do they ever land,
> you delusional fuckwit?





Well,...do you think airliners landing, come in at full speed ???
NO,....or they end up in pieces  all over the landing strip.

Do your homework and ask any pilot about  "Ground Effect".

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

#520606

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:56:54 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains
>>> why the hole was so close to the ground.
>>
>> How is that, you delusional fuckwit?
>>
>> If airliners can't get close to the ground, how do they ever land,
>> you delusional fuckwit?
>
>Well,...do you think airliners landing, come in at full speed ???

Sure.   They *can* come in a full speed.  

>NO,....or they end up in pieces  all over the landing strip.

LOL    Every plane that lands on an airctraft carrier lands at full
throttle, you fuckwit.   

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

#520672 — Re: Plane delusions

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains
>>> why the hole was so close to the ground.
>>
>> How is that, you delusional fuckwit?
>>
>> If airliners can't get close to the ground, how do they ever land,
>> you delusional fuckwit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well,...do you think airliners landing, come in at full speed ???
> NO,....or they end up in pieces  all over the landing strip.
> 
> Do your homework and ask any pilot about  "Ground Effect".
 
I am a pilot fuckwit, and ground effect has no effect on controllability,
you babbling kook.

There is no reason one could not land an airplane at full speed on
final approach other than the airplane would have to be very, very long. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#520574

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:12:50 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
>> But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains why the 
>> hole was so close to the ground.
>
>How is that, you delusional fuckwit?
>
>If airliners can't get close to the ground, how do they ever land,
>you delusional fuckwit?

     You need to realize that in Roger's mind, the laws of physics
were suspended for a short time on 9/11/01.

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

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

#520573

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:36:59 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message 
>news:gleuualfua2nhia16n6soqvntrfmg0v24d@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:30:16 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because you forgot to notice that neither of the bogus jets in 
>>>Nuke
>>>York City
>>
>> You've run away from these questions for quite some time, Roger.
>>
>> What happened to the passengers on Flight 175 ?   Two of whom were from my
>> son's alma mater.
>>
>> What happened to the passengers on Flight 77 ?  You remember Barbara 
>> Olson?
>> Did she just say "poof "  and disappear?
>
>What I'd like to know is how could Barbara Olson fly on a jet that never 
>took off on 9/11?
>

     She couldn't. This is how we know your claim that it didn't is
nothing more than additional evidence of your mental health issue(s).

>If you had been watching the news close on 9/11/01 you would have noticed 
>that the crap we were told about the Pentagon was inconsistent with a crash 
>of a commercial jet.
>

     And you base this claim on what evidence and/or expert opinion?

>But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains why the 
>hole was so close to the ground.

     Or, as was the case, the plane was close to the ground.

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

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

#520587 — Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm )

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:lcj9vah80dtl61usrtfjchs7cd0frifafq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:36:59 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains why 
>>the
>>hole was so close to the ground.
>
>     Or, as was the case, the plane was close to the ground.

You have obviously never flown remote controlled airplanes because you can 
notice ground effect with those too.

Not only will ground effect help keep airplanes from flying at top speed 
right next to the ground but they also help slow moving airplanes maneuver 
very close to the ground.

And weren't you supposed to look up napalm and see that the explosions in 
the Twin Towers were consistent with a napalm explosion?

Rocky

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

#520661 — Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm )

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:13:25 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:lcj9vah80dtl61usrtfjchs7cd0frifafq@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:36:59 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But the fact the Pentagon was hit by a ship sinking missile explains why 
>>>the
>>>hole was so close to the ground.
>>
>>     Or, as was the case, the plane was close to the ground.
>
>You have obviously never flown remote controlled airplanes because you can 
>notice ground effect with those too.
>

     I await your valid, verifiable evidence that I've not flown RC
planes. 

>Not only will ground effect help keep airplanes from flying at top speed 
>right next to the ground but they also help slow moving airplanes maneuver 
>very close to the ground.

     I await your valid, verifiable evidence for this claim.

>
>And weren't you supposed to look up napalm and see that the explosions in 
>the Twin Towers were consistent with a napalm explosion?
>

     No. You were supposed to present your evidence that napalm was
used in the twin towers. As of the time I write this, you've offered
none.

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

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

#520673 — Re: more delusions

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And weren't you supposed to look up napalm and see that the explosions in 
> the Twin Towers were consistent with a napalm explosion?

Napalm doesn't explode, fuckwit kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web