Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #263977 > unrolled thread

Rocky's beliefs

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

Contents

  Rocky's beliefs naazim palan <naazimpalan@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 05:18 -0700
    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 08:28 -0500
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 16:19 +0100
        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 10:38 -0500
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 20:40 +0200
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( needs photo of mushroom cloud at GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 18:26 -0500
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 18:49 -0500
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-08-19 02:01 -0700
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 08:48 -0500
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-19 16:41 +0100
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-08-21 06:29 -0700
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( why the hypocenter was filled with concrete ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:31 -0500
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( why the hypocenter was filled with concrete ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:05 -0500
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 18:03 +0000
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 18:06 -0500
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-20 07:54 +0200
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-19 09:48 -0700
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 19:08 -0500
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 06:57 +0200
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 09:22 -0500
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-20 17:26 +0000
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-20 19:52 +0200
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 16:49 -0500
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 15:08 -0700
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-20 22:37 +0000
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 09:00 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-21 15:00 +0000
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:46 -0500
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:50 +0000
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:10 -0500
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-23 03:35 +0000
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 10:43 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 18:06 +0000
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:09 -0500
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:57 -0500
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 04:58 +0200
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 07:32 +0200
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 08:39 -0400
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 21:38 +0200
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 07:13 -0400
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-25 07:13 +0200
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 04:09 -0500
                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-25 23:47 +0200
                                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:14 -0500
                                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-26 06:46 +0200
                                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 03:57 -0500
                                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-26 21:25 +0200
                                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:12 -0500
                                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-28 05:16 +0200
                                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 04:17 -0500
                                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-28 19:10 +0200
                                                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:36 -0500
                                                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-02 07:41 +0200
                                                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 04:13 -0500
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 06:51 -0400
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 10:00 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 19:55 +0200
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:51 -0500
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 14:59 -0700
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:37 -0500
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:11 -0700
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 21:34 -0700
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:17 +0200
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 18:08 +0000
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:15 -0500
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:59 +0200
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:30 -0500
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 16:45 +0000
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:51 -0500
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:48 -0700
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 22:02 +0200
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:48 -0500
                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 04:22 +0200
                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:13 +0000
                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 08:20 -0500
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:56 -0500
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-19 09:49 -0700
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-19 18:01 +0100
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 21:00 +0200
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 04:08 -0500
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-19 09:44 -0700
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 dmaster ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 09:02 -0500
        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) naazim palan <naazimpalan@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 09:18 -0700
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) naazim palan <naazimpalan@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 09:13 -0700
        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 11:43 -0500
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 18:33 +0100
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 17:45 +0000
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 18:08 +0000
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 19:40 +0100
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 14:28 -0500
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 21:09 +0100
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 15:17 -0500
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 21:41 +0100
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 15:48 -0500
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:21 +0000
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 08:14 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 08:51 -0500
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:40 +0000
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 07:43 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-25 09:04 -0700
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:16 -0500
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:03 +0000
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:01 +0000
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 17:44 +0000
    Re: Rocky's beliefs "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 16:39 -0500

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#265080 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 22.08.2015 13:13, schrieb HVAC:
> On 8/21/2015 3:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
>>> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>
>>
>> Actually yes.
>>
>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29

Quote

"..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has 
magnitude but no direction.."

But how could a undirected entity wiggle???

To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.

According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called 
'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.

The field is represented with bi-quaternions and those could be 
visualised by a geometric figure called 'star-tetrahedron'.

Now these two tetrahedrons could also be put under stress and that would 
make a scalar unit (mass) wiggle.

This is certainly difficult to understand with conventional physics. But 
actually I have my own and you may read about it here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265087 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:13:12 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 22.08.2015 13:13, schrieb HVAC:
>> On 8/21/2015 3:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
>>>> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually yes.
>>>
>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>
>Quote
>
>"..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has 
>magnitude but no direction.."
>
>But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>
>To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>

     So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.

>According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called 
>'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>

     Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

[...]

