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

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #267687 > unrolled thread

Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15)

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

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.

Contents

  Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-16 17:40 -0500
    Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 22:56 +0000
      Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 05:54 +0200
        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 14:24 +1000
          Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 06:50 +0200
            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:26 +1000
              Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 08:26 +0200
                Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 17:25 +0200
            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-17 16:18 +0000
            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-17 17:43 +0000
              Re: Rocky's latest brain fart "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-17 13:30 -0500
                Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-17 19:29 +0000
                  Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-18 23:03 +0200
                    Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-18 21:30 +0000
                      Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-19 03:19 +0200
                        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 01:40 +0000
                          Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-24 22:54 +0200
                            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-24 21:12 +0000
                            Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 17:03 -0500
                              Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 08:31 +0200
                              Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:59 +0200
                              Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 09:46 +0200
                        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 12:34 +1000
              Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 20:48 +0200
        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-17 04:22 +0000
        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:04 -0500
    Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:03 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#268468

Am 25.09.2015 00:03, schrieb Rocky:

>
> BTW do you happen to know of any photos or videos that prove the basements
> of the Twin Towers were not filled with debris?  TIA  I've seen a good one
> by WCBS in Nuke York City but I can't find it again.
>

This one is VERY nice picture:
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2013/07/20/11097356/GARY.PATH.subway.jpeg

It shows the PATH station below the WTC shortly after 9-11 and a train 
standing there.

It's actually a little more than ´just a little dusty', since there was 
a lot of debris.

But the train seems to be predominately intact, since the doors could be 
opened and the glass is not broken.

TH

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

#268469

Am 25.09.2015 00:03, schrieb Rocky:
..
> BTW do you happen to know of any photos or videos that prove the basements
> of the Twin Towers were not filled with debris?  TIA  I've seen a good one
> by WCBS in Nuke York City but I can't find it again.
>


This is a photo of abandoned shop in the basement mall:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/31/article-2032067-0DA4CC1900000578-345_634x326.jpg

And these are clocks in the basement, that stopped working after the 
batteries ran out:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/31/article-2032067-0DA4DB1000000578-555_634x328.jpg


TH

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

#267884 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 03:19:43 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>As far as I know, the buildings had been designed to withstand car-bombs 
>and the impact of a plane.
>
>http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Towers_Design_and_Construction
>
>Quote:
>"A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the 
>towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without 
>collapsing."
>
>
>TH

And they did. They both survived the impact of a jet aircraft flying at about
500 mph. Had there been no fire they may have remained standing until they could
be dismantled.

Shill #2
--
The biggest conspiracy has always been the
fact that there is no conspiracy.
Nobody's out to get you.
Nobody gives a shit whether you live or die.
There, you feel better now? 
-- Dennis Miller 

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

#267767 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 17.09.2015 19:43, schrieb Michael Moroney:
> In sci.physics Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>  wrote:
>
>> ookeeyy..
>
>> Momentum... You know, what that is?
>
>> momentum is mass times velocity
> ...
>> mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b
>
>> 'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:
> ...
>> So we get
>
>> velocity_b      = 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
>>                 = 0.026 m/s
>>                 = 26 mm/s
>
> What you have proved is that, had the towers been mounted on frictionless
> wheels, they would have been rolling along at 26 mm/s (about an inch per
> second) after impact.  That's actually quite a bit.


Yes, but vibrations have also a velocity.  The velocity is minimal at 
the turning points and maximum in between.

The maximum velocity is, what I have figured out.

So I can assume the building acts like a VERY large tuning fork (or 
similar) and this swinging is caused by the impact of a plane.

And this wouldn't require wheels.

> All that momentum/energy applied to a relatively small area (the frontal
> cross section of a 767) is why the jets blasted into the towers rather
> than bouncing off or exploding on impact or something.


Energy and momentum are not the same thing. Momentum is m*v and energy 
is 1/2 m *v².

As 'Shill #2' mentioned:

"Aeroplanes. Four honking great big aeroplanes, momentum, fire, and 
gravity."

He wanted momentum, not energy.

Momentum is related to the resistance against acceleration (inertia) and 
cannot be 'applied to a relatively small area', since areas have two 
dimensions and no mass.

Apparently you want to express, that the material at the impact zone has 
only little mass compared to the entire building and therefore could be 
kicked away easily.

Well, thats almost true, but the jet has also little material in direct 
contact. And that material in contact was aluminium, while the building 
consisted of steel and concrete (mainly).


