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

Groups > sci.physics > #519910

Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael facing: global collapse then ensued)

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
woman-stalking truck crashing kook), in
<news:r-idnd2Wjvy2hHLInZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:msn3d2$pn$1@pcls7.std.com...

>> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
>> woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mslhv1$l2i$1@pcls7.std.com...

>>>>>> Liar.  They were searching the rubble for survivors almost immediately
>>>>>> and rescued people the next day.

>>>>>That is the story that we heard on TV but I never heard about any 
>>>>>rescues.

>>>> Then you weren't paying attention.  11 people were rescued from the 
>>>> debris on the first day.

>>>link?

>> Transcript of CNN Larry King broadcast, 9/12/2001.

Doh! Did Retard Roger just get proven wrong by testimony from
eyewitnesses who were actually *doing* the search and rescue, then
snipped out the evidence so his broken little brain didn't have to
admit *he* *is* *wrong*... poor stoooopid Roger 'Dumb As A Rock'
Wittekind. He's not even smart enough to discern fantasy from reality.
LOL

> riii<SMACKAKOOK!>

> As for the radiation.  I've addressed that too but basically it was one 
> piece of steel was sent in to be tested and who knows where that steel came 
> from?

Bullshit, and you know it, Roger.

Radiation monitoring started the very day of the attacks, before the
towers ever fell. Performed first by Richard Borri and continued in
October 2001 non-stop by Environmental Measurements Laboratory (under
the DOE, now known as the National Urban Security Technology
Laboratory) and OSHA (regional and federal) until clean-up at the WTC
site was completed. Given that OSHA was in 6 WTC (Room 881), they were
on-scene immediately.

<http://www.si.edu/mci/downloads/articles/wtc_dust.pdf>
"Similarly no ionizing radiation has been detected at the site."

On top of that, there are several places you can go to determine that
there were no nuclear weapon detonation byproducts. Here's a couple:

<http://www2.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-time-and-laboratory-data-state>
No increase in radiation levels above background except for trace beta
(tritium in exit signs and LEO weapons sights) and alpha (radium from
pharmacologic laboratory), from the day before the WTC attack to the
day after cleanup completed, as measured at the NYC EML station.

<http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query>
Again, no increase from the NYC monitoring stations.

In addition, several outside groups were present at various times at
the WTC site to take radiation readings.

NO radiation over background was found (not just at the WTC site, but
throughout all of NYC) for anything other than slightly greater than
background beta radiation from nano-curie concentrations of tritium in
aircraft exit signs and LEO weapons sights, and almost imperceptibly
greater than background alpha radiation from radium (which was related
to industrial processes in a pharmacologic lab in the WTC complex, not
nuclear weapons).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<http://www.brazoshealth.org/sites/all/themes/health/images/pdfs/messages_in_the_dust.pdf>
============================================================
Once the event had been declared an act of terrorism, the first
response was to send in inspectors to check the air and debris to make
sure there were no signs of radiation or radioactive cargo, says
McKinney.

A major concern was that terrorists could have unleashed a so-called
"dirty bomb", an explosive device containing radioactive compounds
like cesium. Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological
health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He
reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department's office
of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way
to work when the first tower was hit.

Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation
before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have
originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing
beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some
radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used
in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane
wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might
also be left from any medical or dental offices. The far more serious
threat, of course, was the chance that one of the hijackers might have
carried a suitcase of radioactive materials or a dirty bomb, a
conventional bomb spiked with radioactive material. Such a bomb has
been compared to TNT, strapped to a container of plutonium or
plutonium-contaminated waste. This kind of a device would not produce
a nuclear explosion, but it could spread deadly radioactive matter
across a swath of city. According to Borri, the fear with a dirty bomb
is that hundreds, maybe thousands, could die from radiation poisoning
and cancer, and the area could be poisoned for years. (Plutonium-239
has a half-life of 24,000 years, says Borri.)

That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable
liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a
Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the
few available in the United States, is far more precise than its
century-old cousin, the Geiger counter with a much more refined
ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.

"If you're creative you can get what you need to without getting in
another agency's way pulling samples," says Borri, who was dodging
fire trucks and police vehicles and hordes of people streaming out of
the building. "It's not a good idea to walk into the center of the
action. Some of the people weren't walking as slowly as I was."

Although Borri didn't turn up any problematic radioactive readings by
the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal
Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued
to sample.

[Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would
radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a
pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]
============================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Further proving your schizophrenic paranoid-delusional rantings wrong:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<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.
===============

{NOTE: The elevated beta radiation was likely just as I stated, the
tritium from the airplane exit signs and law enforcement weapon
sights. Beta particles are nothing more than high-energy electrons.}

- Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb
fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong
evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.

- The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower
in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.

- Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which
is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not
rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the
mini-nuke hypothesis.

- Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium,
actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background
level for WTC dust.

- Nuclear activation or residual "fall-out" radioactivity (above
background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on
actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131
measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low
radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling
evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.

- No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground
zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. No observed
melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

<https://archive.org/details/NIST_WTC_Repository>
<https://archive.org/details/NIST_WTC_Document_Repository>
<https://archive.org/details/NIST_WTC_Organized_Video_Repository>

The NIST reports... the real reason the WTC towers fell: inadequate
and untested construction technique utilizing rubber viscoelastic
damper components to hold structural steel components in alignment;
inadequate SFRM and unorthodox application of original Blaze-Shield
DC/F and later-applied Blaze-Shield II SFRM; high variability in SFRM
depth (ie: non-uniform SFRM coverage) and thus effective reduction of
SFRM thermal equivalent thickness; low specific-heat capacity due to
structure being built to minimize use of concrete; dislodgement of
SFRM during aircraft impact; lack of fire endurance testing of a
similar construction and fireproofing setup as the WTC towers had;
failure of sprinkler system.

Moron. LOL

-- 

Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394

Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.

Roger Wittekind (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 shaking 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 building shook, 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 of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.

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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality  "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 18:38 -0500
  Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-07 00:38 +0000
  Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-07 02:28 +0000
    Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is cartoon blind) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 22:25 -0500
      Re: Rocky lies some more jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-07 05:57 +0000
      Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is cartoon blind) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 00:48 +0000
        Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is cartoon blind) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 20:15 -0500
          Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is cartoon blind) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 02:42 +0000
            Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is still cartoon blind) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 22:23 -0500
              Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is still cartoon blind) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 16:46 +0000
                Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael facing: global collapse then ensued) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 12:24 -0500
                Re: Rocky still deluded jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 18:08 +0000
                Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael facing: global collapse then ensued) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-09 06:41 +0200
                Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael facing: global collapse then ensued) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 17:32 +0000
                Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael facing: global collapse then ensued) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 17:20 -0500
                Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael facing: global collapse then ensued) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 03:07 +0000
                Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael runs from the same issue NIST ran from) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 12:39 -0500
            Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is cartoon blind) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-08 06:41 +0200
              Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is cartoon blind) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-09 06:11 +0200
        Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael proved he is cartoon blind) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 03:57 -0500
  Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:11 -0500
    Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (K proves he can not recognize where debris came from) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 08:52 -0500
      Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (K proves he can not recognize where debris came from) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-07 18:11 +0000
        Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael fails to address certain issues) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 15:20 -0500
          Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael fails to address certain issues) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 01:06 +0000
            Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (Michael fails to address certain issues again) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 20:46 -0500
        Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (2 Michael a better desc) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 16:59 -0500
      Re: WTC 7 NIST Cartoon vs. Reality (K proves he can not recognize where debris came from) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 17:43 -0500

csiph-web