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265163 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 25.08.2015 11:09, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually yes.
>>>>
>>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>>
>> Quote
>>
>> "..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has
>> magnitude but no direction.."
>>
>> But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>>
>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>
>       So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>
>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>
>
>       Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.

But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity 
QM:=Quantum Mechanics).

So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).

This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.

I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of 
GR). To do this I assume a physical entity called 'spacetime' and say, 
that matter is actually 'structures' of this entity (actually: timelike 
stable patterns).

So the concept is called 'structured spacetime'.

The idea is quite simple, but it is VERY counter-intuitive. You only 
need to assume, that a point has a direction. This direction is 
represented by a pointer (vector) and this is 'glued' to the point.

These pointers perform all sort of weird movements, but certain patterns 
emerge, if a certain axis of time is used. These patterns are (according 
to my idea), what QM calls particles (as special form of matter).

The idea is - to the best of my knowledge- my own creative work. There 
are a few similar concepts, like e.g. that of Peter Rowland or Tom 
Bearden.  But actually it's closer to 19th century physics, like that of 
James Clark Maxwell, who initially used quaternions.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

So, spacetime was known for a while and I didn't claim to have invented 
this idea.

I'm also not dishonest, but possible my idea is not very well developed. 
The reason is, that I'm just a hobbyist. And since the real physicists 
didn't like amateurish ideas, I had given up the subject some years ago.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265193 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:47:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 25.08.2015 11:09, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>>>
>>> Quote
>>>
>>> "..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has
>>> magnitude but no direction.."
>>>
>>> But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>>>
>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>>       So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>
>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>
>>       Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>
>
>Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>
>But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity 
>QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>
>So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>
>This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>

     You did a very poor job of it.

>I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of 
>GR). To do this I assume

     Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!

[snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
assumptions.]

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265210 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 26.08.2015 04:14, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>>
>>>        So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>>
>>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>>
>>>        Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>>
>>
>> Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>>
>> But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity
>> QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>>
>> So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>>
>> This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>>
>
>       You did a very poor job of it.
>
>> I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of
>> GR). To do this I assume
>
>       Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!
>
> [snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
> assumptions.]
>

Your definition of the term 'science' is different to mine.

You apparently refer to certain believes that are commonly called 
'materialism'. Within this context science is 'hard' (material) and done 
by (approved!) scientists.

So you reject immaterial things like ideas.

The other extreme is called 'idealism'. This is more 'immaterial', hence 
would have less problems with ideas.

I personally think, that what is in fact important is quality (as 
universal principle) and that is neither matter nor idea.

Pure materialism is not a very good idea, since it leaves out such 
important questions like direction, amount or e.g. harmony.

If you subtract matter from the behaviour of a system you get to the 
immaterial world, that idealists deal with. This is wrong, too, since - 
obviously - stuff exists.

To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume 
something. And this is actually what I do.

You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself, 
since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY 
unlikely to find one.

And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea 
(assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But 
this is more or less your problem and not mine.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265213 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:46:39 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 26.08.2015 04:14, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>>>
>>>>        So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>>>
>>>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>>>
>>>>        Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>>>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>>>
>>> Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>>>
>>> But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity
>>> QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>>>
>>> So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>>>
>>> This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>>
>>       You did a very poor job of it.
>>
>>> I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of
>>> GR). To do this I assume
>>
>>       Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!
>>
>> [snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
>> assumptions.]
>
>Your definition of the term 'science' is different to mine.
>

     Yours is different from everyone's. I know of no one else who
holds the position that assumptions and guesses are to be viewed as
scientific law.

>You apparently refer to certain believes that are commonly called 
>'materialism'. Within this context science is 'hard' (material) and done 
>by (approved!) scientists.
>
>So you reject immaterial things like ideas.
>

     I do no such thing.

>The other extreme is called 'idealism'. This is more 'immaterial', hence 
>would have less problems with ideas.
>
>I personally think, that what is in fact important is quality (as 
>universal principle) and that is neither matter nor idea.
>
>Pure materialism is not a very good idea, since it leaves out such 
>important questions like direction, amount or e.g. harmony.
>
>If you subtract matter from the behaviour of a system you get to the 
>immaterial world, that idealists deal with. This is wrong, too, since - 
>obviously - stuff exists.
>
>To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume 
>something. And this is actually what I do.
>
>You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself, 
>since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY 
>unlikely to find one.
>
>And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea 
>(assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But 
>this is more or less your problem and not mine.

