Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #275493
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| References | <d12d7aa3-573c-4251-b1c4-f0349617876b@googlegroups.com> <8n41va569bj7hnr3qh73nhcbpa7r213t9b@4ax.com> <797d2f8d58377a54665c64d2e8e2d489@dizum.com> <koq3va11ebdfrm4nm7jop8eg00sb8sirh2@4ax.com> |
| Subject | Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes |
| Message-ID | <bad1189f703c92fedf1bbb0b2c404cbc@dizum.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2015-09-11 06:43 +0200 |
| Newsgroups | alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, alt.usenet.kooks, sci.physics |
| Organization | dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Topaz, in <news:koq3va11ebdfrm4nm7jop8eg00sb8sirh2@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:01:41 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> Topaz, in <news:8n41va569bj7hnr3qh73nhcbpa7r213t9b@4ax.com> did thusly >> jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> <SMACKAKOOK!> >> That site promulgates some of the most retarded of the conspiracy >> theories concerning 9/11. If you wish to learn what really happened, >> it'll take engaging your brain and learning building engineering, >> flight kinetics and physics... very few of you kooks are up to the >> task, for obvious reasons. >> >> <snicker> > You are a worthless snickering asshole and probably a Jew. You are a retarded monkey who is too comfortably ensconced in your own stupidity to ever think of educating yourself. > CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view, > America! > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws BTW, your "CIA insider" Susan Lindauer is a delusional schizophrenic nutjob who believes she has psychic abilities and can utter prophecies. She had no connections whatsoever to the CIA... and her only actual connection to anyone who *did* have connections with the CIA was a physician with ties to the middle east. She was a conspiracy theory nutjob even back then, continually pursuing meetings with him to pump him for information. He broke off contact with Lindauer due to what he described as an increasingly "seditious bent" to her discussions. IOW, she went off the rails. She was arrested by the FBI for taking money from the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and indicted for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government... IOW, a spy. She was later arrested at Carswell AFB for psychological evaluation, only released after she was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. She then began k'laming she was a CIA asset... but in reality, she had just known someone years prior (who had cut off all contact with her) who was a CIA asset. She was later yet again found mentally unfit to stand trial and judged to be mentally insane. Psychotic. She was never a CIA agent, she was never a CIA asset. Believe the stupidity that tard spews at your own risk... you'd do well to research her claims completely, given that she's been caught in many, _many_ lies. Par for the course for a psychotic delusional kook... they all lie to sustain their delusions. <https://www.metabunk.org/susan-lindauer.t2494/> <https://web.archive.org/web/20130620221315/http://www.scribd.com/doc/46046645/US-v-Susan-Lindauer-NYSD-448-F-Supp-2d-558-2006> <https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/46046645-us-v-susan-lindauer-nysd-448-f-supp-2d-558-2006-pdf.1445/> "Although defendant denies she is mentally ill, she is plainly aware of what others think, and so, as Dr. Kleinman noted, she "is disposed to dissimulate, i.e., minimize the presence and extent of her psychiatric difficulties, especially to mental health professionals — whom she distrusts and generally dislikes." (Kleinman Report 12/13/05 at 8) She acknowledged to him that if she testifies at her trial she will have to avoid touching on such subjects as her psychic powers, but "also noted that when (metaphorically) attacked by others she has spontaneously uttered prophecies." (Id.at 46) But then, given that you're just as insane as Susan Lindauer, there's little surprise that you'd not only believe her wholly implausible kookbabble, but that you'd accept it wholesale as your own delusion. <snicker> > <SMACKAKOOK!> > Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's > most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible > morning? I don't think so! NORAD was only contacted three times by the FAA that day. Once at 8:37 AM to inform NORAD NEADS (North American Air Defense Command Northeast Air Defense Sector) that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 AM to mistakenly inform them that Flight 11 was headed to DC (they were wrong, it had hit the WTC North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 AM to mistakenly tell them Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston was hijacked. The NYC Air Traffic Control called NORAD NEADS at 9:03 AM to report UA 175 hijacked... the same time the flight hit the WTC South Tower. Within minutes, fighter jets from Otis AFB and Langley NGB had scrambled. Unfortunately, the primitive air traffic tracking system of 2001 allowed the hijackers to turn off their transponders, forcing ATC to search through the 4500 flights in the region to find them... they didn't. NORAD radar wasn't inward-looking in 2001, it was for perimeter defense against incoming planes and missiles from other countries, so NORAD had no way to track the planes themselves. They had to rely upon FAA ATC to tell them where the planes were, and ATC was confused because they had no transponders to track. You moron. LOL > There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable > than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing > down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on > the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from > jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage > and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the > fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not > have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this - > only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such > distances. Did you not see the chunks of building flying outward as the towers collapsed? Huge hunks hit and damaged other buildings. The viscoelastic dampers between the floor spars and outer truss frame were pre-tensioned to counteract the bowing effect of the weight of the buildings, when those viscoelastic dampers started giving way (the source of those loud bangs that many called "explosions") the force expulsed not only building parts but human parts caught in the churning disintegrating rubble as the towers fell. The WTC towers literally "unzipped" like a zipper... once the lateral load-bearing capacity of those viscoelastic dampers was exceeded, they failed, the truss frame bowed, the floor spars drooped, and the collapse process ejected materials from the sides of the buildings as they fell. > <SMACKAKOOK!> > The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is > compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. No, it's compelling evidence that NORAD's role was outward looking. They couldn't even track planes internal to US borders. That wasn't their role in 2001, they were there to protect the country from external threats. > NORAD is the world's most > sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies > that make it extremely reliable and effective. It is only effective in the directions it looks, and in 2001 it looked outward, you retard. > NORAD routinely > intercepts off course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, Yes, it does. Today, because they have the ability now to track air traffic internal to US borders. In 2001, they did so with the help of FAA ATC tracking the aircraft for them. With no transponders to track, FAA was confused, so NORAD had little to go on in tracking the aircraft. > especially near such security-sensitive areas as New York City and the > Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial > jets were out of communication and flying towards known terrorist > targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of these planes was intercepted > by NORAD! We were told that NORAD only looks for aircraft coming from > outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given the history of > NORAD's routine interceptions! Yes, routine interceptions with the help of FAA ATC tracking the aircraft for them. That system worked well up until 2001, as no terrorists had thought of such an attack before then. Such an event couldn't happen again today because NORAD has complete internal tracking coverage of the US. > The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the > falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade > Center building collapses: > > SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE > EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK > > On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade > Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent > people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for > days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also > collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall > speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that > struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage > and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained > standing. > > In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan > Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert > Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own > eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government > conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale." > > We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's > tale that's "beyond the pale!" > > Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented > phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, > and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have > stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of > authoritarian assertions? > > The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told > us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now > referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government > claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet > fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to > the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult > to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive > fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such > buildings generally remain standing. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc> Whoopsie... see the roof starting to collapse from the left-hand side of the building, starting at 0:16 of the video, prior to the overall collapse of the building, Ko0k? That's the textbook definition of "progressive collapse", you brainfucked retard. The interior of the building had been so gutted and weakened by fire that the roof could no longer support itself. It fell through and ripped what remaining structural steel there was away, precipitating the collapse. See how the wall facing the camera kind of folds inward immediately after the roof collapses, Ko0k? See the computer physics simulation of the collapse starting at 1:01 of the video, showing the roof collapsing, exactly as was seen in the actual building, Ko0K? > According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical > evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly > caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the > tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain > reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to > the weight falling from above. > > There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the > observed facts > > * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical > steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the > next. Those "immense vertical steel core columns" were only built to 150% of required standing strength. And they didn't have much to support with the lateral supports ripped away by the falling penthouse. Not to mention the fact that they'd lost on the order of 50% of their total strength due to heat weakening, meaning they were only at 75% of the required standing strength. Idiot. LOL > * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to > gravity > alone. "near free-fall" LOL Now you retarded kooks are forced to admit they didn't fall *at* free-fall speed... what will you do when you're forced to admit the fall speed of the buildings were entirely consistent with the seismic records, and entirely consistent with the progressive collapse model, K0oK? LOL Message-ID: <1facf6fdf2b182085bea8b3a42e5fe8b@dizum.com> > This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from > the air a<SMACKAKOOK!> Bullshit. "near free-fall" means there was resistance. That WTC7 stood as long as it did, considering the massive internal damage from structural members losing their strength due to heat soaking, is a wonder. Those structural members first expanded laterally (which you can see in photos and videos as a huge bulge in the side of the building prior to collapse), and when they could no longer expand, they were forced to droop downward, which means that even had they had full structural strength, they wouldn't have had the leverage to support the building. > Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the > way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction > as air would? Except that's not how it happened, as can be seen in the videos of the collapse. The penthouse structural members had become too weak to support all the equipment up there, it fell in, smashing through the already heat-weakened structural members below, removing what little structural support they provided to the building after they'd expanded and drooped. Shortly after the penthouse fell in, the entire building collapsed. > Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing > the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? Yes again, that old bugaboo of all kooks, kinetic energy, kicks your kook ass... just how does a lower story stop the fall of thousands of tons of steel and concrete that's already achieved enough kinetic energy via its fall to overwhelm the immediately-lower floor's ability to support it? The fall would have had to be less than 6.533 meters for that to happen, given that the building was built to 150% standing strength... how far above the top human-space floor was the penthouse, K0oK? Oh, unfortunately for your broken little brain, it was just over twice that distance. IOW, once that penthouse fell in, there was no stopping it. And as the floors sequentially fell in, with the structural steel weakened to only ~20% of their full strength, there was nothing that was going to stop the collapse. LOL > Wha<SMACKAKOOK!> I note you snipped out that proof that the B-767 wings were actually *stronger* than the steel of the WTC towers. It must suck to be as delusional as you, yet also ironically far too stupid to right yourself... you're like an off-center Weebles Wobble But They Won't Fall Down... spinning sideways and attempting to achieve some balance, but utterly unable to do so. You moron. <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. 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. ============================= Kook. LOL
Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-10 09:01 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-10 15:44 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-10 19:07 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 15:17 -0500
Re: Rocky wrong again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-11 20:38 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-11 18:54 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:14 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:48 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 10:33 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 21:46 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 19:24 +0100
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 13:36 -0500
Re: Rocky still crazy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 18:54 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 21:19 +0100
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:47 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-11 06:43 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-11 19:22 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-12 06:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 11:47 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-13 07:04 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 05:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-14 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 17:22 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-15 17:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-15 17:39 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-15 19:29 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 09:21 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 08:57 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 15:50 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 20:08 +0000
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 16:43 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 16:51 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 21:10 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:29 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 17:20 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:26 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 18:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 21:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:52 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-17 00:23 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:42 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 01:13 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:45 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 16:48 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 21:43 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:50 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 06:51 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:56 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 06:25 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 07:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:09 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 23:00 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:03 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 20:24 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:43 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:01 -0500
