Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #566498 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-29 12:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-14 12:18 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why You Should Care About Nukes Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 12:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 12:37 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 05:08 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 12:33 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-02 15:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-02 20:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 06:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 16:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 21:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 05:45 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:30 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 20:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 06:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:23 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 17:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 19:59 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:14 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 18:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 14:46 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 15:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:46 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:35 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 00:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:57 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:51 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:09 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:42 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 10:51 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:56 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 21:23 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 21:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:19 -0500
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
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 21:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 07:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 17:55 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-19 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:49 -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 15:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 18:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 17:36 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 11:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 10:12 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:09 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 15:00 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 21:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 15:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 19:32 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 21:59 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:35 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 09:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:17 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-20 03:47 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:32 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 18:58 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 07:52 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 11:00 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 01:20 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 01:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:58 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:53 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:59 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:31 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 12:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:53 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:09 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 16:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 16:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:11 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:20 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:15 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:06 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 19:03 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:18 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 19:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 14:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 20:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 16:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes tesla sTinker <staff@truecarpentry.net> - 2016-04-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 21:28 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2016-04-02 23:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-29 18:07 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-29 14:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-30 14:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-30 15:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 03:02 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 04:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 14:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:59 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 15:36 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:41 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 20:11 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 04:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-31 12:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 19:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:44 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 21:33 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 06:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 12:54 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 14:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 12:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 19:31 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 19:13 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:32 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-09 06:48 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 14:32 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-09 09:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 15:15 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 17:18 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 15:11 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 22:52 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 17:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 23:28 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-11 20:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 16:18 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-05-09 09:01 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 04:01 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 17:19 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 16:47 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 22:56 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-11 06:40 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-11 22:38 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 03:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 08:47 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-11 19:31 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 23:39 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 04:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:25 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 04:01 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 04:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes tesla sTinker <staff@truecarpentry.net> - 2016-04-23 09:44 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 12:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes vishnushelat@gmail.com - 2016-03-31 12:28 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-31 14:13 -0700
Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:48 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:18 -0400
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569480 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >> >> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >> >> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just be a >> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. > > We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings floated > to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading that > prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the ground. Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph recorded any explosions of any kind. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 01:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2KSdnQ5so7HgoJbKnZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569485 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>> >>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>> >>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just be >>> a >>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >> >> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >> floated >> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading >> that >> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the >> ground. > > Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are > talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph recorded > any explosions of any kind. So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic records from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? If you are then you are finally on the right track. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1n5ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569633 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>>> >>>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just be >>>> a >>>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >>> >>> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >>> floated >>> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading >>> that >>> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the >>> ground. >> >> Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are >> talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph recorded >> any explosions of any kind. > > So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic records > from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? No, I am telling you the seismic record of the collapse of WTC7 is consistant with the energy of a building the size of WTC7 collapsing. Seismographs record energy; jackhammers have little energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <e4ednZnqbKmmapbKnZ2dnUU7-c3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569762 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:1n5ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>>>> >>>>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just >>>>> be >>>>> a >>>>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >>>> >>>> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >>>> floated >>>> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading >>>> that >>>> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the >>>> ground. >>> >>> Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are >>> talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph recorded >>> any explosions of any kind. >> >> So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic records >> from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? > > No, I am telling you the seismic record of the collapse of WTC7 is > consistant with the energy of a building the size of WTC7 collapsing. And yet you can't even tell me what it was and you never have either. > Seismographs record energy; jackhammers have little energy. WTF??? We were talking about WTC7 crashed to the ground with the same seismic reading that a jackhammer would make and you think that is normal? And why can't you give me a link showing how big or little the seismic reading from WTC7 was? ROTFLMAO Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 19:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkbttc-t84.