Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #273412 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-23 09:23 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-24 04:05 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 12 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.
NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:23 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:29 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:38 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:08 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:33 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 14:42 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:51 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 16:05 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 15:13 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 17:54 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-22 15:39 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 17:24 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-24 22:46 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 14:12 -0500
Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-25 21:45 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-26 10:54 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 16:57 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:23 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 22:09 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:09 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 20:49 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 17:34 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-24 02:05 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:54 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:39 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 16:17 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 15:08 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 18:00 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 23:16 +0100
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:04 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:03 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 23:42 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 17:12 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-24 01:21 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-24 13:28 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 12:45 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 17:54 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-25 05:41 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-25 11:05 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-25 20:53 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-25 15:51 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 03:33 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 07:47 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (FNN stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 08:34 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (FNN stupid) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 09:55 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 09:36 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 11:00 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 15:43 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 16:52 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 14:14 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:00 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:12 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 21:24 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:52 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 22:15 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 19:19 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 23:52 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-27 04:12 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 17:04 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 13:11 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Note 4 jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 09:25 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Note 4 jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 17:05 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Note 4 jim) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 12:45 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-26 18:29 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 19:29 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-27 09:48 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (NORAD lied) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 09:19 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (NORAD lied) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 10:34 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 16:26 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 21:40 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 04:47 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:01 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (FNN stupid) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 19:08 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-27 14:28 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 16:42 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:54 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 17:04 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 15:13 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 23:05 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:51 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 06:11 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 08:55 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 19:02 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 17:58 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 22:29 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 16:42 -0400
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-27 05:43 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:10 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 20:10 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 19:27 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:05 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:12 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 14:35 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 21:03 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 19:09 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 21:36 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-24 07:02 +0200
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 02:37 +0000
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 23:15 +0100
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:57 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:35 -0700
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:57 -0500
Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:05 -0500
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 17:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) |
| Message-ID | <nO2dndrCSJcuFELInZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #274091 |
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8nkm7k.b0k.19.1@news.alt.net... > Rocky wrote: >> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message >> news:charlie-gordon1492-314EED.14284127082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... >>> In article <MKmdndzPQoH14ELInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message >>>> news:charlie-gordon1492-7AFFCE.10002027082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... >>>>>>> And he never figured out that if the station had a directional AM >>>>>>> antenna >>>>>>> and it was aimed at the North Tower that would explain why they >>>>>>> picked >>>>>>> up so >>>>>>> many EMPs and none of the other major networks did. >>>>> >>>>> Do television stations really use AM for private communication? >>>> >>>> You just aren't thinking because if WCBS was using FM there is no >>>> way they >>>> could have recorded the EMP at the exact same time the ground below >>>> the >>> >>> Actually I am thinking if you cannot get something this simple >>> straight, why >>> would I believe you cannot get anything more complicated, like your >>> zipper fly, >>> straight. >> >> That is the way I feel about what NIST stated about WTC7. >> >> Since the NIST report about the Twin Towers was filled with complete >> and udder bullshit why should I believe what NIST wrote about WTC7? See: >> >> Playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W > > why should anyone care what you believe Because the war against terror is bogus. The real "terrorist" are the ones that flew CGIs into the Twin Towers, used nukes to vaporize them and then paid NIST millions and millions of dollars for them to come up with total bullshit about what made the Twin Towers race a rock to the ground. The facts prove the FAA lied, NORAD lied, the EPA lied, the NNSA lied. USGS lied and as I just stated NIST lied and not just lied but they lied BIG TIME as proven by the videos in the link right above your reply. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 15:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) |
| Message-ID | <8nknbg.hhe.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #274095 |
