Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #275775
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, sci.physics |
| References | <ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <58vgcc-p6n.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mt4min$a00$1@dont-email.me> |
| Subject | Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? |
| Date | 2015-09-13 16:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ps-dnW4fFrSNeWjInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message news:mt4min$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 from a deep underground nuke ( it was refered to as molten metal over and over and over though ) but there was plenty of radiation in the air as proven by all the people that died later. >>> 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
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