Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #572182
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.astronomy, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes |
| Date | 2016-04-21 19:42 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <L5CdnfMoj7kEnITKnZ2dnUU7-bPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <cMCdnVYZbfQDiYTKnZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <XbqdnVfrQdXbv4TKnZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have had >>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three buildings >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional nonsense >>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>> >>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they were >>>>> all >>>>> way too small >>>> >>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>> especially >>>> a nuclear explosion. >>> >>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >> >> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. > > 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes MRR > nukes different? Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of explosive energy? -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 22:16 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:48 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:30 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:02 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-20 03:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-20 17:17 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 17:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 12:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:28 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 15:37 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 19:14 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 14:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 22:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:12 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:45 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:12 -0500
csiph-web