9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio

[Rocky]

9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio

Published on Feb 17, 2013
Video says all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo

Wow, the video sure does say it all.

Rocky

[BDK]

In article <4qudne1EJNXIR5zL...@giganews.com>,
woo...@att.net says...

Yeah, it says there are a lot of stupid and gullible people out there.

They're called troofers.

--
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:45:28 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio
>
>Published on Feb 17, 2013
>Video says all.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo

So what does it say?

Posting youtube videos will no longer be watched. Give your own
comments.

[Rocky]

"BDK" <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.306be23a3...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <4qudne1EJNXIR5zL...@giganews.com>,
> woo...@att.net says...
>>
>> 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio
>>
>> Published on Feb 17, 2013
>> Video says all.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo
>>
>> Wow, the video sure does say it all.
>>
>> Rocky
>
> Yeah, it says there are a lot of stupid and gullible people out there.
>
> They're called troofers.

ROTFLMAO because the official story changed so many times you can't even say
what you believe. <G>

The names of the hijackers changed, what NORAD did changed and what the FAA
did also changed just like we were fed a bunch of bullshit from day one.
Too bad you were not smart enough to catch any of the inconsistencies.

As a matter of fact even Evan Fairbanks was caught using two different
excuses for why there was no audio in part of his video and then we find
just yesterday with the video above that there was a third reason why the
audio was removed.

Rocky

[Bast]

Refusing to watch videos is proof that you have made up your mind and have
no desire to be confused by actual facts.
And since you won't believe a video, you won't believe anything typed on a
page either.

Thanks for saving our time replying to your posts

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:52:51 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:45:28 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio
>>>
>>> Published on Feb 17, 2013
>>> Video says all.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo
>>
>> So what does it say?
>>
>> Posting youtube videos will no longer be watched. Give your own
>> comments.
>
>Refusing to watch videos is proof that you have made up your mind and have
>no desire to be confused by actual facts.

Where did I say I refused to watch videos?

[Rocky]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
news:mtul9i$kut$1...@dont-email.me...

I tried to warn you about Sarah. BTW I can't believe Kid Wills still falls
for her shit.

Me, I couldn't believe the above video. I mean it was like whoever posted
the video above was right there with Evan Farbanks or maybe Evan Fairbanks
finally fessed up to the facts. Either way is possible.

Rocky

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:49:37 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>news:mtul9i$kut$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:45:28 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio
>>>>
>>>> Published on Feb 17, 2013
>>>> Video says all.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo
>>>
>>> So what does it say?
>>>
>>> Posting youtube videos will no longer be watched. Give your own
>>> comments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Refusing to watch videos is proof that you have made up your mind and have
>> no desire to be confused by actual facts.
>> And since you won't believe a video, you won't believe anything typed on a
>> page either.
>>
>> Thanks for saving our time replying to your posts
>
>
>I tried to warn you about Sarah. BTW I can't believe Kid Wills still falls
>for her shit.
>
>Me, I couldn't believe the above video

You posted it.

So now we have Roger admitting he posts false videos and lies.

[Bast]

I actually couldn't care less about this sarah person.
And they are hardly a threat to anyone, anymore than the rest of the tens of
usenet 9/11 debunking troublemakers who post daily.
They implicitly trust that their government will always look after thier
interests first.
And I would ask them ,,...well how's that obamacare working out for ya ???

I'll keep posting video links and if she doesn't get that the message for
all of them is ,...." 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB "
She smply doesn't have to watch them or even click on my links.
They are all now identified in the subject line and just before the video.

[Rocky]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtuvvs$3mg$1...@dont-email.me...

BTW do you remember your video with Judy Woods where she is talking about
the strange seismic readings at GZ? I'd like to make sure that Michael from
alt.physics sees that one.

TIA
Rocky

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:18:46 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:49:37 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:45:28 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio
>>>>>
>>>>> Published on Feb 17, 2013
>>>>> Video says all.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo

[Bast]

i'm not sure what video you are referring to ,but a quick search on youtube
brings up pages of her videos.

This should be a good one for you, as it has much of her speech.
And goes into why the towers dustified

Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

[BDK]

In article <mtvcq6$n75$1...@dont-email.me>, fake...@nomail.invalid says...

"dustified"? Wow, you're even making up words/terms!

BTW, you would (If you were sane)expect a building with a lot of drywall
in it to produce a lot of dust when it collapses.

Since you aren't sane, it "Dustifies".

WOW.

>
> Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

BWHAHAHAHA! Judy Wood? Wow, only the dopiest of Troofers swallow her
nonsense. Congrats! You've made the kOOktards of kOOktards list.

[Bast]

I was asked about her, so I provided a link.
I never claimed I think she is my "leader", but she does make a very good
point that people must look at what occurred on 9/11, and not go in with
pre-conceived ideas about what caused things to happen.
No planes were ever proven either. Unless you want to accept talking heads
on TV telling you what to believe.
I personally would never follow the advice of ANY kardashian.

Unlike the official 9/11 fairytalers,.....I do look at all the info I can
find about 9/11, and keep learning.
And you fairytalers have terrible habit of deleting parts of my posts like
actual links.
.....What are you afraid people will see here ?.....A view and facts they
never saw before ?? And viewers might think for themselves ??? And NOT be
part of your group-think ????

[BDK]

In article <mtvoc8$ie5$1...@dont-email.me>, fake...@nomail.invalid says...

You don't have to go with pre-conceived ideas to understand what
happened on 911.

> No planes were ever proven either. Unless you want to accept talking heads
> on TV telling you what to believe.

Thousands of people saw the first plane hit, and many more thousands saw
the second one. What else would people walking and driving in the NYC
area be looking at? A handful of people claim it was small planes, or
there were no windows, etc, but the vast majority saw the jets hit. I
know someone who saw the jetliner hit the Pentagon.

> I personally would never follow the advice of ANY kardashian.

You appear to be thinking below their level.

>
> Unlike the official 9/11 fairytalers,.....I do look at all the info I can
> find about 9/11, and keep learning.

Yet you ignore everything that doesn't fit your agenda.

> And you fairytalers have terrible habit of deleting parts of my posts like
> actual links.

I never delete anything.

> .....What are you afraid people will see here ?.....A view and facts they
> never saw before ?? And viewers might think for themselves ??? And NOT be
> part of your group-think ????

I want people to see Troofery for the bullshit (I'm being nice here) it
is. If you had any common sense, or a knowledge of basic science, you
would see it for what it is, and not buy into comically stupid claims.

>
>
> Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

[Rocky]

"BDK" <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message
>

> You don't have to go with pre-conceived ideas to understand what
> happened on 911.

ROTFLMAO because that comes from someone who never figured out what happened
on 9/11/01.

Rocky

[Bast]

Not to see it personally.
The only people in Manhattan that actually saw anything other than an
explosion, admit they saw planes on TV.
You refer to an Urban Legend, that repeated over and over by the media you
now believe is true.




As for the pentagon,....I don;t care what kind of drugs you friends take or
what they see when they do.
It was never captured on any video, and
NOBODY saw a plane or debris from a plane at the pentagon,....not even
reporters on the scene.

Only some staged pictures were released to the media the next day. That
consisted of a tiny fraction of what would be left after a crash.

(but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter overnight
when no one was watching)

[dmaster]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:57:04 AM UTC-5, Bast wrote:
...

> As for the pentagon,....I don;t care what kind of drugs you friends take or
> what they see when they do.
> It was never captured on any video, and
> NOBODY saw a plane or debris from a plane at the pentagon,....not even
> reporters on the scene.
>
> Only some staged pictures were released to the media the next day. That
> consisted of a tiny fraction of what would be left after a crash.
>
> (but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter overnight
> when no one was watching)

This is so wrong and on so many levels.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Dan (Woj...)

[Michael Moroney]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> writes:

>> Thousands of people saw the first plane hit, and many more thousands saw
>> the second one. What else would people walking and driving in the NYC
>> area be looking at? A handful of people claim it was small planes, or
>> there were no windows, etc, but the vast majority saw the jets hit. I
>> know someone who saw the jetliner hit the Pentagon.

>Not to see it personally.
>The only people in Manhattan that actually saw anything other than an
>explosion, admit they saw planes on TV.
>You refer to an Urban Legend, that repeated over and over by the media you
>now believe is true.

Now, that's beyond kooktarded. There are thousands and thousands of
people on the streets of Manhattan every day. Most would have looked up
when they heard a jet flying low and loud, like the firefighters in the
Naudet video. A big percentage of New Yorkers were already staring at the
Twin Towers when the second plane hit.

On second rereading, maybe what Bast wrote is technically and devilishly
true. Just about every single person who saw either jet in person did see
them on TV, either that evening or over the next several days. The TV
replayed the events over and over and over again.

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:mu1emj$hje$1...@pcls7.std.com...

> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> writes:
>
>>> Thousands of people saw the first plane hit, and many more thousands saw
>>> the second one. What else would people walking and driving in the NYC
>>> area be looking at? A handful of people claim it was small planes, or
>>> there were no windows, etc, but the vast majority saw the jets hit. I
>>> know someone who saw the jetliner hit the Pentagon.
>
>>Not to see it personally.
>>The only people in Manhattan that actually saw anything other than an
>>explosion, admit they saw planes on TV.
>>You refer to an Urban Legend, that repeated over and over by the media you
>>now believe is true.
>
> Now, that's beyond kooktarded. There are thousands and thousands of
> people on the streets of Manhattan every day. Most would have looked up
> when they heard a jet flying low and loud, like the firefighters in the
> Naudet video. A big percentage of New Yorkers were already staring at the
> Twin Towers when the second plane hit.

riiight. Don't forget Newton. For every action there is an opposite
action. At the very very least those CGIs should have lost some speed or
parts but they went straight into the Twin Towers just like a CGI would.

07 - The Key
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds

And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the
explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane.

> On second rereading, maybe what Bast wrote is technically and devilishly
> true. Just about every single person who saw either jet in person did see
> them on TV, either that evening or over the next several days. The TV
> replayed the events over and over and over again.

And in the process they slowly weeded out the videos where the wing of the
CGI disappears but you still have one of them. <G>

Rocky

[Bast]

Actually,.....NO airliner videos were aired by any media after the 11th.
By the next morning you heard the talking heads telling you about
airliners,... but never saw more than a few still photos
They probably realized that if they continued to air them, people would
notice the flaws.
(they forgot how many people had DVR's, archiving everything)

And then the new "private" videos were only released over the web, or showed
up in documentary's.

[Michael Moroney]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> writes:

>Actually,.....NO airliner videos were aired by any media after the 11th.
>By the next morning you heard the talking heads telling you about
>airliners,... but never saw more than a few still photos
>They probably realized that if they continued to air them, people would
>notice the flaws.
>(they forgot how many people had DVR's, archiving everything)

That's bullshit. I remember it well. They played UA 175 striking the
South Tower over and over again. Different angles and all. Over and
over again. The burning towers from all angles. The towers collapsing
over and over and over again as well. For days.

>And then the new "private" videos were only released over the web, or showed
>up in documentary's.

Many videos didn't show up until much later (in particular the Naudet
video of Flight 11, but also several videos of UA 175), but that doesn't
take away from the fact they played the UA 175 clips they did have over
and over.

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:mu2mn7$7fc$1...@pcls7.std.com...

> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> writes:
>
>>Actually,.....NO airliner videos were aired by any media after the 11th.
>>By the next morning you heard the talking heads telling you about
>>airliners,... but never saw more than a few still photos
>>They probably realized that if they continued to air them, people would
>>notice the flaws.
>>(they forgot how many people had DVR's, archiving everything)
>
> That's bullshit. I remember it well. They played UA 175 striking the
> South Tower over and over again. Different angles and all. Over and
> over again. The burning towers from all angles. The towers collapsing
> over and over and over again as well. For days.

ROTFLMAO because you mean you saw UCGI 175 morphing into the South Tower
with just smoke and mirrors minus the mirrors. <G>

Michael, you were ripped off. As much as you would like to believe there
was a real crash a real crash would have shed some parts. Oh and talking
about crashes that didn't shed any parts neither did the crash at
Pranksville, PA or the Pentagon.

>>And then the new "private" videos were only released over the web, or
>>showed
>>up in documentary's.
>
> Many videos didn't show up until much later (in particular the Naudet
> video of Flight 11, but also several videos of UA 175), but that doesn't
> take away from the fact they played the UA 175 clips they did have over
> and over.

And I'll bet you forgot to count how many of those videos of UCGI 175 had
disappearing wings.

There is one thing for sure. The 9/11 Hoaxsters didn't have to worry about
how shitty their graphics were because people would eat up the "Official
9/11 story story story" despite all it's inconsistencies.

Rocky

[BDK]

In article <mu12s8$u2r$1...@dont-email.me>, fake...@nomail.invalid says...

???

> The only people in Manhattan that actually saw anything other than an
> explosion, admit they saw planes on TV.

That has to be the most insanely stupid claim you've ever made. There
are thousands upon thousands of people walking and driving all over NYC
and the surrounding areas during business hours.

> You refer to an Urban Legend, that repeated over and over by the media you
> now believe is true.
>

You are truly insane.

>
>
> As for the pentagon,....I don;t care what kind of drugs you friends take or
> what they see when they do.
> It was never captured on any video, and
> NOBODY saw a plane or debris from a plane at the pentagon,....not even
> reporters on the scene.

BWHAHAHAHAHA! Insanity rules your life. Get help.

>
> Only some staged pictures were released to the media the next day. That
> consisted of a tiny fraction of what would be left after a crash.

Nonsense.

>
> (but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter overnight
> when no one was watching)

Wow. I can't even imagine what could have happened to you that would
mess your head us as badly as it is.

[Michael Moroney]

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mu1emj$hje$1...@pcls7.std.com...

>> Now, that's beyond kooktarded. There are thousands and thousands of
>> people on the streets of Manhattan every day. Most would have looked up
>> when they heard a jet flying low and loud, like the firefighters in the
>> Naudet video. A big percentage of New Yorkers were already staring at the
>> Twin Towers when the second plane hit.

>riiight. Don't forget Newton. For every action there is an opposite
>action. At the very very least those CGIs should have lost some speed or
>parts but they went straight into the Twin Towers just like a CGI would.

They did lose speed. Compare the time from the time of impact with the
south wall to the time the first debris started flying out the north wall,
to the time the plane traveled the same distance just before impact. The
first time is longer.

The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep
going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous
strength to deflect the plane or parts of it.

>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the
>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane.

Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking
away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it.

>> On second rereading, maybe what Bast wrote is technically and devilishly
>> true. Just about every single person who saw either jet in person did see
>> them on TV, either that evening or over the next several days. The TV
>> replayed the events over and over and over again.

>And in the process they slowly weeded out the videos where the wing of the
>CGI disappears but you still have one of them. <G>

Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one
with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact?

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:mu3mkm$7ki$1...@pcls7.std.com...

> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mu1emj$hje$1...@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> Now, that's beyond kooktarded. There are thousands and thousands of
>>> people on the streets of Manhattan every day. Most would have looked up
>>> when they heard a jet flying low and loud, like the firefighters in the
>>> Naudet video. A big percentage of New Yorkers were already staring at
>>> the
>>> Twin Towers when the second plane hit.
>
>>riiight. Don't forget Newton. For every action there is an opposite
>>action. At the very very least those CGIs should have lost some speed or
>>parts but they went straight into the Twin Towers just like a CGI would.
>
> They did lose speed. Compare the time from the time of impact with the
> south wall to the time the first debris started flying out the north wall,
> to the time the plane traveled the same distance just before impact. The
> first time is longer.
>
> The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep
> going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous
> strength to deflect the plane or parts of it.

"enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye
bye? And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out
about that wing that left the scene of the crime?

>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the
>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane.
>
> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking
> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it.

But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where
there wasn't even the sound of a jet.

And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of
jets flying into the towers maybe that was just in Nuke York City where
people watching never saw or heard any jets.

The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is to
create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South Tower
tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01.

07 - The Key
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds

>>> On second rereading, maybe what Bast wrote is technically and devilishly
>>> true. Just about every single person who saw either jet in person did
>>> see
>>> them on TV, either that evening or over the next several days. The TV
>>> replayed the events over and over and over again.
>
>>And in the process they slowly weeded out the videos where the wing of the
>>CGI disappears but you still have one of them. <G>
>
> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one
> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact?

Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only
so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major
network. <G>

Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is
both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's first,
second or third story. <G>

Rocky

[Bast]

I'm not getting a lot of posts apparently, I guess my newsserver is having
problems.

But I'm a bit amused that anyone is so adamant they saw the videos,.....when
the networks all pulled them.
MAYBE these people watch the same channel that Bush gets, that he stated
more than once about seeing the first alleged "crash" on TV that morning, at
the school before he went into the classroom,
....when none of the stations had covered it.

....Although Bush was reading from his prepared script so maybe somebody
just goofed and didn't have the CGI viideo to hand out to the stations that
morning, and Bush wasn't told there was a delay.

[Rocky]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

news:mu47hf$uc3$1...@dont-email.me...

Michael always removes alt.astronomy from his replies and I always put it
back in.

> But I'm a bit amused that anyone is so adamant they saw the
> videos,.....when the networks all pulled them.

I don't know what they do because I never bother to watch what I know of as
complete BS but I wonder if people in or near Nuke York City are given a
differeent video since most of them know there were no jets especially if
they watched the video from Chopper 4 that never added the cheap CGI of
Flight 175 to their live video.

> MAYBE these people watch the same channel that Bush gets, that he stated
> more than once about seeing the first alleged "crash" on TV that morning,
> at the school before he went into the classroom,
> ....when none of the stations had covered it.

According to the book by Susan Lindauer there were quite a few people that
saw what I call "9/11 the Great Hijacker Hoax" from the very start. But
they were in a different country.
https://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/

> ....Although Bush was reading from his prepared script so maybe somebody
> just goofed and didn't have the CGI viideo to hand out to the stations
> that morning, and Bush wasn't told there was a delay.

