9/11 Cowards was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
From: Walter Sickert (kill_at_killkill.org)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Bernhard Kuemel: "Re: olive oil in space"
- Previous message: Gladiatores: "dfkjlalk"
- In reply to: Owamanga: "Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Next in thread: Owamanga: "Re: 9/11 Cowards was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Reply: Owamanga: "Re: 9/11 Cowards was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Reply: agent86_at_justicemail.com: "Re: 9/11 Cowards was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jun 2004 19:31:31 GMT
Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:l9g3e0phjibm3vctt30kr04sn58mhl4u1p@4ax.com:
> On 29 Jun 2004 19:17:02 GMT, Walter Sickert <kill@killkill.org> wrote:
>
>>theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) wrote in
>>news:cbsefe$80a$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
>>
>>> In article <briEc.1511$876.194@fed1read07>,
>>> Harvey <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't you think a high speed crash site is a pretty chaotic
>>>>environment? Know anything about how surprising those are? Or indeed
>>>>even know what I'm referring to? Or have you done so many tests
>>>>crashing 757s into low rise buildings that you *know* to a high
degree
>>>>of statistical power the probability all the possible outcomes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Responding to Jason is like screaming at a wall. Actually, it's worse
>>> than that. This idiot talks back. He's incapable of answering basic
>>> questions about his pet conspiracy theory, yet insists that everyone
>>> and their pet dog's second cousin's twin parakeet come up with an
>>> explanation about the second engine.
>>>
>>> Now let's remember; plane crashes are not chaotic events! Planes
>>> leave their debris in nice neat little piles for the NTSB to sift
>>> through, so as to not cost taxpayers any more money than necessary.
>>> Oh, also remember that plane wings are immensely strong...capable
>>> of slamming into a building that is designed to withstand bomb
attacks
>>> yet remain utterly intact. Also, Newton's laws are false; they're
>>> just a bunch of hooha made up by gubmint shills to discredit the
>>> *real* truth...the conspiracy non-theory based on nothing more
>>> than an engine that behaved in chaotic ways!
>>>
>>> I gave up on Sickert^wJason. He's the bedoper idiot who refuses to
>>> consider any evidence other than that which props up his ridiculous
>>> theory. He comes here for one reason only; attention. If he really
>>> wanted to blow the lid on the supposed conspiracy, he would act
>>> far more intelligently. You know, like doing *basic* research? That
>>> kind of stuff is beyond him. Instead, he just wants to flap his
>>> gums and churn up the newsgroups as much as possible so people keep
>>> responding to him. It props up his pathetically weak ego.
>>>
>>> -Geoff
>>> Sector 12
>>> Disinformation Directorate
>>> Ministry of Information
>>> Kansas Field Office
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That's a pretty poor explanation for what happened to the right side
>>engine.
>>
>>If overly wordly.
>>
>>
>>Did the engine:
>>
>>Enter the Pentagon?
>>
>>Exit the Pentagon?
>>
>>Explode?
>>
>>Fly over the Pentagon?
>>
>>
>>
>>Which was it?
>
> Shhhhh, you'r supposed to be dead, remember?
>
Let me know if any of you can ever answer this simple question regarding
the supposed right side engine at the Pentagon...
- Next message: Bernhard Kuemel: "Re: olive oil in space"
- Previous message: Gladiatores: "dfkjlalk"
- In reply to: Owamanga: "Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Next in thread: Owamanga: "Re: 9/11 Cowards was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Reply: Owamanga: "Re: 9/11 Cowards was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Reply: agent86_at_justicemail.com: "Re: 9/11 Cowards was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory"."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|