See other Religion Articles
Title: Wizard of Oz Verified by using New Testament Verification Methods
Source:
yt
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 13, 2011
Author: .
Post Date: 2011-02-13 08:25:16 by PSUSA
Keywords: None
Views: 1288
Comments: 63
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
#4. To: PSUSA (#0)
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Glad ya liked it. So... Can I count on you showing up at our next Black Mass? A wonderful time will be had by all. .
I thought you were racist.
I am. But if I have a hornets nest to get rid of, I will not pass up on Black Flag pesticide just because of the word "black" is on the label. OTOH, if they had a nigger advertising it, I'd find an alternative. .
Look how nice and neat and tidy my tagline is. Then look at yours. It's all big and messy and sloppy and reads like gobblydegook. Good heavens man, get a hold of yourself.
But mine is 100% verifiable. All you need to do is pick up your holey bobble, blow the dust off the cover, open it up, and read it for yourself. Yours, OTOH, is 100% unverifiable crap. You might as well say that the USS Enterprise fired photon torpedoes into the WTC bldgs. .
For you from the Wizard of Oz: I'd turn back if I were you: Notice how the Tinman didn't vanish or shape-shift much into mismatched parts when he crashed, like the "9/11 Fantastic Four planes" did? Here's where you'll probably want to say something pseudo-scientific to explain that like they just didn't make metal for those particular flying machines like they used to. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=gSoEcRg5DcE
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but when you crash at about about 400-500 mph, there isn't much left of the parts, either of the plane or of the people aboard. It would be pseudo-scientific of me if I claimed otherwise. .
Oh really! A "real" plane would crash against the building, it's tail snap off, and fuel-filled wings explode on impact. Let us examine this bit of bullshit. 1) a real plane did crash into the building. 2) Who says it's "tail" would snap off? Let's see if you or anyone else can give a reason why that would happen. 3) Fuel does not just immediately explode. It requires, REQUIRES, the proper fuel/air mixture in order to burn. Come on, man! You can do better than that! .
1) a real plane did crash into the building. I disagree. Why do you suppose there is no break in the building after the wing "entered" the wall?
Why are you basing that on a fuzzy pic, that may or may not be doctored (it doesn't matter), when I gave you 3 good reasons why that pic was wrong? ,
An aluminum airplane wouldn't slide through steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter. At 400 mph, it would crumple on impact. "Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"
I too find it hard to believe that an aluminum hull aircraft can neatly melt into a building the way we see in this depiction of UA 175 making the second WTC strike into the South Tower. Intuitively, many of us find the absolute lack of deformation in the aircraft and the preservation of the relationship of the major structural components of the throughout the duration of the impact shown hard to swallow. Really though, which one of us can say conclusively that what is depicted here is impossible? What I find even more difficult to fathom however, is the NY television station video of the nose of the aircraft exiting the South Tower. I have held a radome from a smaller aircraft in my hands. I believe that it was made of a carbon fiber composite. The tip of an airliner is made of the same material. Although it is tough, it would not take much effort to irreparably damage a component like this with a ball peen hammer. Then there is the hull surrounding the cockpit. Like the rest of the aircraft fuselage, it is just an aluminum shell. In the video you posted,wudidiz, we see the nose of the UA 175 melt into the south side of the building. In the following video we see it miraculously emerge out of the north face of WTC II: I don't have time to engage in the "no planes" debate with anyone here. I'm throwing this in the hopper for you all to chew over. But I'll do so with a warning. You are all aware of how deep the rabbit hole is. I am very leery of presenting this kind of stuff to the uninitiated or even arguing this hypothesis with those that have been studying these events for the last ten years. It quickly gets too abstruse and the implications are just too wild for most folks to even contemplate. When I talk to those that hold conventional opinions regarding the contradictions in the reported facts of the events of 9/11 I just don't go there. Folks will have to dig this up for themselves, as far as I'm concerned.
Impressive post. Especially the latter part. Thank you. Can I put you on the no planers ping list, randge? It'd be an honor.
Yes, you can. You're the one that put me on the trail of this line of thinking, BTW. ;]
There are no replies to Comment # 55. End Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: wudidiz (#4)
#6. To: PSUSA (#5)
Black Mass
#7. To: wudidiz (#6)
#8. To: PSUSA (#7)
#9. To: wudidiz (#8)
#11. To: PSUSA, wudidiz (#9)
You might as well say that the USS Enterprise fired photon torpedoes into the WTC bldgs.
#12. To: GreyLmist (#11)
Notice how the Tinman didn't vanish or shape-shift much into mismatched parts when he crashed, like the "9/11 Fantastic Four planes" did? Here's where you'll probably want to say something pseudo-scientific to explain that like they just didn't make metal for those particular flying machines like they used to.
#16. To: PSUSA, GreyLmist (#12)
I have no idea what you are trying to say......
#17. To: wudidiz (#16)
#18. To: PSUSA (#17)
Let us examine this bit of bullshit.
#19. To: wudidiz (#18)
Why do you suppose there is no break in the building after the wing "entered" the wall?
#20. To: PSUSA (#19)
#50. To: wudidiz (#20)
An aluminum airplane wouldn't slide through steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter. At 400 mph, it would crumple on impact.
#52. To: randge, *Post Of The Day* (#50)
"I don't have time to engage in the "no planes" debate with anyone here. I'm throwing this in the hopper for you all to chew over. But I'll do so with a warning. You are all aware of how deep the rabbit hole is. I am very leery of presenting this kind of stuff to the uninitiated or even arguing this hypothesis with those that have been studying these events for the last ten years. It quickly gets too abstruse and the implications are just too wild for most folks to even contemplate. When I talk to those that hold conventional opinions regarding the contradictions in the reported facts of the events of 9/11 I just don't go there. Folks will have to dig this up for themselves, as far as I'm concerned. "
#55. To: wudidiz (#52)
Replies to Comment # 55.