No, he might have seen it if he was getting the same video feed that some
people were. Besides, since the real 9/11 Hijacker Hoax took years of
planning there would certainly be people trying to document it from the very
start.

Rocky

[K Wills (Shill #3)]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:54:23 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>> I'm not getting a lot of posts apparently, I guess my newsserver is having
>> problems.
>
>Michael always removes alt.astronomy from his replies and I always put it
>back in.
>

Because you have a very unhealthy OBSESSION with the group. You
should speak to a mental health care professional, and soon.


"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."

Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvI...@giganews.com>

[Rocky]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b4a0bpgpof7tok21...@4ax.com...

> But BDK has proved, more than once, that he has figured it out.
> What does this lie of yours gain you?


BKD has never been able to provide a valid argument for any of his bullshit
and you would know that if you just looked.

If you think otherwise post a link to a post where BKD uses a valid argument
or link with the message ID posted like the following message ID:
news:5b4a0bpgpof7tok21...@4ax.com...

And with the remark above there is one thing you are consistent with and
that is filling this NG with complete bullshit. But you have to fill this
NG with lies to support 9/11 the great lie. And back to the OP

********* OP *********

9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio

Published on Feb 17, 2013
Video says all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo

Wow, the video sure does say it all.

Rocky

[Michael Moroney]

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

>news:mu3mkm$7ki$1...@pcls7.std.com...

>>
>> The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep
>> going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous
>> strength to deflect the plane or parts of it.

>"enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye
>bye?

Yes, k00ktard, enormous momentum. Momentum depends only on mass and
velocity, not whether the object is a hollow aluminum shell. The jets
with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were about 240,000 pounds each and were
traveling at 460 & 540 mph. Momentum = m*v.
(stoopid k00ktards don't understand any science)

> And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out
>about that wing that left the scene of the crime?

Yeah, some other kooktard most likely edited the video.

>>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the
>>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane.
>>
>> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking
>> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it.

>But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where
>there wasn't even the sound of a jet.

Because of the speed of sound, many a ways away would not hear the plane
until after impact.

>And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of
>jets flying into the towers

Bast is wrong about that.

>The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
>tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is to
>create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South Tower
>tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01.

They recovered 95% of both those jets.

>> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one
>> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact?

>Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only
>so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major
>network. <G>

No, we already know the kooktards tamper with the videos. Either they
just tampered with that one, too, or it's Youtube's video compression or
MPEG compression. Either way, it's not real.

>Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is
>both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's first,
>second or third story. <G>

I was wrong, the plane cut a 90' hole in the wall. So the wings did go
inside (without folding up like a sparrow).
That's what I get for believing the kooktards who said there was just an
18' hole.

[Michael Moroney]

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:

>"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>news:mu47hf$uc3$1...@dont-email.me...

>> I'm not getting a lot of posts apparently, I guess my newsserver is having
>> problems.

>Michael always removes alt.astronomy from his replies and I always put it
>back in.

I'm just sparing an unrelated group the effects of your mental illness.

[Bast]

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:35:00 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
>>>> Many videos didn't show up until much later (in particular the Naudet
>>>> video of Flight 11, but also several videos of UA 175), but that
>>>> doesn't take away from the fact they played the UA 175 clips they did
>>>> have over and over.
>>>
>>> And I'll bet you forgot to count how many of those videos of UCGI 175
>>> had disappearing wings.
>>>
>>> There is one thing for sure. The 9/11 Hoaxsters didn't have to worry
>>> about how shitty their graphics were because people would eat up the
>>> "Official 9/11 story story story" despite all it's inconsistencies.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not getting a lot of posts apparently, I guess my newsserver is
>> having problems.
>

> Or, as is far more plausible, your news reader can't follow a
> thread.
> You're using Outlook Express. That explains a great deal.






Well, It seems it's not broken enough, as I can still see YOUR post.

But since I have your attention, have you heard ?,.....9/11 was an inside
job !

[Bast]

<SIGH>
Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building collapsed, and
there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.

9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ


" Even with this video evidence, some everyday people will still believe the
government story. 9/11 changed the world but for the wrong reasons. DO YOU
WANT THE TRUTH? ... or are you quite happy watching fake TV and eating fake
food.... DO YOU KNOW what your government is capable of ? You only need to
look at their past to see what they're doing today and where they're heading
for the future. EVERYTHING IS NOT OK. "

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:mu5blg$8rk$1...@pcls7.std.com...

> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mu3mkm$7ki$1...@pcls7.std.com...
>>>
>>> The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep
>>> going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous
>>> strength to deflect the plane or parts of it.
>
>>"enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye
>>bye?
>
> Yes, k00ktard, enormous momentum. Momentum depends only on mass and
> velocity, not whether the object is a hollow aluminum shell. The jets
> with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were about 240,000 pounds each and were
> traveling at 460 & 540 mph. Momentum = m*v.
> (stoopid k00ktards don't understand any science)

I understand that only CGIs can do what was done without any slowdown or
breakage whatsoever.

>> And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out
>>about that wing that left the scene of the crime?
>
> Yeah, some other kooktard most likely edited the video.

Yes, I consider the 9/11 Hoaxsters kooktards too. Especially if they
expected us to fall for their very shitty CGIs.

>>>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the
>>>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane.
>>>
>>> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking
>>> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it.
>
>>But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where
>>there wasn't even the sound of a jet.
>
> Because of the speed of sound, many a ways away would not hear the plane
> until after impact.

What impact? CGIs don't make a whole lot of noise.

>>And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of
>>jets flying into the towers
>
> Bast is wrong about that.

Says someone who is wrong about the Pentagon, wrong about the jet in Nuke
York City and wrong about the reason why so very little remained of the Twin
Towers and why what remained of the Twin Towers remained standing.

>>The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
>>tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is
>>to
>>create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South
>>Tower
>>tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01.
>
> They recovered 95% of both those jets.

No, they recovered 100% of them and they were even crashed. DUH.

>>> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one
>>> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact?
>
>>Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only
>>so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major
>>network. <G>
>
> No, we already know the kooktards tamper with the videos. Either they
> just tampered with that one, too, or it's Youtube's video compression or
> MPEG compression. Either way, it's not real.

riiight. Too bad not everybody thinks that.

>>Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is
>>both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's
>>first,
>>second or third story. <G>
>
> I was wrong, the plane cut a 90' hole in the wall. So the wings did go
> inside (without folding up like a sparrow)

Guess again.

.
> That's what I get for believing the kooktards who said there was just an
> 18' hole.

I hope you are smart enough to figure out the size difference was the 9/11
Hoaxsters use the width of the hole in the Pentagon after most of the wall
collapsed.

Rocky

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
><SIGH>
>Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
>Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.

Yes I have.

>He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building collapsed, and
>there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.

Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy
Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon.

The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:

" there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has
crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small
enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail
sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around
which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:mu5bq3$8rk$2...@pcls7.std.com...

Your the one that missed a lot of inconsistencies with the Pentagon,
Pranksville, PA and Nuke York City and not me.

I certainly saw the inconsistencies with Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
but it took me 9 more years to figure out what happened in Nuke York City or
should I say what didn't happen in Nuke York City?

Rocky

[Bast]

Lets see

" there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
Pentagon. "

Ya,.... I can work with that
....NO PLANE

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with
most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook.


--
Jim Pennino

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:55:23 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

That's right. Had you actually watched the video you would have
heard Judy Woodruff's question about a possible plane crashing SHORT
of the Pentagon.

One did not. It crashed INTO the Pentagon as the Reporter states.

>Ya,.... I can work with that
>....NO PLANE
>

You'd be better working with the truth as the reporter stated ....

" ...the entire plane crashed into the side of

the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "

If Roger Rocky is smart he'll dump your butt because every discussion
you get involved with you lose for the Troofers.

This is the THIRD claim you've made which has been proven to be FALSE.

[Sarah Ehrett]

Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously.

[K Wills (Shill #3)]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:32:26 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mu5blg$8rk$1...@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mu3mkm$7ki$1...@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>
>>>> The enormous momentum predicts the mass of the plane would try to keep
>>>> going, into the towers, as Newton predicts. It would take enormous
>>>> strength to deflect the plane or parts of it.
>>
>>>"enormous momentum" of a hollow aluminum shell with wings that even go bye
>>>bye?
>>
>> Yes, k00ktard, enormous momentum. Momentum depends only on mass and
>> velocity, not whether the object is a hollow aluminum shell. The jets
>> with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were about 240,000 pounds each and were
>> traveling at 460 & 540 mph. Momentum = m*v.
>> (stoopid k00ktards don't understand any science)
>
>I understand that only CGIs can do what was done without any slowdown or
>breakage whatsoever.
>

Michael has pointed out there was a slowdown, dullard. And parts
of the plane clearly experienced breakage. This is obvious in several
videos of the event. More so in the second plane hit as more people
had their cameras filming the towers.