Rocky wrote: > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8nkm7k.b0k.19.1@news.alt.net... >> Rocky wrote: >>> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message >>> news:charlie-gordon1492-314EED.14284127082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... >>>> In article <MKmdndzPQoH14ELInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message >>>>> news:charlie-gordon1492-7AFFCE.10002027082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... >>>>>>>> And he never figured out that if the station had a directional >>>>>>>> AM antenna >>>>>>>> and it was aimed at the North Tower that would explain why they >>>>>>>> picked >>>>>>>> up so >>>>>>>> many EMPs and none of the other major networks did. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do television stations really use AM for private communication? >>>>> >>>>> You just aren't thinking because if WCBS was using FM there is no >>>>> way they >>>>> could have recorded the EMP at the exact same time the ground >>>>> below the >>>> >>>> Actually I am thinking if you cannot get something this simple >>>> straight, why >>>> would I believe you cannot get anything more complicated, like your >>>> zipper fly, >>>> straight. >>> >>> That is the way I feel about what NIST stated about WTC7. >>> >>> Since the NIST report about the Twin Towers was filled with complete >>> and udder bullshit why should I believe what NIST wrote about WTC7? >>> See: Playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W >> >> why should anyone care what you believe > > Because the war against terror is bogus. > > The real "terrorist" are the ones that flew CGIs into the Twin > Towers, used nukes to vaporize them and then paid NIST millions and > millions of > dollars for them to come up with total bullshit about what made the Twin > Towers race a rock to the ground. > > The facts prove the FAA lied, NORAD lied, the EPA lied, the NNSA > lied. USGS lied and as I just stated NIST lied and not just lied but they > lied > BIG TIME as proven by the videos in the link right above your reply. > > Rocky who cares
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 23:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) |
| Message-ID | <omh4bc-s6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #274095 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Because the war against terror is bogus. You really are quite insane, you raving kook. <snip remaining insane ravings> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 21:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) |
| Message-ID | <fbd4bc-i1t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #274088 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Since the NIST report about the Twin Towers was filled with complete and > udder bullshit why should I believe what NIST wrote about WTC7? See: Translation: the NIST used big words, sience, math and engineering in the report and Rocky is too ignorant and stupid to understand any of it. Perhaps if the NIST would put together a dumbed down video targeted for third graders and put it on Youtube, Rocky could understand it. <snip remaining insane idiot ravings> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 06:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) |
| Message-ID | <a7475c64187e4ffdc900f89f12903de7@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #273898 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC), in <news:MKmdndzPQoH14ELInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message > news:charlie-gordon1492-7AFFCE.10002027082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... >>>> And he never figured out that if the station had a directional AM >>>> antenna and it was aimed at the North Tower that would explain >>>> why they picked up so many EMPs and none of the other major networks did. Bwahahahaaa! A "directional AM antenna" on a moving helicopter, which would have to be reoriented whenever the helicopter moved, and which would lose signal every time it went behind a building? They transmit from an omnidirectional antenna to a VHF mobile receiver on the ground, which relays it to satellite... because helicopters until recently had problems transmitting to satellite directly due to blade interference. Sort of like this: <http://cyclingtipscontent.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/HF-Complex-Long-Distance-System.jpg> No EMPs were evident on 9/11/2001. Had there been, electronic devices in a wide radius would have literally burned out. There would have been *no* video of the collapse or immediate aftermath. Fuck, you are about the stupidest person ever. Take your meds, Mike. Kook. LOL >> Do television stations really use AM for private communication? > You just aren't thinking because if WCBS was using FM there is no way they > could have recorded the EMP at the exact same time the ground below the > North Tower shook the North Tower like a tuning fork. Utter bullshit. A nuclear EMP is called "DC to daylight" because the frequency range of the EMP pulse is literally DC up to exohertz range. It disrupts *all* radio signals because it's orders of magnitudes of orders of magnitude stronger than any radio signal. The modulation scheme used to transmit the radio signals wouldn't matter in that case. You're delusionally blathering on about something you know nothing about. Kook. LOL > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 18 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how delusional you are. 4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>). They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation. 5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). 16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes (MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3 nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is? While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps (radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this *still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed "EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly head again. LOL 17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your "34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes (MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d6f5a7b3f56eeeb6f@dizum.com>))... eventually, your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the real city was blown up by 1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's *proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL 18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words "with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID: <43acc7488b179f3bfea83ef7076f92b9@dizum.com>). Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back on your meds, you delusional loon. ====================================================== There are now 18 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp simple physics. Kook. LOL -- ------------------------------------ Michael Scott Guthrie (aka Rocky) 336-643-6611 6913 Maynard Road Summerfield, NC 27358-9206 Now that everyone knows who you are, they can get you the psychiatric help you so desperately need. Perhaps they could call your mother Paula S. Guthrie, given that you're in your 30's and you still live at home with mommy... and Grandma Martha. LOL Your brother Scott certainly won't be happy to know you're embarrassing the Guthrie family name, how's he gonna find real estate clients if everyone knows the Guthries are a pack of schizo kooks? LOL Just how many backwoods redneck hillbillies can fit in one small 1200 sf 3bd/1.5 ba house?! Does RockyRetard share a bedroom with his brother? Or do they make Grandma Martha sleep on the porch? LOL ------------------------------------ Michael Guthrie (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Your brain becoming more and more broken, in just one short day it moved from G) above to now telling you there are *more* than 34 nukes. Where does your broken brain stop, Ko0k? Billions of intelligent nano-nukes covering every metal surface of the twin towers? Robot "crisis actors" able to withstand the extreme radiation? All of NYC being blow up, replaced by a CGI that we all are fooled by today? LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 08:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) |
| Message-ID | <JvednaxVV7Zo-n3InZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #274135 |
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message news:a7475c64187e4ffdc900f89f12903de7@dizum.com... > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC), > in <news:MKmdndzPQoH14ELInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly > jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >>>>> And he never figured out that if the station had a directional AM >>>>> antenna and it was aimed at the North Tower that would explain >>>>> why they picked up so many EMPs and none of the other major networks >>>>> did. > > Bwahahahaaa! A "directional AM antenna" on a moving helicopter, which > would have to be reoriented whenever the helicopter moved, and which > would lose signal every time it went behind a building? Boy you are an idiot because the directional antenna would be on the end receiving the signal from the WCBS Helicopter. DUH.. > They transmit from an omnidirectional antenna to a VHF mobile receiver > on the ground, which relays it to satellite... because helicopters > until recently had problems transmitting to satellite directly due to > blade interference. Why not just send it back to WCBS and then they can do what they want with the video from there. DUH. Don't forget the video came from WCBS so there was no reason to bounce it off of a satellite first. DUH. > No EMPs were evident on 9/11/2001. Had there been, electronic devices > in a wide radius would have literally burned out. There would have > been *no* video of the collapse or immediate aftermath. Again, you are talking about airborne nukes you clown and the fact remains the gound shook at the exact same time an EMP was recorded. Plus the remains of the Twin Towers are consistant with something that makes EMPs. DUH. See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > Fuck, you are about the stupidest person ever. Take your meds, Mike. ROTFLMAO It is no secret what my name is or that I won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro-se litigant. So the fact you keep using the name Mike makes you wrong. And if you are so smart why can't the media say the Twin Towers were a "Pancake Collapse?" And then what is really the difference between a "Pancake Collapse" and what NIST calls a "Progressive Collapse." And how many "Progressive Collapses" look like their work was done by a nuke? See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 19:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) |
