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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #277945

Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Sarah Ehrett, in <news:m8sq1bth2ov2jvrac8c05asa054me22hh3@4ax.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, Rocky
> (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional 
> woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>> news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional 
>>> woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com...

>>>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes:

>>>>>> Bast is stupid.   And that's being kind.    :)

>>>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a
>>>>> 9/11 kook...

>>>> That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave
>>>> roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious.

>>> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum
>>> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens.  The mass
>>> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap,
>>> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that.

>> ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit.  Jets 
>> can not fly that fast where the air is thick

> You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger.    Ever see an air show?
> Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier?  
> 
> Just shut it.  You *never* know what you're talking about.

Roger Wittekind is a kooktard of the highest caliber... he spews his
retardation without bothering to check whether his retardation can
easily be refuted.

For instance:
<http://911blogger.com/node/20232>
==================================
Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 &
UA175 on 9/11:

1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported
as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed
point to point distance covered over time.

2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of
sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as
the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme
high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the
airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.

3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a
standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can
reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or
approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or
UA175.

4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to
its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS -
Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is
capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.

5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is
360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than
seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph,
which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated)
used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the
operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has
been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial
passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.

6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to
be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous
construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known
that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding
during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.

The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or
relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing
767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs
to hire such or access to one through your vocation. Well it just so
happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator
Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and
certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to
get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I
had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator
Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the
nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just
after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and
familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator
under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He
agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why.

We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered
767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer
and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft
at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting
any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph
difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach
speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds),
approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is,
lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the
overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and
over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and
pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat
trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the
maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the
needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at
over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the
Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the
scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86
Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This
makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed
this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of
emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to
maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.

Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the
speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to
make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we
could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and
I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft
attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and
was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a
couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the
simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.

How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300
compare to the 200?

The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to
be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account
all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the
767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and
observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the
actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The
performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are
modeled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many
actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do
in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to
thrust, lift and drag.

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line
checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could
achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim.
Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of
the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do
just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and
Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft
were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered
aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said
they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little
shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to
weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what
the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet
the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200
and the 300 series Boeing 767.

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea
level?

It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the
airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video
footage. Here is a summation of the facts:

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11,
2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or
team of experts, so it stands as fact.

2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by
a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of
reported speed of .74 Mach.

3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight
Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot
certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an
airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It
was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow
dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far
greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph
or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight
conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.

4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now
conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is
false.
==================================

The B767 is speed-limited below 10,000 feet not because its airframe
is unable to handle or attain the speed, but because its windshield
isn't strong enough to withstand a bird strike at speeds in excess of
313 knots.

So at 560 MPH, the plane would have only been at 0.74 Mach... it's
rated to 0.86 Mach. Its engines are easily capable of pushing the
plane to that speed and beyond, even at low altitudes, as the Boeing
certification flights (which I've previously posted a video of,
showing them going to 0.86 Mach at low altitude) prove.

The planes usually cruise at altitude at a speed of 0.84 Mach, so the
engines are definitely capable of pushing the plane that fast... and
they're not even at full throttle. At low altitude, the engines
produce a *lot* more thrust.

For instance, on a B747-200, the engines are capable of producing
219,000 pounds of thrust, but the plane only requires 55,145 pounds of
thrust to maintain cruise speed of 0.86 Mach. The engines on a B767
can push that plane to 0.97 Mach even fully loaded.

Poor stupid Roger Wittekind... reality yet again kicks him in the ass.

<snicker>

-- 

Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394

Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.

Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.

B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".

C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).

D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.

E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL

F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL

G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.

K) Your broken brain has now stated (MID:
<YtWdnQvC1PTFNWjInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>) that "liquid freon in
the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo [sic]
nuclear bomb" (your words). Complete and utter nonsense from your
thoroughly broken schizophrenic brain, Roger.

L) In further expanding your delusion, your broken brain has k'lamed
that the reason for the WTC Memorial Lights is to cover up Cherenkov
radiation at the WTC site as a result of a nuclear detonation, kook
blather which I utterly destroy here: MID:
<1f304ece6ae3cd30c1bee10ad300b720@dizum.com> by proving that Cherenkov
radiation in air can only happen with highly energetic beta radiation;
that beta particles due to nuclear fission aren't energetic enough to
cause Cherenkov radiation in air; and that even with beta particles of
maximum possible energy, the Cherenkov radiation in air would only
extend ~2 meters above the ground. That's not taking into account that
the WTC Memorial Lights are currently at the *top* of the 7-story
Battery Parking Garage on Morris Street and are lit only once a year
on 11 Sep. Before the new Goldman Sachs building was built, the lights
were in vacant lot 26 on West Side Highway near the WTC site (on which
the new Goldman Sachs building now sits). They were *never* at the WTC
site. Moron. LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================

Moron. LOL

Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 15:31 -0500
  Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:32 -0400
    Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 13:11 -0400
      Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:58 -0400
        Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-06 16:16 -0500
  Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-06 10:41 -0700
    Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:59 -0400
      Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 15:50 -0400
        Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-06 16:50 -0500
          Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 17:31 -0700
      Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-06 16:32 -0500
        Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:31 -0400
          Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 18:11 +1100
            Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 05:47 -0400
              Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 17:54 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:15 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 19:59 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 20:04 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 21:17 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 22:18 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:59 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 18:03 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 20:18 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:18 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 23:54 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 05:21 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 10:31 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 17:07 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 17:13 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 18:18 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 20:23 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 17:52 -0700
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-10-24 09:43 -0700
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 23:58 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 16:57 -0700
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 09:09 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 19:44 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 09:04 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:39 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:13 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 17:10 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 19:54 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:37 -0500
                Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-10 08:01 -0400
                Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:34 -0500
                Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:11 -0400
                Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 04:06 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:14 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 23:07 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-11 01:49 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 04:14 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-13 15:21 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-13 17:03 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 09:34 +1100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:52 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-14 04:28 +0200
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:50 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 04:30 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:50 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 03:55 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-15 09:54 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-15 09:59 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-15 20:18 +0200
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-16 17:51 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 06:45 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 14:07 +0100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-17 18:17 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 07:11 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 14:07 +0100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 11:27 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-18 14:54 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 20:21 +0100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 14:34 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-16 23:52 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 01:56 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 05:53 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-17 09:55 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 17:15 +0100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-17 12:22 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 13:16 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:29 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 04:00 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-17 06:05 +0000
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 10:56 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 17:21 +0100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 14:47 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 15:07 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 21:03 +0100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 16:16 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 23:19 +0100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 18:20 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-13 21:18 +0000
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:54 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:43 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:01 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 05:28 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:39 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 08:42 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:37 -0500
            Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:13 -0400
              Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 10:25 +1100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 23:02 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:51 +1100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-08 10:52 -0400
          Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:12 -0400
            Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 20:05 -0400
              Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 21:13 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 09:02 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-08 10:57 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 11:54 -0700
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-10-24 09:47 -0700
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 17:08 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 08:46 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 10:30 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 12:29 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 13:48 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 16:27 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:18 -0500
            Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:40 -0400
              Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 20:43 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 18:08 -0700
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-10-24 09:51 -0700
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 21:16 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 22:23 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-08 03:02 +0000
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:54 +1100
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-08 04:58 +0000
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-08 10:54 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-08 16:55 +0000
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:30 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:37 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-10 11:44 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:35 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-11 10:20 -0400
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 09:32 -0500
                Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 17:07 -0400

csiph-web