>
>>> And talking about disappearing wings what did you ever figure out
>>>about that wing that left the scene of the crime?
>>
>> Yeah, some other kooktard most likely edited the video.
>
>Yes, I consider the 9/11 Hoaxsters kooktards too. Especially if they
>expected us to fall for their very shitty CGIs.
>

You helped to prove there were no CGIs. One, of many, example:

You'll recall your rant about a lack of a shadow. You linked to a
video wherein the shadow of the plane is easily seen. You've since
abandoned the claim and video, indicating that you know you're wrong
about everything, but lack the mental stability to admit it.

>>>>>And also both ABC and FOX were both talking to eye witnesses when the
>>>>>explosion went off in the South Tower that did not see or hear a plane.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone saw the planes. If you were in the wrong spot or looking
>>>> away at the wrong moment, you'd miss it.
>>
>>>But I stated see or hear a plane because there were audio recordings where
>>>there wasn't even the sound of a jet.
>>
>> Because of the speed of sound, many a ways away would not hear the plane
>> until after impact.
>
>What impact? CGIs don't make a whole lot of noise.
>

Which is another way you've helped to prove no CGIs were used.
Each plane made a lot of noise.

>>>And if Bast is right about the follow up shows not playing the scenes of
>>>jets flying into the towers
>>
>> Bast is wrong about that.
>
>Says someone who is wrong about the Pentagon, wrong about the jet in Nuke
>York City and wrong about the reason why so very little remained of the Twin
>Towers and why what remained of the Twin Towers remained standing.
>

Where was he wrong? Be specific.

>>>The evidence we were allowed to see from Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
>>>tells us those jet stories were bogus and a closer look at how easy it is
>>>to
>>>create crashes exactly like the cheap ones used on the North and South
>>>Tower tells us we were lied to about 4 jets on 9/11/01.
>>
>> They recovered 95% of both those jets.
>
>No, they recovered 100% of them and they were even crashed. DUH.
>

Where is your cite for the recovery of 100% of the jets?

>>>> Did other kooktards tamper with the videos just like they did to the one
>>>> with the crane, or is it just an MPEG or NTSC or compression artifact?
>>
>>>Or maybe it really was a 3D CGI programmed to reflect the sky and the only
>>>so called eye-witnesses were related to someone that worked for a major
>>>network. <G>
>>
>> No, we already know the kooktards tamper with the videos. Either they
>> just tampered with that one, too, or it's Youtube's video compression or
>> MPEG compression. Either way, it's not real.
>
>riiight. Too bad not everybody thinks that.
>

It's real easy to see the one video had been altered. And altered
poorly.
MPEG compression artifacts are well known. The same with
Youtube's compression.

>
>>>Don't forget your story about what you think happened at the Pentagon is
>>>both inconsistent with the facts and inconsistent with Mike Walter's
>>>first,
>>>second or third story. <G>
>>
>> I was wrong, the plane cut a 90' hole in the wall. So the wings did go
>> inside (without folding up like a sparrow)
>
>Guess again.
>.

Was it 91 Feet?

>> That's what I get for believing the kooktards who said there was just an
>> 18' hole.
>
>I hope you are smart enough to figure out the size difference was the 9/11
>Hoaxsters use the width of the hole in the Pentagon after most of the wall
>collapsed.

So you and your lot are using bogus numbers invented after the
wall collapsed. I can accept this admission from you.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Neither Bast nor Rocky is very bright to say the least, and both are
obviously delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

[Rocky]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:97he0b9q1a295b8rh...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:16:15 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:35:00 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> Many videos didn't show up until much later (in particular the Naudet
>>>>>> video of Flight 11, but also several videos of UA 175), but that
>>>>>> doesn't take away from the fact they played the UA 175 clips they did
>>>>>> have over and over.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'll bet you forgot to count how many of those videos of UCGI 175
>>>>> had disappearing wings.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one thing for sure. The 9/11 Hoaxsters didn't have to worry
>>>>> about how shitty their graphics were because people would eat up the
>>>>> "Official 9/11 story story story" despite all it's inconsistencies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> I'm not getting a lot of posts apparently, I guess my newsserver is
>>>> having problems.
>>>
>>> Or, as is far more plausible, your news reader can't follow a
>>> thread.
>>> You're using Outlook Express. That explains a great deal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Well, It seems it's not broken enough, as I can still see YOUR post.
>>
>

> Because I let you. But you won't see this one, unless someone
> quotes it.

>
>>But since I have your attention, have you heard ?,.....9/11 was an inside
>>job !
>

> That's one of MANY lies I've heard in my life.

It an educated observation after considering how many lies we were told
about three spontaneous building implosions and jets with transparent wings
that have the exact same characteristics as CGIs.

Rocky

[naazim palan]

Non radiation nukes.
Nukes with no seismic signature
Nukes planted underground & nobody noticed the work
Nukes that need no maintenance
Nukes that affect structures hundreds of feet away, but not close to
People that do not exist
A cast of thousands (crisis actors)
CGI planes that leave wreckage
Phone calls that did not exist
Holes in buildings changing size
Full buildings that had no people in them
Magic thermate
Impossible flying
The worlds media controlled by the government
Giant 3D holograms
Strontium Barium Niobate
Planes that took of that didn't take off
Building that were hit by debris but weren't hit by debris
Buildings that were scheduled for demolition, but were not.

Do please add to the above list of his delusions, I am sure I have left many out, oh I have just remembered another.

Rocky thinks he can control a truck.

[Rocky]

"Arc Michael" <abook...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aabd9f14-1da4-48d8...@googlegroups.com...

> Bast is rocky, ow lame.

Considering you also think there were 19 hijackers your mind is totally
blown.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"naazim palan" <naazi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54fe6c73-fac0-4e3a...@googlegroups.com...

There is just one major problem with the above. There is no way to explain
the near total lack of debris from the Twin Towers, the violent shaking of
WTC1 twelve seconds before it was vaporized, the EMP that WCBS recorded 12
seconds before WTC1 was vaporized, why GZ was called Ground Zero, all the
deaths by cancer by anything other than a nuke or three and all three of the
hot spots that the deniers love to deny.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And no need to mention holograms when all we were really given was the
cheapest CGIs money could buy that didn't have any crash dynamics whatsoever
and couldn't even keep their wings on the entire time.

Oh, and don't forget that the three different stories told by Mike Walter a
Pentagon Witness proves he was a lying sack of shit and consistent with
other 9/11 lie witnesses.

While I can't say 9/11 was an inside job it certainly appears that way with
all the bullshit we were fed about it.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:qchf0b13fl5neah5s...@4ax.com...

> Since there were no CGIs, as you have helped to prove, none of
> what you claim above is possible.

Boy are you fcuked up because if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck,
and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. DUH

Interesting, that now there are two posters who try to hide their post from
Bast.

Rocky

[Bast]

Ohhhh,.....I never thought of that.
How convienient for you that the reporter didn't just say "NO EVEIDENCE HERE
OF ANY PLANES "

Oh wait, He did.
BZZZZZZZZZZT,. Sorry, you don't win the jackpot, but we have a lovely
consolation prize, and thanks for playing.

[Bast]

This is the video you should be referring to

9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ

You now claim the anchor in the studio knows better what happened than the
reporter on scene ???

Why ?,.....becuase she's reading from the ofiicial fairytale script, and he
only can go by what he actually sees ?



You have been proven wrong well over 40 times already. (I have actually lost
count)
9/11 was an inside job, and nothing you have said here will ever convince
people otherwise

[Bast]

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>

> [...]

>
>>>> (but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter
>>>> overnight when no one was watching)
>>>
>>> Wow. I can't even imagine what could have happened to you that would
>>> mess your head us as badly as it is.
>>
>>
>> <SIGH>
>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building
>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
>>
>

> That's not the claim he makes. He does claim the plane didn't hit
> the ground first. He also states he couldn't see any large pieces of
> the plane which, as he worded it, "...would indicate that the entire
> plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon, then caused the side to
> collapse."
>

>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>
>>
>> " Even with this video evidence, some everyday people will still
>> believe the government story. 9/11 changed the world but for the wrong
>> reasons. DO YOU WANT THE TRUTH? ... or are you quite happy watching
>> fake TV and eating fake food.... DO YOU KNOW what your government is
>> capable of ? You only need to look at their past to see what they're
>> doing today and where they're heading for the future. EVERYTHING IS
>> NOT OK. "
>>
>

> I suggest you actually watch the videos you link to. You may
> appear a little less stupid.







I have no need to trade insults with you. as I do not need to play your
childish games.
I am happy to have the lurkers watch the video links I provide themselves,
and make their own decisions.

9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ

And of course,....feel free to view the other related videos about 9/11 on
that youtube page
....It's what you DON'T know about 9/11 that will hurt you.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 07:54:24 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>

That's the one.

>
>You now claim the anchor in the studio knows better what happened than the
>reporter on scene ???

Had you actually watched the video you would have
heard Judy Woodruff's question about a possible plane crashing SHORT
of the Pentagon.

One did not. It crashed INTO the Pentagon as the Reporter states.

>Why ?,.....becuase she's reading from the ofiicial fairytale script, and he
>only can go by what he actually sees ?