| Message-ID | <40739ad7b647c4feeb20eb8c75931b5f@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #274147 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC), in <news:JvednaxVV7Zo-n3InZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > wrote in message news:a7475c64187e4ffdc900f89f12903de7@dizum.com... >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC), >> in <news:MKmdndzPQoH14ELInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly >> jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>> And he never figured out that if the station had a directional AM >>>>>> antenna and it was aimed at the North Tower that would explain >>>>>> why they picked up so many EMPs and none of the other major networks >>>>>> did. >> Bwahahahaaa! A "directional AM antenna" on a moving helicopter, which >> would have to be reoriented whenever the helicopter moved, and which >> would lose signal every time it went behind a building? > Boy you are an idiot because the directional antenna would be on the end > receiving the signal from the WCBS Helicopter. DUH.. Wrong. First, you didn't even know about the mobile relay station until I told you about it, at which time your kooky conspiracy theory changed *yet* *again*... remember, you said "He thinks WCBS in Nuke York City uses satellite to get from the helicopter to the station." meaning you thought they transmitted (via AM. LOL!) directly to the station. Second, if the receiving antenna is directional, they have to track the location of the helicopter(s)... yeah, plural, you fucking dimwit... just how is a directional antenna going to receive multiple signals from multiple helicopters at multiple locations if it's fucking *directional* and needs to be aimed at the transmitting antenna? Fuck sake, Mike, you're about a dumb as a stump. Why don't you take some time off to actually learn how things work? Then you wouldn't sound like a low-IQ idiot. Kook. LOL >> They transmit from an omnidirectional antenna to a VHF mobile receiver >> on the ground, which relays it to satellite... because helicopters >> until recently had problems transmitting to satellite directly due to >> blade interference. > Why not just send it back to WCBS and then they can do what they want with > the video from there. DUH. Because you're an idiot who doesn't understand how things work. DUH. Kook. LOL > Don't forget the video came from WCBS so there was no reason to bounce it > off of a satellite first. DUH. And WCBS is a CBS affiliate, meaning they have a satellite tie-in to the entire CBS coverage footprint, which they'd not have if they didn't use satellite. CBS Corporate can decide to show any newsfeed from any of their affiliates at any time, that's how breaking news is broadcast nationwide as it happens. Cheerist, you're quite literally the stupidest person I've ever experienced. Take your meds, Mike. Kook. LOL >> No EMPs were evident on 9/11/2001. Had there been, electronic devices >> in a wide radius would have literally burned out. There would have >> been *no* video of the collapse or immediate aftermath. > Again, you are talking about airborne nuke<SMACKAKOOK!> Whether airborne or buried, the EMP would not be attenuated. Solid rock doesn't conduct electricity, and thus wouldn't act as a Faraday cage to attenuate the EMP. Had there been an EMP, we wouldn't have any video of the collapse or immediate aftermath, all the cameras would have their ICs literally burned internally. That no EMP was experienced means no nukes. This has been explained to you several times in the past. That you're too fucking stupid to learn even this simple fact proves you're a psychotic schizophrenic paranoid - delusional idiot off his meds. Take your meds, Mike. Kook. LOL > Plus the remains of the Twin Towers are consistant with something that makes > EM<SMACKAKOOK!> No, they weren't. Had the rubble of the twin towers had nuclear detonation radiological byproducts, then they would be "consistent with something that makes EMPS"... no EMP, no electronic equipment burning out due to EMP, no radiation, no radiation burns, no radiation sickness... no nukes. You're just a paranoid-delusional schizophrenic off his meds. Take your meds, Mike. Kook. LOL >> Fuck, you are about the stupidest person ever. Take your meds, Mike. > ROTFLMAO It is no secret what my name is or that I won a > jury tri<SMACKAKOOK!> No proof makes you a lying piece of shit. Again. Kook. LOL > And if you are so smart why can't the media say the Twin Towers were a > "Pancake Collapse?" <http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf> ===================================================== Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are found to be indeed negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record. ===================================================== > And then what is really the difference between a "Pancake Collapse" and what > NIST calls a "Progressive Collapse." The difference is that you're too fucking stupid to know the difference, Mike. Kook. LOL > And how many "Progressive Collapses" look like their work was done by a > nu<SMACKAKOOK!> Given that no nuclear demolition has ever taken place, none. You're just a paranoid-delusional schizophrenic off his meds. Take your meds, Mike. Whoopsie... intelligent people have analyzed Khalezov's kooky nuclear demolition conspiracy theory... and just as the intelligent folk here have found, his claims have holes large enough to drive a WTC tower through: <http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=60> If an underground nuke was detonated, just how did the basement and slurry wall survive, you retard? Kook. LOL > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 18 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how delusional you are. 4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>). They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation. 5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). 16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes (MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3 nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is? While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps (radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this *still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed "EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly head again. LOL 17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your "34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes (MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d6f5a7b3f56eeeb6f@dizum.com>))... eventually, your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the real city was blown up by 1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's *proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL 18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words "with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID: <43acc7488b179f3bfea83ef7076f92b9@dizum.com>). Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back on your meds, you delusional loon. ====================================================== There are now 18 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp simple physics. Kook. LOL -- ------------------------------------ Michael Scott Guthrie (aka Rocky) 336-643-6611 6913 Maynard Road Summerfield, NC 27358-9206 Now that everyone knows who you are, they can get you the psychiatric help you so desperately need. Perhaps they could call your mother Paula S. Guthrie, given that you're in your 30's and you still live at home with mommy... and Grandma Martha. LOL Your brother Scott certainly won't be happy to know you're embarrassing the Guthrie family name, how's he gonna find real estate clients if everyone knows the Guthries are a pack of schizo kooks? LOL Just how many backwoods redneck hillbillies can fit in one small 1200 sf 3bd/1.5 ba house?! Does RockyRetard share a bedroom with his brother? Or do they make Grandma Martha sleep on the porch? LOL ------------------------------------ Michael Guthrie (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Your brain becoming more and more broken, in just one short day it moved from G) above to now telling you there are *more* than 34 nukes. Where does your broken brain stop, Ko0k? Billions of intelligent nano-nukes covering every metal surface of the twin towers? Robot "crisis actors" able to withstand the extreme radiation? All of NYC being blow up, replaced by a CGI that we all are fooled by today? LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 17:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) |