     The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
scientific law.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265268 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 26.08.2015 10:57, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
...
>>
>> To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume
>> something. And this is actually what I do.
>>
>> You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself,
>> since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY
>> unlikely to find one.
>>
>> And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea
>> (assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But
>> this is more or less your problem and not mine.
>
>       The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
> scientific law.
>

This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.

This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.

E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.

This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks 
like a law of nature.

It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my 
statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.

But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out 
to be wrong, too.

Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen 
one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.

So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law, 
that is a question of debate.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265322 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:25:01 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 26.08.2015 10:57, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>...
>>>
>>> To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume
>>> something. And this is actually what I do.
>>>
>>> You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself,
>>> since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY
>>> unlikely to find one.
>>>
>>> And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea
>>> (assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But
>>> this is more or less your problem and not mine.
>>
>>       The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
>> scientific law.
>>
>
>This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.
>
>This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.
>
>E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.
>
>This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks 
>like a law of nature.
>
>It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my 
>statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.
>
>But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out 
>to be wrong, too.
>

     Scientific law is never absolute.

>Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen 
>one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.
>
>So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law, 
>that is a question of debate.

     A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265435 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 27.08.2015 11:12, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>        The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
>>> scientific law.
>>>
>>
>> This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.
>>
>> This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.
>>
>> E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.
>>
>> This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks
>> like a law of nature.
>>
>> It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my
>> statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.
>>
>> But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out
>> to be wrong, too.
>>
>
>       Scientific law is never absolute.

???

What do you mean with this statement?

If you don't require a term like 'valid for all...' you have no rule at 
all.

If a law is only valid in - say - 90 % of the cases and invalid in 10%, 
you couldn't call that a law.

There are certain observations, which could be described in a 
statistical way. Such statistics are also 'laws' (of nature).

But I don't like to call that 'law', even if such statistics describe 
certain aspects of nature, since with 'law' you mean something 
universally valid.

>
>> Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen
>> one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.
>>
>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>> that is a question of debate.
>
>       A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>

Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.

As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you 
disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.

In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The 
FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a 
hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)

Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to 
'theory'.

There are, of course, other ways to understand the process, by what 
scientific laws are created. And from these stem other requirements, 
like about proof or measurements.

But I try to apply the so called 'scientific method' and try to create 
assumptions, that cannot be refuted.

This is difficult, since it is much easier to find something wrong and 
only few assumptions are not. But at least someone should try to find 
these few solutions. Once you have one, this is presented in the form of 
a universal law. And it will remain universally valid, until someone is 
able to disprove it.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265451 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 05:16:33 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 27.08.2015 11:12, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>        The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
>>>> scientific law.
>>>
>>> This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.
>>>
>>> This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.
>>>
>>> E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.
>>>
>>> This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks
>>> like a law of nature.
>>>
>>> It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my
>>> statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.
>>>
>>> But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out
>>> to be wrong, too.
>>
>>       Scientific law is never absolute.
>
>???
>
>What do you mean with this statement?
>

     Exactly what I state.

>If you don't require a term like 'valid for all...' you have no rule at 
>all.
>
>If a law is only valid in - say - 90 % of the cases and invalid in 10%, 
>you couldn't call that a law.

     If you had any background in science, you would know any
scientific law can be changed when the evidence warrants it.
     Now I understand why you know so very little of physics. You have
no education in science.

>
>There are certain observations, which could be described in a 
>statistical way. Such statistics are also 'laws' (of nature).
>
>But I don't like to call that 'law', even if such statistics describe 
>certain aspects of nature, since with 'law' you mean something 
>universally valid.
>

     Not in scientific study. 

>>> Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen
>>> one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.
>>>
>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>> that is a question of debate.
>>
>>       A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>
>Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>

     I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
own.