The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:

" there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has
crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are
small enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large
tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere
around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the
side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

You lose every time you post. You don't even read and/or listen to
the cites you link.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 07:43:32 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>How convienient for you that the reporter ....

The reporter said, " the entire plane crashed into the side of the
Pentagon ..."



" ..there are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage,

[BDK]

In article <mu6d69$t6g$1...@dont-email.me>, fake...@nomail.invalid says...

You are seriously mentally ill. Your comprehension of what the
reporter's intended, and clear to sane people's meaning, is severly
lacking. And then there's your linking past events to 911, and that
proves you're majorly demented.

--
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[BDK]

In article <mu77lk$5tt$1...@dont-email.me>, fake...@nomail.invalid says...

I can work with that too..

Bast = No mind.

[BDK]

In article <oipf0b9dgvnf4anul...@4ax.com>,
nine...@cox.net says...

Bast is a trur believer in Trooerism. No matter how insane, how
ridiculous, how goofy the claim made is, she believes. She will ignore
all signs that show what she's going to post is incorrect, she keeps on
believin' in the Troof.

[BDK]

In article <m8he0bdam8vau3ucv...@4ax.com>,
comp...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>

> [...]

>
> >>> (but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter
> >>> overnight when no one was watching)
> >>
> >> Wow. I can't even imagine what could have happened to you that would
> >> mess your head us as badly as it is.
> >
> >
> ><SIGH>
> >Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
> >Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
> >He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building collapsed, and
> >there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
> >
>

> That's not the claim he makes. He does claim the plane didn't hit
> the ground first. He also states he couldn't see any large pieces of

> the plane which, as he worded it, "...would indicate that the entire
> plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon, then caused the side to
> collapse."
>

> >9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
> >
> >
> >" Even with this video evidence, some everyday people will still believe the
> >government story. 9/11 changed the world but for the wrong reasons. DO YOU
> >WANT THE TRUTH? ... or are you quite happy watching fake TV and eating fake
> >food.... DO YOU KNOW what your government is capable of ? You only need to
> >look at their past to see what they're doing today and where they're heading
> >for the future. EVERYTHING IS NOT OK. "
> >
>

> I suggest you actually watch the videos you link to. You may
> appear a little less stupid.

Is that even possible?

[Bast]

WRONG AGAIN.
Keep watchig it over and over and over until you can keep your attention
span on it for the whole minute

9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ

Are you also one of those "flat earthers" who still refuse to admit they are
wrong because of some technicalities they found ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMIid6NVik0

[Bast]

<ROTFLMAO>
Even when you wrongly edit it, and it's right in front of you, you still
deny it.
I do have to give you credit for tenacity,....., although you lose twice the
credit for comprehension.


......Perhaps an English as a second language course, would be of benefit to
you.

[jmfbahciv]

There was a plane inside the Pentagon. People were also trying to find
out where the fourth plane was.

Do you really believe there were no hijackers on any of those planes?

/BAH

[Tony Dragon]

Be prepared that he will ignore the above & answer mentioning something
not on the list.
It's his way of attempting to divert attention away from his lack of
credible evidence.

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

[Rocky]

"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM000520B...@aca40c59.ipt.aol.com...

There were certainly Hijackers on Flights 93 and 175 because someone was
needed to force them to land in Cleveland.

They didn't need hijackers for Flights 11 and 77 because those two flights
were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11/01.

It was very easy to tell the stories of Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
were total bullshit but it took a little more observation to see that we
were lied to about all 4 of the alleged hijacked jets.

And don't forget the 9/11 hoaxsters have everything they needed to add fake
planes to thousands of videos and that because the crashes that are
identical to a crash of a CGI it passes the duck test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:mu8v3u$li3$1...@dont-email.me...

Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

And CGIs at Ground Zero also pass the Duck Test:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

news:mu8la8$8ks$1...@dont-email.me...

That is because you inconsistanites don't even know what truth is.

>> This is the THIRD claim you've made which has been proven to be FALSE.

And yet it is you that lies so much I don't even bother to look at your post
unless if Bast replies to them.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is the video you should be referring to
> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ

I must have seen that because I remember thinking the exact same thing. Too
bad he was right.

>
>
> You now claim the anchor in the studio knows better what happened than the
> reporter on scene ???
>
> Why ?,.....becuase she's reading from the ofiicial fairytale script, and
> he only can go by what he actually sees ?
>
>
>
> You have been proven wrong well over 40 times already. (I have actually
> lost count)
> 9/11 was an inside job, and nothing you have said here will ever convince
> people otherwise

Not only that 9/11 was a nuclear event that even passes the duck test.

Rocky

[Bast]

Speaking of the past,..... you missed my new post.


9/11 Myths Exposed By Firefighters, Architects & Engineers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kdlbdYILM

[Tony Dragon]

Oh look, he has done exactly what I said.

[Tony Dragon]

Your proof of this please, don't post a you tube, use your own words.

> It was very easy to tell the stories of Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
> were total bullshit but it took a little more observation to see that we
> were lied to about all 4 of the alleged hijacked jets.
>
> And don't forget the 9/11 hoaxsters have everything they needed to add fake
> planes to thousands of videos and that because the crashes that are
> identical to a crash of a CGI it passes the duck test.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
> Rocky
>
>

[Rocky]

bump

9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio

Published on Feb 17, 2013
Video says all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo

Wow, the video sure does say it all.

Rocky

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:02:17 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>

The quote's I've given you come directly from your youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:02:31 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 07:43:32 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
>wrote:
>

> Now you're flat out lying.

Bast keeps giving us the same video which proves she's lying.

>>BZZZZZZZZZZT,. Sorry, you don't win the jackpot, but we have a lovely
>>consolation prize, and thanks for playing.
>>
>

> You have been reduced to lying about what was said. Looks like
>you are the loser.

A big time loser.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:57:19 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
wrote:

You'd think that she'd stop posting the video which proves she's a
kook, a liar, and a dope.

Troofers are all self destructive.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:12:12 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>

"....which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side

of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "


><ROTFLMAO>
>Even when you wrongly edit it, and it's right in front of you, you still
>deny it.

I didn't edit anything. The text I posted was verbatim from the video
cite YOU keep giving us.

>I do have to give you credit for tenacity,....., although you lose twice the
>credit for comprehension.
>
>
>......Perhaps an English as a second language course, would be of benefit to
>you.
>

I've left the above in so every one can view your lunacy.

Yer welcome. :)

[Sarah Ehrett]

Can you explain to the audience here why Bast keeps posting a video
link which contradicts your Troofer's agenda?

Is she really that stupid?

Are you?

>> This is the video you should be referring to
>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>

You'll find it absolutely says the plane went into the Pentagon.

:)

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

If they view that link they'll know you're a kook, a liar, and
probably seriously insane.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:26:27 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:52:07 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>

>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>

>>>In sci.physics Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <SIGH>
>>>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
>>>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
>>>>>

>>>>> Yes I have.

>>>>>
>>>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building
>>>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
>>>>>

>>>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy
>>>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:
>>>>>
>>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has
>>>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small
>>>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail
>>>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around

>>>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
>>>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Lets see
>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>> Pentagon. "
>>>

>>>Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with
>>>most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook.
>>>
>>>

>>Bast is not very bright is she? Seriously.
>

> She's looking for anything to hold onto her delusions.

Maybe she should try looking in a mirror.....


Ok, too easy :)

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> "naazim palan" <naazi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:54fe6c73-fac0-4e3a...@googlegroups.com...

>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+1,
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> There is just one major problem with the above. There is no way to explain
> the near total lack of debris from the Twin Towers, the violent shaking of
> WTC1 twelve seconds before it was vaporized, the EMP that WCBS recorded 12
> seconds before WTC1 was vaporized, why GZ was called Ground Zero, all the
> deaths by cancer by anything other than a nuke or three and all three of the
> hot spots that the deniers love to deny.

There is actually a very simple explaination; all the things you claim
are delusions or lies, kook.

> And no need to mention holograms when all we were really given was the
> cheapest CGIs money could buy that didn't have any crash dynamics whatsoever
> and couldn't even keep their wings on the entire time.

Just yet more delusions or lies, kook.

> Oh, and don't forget that the three different stories told by Mike Walter a
> Pentagon Witness proves he was a lying sack of shit and consistent with
> other 9/11 lie witnesses.

In the non-delusional world such is called an unreliable witness and
their story is dismissed, kook.

> While I can't say 9/11 was an inside job it certainly appears that way with
> all the bullshit we were fed about it.

The only bullshit is your delusional fantasies, kook.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Ohhhh,.....I never thought of that.
> How convienient for you that the reporter didn't just say "NO EVEIDENCE HERE
> OF ANY PLANES "
>
> Oh wait, He did.

No, raving kook, as has been pointed out to you many times now he
did not "just" say that and you continue to ignore the total quote,
raving kook.

> BZZZZZZZZZZT,. Sorry, you don't win the jackpot, but we have a lovely
> consolation prize, and thanks for playing.

You have had the utter stupidity of your statements rubbed into your
kook face many times now and continuing the lie just shows how fragile
your grasp of reality is, kook.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>

> Not only that 9/11 was a nuclear event that even passes the duck test.