| Message-ID | <f3k6bc-427.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #274147 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Boy you are an idiot because the directional antenna would be on the end > receiving the signal from the WCBS Helicopter. DUH.. Utter nonsense; it is omnidirectional antennas on end points and FM, you raving lunatic. <snip remaining insane kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 22:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4acadf98709041a28abe249a09c19ce9@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #273893 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3y4czg9tm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:33:24 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler > Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of >> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3xv3axetm21m2@benson.localhost> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:53:16 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler >>> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>>> >>>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of >>>> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >>>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3xivkjctm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:41:35 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote >>>>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >>>>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) >>>>>> of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >>>>>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3vusyontm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:42:41 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote >>>>>>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, >>>>>>>> Summerfield, NC), in >>>>>>>> <news:YKednVuJFMz_i0fInZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>>>>>> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:63cpac-e84.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of >>>>>>>>>> 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> BT<SMACKAKOOK!> >>>>>>>>>> The energy of a building collapse is miniscule >>>>>>>>>> compared to a nuclear explosion, kook. >>>>>>>>> A<SMACKAKOOK!> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I on the other hand have evidence of the ground >>>>>>>>> shaking and a matching EMP when the nuke under >>>>>>>>> WTC3 was detonated. <G> >>>>>>>> The ground shook because 1.5 million tons of concrete >>>>>>>> and steel were shifting as the central column buckled, >>>>>>>> you idiotic gullible dumshit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And there was no "EMP"... there was a firefighter with >>>>>>>> a camera *inside* one of the WTC towers *as* *it* >>>>>>>> *collapsed*... an EMP would have knocked that camera out, >>>>>>>> blown out its electronics. Not to mention an EMP would >>>>>>>> have blown out electrical substations, burned out >>>>>>>> electrical generation stations, caused helicopters to >>>>>>>> fall from the sky, burned out every single fucking camera >>>>>>>> in a radius of dozens of miles. That there is video of the >>>>>>>> event *as* it happened and immediately *after* it happened >>>>>>>> proves there were *no* EMPs. At all. Your kooky conspiracy >>>>>>>> theory is impossible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not to mention the fact that no nuclear detonation >>>>>>>> byproducts were found anywhere in NYC. They found trace >>>>>>>> amounts of tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law >>>>>>>> enforcement weapons sights, they found trace amounts of >>>>>>>> radium from industrial processes unrelated to nuclear >>>>>>>> weapons and *every* other form of radiation was at >>>>>>>> background levels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Get back on your meds, you delusional psychotic retard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kook. LOL >>>>>>>>> Th<SMACKAKOOK!> >>>>>>>> Idiotic mouth-breathers will have their delusional >>>>>>>> blathering bullshit shouted down, stomped into the dirt >>>>>>>> and raucously laughed at. If you weren't such a delusional >>>>>>>> retard, you'd realize what a fool you're making of yourself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kook. LOL >>>>>>> i know you're fighting with another K0ok like myself, >>>>>>> but last i checked, there is no written-on-paper >>>>>>> guarantee that EMP knocks out any random electronic device. >>>>>> There are no written-on-paper guarantees anywhere as >>>>>> regards nukes, you dumbass. Are you another of those >>>>>> kooks who thinks he can wrap electronic equipment in >>>>>> aluminum foil and it'll survive? A nuclear EMP is fucking >>>>>> *harsh*, it melts integrated electronics internally, it's >>>>>> ultra-wide-band (DC to daylight), and it's fucking >>>>>> difficult to shield against. >>>>>> >>>>>> You might want to look up what EMP did to Hawaii in 1962's >>>>>> 1.44 mT Starfish Prime explosion. And that nuclear explosion >>>>>> was a long distance (250 miles up, about 880 miles lateral >>>>>> distance to the southwest, launched from Johnston Atoll... >>>>>> so 914 miles as the crow flies) away from Hawaii. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that was with 1962 electronic devices... >>>>>> no tiny transistors, they were still using tube-type equipment >>>>>> back in those days, which is naturally much more resistant to >>>>>> EMP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, nuke EMPs are fucking *brutal*. >>>>> yeah, but have you ever started a sentence with the word "And"? >>>>> >>>>> and your evidence for this EMP is where? >>>> Butthurt and irony mixed together makes a really funky smell... >>>> like an egg and cabbage fart in an elevator. LOL >>>> >>>> Your denial of the 1962 Starfish Prime EMP, along with your >>>> continued denial of reality, is noted. LOL >> <crickets> LOL >>>>>> Or the 1.7 kT Hardtack-Yucca HEMP and the damage it caused... >>>>>> the EMP was off the scale. Or did you not know the magnitude >>>>>> of the EMP is not dependent upon the size of the nuke, but >>>>>> upon how fast the nuke can detonate all its nuclear material... >>>>>> so smaller nukes have a worse EMP because they can detonate >>>>>> all their nuclear material instantaneously. >>>>> are these things you learned in the merchant marines? >>>> Is that more of your delusional blather? LOL >>>> >>>> Go on, CockHopper... get to blathering out your delusional >>>> take on who you think I am. You know you want to, and we all >>>> need a good laugh. >>>> >>>> <snicker> >> <crickets> LOL >>>>>> They tested transistorized radios in the 70's and how well >>>>>> they would survive an EMP... only a few survived, those >>>>>> with the oldest and thus largest transistors. As transistors >>>>>> continue to get smaller and smaller, there is no way any >>>>>> modern consumer-grade electronic devices would withstand >>>>>> the internal arcing that an EMP would produce. >>>>> a lot of good those will do you when the power grid is >>>>> out, foamyk0ok. >>>> So you're admitting that what I state is true, but you're >>>> using as your backpedal the fact that the electrical grid >>>> would be down anyway... >>>> >>>> I guess you've never heard of emergency generators (the >>>> diesel I've got has *no* engine electronics, it's all >>>> mechanical, except for the magneto to produce the spark >>>> for the pony engine, but that'll survive an EMP, ya think? >>>> As will the generator windings. LOL) >>>> >>>> I guess you've never heard of solar panels. LOL >>>> >>>> I guess you've never heard of batteries... which means your >>>> 4 foot long 6 inch diameter vibrator is kickstart diesel. LOL >>>> >>>> Fag. LOL >> <crickets> LOL >>>>>>> i would surmise that some will survive an EMP, especially >>>>>>> those designed recently which happen to luckily have >>>>>>> active circuit protection. >>>>>> "Active circuit protection" won't help when the fucking >>>>>> IC chips themselves have literally been melted internally. >>>>>> You'll be getting right on producing a list of >>>>>> consumer-grade electronic devices that have even basic >>>>>> lightning strike shielding, let alone EMP shielding. >>>> <crickets> LOL >>>>>>> ...not that i k0okily believe nukes went off in WTC or >>>>>>> that global warming is 97% of the world's climatologists >>>>>>> trying to kontrol the world, or anything. >>>>>> NukeKook. LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> Climate Change Denier. LOL >>>>> i believe you've got that backwards. you are the one who >>>>> suspects that 97% of all climate scientists have started >>>>> a secret pact to lie to the world since you are a >>>>> k0okyKonservative. >>>> No, I specifically did the math to prove that 97% of >>>> "climate scientists" do *not* believe in global warming, >>>> you math and reading comprehension challenged kook. LOL >>>> >>>> But like you said, intellectually besting you is like >>>> shooting fish in a barrel. LOL >>>> >>>> It's you and your libtard comrades who are still bleating >>>> out your "zOMG! Anthropomurphy Glubulur Wormings!" bullshit >>>> who are denying reality, given that NASA, UAH, RSS and UK >>>> Met data proves the planet has been cooling for the last >>>> ~17 years. >>>> >>>> Climate Change Denying Kook. LOL >>> i'm not the one here calling it "global warming", didya notice? >> "...not that i k0okily believe nukes went off in WTC or that global >> warming is 97% of the world's climatologists trying to kontrol the >> world, or anything." >> >> Fucking lying Climate Change Denying Kook. LOL > are you intentionally this fucking stupid? Yes, you are, stupid lying projectionist Climate Change Denying Kook who's admitted he's stupid. LOL -- Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey) 5907 Stanton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA DildoRider admits he's stoooopid: MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com> ================================================= >> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's >> damaged your brain, DildoRider. > then it appears that you like shooting fish in > barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are. Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell. <snicker> =================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 16:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.x3zs47o1tm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #273955 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:29:50 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of > 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as > root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3y4czg9tm21m2@benson.localhost> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:33:24 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler >> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > >>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>> >>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of >>> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3xv3axetm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:53:16 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote >>>> Wrangler >>>> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > >>>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>>>> >>>>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) >>>>> of >>>>> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >>>>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3xivkjctm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:41:35 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote >>>>>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) >>>>>>> of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked >>>>>>> up as >>>>>>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3vusyontm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:42:41 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote >>>>>>>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, >>>>>>>>> Summerfield, NC), in >>>>>>>>> <news:YKednVuJFMz_i0fInZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>>>>>>> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:63cpac-e84.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of >>>>>>>>>>> 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> BT<SMACKAKOOK!> > >>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a building collapse is miniscule >>>>>>>>>>> compared to a nuclear explosion, kook. > >>>>>>>>>> A<SMACKAKOOK!> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I on the other hand have evidence of the ground >>>>>>>>>> shaking and a matching EMP when the nuke under >>>>>>>>>> WTC3 was detonated. <G> > >>>>>>>>> The ground shook because 1.5 million tons of concrete >>>>>>>>> and steel were shifting as the central column buckled, >>>>>>>>> you idiotic gullible dumshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And there was no "EMP"... there was a firefighter with >>>>>>>>> a camera *inside* one of the WTC towers *as* *it* >>>>>>>>> *collapsed*... an EMP would have knocked that camera out, >>>>>>>>> blown out its electronics. Not to mention an EMP would >>>>>>>>> have blown out electrical substations, burned out >>>>>>>>> electrical generation stations, caused helicopters to >>>>>>>>> fall from the sky, burned out every single fucking camera >>>>>>>>> in a radius of dozens of miles. That there is video of the >>>>>>>>> event *as* it happened and immediately *after* it happened >>>>>>>>> proves there were *no* EMPs. At all. Your kooky conspiracy >>>>>>>>> theory is impossible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not to mention the fact that no nuclear detonation >>>>>>>>> byproducts were found anywhere in NYC. They found trace >>>>>>>>> amounts of tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law >>>>>>>>> enforcement weapons sights, they found trace amounts of >>>>>>>>> radium from industrial processes unrelated to nuclear >>>>>>>>> weapons and *every* other form of radiation was at >>>>>>>>> background levels. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Get back on your meds, you delusional psychotic retard. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kook. LOL > >>>>>>>>>> Th<SMACKAKOOK!> > >>>>>>>>> Idiotic mouth-breathers will have their delusional >>>>>>>>> blathering bullshit shouted down, stomped into the dirt >>>>>>>>> and raucously laughed at. If you weren't such a delusional >>>>>>>>> retard, you'd realize what a fool you're making of yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kook. LOL > >>>>>>>> i know you're fighting with another K0ok like myself, >>>>>>>> but last i checked, there is no written-on-paper >>>>>>>> guarantee that EMP knocks out any random electronic device. > >>>>>>> There are no written-on-paper guarantees anywhere as >>>>>>> regards nukes, you dumbass. Are you another of those >>>>>>> kooks who thinks he can wrap electronic equipment in >>>>>>> aluminum foil and it'll survive? A nuclear EMP is fucking >>>>>>> *harsh*, it melts integrated electronics internally, it's >>>>>>> ultra-wide-band (DC to daylight), and it's fucking >>>>>>> difficult to shield against. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You might want to look up what EMP did to Hawaii in 1962's >>>>>>> 1.44 mT Starfish Prime explosion. And that nuclear explosion >>>>>>> was a long distance (250 miles up, about 880 miles lateral >>>>>>> distance to the southwest, launched from Johnston Atoll... >>>>>>> so 914 miles as the crow flies) away from Hawaii. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And that was with 1962 electronic devices... >>>>>>> no tiny transistors, they were still using tube-type equipment >>>>>>> back in those days, which is naturally much more resistant to >>>>>>> EMP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, nuke EMPs are fucking *brutal*. > >>>>>> yeah, but have you ever started a sentence with the word "And"? >>>>>> >>>>>> and your evidence for this EMP is where? > >>>>> Butthurt and irony mixed together makes a really funky smell... >>>>> like an egg and cabbage fart in an elevator. LOL >>>>> >>>>> Your denial of the 1962 Starfish Prime EMP, along with your >>>>> continued denial of reality, is noted. LOL > >>> <crickets> LOL > >>>>>>> Or the 1.7 kT Hardtack-Yucca HEMP and the damage it caused... >>>>>>> the EMP was off the scale. Or did you not know the magnitude >>>>>>> of the EMP is not dependent upon the size of the nuke, but >>>>>>> upon how fast the nuke can detonate all its nuclear material... >>>>>>> so smaller nukes have a worse EMP because they can detonate >>>>>>> all their nuclear material instantaneously. > >>>>>> are these things you learned in the merchant marines? > >>>>> Is that more of your delusional blather? LOL >>>>> >>>>> Go on, CockHopper... get to blathering out your delusional >>>>> take on who you think I am. You know you want to, and we all >>>>> need a good laugh. >>>>> >>>>> <snicker> > >>> <crickets> LOL > >>>>>>> They tested transistorized radios in the 70's and how well >>>>>>> they would survive an EMP... only a few survived, those >>>>>>> with the oldest and thus largest transistors. As transistors >>>>>>> continue to get smaller and smaller, there is no way any >>>>>>> modern consumer-grade electronic devices would withstand >>>>>>> the internal arcing that an EMP would produce. > >>>>>> a lot of good those will do you when the power grid is >>>>>> out, foamyk0ok. > >>>>> So you're admitting that what I state is true, but you're >>>>> using as your backpedal the fact that the electrical grid >>>>> would be down anyway... >>>>> >>>>> I guess you've never heard of emergency generators (the >>>>> diesel I've got has *no* engine electronics, it's all >>>>> mechanical, except for the magneto to produce the spark >>>>> for the pony engine, but that'll survive an EMP, ya think? >>>>> As will the generator windings. LOL) >>>>> >>>>> I guess you've never heard of solar panels. LOL >>>>> >>>>> I guess you've never heard of batteries... which means your >>>>> 4 foot long 6 inch diameter vibrator is kickstart diesel. LOL >>>>> >>>>> Fag. LOL > >>> <crickets> LOL > >>>>>>>> i would surmise that some will survive an EMP, especially >>>>>>>> those designed recently which happen to luckily have >>>>>>>> active circuit protection. > >>>>>>> "Active circuit protection" won't help when the fucking >>>>>>> IC chips themselves have literally been melted internally. >>>>>>> You'll be getting right on producing a list of >>>>>>> consumer-grade electronic devices that have even basic >>>>>>> lightning strike shielding, let alone EMP shielding. > >>>>> <crickets> LOL > >>>>>>>> ...not that i k0okily believe nukes went off in WTC or >>>>>>>> that global warming is 97% of the world's climatologists >>>>>>>> trying to kontrol the world, or