>As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you 
>disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>

     You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.

>In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The 
>FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a 
>hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>
>Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to 
>'theory'.
>

     If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.

>There are, of course, other ways to understand the process, by what 
>scientific laws are created. And from these stem other requirements, 
>like about proof or measurements.
>
>But I try to apply the so called 'scientific method' and try to create 
>assumptions, that cannot be refuted.
>

     So any assumption you make is instantly a law?
     In the real world, it doesn't work this way.

>This is difficult, since it is much easier to find something wrong and 
>only few assumptions are not. 

     As of the time I write this, every assumption you've offered has
been proved wrong.

>But at least someone should try to find 
>these few solutions. Once you have one, this is presented in the form of 
>a universal law. And it will remain universally valid, until someone is 
>able to disprove it.

     This is in direct opposition to your claim above.
     Pick a lane.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265477 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 28.08.2015 11:17, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
.
.
>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>
>>>        A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>
>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>
>
>       I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
> own.
>
>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>
>
>       You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>
>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>
>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>> 'theory'.
>>
>
>       If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.


In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you 
call 'law'.

What you regard as a law (in nature) is something like a proven fact 
about how things behave in certain circumstances.

Such laws do not exist (in the method of Popper), because you cannot 
know, if these laws are actually valid universal.

Instead he assumes a system, where a hypothesis is build, which should 
describe some kind of process.

This hypothesis has the same form as a theory, only it is still in 
debate. It is actually an assumption (or: guess).

By various means this assumption will be tested. Popper suggest, the 
hypothesis should be tried to be refuted.

If this fails, the hypothesis is promoted to a theory (or 'law, if you 
prefer that).

e.g. have a look at:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265524 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:10:07 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 28.08.2015 11:17, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>.
>.
>>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>>
>>>>        A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>>
>>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>
>>       I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
>> own.
>>
>>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>
>>       You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>>
>>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>>
>>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>>> 'theory'.
>>
>>       If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.
>
>
>In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you 
>call 'law'.

     Good for Karl.
     Do you honestly believe philosophy is a real science?

>
>What you regard as a law (in nature) is something like a proven fact 
>about how things behave in certain circumstances.

     I didn't comment about nature.

>
>Such laws do not exist (in the method of Popper), because you cannot 
>know, if these laws are actually valid universal.

     This is why scientific laws are not absolute.

>
>Instead he assumes a system, 

Assumptions mean nothing.

[snip the parts after the assumption]

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266078 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 29.08.2015 01:36, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>>>
>>>>>         A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>>
>>>        I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
>>> own.
>>>
>>>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>>>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>>
>>>        You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>>>
>>>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>>>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>>>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>>>
>>>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>>>> 'theory'.
>>>
>>>        If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.
>>
>>
>> In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you
>> call 'law'.
>
>       Good for Karl.
>       Do you honestly believe philosophy is a real science?
>

Philosophy is not a science of nature, but deals with logic and the 
requirements of science.

So Karl Popper does not investigate natural phenomena, but the way how 
people could come to valid conclusions.

It is more a 'meta-science'.

Karl Popper's methods is not the only one in existence, but is quite 
well developed and in most cases accepted.

So it is possible to refer to what he calls 'scientific method', without 
the burden of proof. It is usually not necessary to justify this method, 
since it is widely accepted practice.

And besides you there are not that many authors, who take it into doubt.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266083 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 07:41:19 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 29.08.2015 01:36, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>>>
>>>>        I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
>>>> own.
>>>>
>>>>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>>>>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>>>
>>>>        You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>>>>
>>>>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>>>>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>>>>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>>>>> 'theory'.
>>>>
>>>>        If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you
>>> call 'law'.
>>
>>       Good for Karl.
>>       Do you honestly believe philosophy is a real science?
>
>Philosophy is not a science of nature, but deals with logic and the 
>requirements of science.
>

     Since when?

>So Karl Popper does not investigate natural phenomena, but the way how 
>people could come to valid conclusions.
>
>It is more a 'meta-science'.
>

     It is more "not science in any way."

