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 4 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 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284109 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>> >>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>> >>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>> >>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>> >>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>> it has been posted many times. >>>> >>>> Or you could do a google search. >>> >>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison of >>> the destruction of other buildings. >> >> Sure it was. > > Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground are Exactly what one would expect. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JMOdnaRSSbHSPIvKnZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284121 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>> >>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>> >>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>> >>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison >>>> of >>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>> >>> Sure it was. >> >> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >> are > > Exactly what one would expect. So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as a Jackhammer? Wow? Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284189 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>> >>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison >>>>> of >>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>> >>>> Sure it was. >>> >>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >>> are >> >> Exactly what one would expect. > > So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as a > Jackhammer? Wow? Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XqSdnbmzB-swiITKnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284193 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>> >>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>> comparison >>>>>> of >>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>> >>>>> Sure it was. >>>> >>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >>>> are >>> >>> Exactly what one would expect. >> >> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as >> a >> Jackhammer? Wow? > > Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 so where was WTC7's "energy?" 47 floors of building and it hits the ground with the same amount of energy and force as a jackhammer. ROTFLMAO Somoehing is clearly wrong with your seismic readings and Michaels BULLSHIT about how debris ended up in the basement without crushing the "Surviving Corners." 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 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284229 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>> >>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >>>>> are >>>> >>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>> >>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as >>> a >>> Jackhammer? Wow? >> >> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. > > There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at best. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m6OdnXC7BLb6vITKnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284232 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>> ground >>>>>> are >>>>> >>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>> >>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>> as >>>> a >>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>> >>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >> >> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 > > Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at best. And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? Are you that st00pid? You are insane and the following is not supported by NIST's "Global Collapse" theory but the fact the Twin Towers were vaporized before they could crush the "Surviving Corners" where over a dozen people survived. 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 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 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284234 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>> ground >>>>>>> are >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>> >>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>>> as >>>>> a >>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>> >>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>> >>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >> >> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at best. > > And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were > supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? Of course not; that would be stupid, much like your including the same link eleven times. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SZydnW2qCbl4s4TKnZ2dnUU7-fHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284239 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>>>> as >>>>>> a >>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>> >>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>> >>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>> >>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>> best. >> >> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were >> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? > > Of course not; that would be stupid, Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? You are not making any sense. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284242 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>> >>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>> >>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>> best. >>> >>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were >>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >> >> Of course not; that would be stupid, > > Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface > waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? What delusion makes you think they were? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xcGdnVsv5PF3q4TKnZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284246 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>> >>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>> best. >>>> >>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>> were >>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>> >>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >> >> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? > > What delusion makes you think they were? Sure I know you posted the seismic readings for WTC1 and WTC2 and I also know you never posted them for WTC7 and you never explained why the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2 are comparable to much much much smaller buildings. AND YOU STILL FAIL TO PROVE HOW A "GLOBAL COLLAPSE" can not crush the "Surviving Corners" the exact same way a deep underground MRR nuke misses 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 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284248 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>>> best. >>>>> >>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>>> were >>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>> >>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>> >>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >> >> What delusion makes you think they were? As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Xq6dnTvHLsvz3YTKnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284252 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>>>> best. >>>>>> >>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>>>> were >>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>> >>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>> >>> What delusion makes you think they were? > > As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AND OVER THIS AND OVER THIS and it was the very small surface waves and the lack of p-waves and the lack of s-waves. And don't forget this is not the result of a Global Collaspe because those would not have left "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky > > -- > Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284253 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>> >>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>> >>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >> >> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UNudnd785MqQ9YfKnZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284256 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>> surface >>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>> >>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>> >>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. > > As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot > think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 that fell at free fall speed for over 100 feet then where is it's "seismic signature?" ROTFLMAO Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ifquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284273 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>>> surface >>>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>>> >>>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>>> >>>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. >> >> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. > > And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 14:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3MSdne8WYolawr_KnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284279 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:6ifquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>>>> >>>>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. >>> >>> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >>> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. >> >> And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 > > As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot > think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. Given that WTC7 didn't make any s-waves or p-waves when it was supposed to have crashed to the ground then it left the same seismic signature of a jackhammer. And the one thing that only nukes can explain: 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 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <316avc-kd8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #284352 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:6ifquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>>>>> >>>>>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. >>>> >>>> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >>>> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. >>> >>> And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 >> >> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. > > Given that WTC7 didn't make any s-waves or p-waves Only delusional fuckwits thinks falling buildings have the seismic signature of an earthquake. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 07:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <E7WdnRRcr-BATInKnZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284109 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT TOO. > >>And I've dealt with LIARS like you that will lie and lie and lie even >>after >>proven to be liars. > >>Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground are >>comparable to much much smaller buildings and the seismic record for when >>WTC7 hit the ground is comparable to a jackhammer. > > So why haven't you shown us those seismic records of WTC 1 & 2, or those > of known smaller buildings, or those of WTC 7, or even that of a > jackhammer???? You know idiot. It is because I keep showing you over and over and over again that the Twin Towers could not even crush the side of the Twin Tower furthest from the MRR nuke that vaporized most of it you idi00t. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And since you can't handle the evidence you keep removing it from your replies. so: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i9SdnfLoeoFRPovKnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284145 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf2rl5$b1i$3@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... > > >>> So why haven't you shown us those seismic records of WTC 1 & 2, or those >>> of known smaller buildings, or those of WTC 7, or even that of a >>> jackhammer???? > >>You know idiot. It is because I keep showing you over and over and over >>again that the Twin Towers could not even crush the side of the Twin Tower >>furthest from the MRR nuke that vaporized most of it you idi00t. > > So where are the WTC seismic records, containing the distinctive nuclear > explosion signature? Where are the seismic records of other collapsing > buildings? Where are the seismic records of a jackhammer? Who says an MRR nuke has a "distinctive nuclear" signature? > Where are the engineering specs of these mysterious "MRR Nukes"? Does it > explain how the Magic works? Was Disney involved? Don't forget that MRR nukes explain the following a lot better than your BS or NIST BS about a "Global Collapse" that couldn't even crush both sides of the Twin Towers. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xKKdnROU-f6JYoXKnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #284191 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf83iv$sbo$3@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf2rl5$b1i$3@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... >>> >>> So where are the WTC seismic records, containing the distinctive nuclear >>> explosion signature? Where are the seismic records of other collapsing >>> buildings? Where are the seismic records of a jackhammer? > >>Who says an MRR nuke has a "distinctive nuclear" signature? > > *ALL* nukes have a "distinctive nuclear" detonation signature! But you keep failing to see the MRR nukes can hide in the background seismic activity especially since other seismic readings were a lot smaller than they should have been. ROTFLMAO AND YOU AND NIST HAVE FAILED TO PROVE WHY GAZILLIONS 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 Something is clearly wrong with your viewpoint. 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 And given that the seismic reading taken when WTC7 appeared to crash to the ground was comparable to a jackhammer it is possible that the seismic reading for when the nukes were detonated were also a lot smaller than they should have been. Cool huh? 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]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web