Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #272840 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-17 08:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-17 17:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 08:28 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 16:19 +0100
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 18:49 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 08:48 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-19 16:41 +0100
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 18:06 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 06:57 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 09:22 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-20 17:26 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-20 19:52 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 16:49 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 15:08 -0700
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-20 22:37 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 09:00 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 18:06 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:09 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:57 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 04:58 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 10:00 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 19:55 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:51 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 14:59 -0700
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:37 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:11 -0700
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 21:34 -0700
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:51 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:17 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 18:08 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:59 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:30 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 16:45 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:51 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:48 -0700
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 22:02 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:48 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 04:22 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:13 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:56 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 21:00 +0200
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 11:43 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 18:33 +0100
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 18:08 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 19:40 +0100
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 14:28 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 21:09 +0100
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 15:17 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 21:41 +0100
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 15:48 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:21 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 08:14 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 08:51 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:40 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 07:43 -0500
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-25 09:04 -0700
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:03 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:01 +0000
Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 17:44 +0000
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 08:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) |
| Message-ID | <mImdnSykz_QvfEzInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
"naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:85417bf7-6590-49f6-94a8-b86f8f80f0c5@googlegroups.com... > From looking at this ng for the past few weeks, it seems that Rocky has at > last told us what he is comparing 911 with to justify the 'underground > nukes'. AND a quick glance at your following bullshit proves you love to make straw man arguments where you refuse to say what I really said so you can lead people astray. I know that trick all too well because I've seen it lots of times. > It would appear that he is comparing it with the bomb at Hiroshima. and the fact that most of the Twin Towers floated away as ultra fine debris. I used to have a lot of links to photos of the debris cloud the day after 9/11 but it seems google doesn't want me to see them anymore but I'll keep looking even if I have to find the ones I used before. > So his whole belief is based on the similarity of an air burst nuclear > explosion & 'underground nukes'. Please don't try to compare a deep underground nuke with one detonated in the air or at ground level because that is what too many people do already. And besides I've posted a link to this video over and over and over and now I have to do it again: Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I I've even had it time indexed before to the best 6 minutes which starts at 2:23:15 if you want to check it out. > He also tells us about an EMP, this EMP is strange because it didn't > affect videos or helicopter engines. Most of the Network Helecopters were miles away from the TT and used their high power zoom to make it look like they were closer. Why were they so afraid of the TTs? The police helicopter got closer to the TT than any of them and what is weird about that is why didn't that helecopter show up in very many videos taken by the Networks? It indicates the background was tainted. And the part where the police helecopter would have recorded an EMP was removed from what we are allowed to see of that video. > He also talks about 'rebooting transponders'. Maybe they changed flight numbers without turning it off but then that would mean the media lied about everything and it would have been too easy to spot because the real flight 175 never flew out of good radar range. As a matter of fact because Flight 175 didn't fly out of good radar range that data had to be lost or destroyed anyway and it was. > Mind you, in the past he was telling us how the TT were brought down by > thermi(a)te, that the planes were 3d images projected on artificial > clouds. I've explained that. I was told one thing about the Evan Fairbanks video and once I saw what was really wrong with Even Fairbanks video I realized all the jets in Nuke York City were CGIs. And the video that showed me what was really wrong with Evan Fairbanks video was: 07 - The Key https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds As for the Thermate. Once I saw what AE911truth does not tell people like: 1. The lack of large debris piles from the TT prove they were not a collapse or a "Controlled Demolition" 2. The damage done to Fiterman Hall proves something had to destroy it that obviously did not fall off of WTC7 so maybe it was something under WTC7 that came up and it even looks like that too. then I had to go with the only option that explains everything and it was the one given by Dimitri Khalezov. > He avers that at least one witness did not hear the planes hit the TT's & > he ignores all the one that did see the planes hit. BULLSHIT. I refer to them as "Crisis Actors." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crisis_actor Is there a reason you could not mention that? Don't tell me you don't believe in "Crisis Actors." And yes, there were videos with no CGIs and people that did not see the CGIs. The following is one of them. 9/11 no planes compilation - interesting! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw > He harps on about the flights not being due to take off that day but he > fails to produce evidence of this. That is becasue the place that had the evidence blocked that evidence. Now if you search for any of the four flights it gives you a nasty stop screen. > He tell us that the hijackers are still alive, but again no evidence. BULLSHIT. I've posted a link to that and oddly enough nobody can find some of those names because it was like they were just first names and last names put together that never existed in real life. > When he does produce evidence, usually from a web site he ignores the > followups on the same sites. Oh, you are talking about the site about nukes. That doesn't really matter because the remains of the TTs could only be the result of deep underground nukes. And I've posted that photo over and over and over too and because it has screwed up the rest of my post I kept it for the last thing again. > He has refused to tell this ng what sort of radiation was present in the > wreckage, and then infers that 'cheap' Geiger counters were used. I've also stated Geiger counters were filmed going off, nobody was allowed at GZ for the first 2 days and then only Iron Workers on the 3rd day that stayed in machines most the time and then even after the 3 days people were still monitoring the rads they were receiving. I've also posted this link: Radiological Cleanup on ground zero - This video is dedicated to Dimitri Khalezov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9npQPZh2po > He has given no evidence for the 'molten steel' and again refuses to > acknowledge other followups. WTF The main guy with "Controlled Demoltions INC" never lied about the pools of molten metal. And when someone pointed out exactly where one of them was he pointed to the hypocenter that was under WTC3. > All in all, he is all talk and no substance. In reality all people have to do is look at what is left in real Controlled Demolitions to see that the TTs were not a CD or a "collapse" leaving only an NCD. <G> > One of his standard answers to questions is to not answer the points > raised but then ask the questioner to prove something else. And you yourself have failed to state way so much of the TTs floated away. <G> > His lack of knowledge on many subjects is in fact amazing. And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3 is noted. BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I post all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of WTC3. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 16:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mqstun$hfi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #272840 |
On 17/08/2015 14:28, Rocky wrote: > "naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:85417bf7-6590-49f6-94a8-b86f8f80f0c5@googlegroups.com... >> From looking at this ng for the past few weeks, it seems that Rocky has at >> last told us what he is comparing 911 with to justify the 'underground >> nukes'. > > AND a quick glance at your following bullshit proves you love to make straw > man arguments where you refuse to say what I really said so you can lead > people astray. I know that trick all too well because I've seen it lots of > times. > > I will help Naazim out. I said "Waiting for you to post the event tat you are comparing the 'NCD' to." yOU REPLIED "> Oh gaud t-annoy you are so stupid you can't even spell Hiroshima. " >> It would appear that he is comparing it with the bomb at Hiroshima. > > and the fact that most of the Twin Towers floated away as ultra fine debris. > I used to have a lot of links to photos of the debris cloud the day after > 9/11 but it seems google doesn't want me to see them anymore but I'll keep > looking even if I have to find the ones I used before. > If the pictures were that important to you, you would have kept them on your PC > >> So his whole belief is based on the similarity of an air burst nuclear >> explosion & 'underground nukes'. > > Please don't try to compare a deep underground nuke with one detonated in > the air or at ground level because that is what too many people do already. > And besides I've posted a link to this video over and over and over and now > I have to do it again: > You are the one that has made the comparison. Now tell us the event you are comparing it to, I'm not going to look through a long video, either provide the time stamp or just post a link to the event. > Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I > > I've even had it time indexed before to the best 6 minutes which starts at > 2:23:15 if you want to check it out. > > Tell me the time stamp that gives the ncd event you are comparing 911 to. >> He also tells us about an EMP, this EMP is strange because it didn't >> affect videos or helicopter engines. > > Most of the Network Helecopters were miles away from the TT and used their > high power zoom to make it look like they were closer. Why were they so > afraid of the TTs? > So it was a little emp, so small it did not effect anything close, like the emergency services vehilles & radios. > The police helicopter got closer to the TT than any of them and what is > weird about that is why didn't that helecopter show up in very many videos > taken by the Networks? It indicates the background was tainted. > > And the part where the police helecopter would have recorded an EMP was > removed from what we are allowed to see of that video. > > >> He also talks about 'rebooting transponders'. > > Maybe they changed flight numbers without turning it off but then that would > mean the media lied about everything and it would have been too easy to spot > because the real flight 175 never flew out of good radar range. > 'About turn' > As a matter of fact because Flight 175 didn't fly out of good radar range > that data had to be lost or destroyed anyway and it was. > > >> Mind you, in the past he was telling us how the TT were brought down by >> thermi(a)te, that the planes were 3d images projected on artificial >> clouds. > > I've explained that. I was told one thing about the Evan Fairbanks video > and once I saw what was really wrong with Even Fairbanks video I realized > all the jets in Nuke York City were CGIs. And the video that showed me what > was really wrong with Evan Fairbanks video was: > So you were wrong/lying then. > 07 - The Key > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds > > As for the Thermate. Once I saw what AE911truth does not tell people like: > > 1. The lack of large debris piles from the TT prove they were not a > collapse or a "Controlled Demolition" > > 2. The damage done to Fiterman Hall proves something had to destroy it that > obviously did not fall off of WTC7 so maybe it was something under WTC7 that > came up and it even looks like that too. > > then I had to go with the only option that explains everything and it was > the one given by Dimitri Khalezov. > > >> He avers that at least one witness did not hear the planes hit the TT's & >> he ignores all the one that did see the planes hit. > > BULLSHIT. I refer to them as "Crisis Actors." > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crisis_actor > So everybody you disagree with is a 'crisis actor' > Is there a reason you could not mention that? Don't tell me you don't > believe in "Crisis Actors." > > And yes, there were videos with no CGIs and people that did not see the > CGIs. The following is one of them. > > 9/11 no planes compilation - interesting! > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw > > >> He harps on about the flights not being due to take off that day but he >> fails to produce evidence of this. > > That is becasue the place that had the evidence blocked that evidence. Now > if you search for any of the four flights it gives you a nasty stop screen. > > So againg you made no back up of your evidence, how strange. >> He tell us that the hijackers are still alive, but again no evidence. > > BULLSHIT. I've posted a link to that and oddly enough nobody can find some > of those names because it was like they were just first names and last names > put together that never existed in real life. > > >> When he does produce evidence, usually from a web site he ignores the >> followups on the same sites. > > Oh, you are talking about the site about nukes. That doesn't really matter > because the remains of the TTs could only be the result of deep underground > nukes. And I've posted that photo over and over and over too and because it > has screwed up the rest of my post I kept it for the last thing again. > > So again if you don't agree with something you ignore it. >> He has refused to tell this ng what sort of radiation was present in the >> wreckage, and then infers that 'cheap' Geiger counters were used. > > I've also stated Geiger counters were filmed going off, nobody was allowed > at GZ for the first 2 days and then only Iron Workers on the 3rd day that > stayed in machines most the time and then even after the 3 days people were > still monitoring the rads they were receiving. I've also posted this link: > And still you refuse to answer the question asked. > Radiological Cleanup on ground zero - This video is dedicated to Dimitri > Khalezov > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9npQPZh2po > > >> He has given no evidence for the 'molten steel' and again refuses to >> acknowledge other followups. > > WTF The main guy with "Controlled Demoltions INC" never lied about the > pools of molten metal. And when someone pointed out exactly where one of > them was he pointed to the hypocenter that was under WTC3. > > >> All in all, he is all talk and no substance. > > In reality all people have to do is look at what is left in real Controlled > Demolitions to see that the TTs were not a CD or a "collapse" leaving only > an NCD. <G> > > >> One of his standard answers to questions is to not answer the points >> raised but then ask the questioner to prove something else. > > And you yourself have failed to state way so much of the TTs floated away. > <G> > > Oh look the answer expected. >> His lack of knowledge on many subjects is in fact amazing. > > And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3 is > noted. BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I post > all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of WTC3. > http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg > > Why should he explain that, perhaps you should do some explaining. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 10:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) |
| Message-ID | <KKWdnZla4JqXnU_InZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #272859 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:mqstun$hfi$2@dont-email.me... > On 17/08/2015 14:28, Rocky wrote: >> >> And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3 >> is >> noted. BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I >> post >> all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of >> WTC3. >> >> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg > Why should he explain that, perhaps you should do some explaining. ROTFLMAO because "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" and the following photo says no collapse and no controlled demolition.: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 18:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) |
| Message-ID | <So-dnXsGXp83WU7InZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #272862 |
"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net... > > And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into the > sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud? It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but they still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show you it will do: 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o > None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not > match with observation. I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get straight to the facts. And I'll still try to find that site that tries to rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ. > TH Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 08:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) |
| Message-ID | <p5CdncR0x_NWFUnInZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273046 |
<edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c83b9398-e522-4d1e-8eb1-c271b6510583@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote: >> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message >> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net... >> > >> > And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into >> > the >> > sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud? >> >> It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from >> underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but >> they >> still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show >> you >> it will do: >> >> 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o >> >> > None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not >> > match with observation. >> >> I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get >> straight to the facts. And I'll still try to find that site that tries >> to >> rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ. >> >> >> > TH >> >> Rocky > > That is not a mushroom cloud, nor does it come UP from the ground the way > a mushroom cloud from an underground nuke would. There is also no sign of > dirt or debris being blown up in the air the way and underground nuke > would if it breached the surface. I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it. But I did learn this from that video. I can see why the nukes were placed below an adjacent building instead of right under the Towers. The reason they used an adjacent building is the mushroom cloud would have been symmetrical if they placed it right under the Towers. As it was with the heat source on the side instead of right below the tower it left a lopsided looking mushroom cloud and people could overlook it being from a nuke. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 16:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) |
| Message-ID | <mr27vp$g3c$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #273062 |
On 19/08/2015 14:48, Rocky wrote: > <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:c83b9398-e522-4d1e-8eb1-c271b6510583@googlegroups.com... >> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote: >>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message >>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> >>>> And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into >>>> the >>>> sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud? >>> >>> It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from >>> underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but >>> they >>> still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show >>> you >>> it will do: >>> >>> 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o >>> >>>> None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not >>>> match with observation. >>> >>> I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get >>> straight to the facts. And I'll still try to find that site that tries >>> to >>> rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ. >>> >>> >>>> TH >>> >>> Rocky >> >> That is not a mushroom cloud, nor does it come UP from the ground the way >> a mushroom cloud from an underground nuke would. There is also no sign of >> dirt or debris being blown up in the air the way and underground nuke >> would if it breached the surface. > > I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't > know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it. > > But I did learn this from that video. I can see why the nukes were placed > below an adjacent building instead of right under the Towers. > > The reason they used an adjacent building is the mushroom cloud would have > been symmetrical if they placed it right under the Towers. So if it had been placed under the towers it would be symmetrical. But if it had been placed under another building it would not be. How strange. > > As it was with the heat source on the side instead of right below the tower > it left a lopsided looking mushroom cloud and people could overlook it being > from a nuke. > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 18:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) |
| Message-ID | <70teac-3ho.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #273062 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't > know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it. There was no mushroom cloud, kook. A mushroom cloud is the result of the plasma ball generated by a nuclear explosion rising in the air, kook. There was no plasma ball above New York, kook. There were no nuclear explosions in New York, kook. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the collapse of the two towers was detected. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 18:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) |
| Message-ID | <lu2atad1be3i0mprqs8ka2nct2r32ek6bi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #273062 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
><edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c83b9398-e522-4d1e-8eb1-c271b6510583@googlegroups.com...
>> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message
>>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> >
>>> > And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into
>>> > the sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?
>>>
>>> It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from
>>> underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but
>>> they still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show
>>> you it will do:
>>>
>>> 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o
>>>
>>> > None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not
>>> > match with observation.
>>>
>>> I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get
>>> straight to the facts. And I'll still try to find that site that tries
>>> to rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ.
>>>
>>>
>>> > TH
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> That is not a mushroom cloud, nor does it come UP from the ground the way
>> a mushroom cloud from an underground nuke would. There is also no sign of
>> dirt or debris being blown up in the air the way and underground nuke
>> would if it breached the surface.
>
>I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't
>know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it.
>
At this point, everyone reading will know what a mushroom cloud
looks like.
>But I did learn this from that video. I can see why the nukes were placed
>below an adjacent building instead of right under the Towers.
>
>The reason they used an adjacent building is the mushroom cloud would have
>been symmetrical if they placed it right under the Towers.
But there was no such cloud.
>
>As it was with the heat source on the side instead of right below the tower
>it left a lopsided looking mushroom cloud and people could overlook it being
>from a nuke.
OMFSM!