Rocky's latest delusion just shows once again just how delusional
Rocky is.

Rocky only knows what a duck looks, sounds, and walks like if he has
a doctored youtube video to guide him.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net> wrote:

Any doubt of that was eliminated a long time ago.


--
Jim Pennino

[K Wills (Shill #3)]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:36:43 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> Rocky thinks he can control a truck.
>>>
>>
>> Be prepared that he will ignore the above & answer mentioning something
>> not on the list.
>> It's his way of attempting to divert attention away from his lack of
>> credible evidence.
>
>Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>

No they don't.

>And CGIs at Ground Zero also pass the Duck Test:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

No they don't.
I like how you did exactly as Tony said you would. It must really
suck to have to do as he says you will.


"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."

Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvI...@giganews.com>

[Bast]

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:02:17 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>

>>> The reporter said, " the entire plane crashed into the side of the
>>> Pentagon ..."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> " ..there are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage,
>>> nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the
>>> entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the
>>> side to collapse.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG AGAIN.
>

> Sarah is 100% correct.

>
>> Keep watchig it over and over and over until you can keep your
>> attention span on it for the whole minute
>>
>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>
>

> Try watching the video one time.

>
>>
>> Are you also one of those "flat earthers" who still refuse to admit
>> they are wrong because of some technicalities they found ?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMIid6NVik0
>

> Do you happen to know the exact time you lost all contact with
> reality? This is a serious question.

[Rocky]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:atlg0bd863ek5cocm...@4ax.com...

> >>
>>9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>

> Do you happen to know the exact time you lost all contact with
> reality? This is a serious question.

Ok, since we are talking about the Pentagon dig up the one photo with
something that appears to come from a 757.

Now why is there only one piece and why does that one piece have vegetation
on it that is consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil? <G>

=============================

The fact is the 9/11 Hoaxsters had planted so much evidence that they had to
throw a lot of their planted evidence away as proven by the following:

9/11 Hijacker Body Found In Cockpit FOX Sept 13 2001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1wJiffgBFo

And the main reason they had to throw that evidence away was there were no
exit holes in the South Tower where that could have come from. Meaning the
people that placed the thermate cutter charges on the South side of the
South Tower to make it look like a plane flew into the South Tower failed to
plant thermate cutter charges on the North side of the South Tower to make
it look like something flew out too. <G>

Not only was 9/11 a badly scripted made for prime time TV movie but they
probably had more technical screw-ups than an average movie too.

Rocky

[Michael Moroney]

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:

>Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Duck test? Let's see.

It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + a
tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)

It doesn't swim like a duck. (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)

It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive nuclear
explosion signature)

It doesn't look like a duck. (No EMP)

It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck. (No 290' dome, no 1280' crater)

It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of the
WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)

Shall I go on?

It's either an elephant or a giant sequoia. :-)
Definitely not a duck.

Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:mu9vol$a0g$1...@pcls7.std.com...

> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:
>
>>Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
> Duck test? Let's see.
>
> It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + a
> tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)

STOP. Where is your evidence and don't forget that the usual background
radiation at Ground Zero shortly after 9/11 was 3 nukes worth. DUH.

Plus there was more than just tritium and you would know that if you
watched:

04 - Phenomena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU

> It doesn't swim like a duck. (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)

You forgot that the first 12 seconds after the detonation took place entirly
underground and then it there was nothing pointed to the site of the
underground detonataton instead all the cameras were pointed elsewhere.

> It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive nuclear
> explosion signature)

You can not say that because the video with the North Tower shaking
violently 12 seconds before it was vaporized could indicate a 5.5 took
place.

> It doesn't look like a duck. (No EMP)

And since when do underground nukes make horrendous EMPs? Don't forget it
took a AM receiver to record the EMP from the nuke planted under WTC3.

> It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck. (No 290' dome, no 1280' crater)

Once again you failed to notice the difference between a nuke detonated in
solid rock and a nuke detonated in dirt.

Now considering the nuke under WTC3 was in bedrock use the following to
calculate how big the cavity should have been:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing

> It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
> Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of the
> WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)

ROTFLMAO because the media has so much planted evidence they had to throw
some of it out. See:

9/11 Hijacker Body Found In Cockpit FOX Sept 13 2001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1wJiffgBFo

And if the media would plant evidence why not taint other evidence too?

>
> Shall I go on?

No, you have to restart because -all- and I mean all your bullshit above got
flushed.

And the real question should be why isn't there more documentation about
nukes detonated in rock than the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing

Rocky

[BDK]

In article <mslg0bttsle0jda65...@4ax.com>,
comp...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:58:20 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <m8he0bdam8vau3ucv...@4ax.com>,
> >comp...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>

> >> >>> (but could have easily been flown in and dropped from a helicopter
> >> >>> overnight when no one was watching)
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow. I can't even imagine what could have happened to you that would
> >> >> mess your head us as badly as it is.
> >> >
> >> >

> >> ><SIGH>
> >> >Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
> >> >Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.

> >> >He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building collapsed, and
> >> >there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
> >>

> >> That's not the claim he makes. He does claim the plane didn't hit
> >> the ground first. He also states he couldn't see any large pieces of

> >> the plane which, as he worded it, "...would indicate that the entire
> >> plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon, then caused the side to
> >> collapse."
> >>

> >> >9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
> >> >
> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
> >> >
> >> >

> >> >" Even with this video evidence, some everyday people will still believe the
> >> >government story. 9/11 changed the world but for the wrong reasons. DO YOU
> >> >WANT THE TRUTH? ... or are you quite happy watching fake TV and eating fake
> >> >food.... DO YOU KNOW what your government is capable of ? You only need to
> >> >look at their past to see what they're doing today and where they're heading
> >> >for the future. EVERYTHING IS NOT OK. "
> >>
> >> I suggest you actually watch the videos you link to. You may
> >> appear a little less stupid.
> >

> >Is that even possible?
>
> I'm ever the optimist.

I'm sorry, I don't share your optimism.

--
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:03:20 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:atlg0bd863ek5cocm...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>>>9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>
>> Do you happen to know the exact time you lost all contact with
>> reality? This is a serious question.
>
>Ok, since we are talking about the Pentagon dig up the one photo with
>something that appears to come from a 757.

This piece of debris came from American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11/01.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Pentagon+Flight+77+Debris&view=detailv2&id=B0EA7B2FE317B38AD56328566435295111DB1DB7&selectedindex=22&ccid=I%2Bfy2KMl&simid=608001395129322246&thid=OIP.M23e7f2d8a325b9e92431ed4a82fd5063H0&mode=overlay&first=1

[Michael Moroney]

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mu9vol$a0g$1...@pcls7.std.com...

>> Duck test? Let's see.
>>
>> It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + a
>> tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)

>STOP. Where is your evidence and don't forget that the usual background
>radiation at Ground Zero shortly after 9/11 was 3 nukes worth. DUH.

Nope. Background radiation is defined as the natural radiation seen
everywhere from natural uranium minerals, natural potassium-40, cosmic
rays, radon and so forth. The radioactivity left by a nuclear device (or
three) is NOT considered background radiation. Besides, that radiation
would make the site too "hot" to enter for 70 days. Instead the President
himself visited on the third day! (BTW, what happened to your claim that
nobody was allowed to enter the site for three days and then only iron
workers in enclosed machines? You haven't repeated that lie since it
was proven to be a lie!)

Anyway, the fire department and emergency responders had radiation
detectors on site since before the buildings fell, and they were present
until they removed all 1.5 million tons months later. They also had
radiation detectors at the Fresh Kills site.

>Plus there was more than just tritium and you would know that if you
>watched:

Not another kookvid.

Regardless, tritium is the "smoke" of the smoking gun pointing to a
nuclear explosion. Such explosions spew all kinds of tritium. One way
the US kept track of Soviet nuclear tests was to monitor tritium in the
atmosphere, subtract what the US was responsible for and what was left
was what the Soviets (or anyone else) did. I repeat there was a trivial
amount of tritium detected at the site, and we know where it came from.

So, it doesn't quack like a duck. No radiation above natural background.

>> It doesn't swim like a duck. (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)

>You forgot that the first 12 seconds after the detonation took place entirly
>underground and then it there was nothing pointed to the site of the
>underground detonataton instead all the cameras were pointed elsewhere.

12 seconds? So we're back to the nuke being buried 32-96 *miles*
underground? With technology we don't even have today?

I think it's safe to say that's impossible. It doesn't swim like a duck.
No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud.

>> It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive nuclear
>> explosion signature)

>You can not say that because the video with the North Tower shaking
>violently 12 seconds before it was vaporized could indicate a 5.5 took
>place.

Nope. Earthquake magnitudes measure total energy, not local shaking. Else
every heavy freight train would be an earthquake. No 5.5 magnitude earth
quake on 9/11, and none with the nuclear explosion signature. It doesn't
fly like a duck.

>> It doesn't look like a duck. (No EMP)

>And since when do underground nukes make horrendous EMPs?