>Karl Popper's methods is not the only one in existence, but is quite 
>well developed and in most cases accepted.
>

     Your cite for this is what?

>So it is possible to refer to what he calls 'scientific method', without 
>the burden of proof. It is usually not necessary to justify this method, 
>since it is widely accepted practice.

     By whom? In reality, please.

>
>And besides you there are not that many authors, who take it into doubt.
>

     That sentence makes no sense.

>>>What you regard as a law (in nature) is something like a proven fact 
>>>about how things behave in certain circumstances.
>>
>>     I didn't comment about nature.
>>

     Thomas?

>>>Such laws do not exist (in the method of Popper), because you cannot 
>>>know, if these laws are actually valid universal.
>>
>>     This is why scientific laws are not absolute.
>>

     Thomas?

>>>Instead he assumes a system, 
>>
>>Assumptions mean nothing.
>>
>>[snip the parts after the assumption]

     Thomas?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265093 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On 8/25/2015 1:13 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually yes.
>>>
>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)


Hint: Temperature is a scalar.


-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264442 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN )

"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
wrote in message :0030ff571ff4a86516555793b5aa550b@dizum.com...
>
> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
> impossible.

Ok Friendly Neighborhood Nut, you really should do some reading about "The 
Big Lie" because that is exactly what the media version of events on 9/11/01 
was.  See:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

In reality the Twin Towers were so fcuking tall there was no other option to 
bring them down than with nukes because that vaporizes them.  FYI the debris 
pile from a "Controlled Demolition" of the Twin Towers would have been so 
tall they wouldn't have had a way to work with it.  DUH.

And oddly enough the plan to bring them down was in place before they ever 
went up.

Just don't forget what you have seen.  You have seen:

1.  A near total destruction of the Twin Towers that could only be caused by 
a nuke.

2.  The hypocenter from the nuke that was under WTC4 complete with the walls 
that showed it's matching spread pattern.

3.  And you have even seen the mushroom cloud from the nuke that was under 
WTC4.

4.  Wasn't it you that gave me a video of the ground shaking event before 
the North Tower was vaporized?  FYI that shaking was described the same way 
a 5.5 earthquake is described and how many earth shaking events do you know 
that can be caught on camera?.  <G>

5.  And you've seen a video with multiple EMPs with the main EMP being at 
the exact same time the ground below WTC1 shook.  Oh if you are looking for 
other places that nukes were used on 9/11/01 this jpg should show how other 
much much smaller nukes were used to make a funky hole in WTC6.
 https://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/potentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukes.jpg 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264450 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN )

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Rocky, in <news:6fKdnaDhjpAHoUrInZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
> wrote in message :0030ff571ff4a86516555793b5aa550b@dizum.com...

>> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
>> impossible.

> Ok<SMACKAKOOK!>

Again, until delusional fuckwits who have no grasp on even basic
science can explain in exquisite detail exactly how their
retarded conspiracy theory is able to violate several laws of
physics, those delusional fuckwits will not have a platform from
which to spew their retardation, Delusional Fuckwit.

Kook. LOL

> Rocky

Now, get to addressing the 15 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:

======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep
below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to
drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact
that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal
*melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636
miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole
*ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why
the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.

2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd
been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond
time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP)
would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount
of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That
there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no
nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have
destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius.

3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that
there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke.
If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have
shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was most
likely the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapon sights that was the source. You didn't specify what type
of radiation was experienced, and I doubt you're smart or
educated enough to even know what types of radiation there are.

4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex
or anywhere in NYC. They found tritium from the aircraft exit
signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial
sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for
all other sources of radiation.

5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by
people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you
k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the
order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame
the bombs were buried.

6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally decays over time, and its decay byproducts,
the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays,
include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start
any sort of nuclear chain reaction.

7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as*
*it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling
vertical support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No
amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================

8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going
to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would
be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the
temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?

9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through
a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into
surrounding rock.