anything. > >>>>>>> NukeKook. LOL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Climate Change Denier. LOL > >>>>>> i believe you've got that backwards. you are the one who >>>>>> suspects that 97% of all climate scientists have started >>>>>> a secret pact to lie to the world since you are a >>>>>> k0okyKonservative. > >>>>> No, I specifically did the math to prove that 97% of >>>>> "climate scientists" do *not* believe in global warming, >>>>> you math and reading comprehension challenged kook. LOL >>>>> >>>>> But like you said, intellectually besting you is like >>>>> shooting fish in a barrel. LOL >>>>> >>>>> It's you and your libtard comrades who are still bleating >>>>> out your "zOMG! Anthropomurphy Glubulur Wormings!" bullshit >>>>> who are denying reality, given that NASA, UAH, RSS and UK >>>>> Met data proves the planet has been cooling for the last >>>>> ~17 years. >>>>> >>>>> Climate Change Denying Kook. LOL > >>>> i'm not the one here calling it "global warming", didya notice? > >>> "...not that i k0okily believe nukes went off in WTC or that global >>> warming is 97% of the world's climatologists trying to kontrol the >>> world, or anything." >>> >>> Fucking lying Climate Change Denying Kook. LOL > >> are you intentionally this fucking stupid? > > Yes, you are, stupid lying projectionist Climate Change Denying Kook > who's admitted he's stupid. LOL > your lack of a gish gallop concerns me. is everything okay, snickers? -- http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg http://cafepress.com/kooktown http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :) if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try: http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 05:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3f0c10ba52067f7540a7e24c55747784@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #273958 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3zs47o1tm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > your lack of a gish gallop concerns me. is everything okay, snickers? Incompetent bumbler doesn't even know the origins of "Gish gallop", nor that he's the engaged in the activity, not me... but he looked it up on a wiki site as one small part of his Gish gallop (note the proper capitalization, you moron) because he couldn't address the reality of his having bought into the libtard "zOMG! Androgornetic Clarmit Chaing! DURRRHH!" for 18 long years, as the planet actually cooled off that whole time, as proven by data from NASA, UAH, RSS and UK Met. But let's play your game, DildoRider... but rather than the non sequitur Gish gallop you're trying, I'll be going fact-based. Get to answering each and every item below, or admit you're a gullible retard who bought into the libtard lie for 18 years despite the evidence. We'll start you out with just 20 items... you can get to the rest of them after you've disproved the first 20. <snicker> <http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural> ====================================================== 100 reasons why climate change is natural HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made: 1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. 11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago. NOTE: Not true. Sea levels are falling, as I've proved. Message-ID: <15ce479ee9f780168fcff750b5b112a8@dizum.com> 12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds 13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class — predominantly — are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”. 14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. 15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity” 16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming. 17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood. 18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control 19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. 20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates ====================================================== Remember, these aren't my arguments... they're reality. That you cannot refute reality stands as your admission to being so gullible that you denied reality for 18 long years as the planet cooled, as proven with data from NASA, UAH, RSS and UK Met. =============================================================== <http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html> Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data. Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998. *Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~18 years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~18 years: <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF> Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com> Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine archived it): <http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html> Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling* temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose. =============================================================== <snicker> -- Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey) 5907 Stanton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA DildoRider admits he's stoooopid: MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com> ================================================= >> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's >> damaged your brain, DildoRider. > then it appears that you like shooting fish in > barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are. Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell. <snicker> ================================================= DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com> ================================================= > so what you're saying is that your targets for attack > have to be really stupid or else you can't manage? =================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LqydndgNHO5EREHInZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273815 |
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message news:3ccfb888e6a5fbf359fed0174d784d56@dizum.com... > > Your denial of the 1962 Starfish Prime EMP, along with your continued > denial of reality, is noted. LOL > >>> Or the 1.7 kT Hardtack-Yucca HEMP and the damage it caused... the EMP >>> was off the scale. Or did you not know the magnitude of the EMP is not >>> dependent upon the size of the nuke, but upon how fast the nuke can >>> detonate all its nuclear material... so smaller nukes have a worse EMP >>> because they can detonate all their nuclear material instantaneously. ROTFLMAO because I stated earlier you were talking about EMPs from airborne nukes instead of deep underground nukes and you just proved it above. So now that NIST has been proven to use lie after lie after lie in their bullshit about a jet bringing the towers down there is a lot more credibility with anybody that says "Nukes." <G> Oh yeah, don't forget we have also caught the following other places besides NIST using lies and deception. EPA, NNSA and USGS. So now, watch and read from the following: Nuclear destruction of the WTC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 20:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mrj3le$dam$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #273832 |
. > > So now, watch and read from the following: > > Nuclear destruction of the WTC > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y > > Rocky, the lying Squirrelie > your explanation of Nuke at WTC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfEEsJ2JHQs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 19:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <df42d767b3b0f9ddcd09821bf960c226@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #273832 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC), in <news:LqydndgNHO5EREHInZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > wrote in message news:3ccfb888e6a5fbf359fed0174d784d56@dizum.com... >> Your denial of the 1962 Starfish Prime EMP, along with your continued >> denial of reality, is noted. LOL >>>> Or the 1.7 kT Hardtack-Yucca HEMP and the damage it caused... the EMP >>>> was off the scale. Or did you not know the magnitude of the EMP is not >>>> dependent upon the size of the nuke, but upon how fast the nuke can >>>> detonate all its nuclear material... so smaller nukes have a worse EMP >>>> because they can detonate all their nuclear material instantaneously. > ROTFLMAO because I stated earlier you were talking about EMPs from airborne > nukes instead of deep underground nukes and you just proved it above. So what? Solid bedrock is non-conductive, therefore it cannot act as a Faraday cage to attenuate EMP. And given that the WTC towers sat on solid bedrock, any EMP from any nukes detonated either above ground or below ground would exhibit a quite severe EMP. Given that no EMP was ever experienced, you're insane. This has been explained to you in the past, Mike. That your broken brain hasn't figure out simple physics yet proves you're insane. Take your meds, Mike. Kook. LOL > So now that NIST has been proven to use lie after lie after lie They've not been proven to have lied at all, whereas you've been proven to use lie after lie... remember your "Radiological Decontamination" video that didn't show even one single instance of radiological decontamination? Message-ID: <9a360155110142fc53e8f9d521321dc4@dizum.com> > <SMACKAKOOK!