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


Groups > alt.astronomy > #275799

Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning?

From Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, sci.physics
Subject Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning?
Date 2015-09-13 23:29 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <mt4t8v$337$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <58vgcc-p6n.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mt4min$a00$1@dont-email.me> <ps-dnW4fFrSNeWjInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On 13/09/2015 22:00, Rocky wrote:
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mt4min$a00$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>>> burning afterwards?
>>>
>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>
> TOTAL BULLSHIT because there wasn't enough of any of them to keep burning
> with the exception of the place where the nukes were detonated.
>
> And you can't post any bullshit about radiation without pointing out nobody
> testified to thermal radiation

What do you understand by 'thermal radiation', explain that to us and we 
will be able to comment.

> from a deep underground nuke ( it was refered
> to as molten metal

So not 'molten metal' then.

> over and over and over though ) but there was plenty of
> radiation in the air as proven by all the people that died later.
>
Oh dear, here we go again.
Explain about this radiation, you know the questions, you've been asked 
the questions many times.


>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and the
>>> flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>
> And just how could both the Twin Towers collapse into a pile of debris much
> smaller than the one made by WTC7 and don't give me any bullshit about it
> going underground because it would have had to kill the Survivors to do
> that. <G>
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
>
>>
>>
>> Have you seen this video ?
>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>
>> Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>
> jimp is beyond help and if you didn't reply to him I might never see his
> post.
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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


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