Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #275900
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, sci.physics |
| References | <ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <3chbva5ng9ai6dtr9ivqanr2oihji7msb2@4ax.com> <Ca2dnVDeJNlwR2jInZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <9j4dvap5jne920qsijkhjlnapgpk22o8h3@4ax.com> |
| Subject | Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid Wills is FULL OF SHIT ) |
| Date | 2015-09-14 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <--mdnZCS5IPERmvInZ2dnUU7-YGdnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9j4dvap5jne920qsijkhjlnapgpk22o8h3@4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:21:17 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> >>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:3chbva5ng9ai6dtr9ivqanr2oihji7msb2@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:16:43 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>>If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay >>>>burning afterwards? >>> >>> I'll ask this again, and again you'll not answer, who makes the >>> claim that fires alone caused the buildings to collapse? >> >>NIST THEMSELVES. See: >> >>NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc >> >>BTW NIST calls every building that left very little debris on the ground a >>"Progressive Collapse" and yet nobody can willfully build a bulding that >>collapses the way WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7 did. <G> >> > > Nothing about fires alone causing the collapse of the buildings. > Way to PROVE you've been lying the whole time. It was in the very first part of the above video. How in the hell could you miss that? >>>>Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building >>>>collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or >>>>WTC7. >>>> >>>>The fact that WTC1 did not stay burning after it was supposed to have >>>>collapsed because of fire is in the following video: >>>> >>>>the Miracle of stairwell B (full documentary) >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTRNEVKMY4 >>>> >>>>Note not only did the alleged collapse of WTC1 fail to crush the >>>>Survivors >>>>in WTC1 but the Survivors didn't even have to worry about fire after >>>>WTC1 >>>>floated away. <G> >>> >>> As has been PROVED, what did float away was statistically >>> insignificant. >> >>ROTFLMAO because so much of the Twin Towers floated away that it did not >>crush the Survivors in Stairwell B and you think that is "insignificant?" > > We've been over this. The stairwell survived because the tower > fell a few degrees off center. What law of physics states a collapsing building should not fall straight down and then why is the amount of debris left on the ground less than if it was from a 10 story building? And do not give me the basement bullshit either because that was not filled with your crap or crap from the above 110 stories.. >>Maybe to anybody else but I'm sure it wasn't "insignificant" to the >>Survivors or their families. <G> > > It was, of course. Those people lived because you claim WTC1 could not fall straight down because of your version of Physics. And at the same time you can't prove it fell a few degrees off because there are no massive debris piles either so you used a BIG LIE there too. Dude you will have to keep telling lie after lie after lie after lie because the Great 9/11 Hijacker Hoax was a lie to start with and you have no choice in the matter but to use lies yourself to maintain a lie. DUH. That is exactly what made it so easy to win my jury trial 12 to 0. Beverly Rusk didn't realize her lies were based on a lie started by a love triangle. <G> >>Wow, Lie 6 or is that Lie 7 now if I count the one you used with Bast. >>Either way your lies just keep going up and up and up and the 9/11 >>hoaxsters >>might not be happy with a liability like you. <G> > > Where do I present a lie? OVER AND OVER AND OVER. like above where you have yet to state what rule in your physics states buildings should not fall straight down? > That the truth is in direct opposition > to your lies But you have never proven you have the truth. Popular Mechanics should have refused to do what they did because they had a Conflict of Interest and the other site you mentioned clearly lacked the debris field from the alleged Flight 93. You are nothing but bullshit and you would easily see that if you reallized that all you can do to maintain the lies of 9/11 is to keep piling on the lies higher and deeper yourself. Oh and if you want to see a short list of movie blunders from "The Great 9/11 Hijacker Hoax" see: news:oM2dnQJvLsOYSmvInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com... Rocky
Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 12:16 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 14:09 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:38 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:51 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:31 -0500
Re: Rocky's legal woes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:57 +0000
Re: Rocky's legal woes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:16 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:40 -0500
Re: Rocky the stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:27 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:21 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:09 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:38 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:34 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:39 -0500
Re: More Rocky delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 21:17 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:05 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-18 14:05 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 10:51 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:02 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:28 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 11:31 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:14 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:47 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:04 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 23:46 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-17 05:01 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:19 -0400
Re: smoke and fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:29 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-13 14:27 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 11:34 -0700
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:43 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-13 19:52 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 22:43 -0400
Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:26 +0000
9/11 debunkers, debunked - Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:35 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:00 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0100
Re: Rocky denies reality jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:39 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:36 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 16:03 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:48 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 17:05 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 20:43 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 21:15 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 09:47 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:13 -0500
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 18:24 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:32 -0700
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:42 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 22:36 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 19:57 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 00:13 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:43 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 01:20 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:21 -0500
Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid Wills is FULL OF SHIT ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 09:35 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:46 -0700
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 09:59 -0700
csiph-web