> > Nuclear destruction of the WTC > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y And another example of your lying... This has already been patiently explained to you... you're compounding that kook's stupidity with your own: Message-ID: <edae38a0c6f44d9c7720835cb03af732@dizum.com> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Point 1: There was no EMP. You've proven this multiple times with each video you post of the aftermath, as does that very video... if there'd been an EMP, there would be no cameras to record the collapse. Retard. Point 2: The "dust" was small because 1.5 million tons of steel and concrete collapsed due to fire weakening the steel structure. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA> Look familiar? A steel structure collapsing due to fire weakening the structure, and extremely small chunks was all that was left... because the concrete was hot. What does hot concrete do? Well, if it's got water in it (as the concrete at the WTC certainly would have, given that sprinklers went off), it explodes: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjmwFGET3SI> Have you ever heard of fire-induced spalling and cracking? <http://www.structuraldesigns.com.au/FAQs/Concrete/Fire%20damaged%20concrete.htm> <http://theconstructor.org/concrete/behaviour-of-concrete-in-extreme-fire/6769/> "Rapid heat rise in concrete causes evaporation of free and physically bound water and, at higher temperatures, moisture loss by dehydration of cement hydrates. If the permeability of the concrete is insufficient to allow an adequate rate of dissipation then the vapour pressure in the pores of the concrete will rise. A contribution to the low apparent permeability-resisting vapour dissipation, is the vapour condensation further inside the concrete away from the fire. Once the vapour pressure rises to a critical level cracking and explosive spalling will occur." Retard. Point 3: According to the video "Extremely powerful explosives such as nuclear bombs are required to produce such small particles"... <http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf> ===================================================== Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are found to be indeed negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record. ===================================================== Point 4: According to the video: "Several WTC survivors had "melted" or "hanging" skin - a phenomenon widely reported for survivors of the Hiroshima blast". And yet, there are no videos of these supposed "several WTC survivors who had 'melted' or 'hanging' skin", and no radiation burns, no radiation sickness, no nuclear-related radiation anywhere in NYC, no nuclear-signature seismic recordings, no satellite records of nuclear EMP, no nuclear EMP picked up by any cameras, no electronic equipment destroyed by nuclear EMP. Point 5: According to the video: "Steel structures, as well as people and other building contents inside the towers were vaporized"... an outright lie. Some people were burned in the fire, some were pulverized in the collapse. There is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. No steel was "vaporized". Some of the lower-grade A36 steel had its carbon burned out of it in the upper floors, turning back into iron, which melted. Some of the aluminum facade melted. The other steel was heated to incandescence but did not melt, a sure sign that the steel had been weakened enough to cause a collapse. Point 6: According to the video: "There was extreme heat in the rubble of the WTC for up to 6 months after 9/11, as evidenced by molten metal in the rubble"... yeah, because the buildings has thousands of gallons of jet fuel dumped on them then ignited, the combustibles in the buildings burned, then ~10% of the potential energy of 1.5 million tons of steel and concrete was converted to heat as the building collapsed. The "melted metal" in the rubble was primarily aluminum, with small amounts of that lower-grade A36 steel, which had its carbon burned out of it, turning it back into iron, lowering its melting temperature. Point 7: According to the video: "This heat is explained by a 'China syndrome' reaction, where residual nuclear material continues to undergo low level fission, thus generating intense heat". Had there been "residual nuclear material", there would have been nuclear weapon associated radiation. There was none. The video *you* *provided* purporting to show radiological decontamination showed nothing of the sort, as you've admitted. The NNSA issued dosimeters as a matter of SOP, as they do at *all* terrorist attack sites. The only radiation measure was slightly elevated beta radiation from trace amounts of tritium from the aircraft exit signs and LEO weapons sights... had a nuke detonated, tritium would have been much higher. Message-ID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com> <http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm> ===================================================== The absurdity of the "WTC was nuked" hoax An excellent refutation of the "WTC was nuked" claims was provided by Dr. Steven E. Jones, entitled "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers". He summarized a few key points as: <http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf> =============== The data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus, tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the "smoking gun." Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001? Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist. "Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers, which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the attacks." Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40. These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts the empirical facts. =============== ===================================================== IOW, people far smarter than you have analyzed this from every possible angle, and found that you're insane. Get back on your meds, Mike. Kook. LOL ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 18 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how delusional you are. 4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>). They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation. 5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). 16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes (MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3 nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is? While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps (radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this *still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed "EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly head again. LOL 17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your "34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes (MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d6f5a7b3f56eeeb6f@dizum.com>))... eventually, your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the real city was blown up by 1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's *proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL 18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words "with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID: <43acc7488b179f3bfea83ef7076f92b9@dizum.com>). Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back on your meds, you delusional loon. ====================================================== There are now 18 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp simple physics. Kook. LOL -- ------------------------------------ Michael Scott Guthrie (aka Rocky) 336-643-6611 6913 Maynard Road Summerfield, NC 27358-9206 Now that everyone knows who you are, they can get you the psychiatric help you so desperately need. Perhaps they could call your mother Paula S. Guthrie, given that you're in your 30's and you still live at home with mommy... and Grandma Martha. LOL Your brother Scott certainly won't be happy to know you're embarrassing the Guthrie family name, how's he gonna find real estate clients if everyone knows the Guthries are a pack of schizo kooks? LOL Just how many backwoods redneck hillbillies can fit in one small 1200 sf 3bd/1.5 ba house?! Does RockyRetard share a bedroom with his brother? Or do they make Grandma Martha sleep on the porch? LOL ------------------------------------ Michael Guthrie (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Your brain becoming more and more broken, in just one short day it moved from G) above to now telling you there are *more* than 34 nukes. Where does your broken brain stop, Ko0k? Billions of intelligent nano-nukes covering every metal surface of the twin towers? Robot "crisis actors" able to withstand the extreme radiation? All of NYC being blow up, replaced by a CGI that we all are fooled by today? LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 14:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ra6ktat2gnhg2cp8lnmp59kvh8kdr4pqo1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #273413 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:29:06 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message
>news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>
>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of
>> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>> Rocky
>>
>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>
>BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from
>broadcast to broadcast
Where can I, and anyone else with an interest, examine this
proof?