Since the first underground nuke was set off, kooktard. As I
mentioned, an underground nuke's EMP range is only 10 km, or most of NYC.

> Don't forget it
>took a AM receiver to record the EMP from the nuke planted under WTC3.

Not an AM receiver, and the EMP from a nuke would have permanently
disabled that VHF receiver, along with every other electronic device in a
10km radius. Helicopters crashing and so forth. So, it doesn't look like
a duck. No EMP.

>> It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck. (No 290' dome, no 1280' crater)

>Once again you failed to notice the difference between a nuke detonated in
>solid rock and a nuke detonated in dirt.

>Now considering the nuke under WTC3 was in bedrock use the following to
>calculate how big the cavity should have been:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing

Yup. From that page: "Hard basement rock may reflect shock waves of the
explosion, also possibly causing structural weakening and venting. The
noncondensible gases may stay absorbed in the pores in the soil. Large
amount of such gases can however maintain enough pressure to drive the
fission products to the ground."

Looks like solid rock could be worse for containment than dirt!

Also, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence_crater:
"When the material above the explosion is solid rock, then a mound may be
formed by broken rock that has a greater volume. This type of mound has
been called "retarc", "crater" spelled backwards.[1]"

So, it doesn't have webbed feet like a duck. (No 290' dome, no 1280'
crater, and no "retarc", either)

>> It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
>> Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of the
>> WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)

>ROTFLMAO because the media has so much planted evidence they had to throw
>some of it out. See:

I'm not watching kookvids. And you're changing the subject, this alleged
hijacker's body has nothing to do with nothing being vaporized by a nuke.
So I must conclude you have no answer. So it's still true that it doesn't
dive like a duck. Nothing vaporized.

>And if the media would plant evidence why not taint other evidence too?

Since you kooktards tainted that one video, why not taint other videos
too? Therefore, by your own logic, I should conclude all your kookvids
are all lies with faked evidence.

>> Shall I go on?

Well, I proved for a second time there is no resemblence to a duck here.
Is it an earthworm? Or a giraffe? Maybe a kooktard?

Rocky has proven that by applying the "duck test", that there definitely
were no nukes at the World Trade Center.

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:mua6mn$ids$1...@pcls7.std.com...

> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mu9vol$a0g$1...@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> Duck test? Let's see.
>>>
>>> It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background +
>>> a
>>> tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)
>
>>STOP. Where is your evidence and don't forget that the usual background
>>radiation at Ground Zero shortly after 9/11 was 3 nukes worth. DUH.
>
> Nope. Background radiation is defined as the natural radiation seen
> everywhere from natural uranium minerals, natural potassium-40, cosmic
> rays, radon and so forth. The radioactivity left by a nuclear device (or
> three) is NOT considered background radiation. Besides, that radiation
> would make the site too "hot" to enter for 70 days. Instead the President
> himself visited on the third day! (BTW, what happened to your claim that
> nobody was allowed to enter the site for three days and then only iron
> workers in enclosed machines? You haven't repeated that lie since it
> was proven to be a lie!)
>
> Anyway, the fire department and emergency responders had radiation
> detectors on site since before the buildings fell, and they were present
> until they removed all 1.5 million tons months later. They also had
> radiation detectors at the Fresh Kills site.

And??? Keep going because you forgot to mention the readings.

>>Plus there was more than just tritium and you would know that if you
>>watched:
>
> Not another kookvid.

You can't handle the facts and you can't find anything wrong with the video
either. I can handle that. And for those that want to see the video I've
put the link back in below.

04 - Phenomena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU

> Regardless, tritium is the "smoke" of the smoking gun pointing to a
> nuclear explosion. Such explosions spew all kinds of tritium. One way
> the US kept track of Soviet nuclear tests was to monitor tritium in the
> atmosphere, subtract what the US was responsible for and what was left
> was what the Soviets (or anyone else) did. I repeat there was a trivial
> amount of tritium detected at the site, and we know where it came from.
>
> So, it doesn't quack like a duck. No radiation above natural background.

And yet you have no proof of that because the only test I was aware of
shipped the samples elsewhere and those samples might have even come from an
area of GZ furthest from where 3 nukes were detonated.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

>>> It doesn't swim like a duck. (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)
>
>>You forgot that the first 12 seconds after the detonation took place
>>entirly
>>underground and then it there was nothing pointed to the site of the
>>underground detonataton instead all the cameras were pointed elsewhere.
>
> 12 seconds? So we're back to the nuke being buried 32-96 *miles*
> underground? With technology we don't even have today?

No it takes about 11 seconds to build a cavity. It even tells us that in
one of the videos you have missed.

And once again you are pulling numbers right out of your head instead of
using what other people have learned.

> I think it's safe to say that's impossible. It doesn't swim like a duck.
> No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud.

Wow, pulling numbers right out of your head again. Why don't you have a
link?

>>> It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive
>>> nuclear
>>> explosion signature)
>
>>You can not say that because the video with the North Tower shaking
>>violently 12 seconds before it was vaporized could indicate a 5.5 took
>>place.
>
> Nope. Earthquake magnitudes measure total energy, not local shaking. Else
> every heavy freight train would be an earthquake. No 5.5 magnitude earth
> quake on 9/11, and none with the nuclear explosion signature. It doesn't
> fly like a duck.

Don't forget you also think there were jets in Nuke York City so you are
wrong about two things.

>>> It doesn't look like a duck. (No EMP)
>
>>And since when do underground nukes make horrendous EMPs?
>
> Since the first underground nuke was set off, kooktard. As I
> mentioned, an underground nuke's EMP range is only 10 km, or most of NYC.

And your supporting link is what? It certainly isn't the link I gave you.

>> Don't forget it
>>took a AM receiver to record the EMP from the nuke planted under WTC3.
>
> Not an AM receiver, and the EMP from a nuke would have permanently
> disabled that VHF receiver, along with every other electronic device in a
> 10km radius. Helicopters crashing and so forth. So, it doesn't look like
> a duck. No EMP.

We have been over this before. You haven't proven there is an EMP from an
underground nuke and I've proven it took an AM receiver to record the
static.

>>> It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck. (No 290' dome, no 1280'
>>> crater)
>
>>Once again you failed to notice the difference between a nuke detonated in
>>solid rock and a nuke detonated in dirt.
>
>>Now considering the nuke under WTC3 was in bedrock use the following to
>>calculate how big the cavity should have been:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing
>
> Yup. From that page: "Hard basement rock may reflect shock waves of the
> explosion, also possibly causing structural weakening and venting. The
> noncondensible gases may stay absorbed in the pores in the soil. Large
> amount of such gases can however maintain enough pressure to drive the
> fission products to the ground."
>
> Looks like solid rock could be worse for containment than dirt!

since when is rock described as "soil?"

Besides we were talking about your 290' dome and 1280' crater since you
obviously forgot your above lie.

> Also, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence_crater:
> "When the material above the explosion is solid rock, then a mound may be
> formed by broken rock that has a greater volume. This type of mound has
> been called "retarc", "crater" spelled backwards.[1]"
>
> So, it doesn't have webbed feet like a duck. (No 290' dome, no 1280'
> crater, and no "retarc", either)

And. What are you trying to say there. You mean you were wrong about the
underground cavity?

>>> It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
>>> Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of
>>> the
>>> WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)
>
>>ROTFLMAO because the media has so much planted evidence they had to throw
>>some of it out. See:
>
> I'm not watching kookvids. And you're changing the subject, this alleged
> hijacker's body has nothing to do with nothing being vaporized by a nuke.
> So I must conclude you have no answer. So it's still true that it doesn't
> dive like a duck. Nothing vaporized.

It was a news broadcast from FOX and if you had looked at the comments you
would have seen a link to the entire length show.

And FOX bullshits a lot like you where they say a lot of shit with no
supporting photos or links whatsoever.

>>And if the media would plant evidence why not taint other evidence too?
>
> Since you kooktards tainted that one video, why not taint other videos
> too?

Maybe just maybe the video was altered after it was explosed to the world.
Either way you still have not explained why the wing disappeared right
before it morphed into the South Tower with no speed lost. And the fact no
speed was lost makes it consistant with all the other fake videos of jets
flying into the Twin Towers. <G>

> Therefore, by your own logic, I should conclude all your kookvids
> are all lies with faked evidence.

You are the one making assumptions about who or when a video was modified
without realizing that the jets that flew into the Twin Towers are
consistent with CGIs flying into buildings. And most of those falsified
videos even have the synchronization flash still in them. <G>

>>> Shall I go on?
>
> Well, I proved for a second time there is no resemblence to a duck here.
> Is it an earthworm? Or a giraffe? Maybe a kooktard?

No, you denied the fact you lied about a crater or a dome. You once again
failed to prove that underground nukes make horendous EMPs and you basically
continued to bullshit just like the media did about 9/11.

> Rocky has proven that by applying the "duck test", that there definitely
> were no nukes at the World Trade Center.

And yet if you look at the evidence trail that points to the alleged
hijackers all you will see is evidence that basically fell from the sky
after buildings collapsed or were left at a tarmac for all the world to
find.