TH

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

#267707 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 17.09.2015 00:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
>> In sci.physics Rocky<wookiee@att.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bast"<fakename@nomail.invalid>  wrote in message
>>> news:mtc94l$me2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> The 9/11 official lie is not going to be allowed to go unchallenged
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOB5PkaaNs
>>>
>>> Thanks for the video and it is all so simple.
>>>
>>> Only our government would call a place where nukes were detonated Ground
>>> Zero and then poke fun at those who figured out our government meant to call
>>> it Ground Zero for the original meaning of the phrase because it really was
>>> a place where nukes, yes nukes with an 's' were detonated.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> It was your beloved media that first called it ground zero, raving lunatic.
>>
>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>>
>> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
>> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
>> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
>> by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
>> Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.
>>
>> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
>> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
>>
>> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
>> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
>>
>> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
>> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
>>
>> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
>> governmental agency.
>>
>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
> 
> But what was used then?

The facts are some airliners were hijacked.

Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires
which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed
almost 2 hours later.

One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the
western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

<snip remaining babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#267736 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:54:17 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 17.09.2015 00:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
>> In sci.physics Rocky<wookiee@att.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bast"<fakename@nomail.invalid>  wrote in message
>>> news:mtc94l$me2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> The 9/11 official lie is not going to be allowed to go unchallenged
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOB5PkaaNs
>>>
>>> Thanks for the video and it is all so simple.
>>>
>>> Only our government would call a place where nukes were detonated Ground
>>> Zero and then poke fun at those who figured out our government meant to call
>>> it Ground Zero for the original meaning of the phrase because it really was
>>> a place where nukes, yes nukes with an 's' were detonated.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> It was your beloved media that first called it ground zero, raving lunatic.
>>
>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>>
>> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
>> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
>> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
>> by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
>> Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.
>>
>> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
>> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
>>
>> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
>> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
>>
>> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
>> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
>>
>> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
>> governmental agency.
>>
>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>
>But what was used then?
>

     In the case of the twin towers, two hijacked planes.

>I actually think, that Judy Wood is right and unusual weapons had been 
>used, that utilize the so called 'Hutchison effect'.

     But reality continues to disagree with you.

>
>Hutchison is a 'little' strange guy from Canada. He found certain 
>effects in the early 70th.
>

     So it came from the future?
     Bwahahahahahahaha!

>Those effects he presented to US and Canadian officials and military 
>contractors. Later some 'Canadian officials' destroyed his lab, because 
>they didn't wanted this knowledge to leak out to Germany and Japan 
>(where Hutchison wanted to go).

     And your valid, verifiable evidence for this is..?

>
>Since Canada is a British colony, 

     No it's not.

>someone should ask the Brits, whether 
>or not they had such a weapon.
>

      Even if we pretend England had such a weapon, despite such a
weapon powerful enough to cause the collapse of the twin towers not
existing, there is nothing to support a position that they had
anything to do with 9/11.

>other possibilities: aliens did it or so called 'fallen Angels'...
>

     It's almost a guarantee there is life on other planets. It is
impossible to accept the traveled the vastness of space in a
reasonable amount of time then destroyed the twin towers.
    The Sons of God that the false prophet Luke mentions had nothing
to do with the events of 9/11.

>Also the USA could have attacked themselves. But in a way I don't think 
>so, since this would had required a certain degree of smartness, the 
>then president did not posses.

     If we follow the concept of "anything is possible," then yes.
However, there is zero evidence to support a claim that the government
was behind the attacks.

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

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

#267734

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:40:35 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:mtc94l$me2$1@dont-email.me...
>> The 9/11 official lie is not going to be allowed to go unchallenged
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOB5PkaaNs
>
>Thanks for the video and it is all so simple.
>

     An interview with a k00k doesn't make the claims any less k00ky.
Not to the mentally sound. YMMV, of course. 

>Only our government would call a place where nukes were detonated Ground 

     No nukes were used. You've helped to prove this.

>Zero and then poke fun at those who figured out our government meant to call 
>it Ground Zero for the original meaning of the phrase because it really was 
>a place where nukes, yes nukes with an 's' were detonated.

     The definition of Ground Zero as used in this context is, and was
pre-9/11:

 :  the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or
change; broadly :  center <the party town that served as ground zero
for those corporate … bashes — Rich Eisen>

 :  the very beginning

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ground%20zero

     Once again you're proved wrong. Now whine about the truth,
attempt to divert attention from the truth, or run way from the truth.
You have to chose one of those three. You have no other options
available to you.

"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web