Do you honestly think the mushroom cloud would have gone at an
angel? It would have gone straight up regardless of where the nuke was
placed.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 06:57 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) |
| Message-ID | <accd42e55c288388bfa9c1e60837f6aa@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #272862 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky, in <news:GuidnXSYz4OiVE7InZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: Awww, did RockyRetard run away from AUK because the intellectual titans there were kicking the kook's ass? LOL > "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message > news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net... >> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched. > Here, you will like this. This is a photo of hypocenter that was under WTC4 > and the media is trying to get the clowns to believe it was an Ice age > pothole but it is not consistent with an ice age pothole. What it is > consistent with is a hypocenter.. > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html?_r=0 You mean the little 40 foot "pothole" they were discussing in the article? LOL Unless that hole in the bedrock topology was from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep (how deep your k'lamed nukes had to be according to the time difference between your k'lamed "EMP" (which was actually satellite uplink disturbance on a WCBS video) and the collapse of the tower, you're still a fucking idiotic moron. And that's not even mentioning that the article states the hole has been there for ~20,000 years, since the end of glaciation in that region. It was the glaciers that created those holes, after all. Kook. LOL >> TH > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 14 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was most likely the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. You didn't specify what type of radiation was experienced, and I doubt you're smart or educated enough to even know what types of radiation there are. 4) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 5) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 6) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 7) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 8) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 9) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 satellite uplink disruptions in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 10) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire base at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 11) You admitted (ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 12) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 13) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 14) Explain how these 19 nukes could tunnel holes from their underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). ====================================================== There's now 14 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp simple physics. Kook. LOL -- Rocky, your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink disruption seen in the video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the video *you* *provided* between the video disturbance due to satellite uplink disruption (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (depending upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission... and since we're talking solid bedrock here, it'd be at the upper end of that scale). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). Nevermind that at that depth range, temperature ranges from 960 to 1840 degrees F, so equipment would fail and people would die. D) Your broken brain is now saying there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you know there were 19 satellite uplink disturbances in the video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the satellite uplink disturbances was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble or its vicinity. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" on the video *you* *provided* and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So you've proven by skirting the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality. And the harder you try, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head and doing your very best Rainman imitation. I can twist your brain into a pretzel with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 09:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <E9idnfdQybvVf0jInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273050 |
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message news:accd42e55c288388bfa9c1e60837f6aa@dizum.com... > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > Rocky, in <news:GuidnXSYz4OiVE7InZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com> > did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > Awww, did RockyRetard run away from AUK because the intellectual > titans there were kicking the kook's ass? LOL > >> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message >> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net... > >>> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched. > >> Here, you will like this. This is a photo of hypocenter that was under >> WTC4 >> and the media is trying to get the clowns to believe it was an Ice age >> pothole but it is not consistent with an ice age pothole. What it is >> consistent with is a hypocenter.. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html?_r=0 > > You mean the little 40 foot "pothole" they were discussing in the > article? LOL You better do two things. 1. Compare that hypocenter to a real ice age pothole and you will see the difference. 2. Notice that the hypocenter that was under WTC4 has been filed with concrete so it could have been 50 meters deep instead of 40 feet. And if you notice it is blown out on once side more than it is blown out on the other and it just so happens that very little of WTC4 was missing so that could blamed on the rock preventing it from going toward more of WTC4. Still there is a lot more evidence that says the Twin Towers were nuked than there is that they collapsed because every photo that contains the surviving corners of the Twin Towers is evidence of deep underground nukes that were outside their spread pattern that was determined by the rock the deep underground nukes left in place. <G> Rest of your spinning removed. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 17:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <a6fhac-9aa.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #273125 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Still there is a lot more evidence that says the Twin Towers were nuked than > there is that they collapsed because every photo that contains the surviving > corners of the Twin Towers is evidence of deep underground nukes that were > outside their spread pattern that was determined by the rock the deep > underground nukes left in place. <G> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 19:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <ac07e4bfd369fca6121253ff76e51606@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #273125 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky, in <news:E9idnfdQybvVf0jInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > wrote in message news:accd42e55c288388bfa9c1e60837f6aa@dizum.com... >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> Rocky, in <news:GuidnXSYz4OiVE7InZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com> >> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >> >> Awww, did RockyRetard run away from AUK because the intellectual >> titans there were kicking the kook's ass? LOL <crickets> LOL >>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message >>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched. >>> He<SMACKAKOOK!> Mindless drivel from a mindless fuckwit will be redacted. You are given no voice because you're retarded. And retards don't get to spew their retarded bullshit until they can back it up with irrefutable and corroborable proof. Kook. LOL >> You mean the little 40 foot "pothole" they were discussing in the >> article? LOL > Y<SMACKAKOOK!> Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy theory is able to violate several laws of physics, you'll remain a pathetic laughingstock kicktoy for those who are intelligent enough to know you're just a broken-brained loser. Now, get to addressing the 15 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was most likely the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. You didn't specify what type of radiation was experienced, and I doubt you're smart or educated enough to even know what types of radiation there are. 4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or anywhere in NYC. They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation. 5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 satellite uplink disruptions in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire base at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 12) You admitted (ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 15) Explain how these 19 nukes could tunnel holes from their underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). ====================================================== There's now 15 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp simple physics. Kook. LOL -- Rocky, your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the video *you* *provided* between the video disturbance due to satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (depending upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission... and since we're talking solid bedrock here, it'd be at the upper end of that scale). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain is now saying there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you know there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble or its vicinity. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" on the video *you* *provided* and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So you've proven by skirting the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality. And the harder you try, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 16:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <17udnW0rSv0F1kvInZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273134 |
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message news:ac07e4bfd369fca6121253ff76e51606@dizum.com... > > Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy > theory is able to violate several laws of physics, ROTFLMAO because you have seen the hypocenter that was below WTC4. You have seen that the one wall was nearly straight up and not much damage was done to WTC4 but the wall facing the South Tower was more angled and not only did it vaporize most of WTC2 but it took a large portion of WTC3 at the exact same time. You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does not and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and the damage proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun with a screwed up barrel. Once you realize that shotguns and deep underground nukes both have a spread pattern then you will be a lot closer to the truth. As for the mushroom cloud created by the nuke under WTC4 and you have already seen it's hypocenter. Now check the following video out https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s and watch about a minute. Or if you want the above link broken down check out 04 - Phenomena https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU And then go to 29 minutes and 30 seconds and watch the video for a bit because you should see a mushroom cloud from one of the Twin Towers compared to another nuke from 30:04 to 30:12. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 15:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <8n28cm.u61.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #273146 |
Rocky wrote: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" > <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message > news:ac07e4bfd369fca6121253ff76e51606@dizum.com... >> >> Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy >> theory is able to violate several laws of physics, > > ROTFLMAO because you have seen the hypocenter that was below WTC4. > > You have seen that the one wall was nearly straight up and not much > damage was done to WTC4 but the wall facing the South Tower was more > angled and not only did it vaporize most of WTC2 but it took a large > portion of WTC3 at the exact same time. > > You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does > not and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and > the damage proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun > with a screwed up barrel. > > Once you realize that shotguns and deep underground nukes both have a > spread pattern then you will be a lot closer to the truth. > > As for the mushroom cloud created by the nuke under WTC4 and you have > already seen it's hypocenter. Now check the following video out > https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s > > and watch about a minute. > > Or if you want the above link broken down check out > 04 - Phenomena > https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU > > And then go to 29 minutes and 30 seconds and watch the video for a bit > because you should see a mushroom cloud from one of the Twin Towers > compared to another nuke from 30:04 to 30:12. > > Rocky there never was any trade towers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 22:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <4e1iac-9jb.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #273146 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does not > and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and the damage > proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun with a screwed up > barrel. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 09:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <RNmdnS3fR8s_s0rInZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273152 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:4e1iac-9jb.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does not >> and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and the damage >> proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun with a screwed >> up >> barrel. > > When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic > signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. > > There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any > seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers > as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected > by nearby seismographs. > > This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. Only to idiots that think a jet really went down in Pranksville, PA And if you look the smoke cloud from that event it was a very clear mushroom cloud. <G> And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the Twin Towers. See: 1. There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers. 2. People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5 quake instead of a 2.3. 3. Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3 quakes? <G> 4. There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4 and the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3. And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't they hit the ground with more force than was recorded? Seems there was more messed up with those seismic readings than just the failure to jive with real life before the North Tower was vaporized. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 18:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <4u5kac-qcs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #273180 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the > Twin Towers. See: When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 16:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <8s4ftal1d8mmlhj50pa30pfrqf0ke86rto@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #273180 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:27 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>news:4e1iac-9jb.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does not
>>> and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and the damage
>>> proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun with a screwed
>>> up
>>> barrel.
