Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #283567 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-02 15:07 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-02 23:27 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 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: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-02 15:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-02 20:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 06:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 16:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 21:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 05:45 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:30 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 20:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 06:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:23 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 17:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 19:59 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:14 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 18:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 14:46 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 15:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:46 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:35 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 00:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:57 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:51 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:09 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:42 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 21:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 07:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 17:55 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-19 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 15:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-04-17 10:29 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 22:16 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:48 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:30 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:02 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-20 03:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-20 17:17 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 17:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 12:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:28 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-04-21 15:31 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2016-04-21 17:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-04-21 16:07 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2016-04-21 20:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-04-22 04:38 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 15:37 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 14:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 11:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 09:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-20 03:47 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Richard A." <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 07:49 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 01:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:58 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:53 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:31 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 12:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 16:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 16:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:11 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:20 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:15 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:06 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:18 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes tesla sTinker <staff@truecarpentry.net> - 2016-04-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 15:22 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes mr.hvac@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 15:57 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2016-04-02 23:27 +0000
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284110 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" is..... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence with >>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by many >>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the >>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have never >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be detected >>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>> >>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>> >>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or P-wave? >>>> >>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a building >>>> is not an earthquake. >>> >>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had S-waves >>> or >>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >> >> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is a >> different thing than an earthquake. > > And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings are Exactly what one would expect. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 03:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3fadnWTyt64p3IrKnZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284122 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence with >>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by many >>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the >>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have never >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be detected >>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>> >>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or P-wave? >>>>> >>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>> building >>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>> >>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had S-waves >>>> or >>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>> >>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is a >>> different thing than an earthquake. >> >> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings are > > Exactly what one would expect. Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. Wow, is that lame. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284205 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence with >>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by many >>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the >>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have never >>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they >>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be detected >>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or P-wave? >>>>>> >>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>> building >>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>> >>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had S-waves >>>>> or >>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>> >>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is a >>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>> >>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings are >> >> Exactly what one would expect. > > Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense and there is no need to go any further. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 11:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <L5CdnfMoj7kEnITKnZ2dnUU7-bPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284208 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by >>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the >>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have >>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they >>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or P-wave? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>>> building >>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>> >>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>> S-waves >>>>>> or >>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>> >>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is a >>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>> >>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings are >>> >>> Exactly what one would expect. >> >> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. > > Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense > and there is no need to go any further. Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they were all way too small especially the one for when WTC7 was supposed to crash to the ground. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284225 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have >>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they >>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or P-wave? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is a >>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>> >>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings are >>>> >>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>> >>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >> >> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense >> and there is no need to go any further. > > Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they were all > way too small Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and especially a nuclear explosion. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 12:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cMCdnVYZbfQDiYTKnZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284227 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or P-wave? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is a >>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings are >>>>> >>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>> >>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>> >>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense >>> and there is no need to go any further. >> >> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they were >> all >> way too small > > Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and > especially > a nuclear explosion. YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES AND YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN WHY A GAZILLION POUNDS OF DEBRIS COULD NOT CRUSH THE SURVIVING CORNERS. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284228 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or P-wave? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is a >>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings are >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>> >>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>> >>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense >>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>> >>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they were >>> all >>> way too small >> >> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >> especially >> a nuclear explosion. > > YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XbqdnVfrQdXbv4TKnZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284233 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>> >>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense >>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>> >>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they were >>>> all >>>> way too small >>> >>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>> especially >>> a nuclear explosion. >> >> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES > > A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. Two things wrong with your BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes MRR nukes different? 2. How can you talk about "Seismic Signatures" when the Seismic Signature of WTC7 proves it was way way way smaller than it should have been for a 47 story building that fell at free fall speed for over 100 feet. Meaning none of the "Seismic Signatures" taken on 9/11/01 can be trusted. ROTFLMAO Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284235 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense >>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>> >>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they were >>>>> all >>>>> way too small >>>> >>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>> especially >>>> a nuclear explosion. >>> >>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >> >> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. > > 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes MRR > nukes different? Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of explosive energy? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RMSdnaNmbKXlsoTKnZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284240 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>> were >>>>>> all >>>>>> way too small >>>>> >>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>> especially >>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>> >>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>> >>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >> >> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes >> MRR >> nukes different? > > Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of > explosive energy? ROTFLMAO because the fact that the seismic readings of WTC7 crashing to the ground were so fcuking small indicates other readings were messed up too. ROTFLMAO Oh and what can only be explained by deep underground MRR nukes: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284243 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> all >>>>>>> way too small >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>> especially >>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>> >>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>> >>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>> >>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes >>> MRR >>> nukes different? >> >> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >> explosive energy? No answer, as expected. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u8udneY7lMRl3ITKnZ2dnUU7-InNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284247 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>> especially >>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>> >>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>> >>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>> >>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>> makes >>>> MRR >>>> nukes different? >>> >>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >>> explosive energy? > > No answer, as expected. You are the asshole that can't explain why an alleged "Global Collapse" can not crush everything in sight and why the "Surviving Corners" were the ones furthest from where deep underground MRR nukes were detonated. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And if they were not MRR nukes then explain what else could vaporize the Twin Towers before they could crush the "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284254 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>> >>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>> >>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>> makes >>>>> MRR >>>>> nukes different? >>>> >>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >>>> explosive energy? >> >> No answer, as expected. Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint of explosive energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Vr6dnez79_g-9YfKnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284257 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>> makes >>>>>> MRR >>>>>> nukes different? >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >>>>> explosive energy? >>> >>> No answer, as expected. > > Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint > of > explosive energy. ROTFLMAO because you and NIST still have no explanation for why a gazillion pounds of debris could not crush the Surviving Corners of both the Twin Towers but deep underground MRR nukes explain it just fine. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ikfquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284274 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>>> makes >>>>>>> MRR >>>>>>> nukes different? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >>>>>> explosive energy? >>>> >>>> No answer, as expected. >> >> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >> of >> explosive energy. > Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint of explosive energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IsydnRZXn_FT_b_KnZ2dnUU7-e3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284280 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:ikfquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> MRR >>>>>>>> nukes different? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> explosive energy? >>>>> >>>>> No answer, as expected. >>> >>> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >>> of >>> explosive energy. >> > > Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint > of explosive energy. And yet you are the one that can not explain why there were "Surviving Corners" to both the Twin Towers. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Never forget those "Surviving Corners" can be explained by deep underground MRR nukes that were unable to vaporize the lower floors of the far wall. DUH http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <136avc-kd8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284353 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:ikfquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when >>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>> MRR >>>>>>>>> nukes different? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> explosive energy? >>>>>> >>>>>> No answer, as expected. >>>> >>>> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >>>> of >>>> explosive energy. >>> >> >> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >> of explosive energy. > > And yet you are the one that can not explain why there were "Surviving > Corners" to both the Twin Towers. No one cares. Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint of explosive energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m3lihb1piccjg29jth65pqj976jhevo0do@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #284243 |
HAVEN'T YOU GUYS KILLED THIS TOPIC BY NOW? MOVE ON! Saul Levy On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:52:04 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: ><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> all >>>>>>> way too small >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>> especially >>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>> >>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>> >>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>> >>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes >>> MRR >>> nukes different? >> >> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >> explosive energy? > >ROTFLMAO because the fact that the seismic readings of WTC7 crashing to the >ground were so fcuking small indicates other readings were messed up too. >ROTFLMAO > >Oh and what can only be explained by deep underground MRR nukes: > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > >Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 17:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfbljb$j39$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #284258 |
YEAH, IT'S ABOUT AS INTERESTING AS SOLLY'S LOVE LIFE WITH FATIMA THE CAMEL. Notroll2016 "Saul Levy" wrote in message news:m3lihb1piccjg29jth65pqj976jhevo0do@4ax.com... HAVEN'T YOU GUYS KILLED THIS TOPIC BY NOW? MOVE ON! Saul Levy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97nihb5g6l7892u7qm7mpqoh381skennan@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #284259 |
YOU HAVE NO IDEA SINCE YOU ARE A FUCKING TROLLSHIT! GO EAT SOME DOG SHIT! Saul Levy On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:52:31 -0500, "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> wrote: >YEAH, IT'S ABOUT AS INTERESTING AS SOLLY'S LOVE LIFE WITH FATIMA THE CAMEL. > >Notroll2016 > >"Saul Levy" wrote in message >news:m3lihb1piccjg29jth65pqj976jhevo0do@4ax.com... > >HAVEN'T YOU GUYS KILLED THIS TOPIC BY NOW? > >MOVE ON! > >Saul Levy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web