In other words your evidence trail is very suspicious and why don't you ever
mention where you got your evidence against the alleged hijackers from? <G>

Don't forget, the one video of the hijackers was from the wrong airport and
the other video didn't have any date/time stamp information so it could have
been taken years earlier or even days later since they probably weren't even
on the CGIs that rammed the Twin Towers.

Rocky

[jmfbahciv]

Rocky wrote:
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM000520B...@aca40c59.ipt.aol.com...
>> Bast wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <SIGH>
>>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at the
>>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
>>>>

>>>> Yes I have.

>>>>
>>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building
>>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
>>>>

>>>> Wrong. Watch the video again. The reporter is asked by Judy
>>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:
>>>>
>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>> Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that has
>>>> crashed in. As I said the only pieces left that you can see are small

>>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail

>>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around

>>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
>>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Lets see
>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>> Pentagon. "
>>>
>>>

>>> Ya,.... I can work with that
>>> ....NO PLANE
>>

>> There was a plane inside the Pentagon. People were also trying to find
>> out where the fourth plane was.
>>
>> Do you really believe there were no hijackers on any of those planes?
>
> There were certainly Hijackers on Flights 93 and 175 because someone was
> needed to force them to land in Cleveland.

How were they forced to land? There wasn't a scramble ordered.

>
> They didn't need hijackers for Flights 11 and 77 because those two flights
> were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11/01.
>

> It was very easy to tell the stories of Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
> were total bullshit but it took a little more observation to see that we
> were lied to about all 4 of the alleged hijacked jets.
>
> And don't forget the 9/11 hoaxsters have everything they needed to add fake
> planes to thousands of videos and that because the crashes that are
> identical to a crash of a CGI it passes the duck test.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

So how do you explain the fact that I watched the second plane crash into
the Tower on live TV?

/BAH

[Rocky]

"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message

news:PM000520C...@aca42ed4.ipt.aol.com...

Maybe the pilots were handed a note before they even took off that they
would have to change their flght number in mid air and then land at
Cleveland.

>> They didn't need hijackers for Flights 11 and 77 because those two
>> flights
>> were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11/01.
>>
>> It was very easy to tell the stories of Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
>> were total bullshit but it took a little more observation to see that we
>> were lied to about all 4 of the alleged hijacked jets.
>>
>> And don't forget the 9/11 hoaxsters have everything they needed to add
>> fake
>> planes to thousands of videos and that because the crashes that are
>> identical to a crash of a CGI it passes the duck test.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
>
> So how do you explain the fact that I watched the second plane crash into
> the Tower on live TV?

BULLSHIT you never saw a crash. All you saw was identical to a CGI flying
into a building with no crash dynamics whatsoever. The CGIs never slowed
down and never shed any parts either. And the parts they claimed to have
found were planted just like parts were planted at both the Pentagon and
Pranksville, PA. And talking about Pranksville, PA about all they found
there was crap pointing to the framed patsies.

For more information on how hundreds of videos were tainted see the
following video. But I can tell you all they needed was a 3D layout of Nuke
York City, a flight path for the CGI and a synchronization flash which was
left in a lot of the falsified videos.

07 - The Key
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds

Rocky

[Michael Moroney]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> writes:

>>Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!

> What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>used, yet is compelled to claim they were.

Yup. This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no nukes,
by using the "duck test". He has also proven that all kookvids contain lies,
because if one witness lies about the Pentagon plane, all NYC witnesses must
be lying about what they saw. Applying Rocky's logic, if one kookvid contains
a lie, all kookvids must be lies. And since I proved the video clip with the
crane has been falsified, we now know all kookvids are lies.

Since Rocky has proven with the "duck test" that there were no nukes at the
World Trade Center, and he has also proven that all kookvids are lies, we
don't even need to continue this discusion at all any more.

[Rocky]

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:mubpco$9f2$1...@pcls7.std.com...

> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!
>
>> What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>
> Yup. This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no
> nukes,
> by using the "duck test".

But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.

And you have no proof that the ground shaking violently 12 seconds before
the North Tower was vaporized was not really a 5.5.

> He has also proven that all kookvids contain lies,
> because if one witness lies about the Pentagon plane, all NYC witnesses
> must
> be lying about what they saw.

Funny that you can't name just one witness of a jet in Nuke York City and
yet there are videos that show of the people that claimed to see a jet in
Nuke York City they all claimed to see something different. <G>

> Applying Rocky's logic, if one kookvid contains
> a lie, all kookvids must be lies. And since I proved the video clip with
> the
> crane has been falsified, we now know all kookvids are lies.

But you failed to prove who falified it because maybe it was altered after
it was released to the public. And you still failed to address why the wing
diappeared like it did in so many other videos.

> Since Rocky has proven with the "duck test" that there were no nukes at
> the
> World Trade Center, and he has also proven that all kookvids are lies, we
> don't even need to continue this discusion at all any more.

Keep in mind that to this date there is no legitimate reason for what was
left of the Twin Towers to be left standing.

Even you tried to say because the very top of the Twin Towers didn't fall
straight down no other part of the Twin Towers should have fallen close to
straight down either and that was a crock of shit.

The fact remains, nothing but an NCD explains what was left of the Twin
Towers and why the people below the vaporization range were not crushed or
vaporized. DUH.

PLUS YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RADIATION READINGS AT GZ YET.

Rocky

[Bast]

Are you serious ?
I can just as easily claim this is from a 1968 buick skylark.....front left
fender.

And yet THIS is the proof you offer of a 120' wide 40' high, airliner ?

....That can now completely fit in the back of a pickup truck

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Be prepared to be told what you say on live TV were CGI's.

Ignore the fact that in 2001 the state of the art was the movie
Shrek which took dozens of programmers months to produce on cutting
edge, parallel hardware.


--
Jim Pennino

[Tony Dragon]

On 27/09/2015 17:17, Tony Dragon wrote:

>> They didn't need hijackers for Flights 11 and 77 because those two
>> flights
>> were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11/01.
>>
>

> Your proof of this please, don't post a you tube, use your own words.


Still waiting for an answer.

>
>> It was very easy to tell the stories of Pranksville, PA and the Pentagon
>> were total bullshit but it took a little more observation to see that we
>> were lied to about all 4 of the alleged hijacked jets.
>>
>> And don't forget the 9/11 hoaxsters have everything they needed to add
>> fake
>> planes to thousands of videos and that because the crashes that are
>> identical to a crash of a CGI it passes the duck test.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>>

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



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

[Tony Dragon]

On 28/09/2015 18:13, Rocky wrote:
> "Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:mubpco$9f2$1...@pcls7.std.com...
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!
>>
>>> What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>> used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>>
>> Yup. This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no
>> nukes,
>> by using the "duck test".
>
> But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.
>
> And you have no proof that the ground shaking violently 12 seconds before
> the North Tower was vaporized was not really a 5.5.
>

Again, I do not expect you to answer, but can you provide us with, say
three, seismic signatures of 5.5 during 911.

[Rocky]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

news:mubtfb$6rs$1...@dont-email.me...

Heck it can probably fit in the back seat of a VW Bug and the person that
moved it was probably holding a book from the government on how to fake
airplane wrecks in his other hand.

And the question still remains where is the rest of the jet and why did only
that part survive?

Rocky

[dmaster]

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 6:04:17 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
...

> Ok, since we are talking about the Pentagon dig up the one photo with
> something that appears to come from a 757.
>
> Now why is there only one piece and why does that one piece have vegetation
> on it that is consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil? <G>

...
> Rocky

https://www.google.com/search?q=9/11+pentagon+plane+debris+photo&espv=2&biw=1238&bih=834&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ7AlqFQoTCI_v4q_ImsgCFRIRkgodsOMM4g

But of course we all already knew this.

Dan (Woj...)

[Rocky]

"dmaster" <dan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:795dd513-cfc2-4599...@googlegroups.com...

Too bad real planes do the following:

911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6ZQUWvDFs

Rocky

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:32:13 -0400, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:03:20 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:atlg0bd863ek5cocm...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>>>
>>>> Do you happen to know the exact time you lost all contact with
>>>> reality? This is a serious question.
>>>
>>> Ok, since we are talking about the Pentagon dig up the one photo with
>>> something that appears to come from a 757.
>>
>> This piece of debris came from American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11/01.
>>
>> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Pentagon+Flight+77+Debris&view=detailv2&id=B0EA7B2FE317B38AD56328566435295111DB1DB7&selectedindex=22&ccid=I%2Bfy2KMl&simid=608001395129322246&thid=OIP.M23e7f2d8a325b9e92431ed4a82fd5063H0&mode=overlay&first=1
>
>
>Are you serious ?

Yeeep!

>I can just as easily claim this is from a 1968 buick skylark.....front left
>fender.

You could. But then everyone will laugh at your stupidity.

The twisted debris in that image of the Pentagon burning is clearly
from the AA plane as it has the AA paint scheme.

>And yet THIS is the proof you offer of a 120' wide 40' high, airliner ?

Noooope!

Rocky Raccoon asked for something that came from a 747.

I gave him that. Exactly.