10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 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 sent down to
service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source
triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic
basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire base at
37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology
to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4
blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area
the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced
to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched
for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to
survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat?

12) You admitted (ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers
(all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked
off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your
admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of
the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe"
(your words)?

13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the
WTC site on 11 Sep 2001?

14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris
kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep
underground, Ko0K?

15) Explain how these 19 nukes could tunnel holes from their
underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep, to directly
under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid
bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers
(which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations
and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on
The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).
======================================================

There's now 15 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws
of physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one,
point by point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who
can't grasp simple physics.

Kook. LOL

-- 

Rocky, your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid
admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and
more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly
demolishes your kook theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of
illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you
they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a
simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the
nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33
years.

B) Your timing on the video *you* *provided* between the video
disturbance due to satellite uplink interference (what you deemed
to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling being 12 seconds (it
was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your
supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93
*miles* below the surface (depending upon soil composition and
thus speed of compressive blast transmission... and since we're
talking solid bedrock here, it'd be at the upper end of that
scale). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill
that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to
yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least
try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a
shallow hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore,
now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked
away for 33 years".

C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require
periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which
naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay
byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon
poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to
service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means
your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow
hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an
impossibly deep hole, covered it up, walked away for 33 years",
to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC,
complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the
explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were
maintained" (your words).

D) Your broken brain is now saying there were 19 nukes instead of
your original 3, because you know there were 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* *provided*, in
which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink
interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP,
they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there
were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely
ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the
city into darkness due to EMP, and completely ignoring the fact
that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble or
its vicinity.

E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were
buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius,
which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to
demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so
your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could
somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just
below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their
cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain
said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock*
in *12* *seconds*. LOL

F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs
your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up
to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they
didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd
be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue),
that leads right back to your calculation of the time between
your claimed "EMP" on the video *you* *provided* and the time the
buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So you've
proven by skirting the perimeter of sanity full-circle that
you're insane. LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality. And the harder you try, the more you run around in
little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing
your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into
a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even
started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet.
=============================

Kook. LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264477 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN )

"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
wrote in message news:bf9ea5b621f695afb329a73f7226d560@dizum.com...
>
>>> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
>>> impossible.

Gee, that time you removed every part of my post.

So you can not accept the fact you were the victim of a BIG LIE that used 
CGIs and nukes instead of very very lucky hijackers and jet fuel to bring 
down very very tall buildings and reduce them to a pile of rubble that is no 
where near what a 110 story building should have left if it had really been 
a jet fuel controlled demolition.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264479 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN )

Rocky wrote:
> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus"
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message
> news:bf9ea5b621f695afb329a73f7226d560@dizum.com... 
>> 
>>>> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
>>>> impossible.
> 
> Gee, that time you removed every part of my post.
> 
> So you can not accept the fact you were the victim of a BIG LIE that
> used CGIs and nukes instead of very very lucky hijackers and jet fuel
> to bring down very very tall buildings and reduce them to a pile of
> rubble that is no where near what a 110 story building should have
> left if it had really been a jet fuel controlled demolition.
> 
> Rocky

why are you the only person that thinks what you say is true

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264485 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN )

"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:8n4s9j.cir.19.1@news.alt.net...
> Rocky wrote:
>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus"
>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message
>> news:bf9ea5b621f695afb329a73f7226d560@dizum.com...
>>>
>>>>> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
>>>>> impossible.
>>
>> Gee, that time you removed every part of my post.
>>
>> So you can not accept the fact you were the victim of a BIG LIE that
>> used CGIs and nukes instead of very very lucky hijackers and jet fuel
>> to bring down very very tall buildings and reduce them to a pile of
>> rubble that is no where near what a 110 story building should have
>> left if it had really been a jet fuel controlled demolition.
>>
>> Rocky
>
> why are you the only person that thinks what you say is true

Oh bullshit.  You just won't find too many of the people that know the truth 
around TV huggers like yourself.

And it doesn't matter if you don't own a TV because it is clear you will 
still be hugging your TV if you had one.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web