More Holes in 9-11 Kooker Knowsknothing's Head
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Foundations of operations management, second canadian edition 2e ritzman malhotra krajwsky solutions manual
Next: Quantum Gravity 354.3: Is Light Repulsion?
From: DanB on 15 Jan 2010 21:02 Androcles wrote: > "DanB"<abc(a)some.net> wrote in message > news:P484n.6270$ap2.2867(a)newsfe18.iad... >> Iarnrod wrote: >>> >>> So does the hole in your head, sheeple. >> >> Sign of desperation.... > > You loose, luzer. Get loost. Please plonk me. You will never knock Archimedes or spaceman from the top of the list, but keep on trying.... <http://www.crank.net/usenet.html>
From: Peter Webb on 15 Jan 2010 21:11 If you have a theory more plausible than the Government explanation of 9/11, you should post it. The truth should come out. Do you, or is the Government's explanation the best you know of?
From: Iarnrod on 15 Jan 2010 21:17 On Jan 15, 5:52 pm, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > > So does the hole in your head, sheeple. > > Sign of desperation.... Sign of trying to salvage a couple of yucks out of your otherwise useless posts.
From: pyotr filipivich on 15 Jan 2010 22:46 I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> reported Elvis on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:34:33 +1100 in misc.survivalism: >You have already said you believe that what flew into the WTC buildings were >airplanes with hijackers on board. > >Even the most cursory glance at the evidence suggests some huge problems >with this theory. How do you explain: > >* The fact (according to you, anyway) that 5 of the hijackers lived? >* The absence of holes in the sides of the buildings where the > 1 ton >engines must have impacted? You are aware of how "fragile" engines are? >* The fact that the engines were retrieved from outside the buildings? I suppose the idea that wings, being made of aluminum, might not hold up when subject to student stresses, is a novel concept to you? >* The fact that there is no record of the cabin door being opened in the >preceding 30 hours in the flight recorder, a physical impossibility? As has been dealt with elsewhere, that model aircraft didn't have the sensor to monitor door openings, so that feed was set to "closed". (I wonder what your reaction would be if that recorder had indicated that the door had never been closed in the previous 30 hours.) >And what about the thing that hit the Pentagon? Was that also a plane with >hijackers on board? How do you explain that multiple eyewitnesses identified >it as a much smaller plane or cruise missile? There is an old saying about "He lies like an eyewitness". People make mistakes. >Well? What's your theory? My theory is that people like yourself are part and parcel of the cover up- either deliberately, or as the unwitting minions of Karl Rove. - pyotr filipivich. Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel, you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
From: Iarnrod on 15 Jan 2010 23:46
On Jan 15, 8:08 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jan 15, 4:52 pm, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > > > Iarnrod wrote: > > > > So does the hole in your head, sheeple. > > > Sign of desperation.... > > See this?http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=0 Yeah? And...? Stuff in there proves you wrong. What was your point? |