9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:29 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:25 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 14:13 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 13:25 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:19 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. DoW #10" <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:34 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 17:00 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 17:09 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:40 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:24 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-18 10:12 -0400
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:35 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-20 09:47 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:44 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-22 19:39 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 19:32 -0700
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:20 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 21:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 03:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:11 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 05:09 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 10:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 12:20 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:43 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 21:15 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 17:13 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 22:25 +0000
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:48 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:02 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There are no brains in Rocky's head Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:29 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 18:49 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-21 00:02 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-21 02:27 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-21 03:04 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-22 14:18 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 21:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 15:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 15:59 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:22 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:40 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 13:06 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 16:59 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 21:48 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 16:03 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 07:58 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:30 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 17:58 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 05:23 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-22 13:38 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 03:36 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 06:48 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-24 09:41 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 13:08 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 17:13 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-24 21:52 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:46 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 16:14 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:17 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 08:24 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 15:50 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:32 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 14:53 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 18:23 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 07:17 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:07 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 16:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 17:22 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 05:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 11:24 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 11:45 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:15 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 05:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:38 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 07:02 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:13 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 21:26 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:13 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 21:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:31 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:57 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:01 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-22 16:19 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:11 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:15 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 01:12 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 06:44 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:39 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:31 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:15 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 22:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:14 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-20 20:04 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:41 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:41 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:17 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 22:11 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-20 04:14 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 13:07 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-21 18:25 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-21 20:27 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-22 07:36 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-22 10:28 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2015-09-22 17:47 +0100
9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 2 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-23 05:27 +0200
9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-23 06:09 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1 "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-23 20:22 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-24 06:53 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-24 01:49 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1b Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-25 07:33 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes, Pt. 1a Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-24 06:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:27 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 17:38 -0400
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-18 05:59 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:42 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-19 06:36 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:19 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-15 04:18 +0200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:55 -0500
9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-16 07:37 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:42 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-16 17:46 -0400
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-16 21:06 -0700
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 00:30 -0400
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:38 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-16 17:59 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-17 07:11 +0200
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:05 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-14 17:06 +0200
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:57 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:31 -0500
Re: Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:06 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 12:09 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 16:47 -0500
Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-11 12:15 -0700
csiph-web