>so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos
>could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make very
>little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by the
>low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.
No nukes were used. You have proved this several times.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ta-dnXYlhJBYtUfInZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273482 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ra6ktat2gnhg2cp8lnmp59kvh8kdr4pqo1@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:29:06 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message >>news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> >>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs >>> >>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of >>> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs. >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>> >>> Rocky >>> >>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W >> >>BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from >>broadcast to broadcast > > Where can I, and anyone else with an interest, examine this > proof? > >>so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos >>could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make >>very >>little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by the >>low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax. > > No nukes were used. You have proved this several times. Only to someone like you that thinks jet fuel has the exact same explosive properties as nukes. And never forget the trick NIST used to avoid addressing the remains of the Twin Towers. NIST simply lied about a collapse initiation and then claimed after that a "Global Collapse Ensued" so NIST basically ran like scared chickens when they were really dealing with an NCD. <G> More about the big time lies of NIST at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-8F2CAF.14351023082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #273495 |
In article <Ta-dnXYlhJBYtUfInZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Only to someone like you that thinks jet fuel has the exact same explosive > properties as nukes. For one thing jet fuel does not do the double flash thing. -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 21:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jbudnQQ9Gb-R5kfInZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273538 |
"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message news:charlie-gordon1492-8F2CAF.14351023082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > In article <Ta-dnXYlhJBYtUfInZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> Only to someone like you that thinks jet fuel has the exact same >> explosive >> properties as nukes. > > For one thing jet fuel does not do the double flash thing. Talking about a flash someone did see a flash right before WTC7 was reduced to a pile of rubble that was too small for what it should have been if it had been a controlled demolition. And the most important is why to you continue to spread the bullshit from NIST when they have been proven to be BIG LIARS? See: The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-E93B79.19095123082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #273577 |
In article <jbudnQQ9Gb-R5kfInZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message > news:charlie-gordon1492-8F2CAF.14351023082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > > In article <Ta-dnXYlhJBYtUfInZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > > >> Only to someone like you that thinks jet fuel has the exact same > >> explosive > >> properties as nukes. > > > > For one thing jet fuel does not do the double flash thing. > > Talking about a flash someone did see a flash right before WTC7 was reduced > to a pile of rubble that was too small for what it should have been if it > had been a controlled demolition. > > And the most important is why to you continue to spread the bullshit from > NIST when they have been proven to be BIG LIARS? See: > > The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11 > kBDS8W Not a flash, but a double flash. The explosion releases x-rays which are absorbed by the air which heats to incandescent plasma. That is the first flash. Plasma is opaque to visible light and hides the explosion until the shockwave disperses the plasma. Then the fireball becomes visible as the second flash. Nuclear explosives are the only thing known to produce the double flash, and they always produce the double flash. A single flash means the temperature was too low to produce x-rays, which means a chemical explosive. -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 21:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <I_KdnRL4M7IzH0fInZ2dnUU7-Y-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273578 |
"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message news:charlie-gordon1492-E93B79.19095123082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > In article <jbudnQQ9Gb-R5kfInZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com>, > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message >> news:charlie-gordon1492-8F2CAF.14351023082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... >> > In article <Ta-dnXYlhJBYtUfInZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Only to someone like you that thinks jet fuel has the exact same >> >> explosive >> >> properties as nukes. >> > >> > For one thing jet fuel does not do the double flash thing. >> >> Talking about a flash someone did see a flash right before WTC7 was >> reduced >> to a pile of rubble that was too small for what it should have been if it >> had been a controlled demolition. >> >> And the most important is why to you continue to spread the bullshit from >> NIST when they have been proven to be BIG LIARS? See: >> >> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11 >> kBDS8W > > Not a flash, but a double flash. The explosion releases x-rays which are > absorbed by the air which heats to incandescent plasma. That is the first > flash. > Plasma is opaque to visible light and hides the explosion until the > shockwave > disperses the plasma. Then the fireball becomes visible as the second > flash. > > Nuclear explosives are the only thing known to produce the double flash, > and > they always produce the double flash. A single flash means the temperature > was > too low to produce x-rays, which means a chemical explosive. Fine, but how are you going to tell if there was a double flash from something that was buried about 50 meters below the bottom of the Twin Towers when the vantage points needed to see such a double flash were never used by the media? This shows where the 50 meters below the bottom of the Twin Towers came from: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm And this shows where two of the nukes had to be planted to do the damage they did to WTC1, WTC2, WTC3 and WTC4. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And this shows that NIST was complete and udder bullshit when they lied about the "Collapse Initiation" of the Twin Towers: "The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web