A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 29th 15, 12:44 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:49:26 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:

Thanks. Cut and paste makes it soooo much easier for me to keep posting the
same proof, you keep trying to avoid.

People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological Operation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM


Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai

  #2  
Old December 29th 15, 03:15 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Cujo DeSockpuppet[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.

palsing wrote in
:

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:49:26 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:

Thanks. Cut and paste makes it soooo much easier for me to keep
posting the same proof, you keep trying to avoid.

People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM


Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...nessaccountsof
thenycai


It's obviously a Gubmint con-spear-a-see, dammit. Those damned crisis
actors!

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.****nozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"And I have already debunked the idea that I wear underware on any
part of my body." - Ed making lingerie stock plummet.
  #3  
Old December 29th 15, 04:31 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Bast[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,917
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.



palsing wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:49:26 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:

Thanks. Cut and paste makes it soooo much easier for me to keep
posting the same proof, you keep trying to avoid.

People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM


Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai






So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?


  #4  
Old December 29th 15, 08:03 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:


People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM


Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai






So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?


I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you already knew...
  #5  
Old December 29th 15, 09:38 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Rocky[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.


"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:


People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM

Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai






So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?


I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you
already knew...


And can you get back to the subject or at least try?

Fact is what we saw ram the Twin Towers is consistent with CGIs in that they
never slowed down on impact, they didn't lose any parts on impact and some
of them lost wings while in flight just like CGIs that have been programmed
to reflect the sky do and did.

Rocky


  #6  
Old December 29th 15, 10:05 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-8, Rocky wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:


People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM

Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai





So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?


I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you
already knew...


And can you get back to the subject or at least try?

Fact is what we saw ram the Twin Towers is consistent with CGIs in that they
never slowed down on impact, they didn't lose any parts on impact and some
of them lost wings while in flight just like CGIs that have been programmed
to reflect the sky do and did.


There are plenty of photos and videos to prove otherwise. Get a freakin' life.

Didn't lose any parts on impact? Really?

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...hullpiece.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...cengines2.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...ndinggear.html

These sure look like valid photos to me, you gullible fool...

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

I would call you stupid, too, but everyone already knows that. If you had a brain in your head you would probably take it out and play with it...
  #7  
Old December 29th 15, 10:19 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Bast[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,917
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.



Rocky wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:


People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM

Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai





So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?


I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you
already knew...


And can you get back to the subject or at least try?

Fact is what we saw ram the Twin Towers is consistent with CGIs in that
they never slowed down on impact, they didn't lose any parts on impact
and some of them lost wings while in flight just like CGIs that have
been programmed to reflect the sky do and did.

Rocky






They never "lost" wings,....the wings simply vaporized and vanished or
turned completely invisible before anything was even near any buiildings.

I guess we just have to put it down to another of those Bermuda Triangle
mysteries.
Or Spectre's evil disintegration ray, that will allow them to take over the
world unless James Bond saves us.

Ian Flemming wrote far more believable fiction, than the 9/11 offical
fairytale printing company.


  #8  
Old December 29th 15, 11:55 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Bast[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,917
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.



palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-8, Rocky wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:

People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM

Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai





So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you
already knew...


And can you get back to the subject or at least try?

Fact is what we saw ram the Twin Towers is consistent with CGIs in
that they never slowed down on impact, they didn't lose any parts on
impact and some of them lost wings while in flight just like CGIs that
have been programmed to reflect the sky do and did.


There are plenty of photos and videos to prove otherwise. Get a
freakin' life.

Didn't lose any parts on impact? Really?

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...hullpiece.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...cengines2.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...ndinggear.html

These sure look like valid photos to me, you gullible fool...

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

I would call you stupid, too, but everyone already knows that. If you
had a brain in your head you would probably take it out and play with
it...






Uh,....why are you showing PLANE PARTS,....the the alleged debris from WTC 7
???
All your links have WTC7 specifically mentioned.

Pssst,.....the official 9/11 fairytale say no planes hit WTC 7,....so for
kripes sakes be quiet or Bast and Rocky and the rest of the world will be
laughing at you.
......OOPS TOO LATE


  #9  
Old December 30th 15, 12:24 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 2:55:48 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:40:08 PM UTC-8, Rocky wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:31:52 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:

People on the streets that day saw NO passenger jets.
....They made that clear to reporters..

9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological
Operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffVvYFrtPM

Refute this, you stupid idiot...

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai





So ? you think a homemade website is a credible source ?

You are really going to love some of the flat earth stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies

And it's on wikopedia, so it MUST be true, huh ?

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you
already knew...

And can you get back to the subject or at least try?

Fact is what we saw ram the Twin Towers is consistent with CGIs in
that they never slowed down on impact, they didn't lose any parts on
impact and some of them lost wings while in flight just like CGIs that
have been programmed to reflect the sky do and did.


There are plenty of photos and videos to prove otherwise. Get a
freakin' life.

Didn't lose any parts on impact? Really?

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...hullpiece.html



http://www.911research.wtc7.net/plan...ndinggear.html

These sure look like valid photos to me, you gullible fool...

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

I would call you stupid, too, but everyone already knows that. If you
had a brain in your head you would probably take it out and play with
it...






Uh,....why are you showing PLANE PARTS,....the the alleged debris from WTC 7
???
All your links have WTC7 specifically mentioned.

Pssst,.....the official 9/11 fairytale say no planes hit WTC 7,....so for
kripes sakes be quiet or Bast and Rocky and the rest of the world will be
laughing at you.
.....OOPS TOO LATE


Although the links all contain "WTC7" that does not guarantee that everything on those pages refer to WTC7

You ignorant moron, did you only look at the pictures and fail to read any of the descriptions? For example...

"This photograph of debris on the roof of WTC 4 shows a fragment of the hull of the jetliner that crashed into the South Tower (Flight 175)."

"These photographs show remains of an engine that passed through the South Tower, resting at the corner of Church and Murray Streets."

"The first photograph shows a portion of Flight 11's landing gear... at the corner of West and Rector Streets, about four blocks south of the North Tower."

No one claims a plane hit WTC 7, but it clearly suffered much damage from the fall of WTC 1.

The links I provided merely scratch the surface, there are hundreds and hundreds more. Never learned how to search the internet properly?

BTW, that video you linked, "9/11 No Planes Used - Witnesses Proof Theory - Your Psychological Operation" was unbelievably simple-minded and intelligently assembled, I can't imagine anyone with more than 3 or 4 brain cells believing much of anything therein.
  #10  
Old December 30th 15, 08:35 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Sarah Ehrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Flight 93 Crash Sight -Hole was already there.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:19:28 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:

Roger Rocky, Troofer Squirrel wrote:


Fact is what we saw ram the Twin Towers is consistent with CGIs in that
they never slowed down on impact, they didn't lose any parts on impact
and some of them lost wings while in flight just like CGIs that have
been programmed to reflect the sky do and did.

Rocky






They never "lost" wings,....


JHC. You two are a complete cluster****.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PROOF!!! TransAsia Airways Flight 235 Crash is a COMPLETE HOAX (VIDEO) G=EMC^2TreBert Misc 2 February 9th 15 12:55 AM
TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie Brad Guth[_3_] Misc 2 July 30th 13 05:01 PM
TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie Brad Guth[_3_] Misc 0 June 20th 13 12:13 AM
First sight. Pete Lawrence UK Astronomy 4 September 17th 03 01:42 PM
Hubble, the End Is in Sight!!! Orion Amateur Astronomy 2 August 7th 03 06:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.