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

Groups > sci.physics > #516202

Re: Nukes

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> Of course.  You have seen the remains of Ground Zero and if you watched the 
> following video you would know why those remains support two NCDs.

One doesn't have to watch any video to know what happend, kook.

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.

Everything else is kook babble.

That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble.

That there is missing rubble is kook babble.

That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble.

That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble.

That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear
devices is kook babble.

That there was an EMP is kook babble.

That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not
seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble.

That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything
to do with what happened is kook babble.

That the scene was radioactive is kook babble.

That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima
or Nagasaki is kook babble.

That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear
is kook babble.

That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance 
and still be expected to work is kook babble.

That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear
bombs is kook babble.

That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the
airplanes hit the towers is kook babble.

That all the video was CGI is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the
windows is kook babble.

That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble.

That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion
is kook babble.

There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to
ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble.

Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble.

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature
that can be detected anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the 
collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon
and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is
kook babble.

Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble.


<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Thread

Re: Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:17 -0500
  Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
    Re: Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:46 -0500
      Re: Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:53 +0000
        Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:12 -0500
          Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:18 -0500
            Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:11 -0500
      Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
        Re: Nukes ( Tony has no proof of a collapse ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 02:47 -0500
          Re: Rocky's imagined nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-07 15:14 +0000
          Re: Nukes ( Tony has no proof of a collapse ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 18:46 +0100
      Re: Nukes je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:33 -0700
        2 je suis charly (was: Nukes) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:53 -0500
          Re: 2 je suis charly (was: Nukes) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 14:32 -0700
            Re: 2 je suis charly (was: Nukes) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 16:59 -0500
              depleted uranium (u-238 ... or U235? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 14:18 -0700
          Re: 2 je suis charly Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 23:16 +0100
          Re: 2 je suis charly gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:14 -0500
  Re: Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:18 +0000
    Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:19 -0500
      Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 23:47 +0100
        Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:15 -0500
          Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 23:51 +0100
    Re: Nukes collapse videos could be all bogus "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 17:00 -0500
      Re: Nukes collapse videos could be all bogus "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 -0500
      Re: Nukes collapse videos could be all bogus noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:21 -0700
  Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 15:37 -0500
    Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:21 -0500
      Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:18 -0500
        Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:17 -0500
          Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 20:12 -0500
            Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-26 04:11 -0500
              Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-07 19:00 -0500
              Re: Re: Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 19:41 -0500
                Re: Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 03:53 -0500

csiph-web