>>
>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>>
>> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
>> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
>> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
>> by nearby seismographs.
>>
>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>
>Only to idiots that think a jet really went down in Pranksville, PA And if
>you look the smoke cloud from that event it was a very clear mushroom cloud.
><G>
>
There was no mushroom cloud.
>And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the
>Twin Towers. See:
>
>1. There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers.
>
No, there wasn't.
>2. People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5
>quake instead of a 2.3.
But only local seismographs recorded anything, and they recorded
a 2.
>
>3. Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3
>quakes? <G>
>
Yes.
>4. There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4 and
>the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the
>nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do
>much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3.
>
There was no hypocenter.
>And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't they
>hit the ground with more force than was recorded? Seems there was more
>messed up with those seismic readings than just the failure to jive with
>real life before the North Tower was vaporized.
No buildings at the WTC Complex were vaporized. None.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 20:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <la1dtapmbttii641n4f0dl810h8c7s3h4k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #273146 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:49:32 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>wrote in message news:ac07e4bfd369fca6121253ff76e51606@dizum.com...
>>
>> Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy
>> theory is able to violate several laws of physics,
>
>ROTFLMAO because you have seen the hypocenter that was below WTC4.
>
Since there was no hypocenter, no one could have seen it. DUH!
>You have seen that the one wall was nearly straight up and not much damage
>was done to WTC4 but the wall facing the South Tower was more angled and not
>only did it vaporize most of WTC2 but it took a large portion of WTC3 at the
>exact same time.
>
Nothing of the WTC Complex was vaporized.
>You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does not
>and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and the damage
>proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun with a screwed up
>barrel.
Nope. But continue to lie if you must.
>
>Once you realize that shotguns and deep underground nukes both have a spread
>pattern then you will be a lot closer to the truth.
Since there were no nukes, under or over ground, your lie about
them fails.
>
>As for the mushroom cloud created by the nuke under WTC4 and you have
>already seen it's hypocenter. Now check the following video out
> https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
There was no hypocenter. The video does not show a mushroom
cloud.
>
>and watch about a minute.
>
>Or if you want the above link broken down check out
> 04 - Phenomena
> https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>
>And then go to 29 minutes and 30 seconds and watch the video for a bit
>because you should see a mushroom cloud from one of the Twin Towers compared
>to another nuke from 30:04 to 30:12.
>
There is no mushroom cloud shown. Since none occurred, it's lack
of being shown is to be expected.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 04:58 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <0030ff571ff4a86516555793b5aa550b@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #273146 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky, in <news:17udnW0rSv0F1kvInZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > wrote in message news:ac07e4bfd369fca6121253ff76e51606@dizum.com... >> Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy >> theory is able to violate several laws of physics, > ROT<SMACKAKOOK!> Idiotic gullible fuckwits who believe every stupid thing they read and who don't have the brainpower necessary to discern fantasy from reality will be minimized, dismissed, laughed at and pointed at as the fools they are, until they can explain in detail and using scientific terms and proof as to how exactly their kooky conspiracy theory is able to violate several laws of physics. Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly impossible. It could not have happened the way you claim. Never in a million eons. Therefore you are insane. Kook. LOL > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 15 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was most likely the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. You didn't specify what type of radiation was experienced, and I doubt you're smart or educated enough to even know what types of radiation there are. 4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or anywhere in NYC. They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation. 5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 satellite uplink disruptions in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire base at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 12) You admitted (ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 15) Explain how these 19 nukes could tunnel holes from their underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). ====================================================== There's now 15 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp simple physics. Kook. LOL -- Rocky, your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the video *you* *provided* between the video disturbance due to satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (depending upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission... and since we're talking solid bedrock here, it'd be at the upper end of that scale). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain is now saying there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you know there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble or its vicinity. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" on the video *you* *provided* and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So you've proven by skirting the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality. And the harder you try, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web