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569782 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:1n5ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>>>>> >>>>>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just >>>>>> be >>>>>> a >>>>>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >>>>> >>>>> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >>>>> floated >>>>> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading >>>>> that >>>>> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the >>>>> ground. >>>> >>>> Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are >>>> talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph recorded >>>> any explosions of any kind. >>> >>> So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic records >>> from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? >> >> No, I am telling you the seismic record of the collapse of WTC7 is >> consistant with the energy of a building the size of WTC7 collapsing. > > And yet you can't even tell me what it was and you never have either. Been posted many times by many people, kook. >> Seismographs record energy; jackhammers have little energy. > > WTF??? We were talking about WTC7 crashed to the ground with the same > seismic reading that a jackhammer would make and you think that is normal? Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. A building collapse can be seen on a seismograph for many, many miles but a jackhammer for only a few blocks. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 15:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kvednbFKk9FWlZHKnZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569791 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:fkbttc-t84.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:1n5ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >>>>>> floated >>>>>> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading >>>>>> that >>>>>> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the >>>>>> ground. >>>>> >>>>> Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are >>>>> talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph recorded >>>>> any explosions of any kind. >>>> >>>> So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic >>>> records >>>> from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? >>> >>> No, I am telling you the seismic record of the collapse of WTC7 is >>> consistant with the energy of a building the size of WTC7 collapsing. >> >> And yet you can't even tell me what it was and you never have either. > > Been posted many times by many people, kook. > >>> Seismographs record energy; jackhammers have little energy. >> >> WTF??? We were talking about WTC7 crashed to the ground with the same >> seismic reading that a jackhammer would make and you think that is >> normal? > > Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. > > A building collapse can be seen on a seismograph for many, many miles but > a jackhammer for only a few blocks. LIAR. The fact remains the seismic reading from when WTC7 hit the ground is consistent with what a jackhammer can do and not a 47 story building. Something had to reduce the mass of WTC7 before it could crash to the ground so that it compared to a jackhammer. DUH. Could it be the same thing that reduced the mass of WTC1 and WTC2 so they could not fall down and crush the "Surviving Corners?" ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg The fact remains the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 are not consistent with jet fuel collapses or even controlled demolitions but they are consistent with nuclear demolitions where MRR nukes are used. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fofttc-mm4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569796 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:fkbttc-t84.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:1n5ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >>>>>>> floated >>>>>>> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the >>>>>>> ground. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are >>>>>> talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph recorded >>>>>> any explosions of any kind. >>>>> >>>>> So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic >>>>> records >>>>> from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? >>>> >>>> No, I am telling you the seismic record of the collapse of WTC7 is >>>> consistant with the energy of a building the size of WTC7 collapsing. >>> >>> And yet you can't even tell me what it was and you never have either. >> >> Been posted many times by many people, kook. >> >>>> Seismographs record energy; jackhammers have little energy. >>> >>> WTF??? We were talking about WTC7 crashed to the ground with the same >>> seismic reading that a jackhammer would make and you think that is >>> normal? >> >> Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. >> >> A building collapse can be seen on a seismograph for many, many miles but >> a jackhammer for only a few blocks. > > The fact remains the seismic reading from when WTC7 hit the ground is > consistent with what a jackhammer can do and not a 47 story building. Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <I_ydnfGqhY-rq5DKnZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569803 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:fofttc-mm4.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:fkbttc-t84.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1n5ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >>>>>>>> floated >>>>>>>> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph >>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> ground. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are >>>>>>> talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph >>>>>>> recorded >>>>>>> any explosions of any kind. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic >>>>>> records >>>>>> from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? >>>>> >>>>> No, I am telling you the seismic record of the collapse of WTC7 is >>>>> consistant with the energy of a building the size of WTC7 collapsing. >>>> >>>> And yet you can't even tell me what it was and you never have either. >>> >>> Been posted many times by many people, kook. >>> >>>>> Seismographs record energy; jackhammers have little energy. >>>> >>>> WTF??? We were talking about WTC7 crashed to the ground with the same >>>> seismic reading that a jackhammer would make and you think that is >>>> normal? >>> >>> Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. >>> >>> A building collapse can be seen on a seismograph for many, many miles >>> but >>> a jackhammer for only a few blocks. >> >> The fact remains the seismic reading from when WTC7 hit the ground is >> consistent with what a jackhammer can do and not a 47 story building. > > Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. And you still can't explain why the seismic reading for when WTC7 appeared to crash to the ground was no bigger than a jackhammer makes. Or why that building destruction was missing P-waves and S-waves. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ea6a152-475f-499f-a246-f7772ff8a7a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569945 |
Rocko, the issue is the state of your mental competence. Please share with the group the medications you are currently being prescribed. Good luck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 14:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <NAbPy.28$UA7.26@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #569947 |
On 04/12/2016 02:14 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
> Rocko, the issue is the state of your mental competence. Please share with the group the medications you are currently being prescribed.
>
> Good luck
>
You can include the ones that HVAC's bosses slipped to you in your water
without your knowledge when you weren't paying attention.
HVAC posted:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KWodyapGNxI
"Interesting"
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1hrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569945 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:fofttc-mm4.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:fkbttc-t84.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1n5ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:tggqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> one trick pony. Come up with some new material. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings >>>>>>>>> floated >>>>>>>>> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph >>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> ground. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vaporized things don't generate seismograph readings, unless you are >>>>>>>> talking about nuclear explosions which do, but no seismograph >>>>>>>> recorded >>>>>>>> any explosions of any kind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you are telling me that WTC7 was vaporized because the seismic >>>>>>> records >>>>>>> from that hitting the ground are consistent with a jackhammer? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I am telling you the seismic record of the collapse of WTC7 is >>>>>> consistant with the energy of a building the size of WTC7 collapsing. >>>>> >>>>> And yet you can't even tell me what it was and you never have either. >>>> >>>> Been posted many times by many people, kook. >>>> >>>>>> Seismographs record energy; jackhammers have little energy. >>>>> >>>>> WTF??? We were talking about WTC7 crashed to the ground with the same >>>>> seismic reading that a jackhammer would make and you think that is >>>>> normal? >>>> >>>> Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. >>>> >>>> A building collapse can be seen on a seismograph for many, many miles >>>> but >>>> a jackhammer for only a few blocks. >>> >>> The fact remains the seismic reading from when WTC7 hit the ground is >>> consistent with what a jackhammer can do and not a 47 story building. >> >> Poor Rocky still doesn't know the difference between energy and force. > > And you still can't explain why the seismic reading for when WTC7 appeared > to crash to the ground was no bigger than a jackhammer makes. Or why that > building destruction was missing P-waves and S-waves. Jackhammers don't show up on seismographs more than a few blocks away. A falling building is not an earthquake. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <negdh4$hu8$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569402 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >FOCUS ON THE SEISMIC RECORDS WHEN THEY CRASHED TO THE GROUND INSTEAD AND TRY >TO TELL ME THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH TWO 100 STORY BUILDINGS AND A 47 >STORY BUILDING. <G> Yes, I focused on those seismic records and they prove no nuclear explosions could have happened on that day. Roger! I missed it completely! You are a genius! You proved once and for all, by the seismic evidence, that there were no nuclear detonations at the World Trade Center that day!! Another mastermind proof from the genius of Rocky the Kooktard!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 12:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <upmdnZSAZPqxRZbKnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569708 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:negdh4$hu8$5@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>FOCUS ON THE SEISMIC RECORDS WHEN THEY CRASHED TO THE GROUND INSTEAD AND >>TRY >>TO TELL ME THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH TWO 100 STORY BUILDINGS AND A 47 >>STORY BUILDING. <G> > > Yes, I focused on those seismic records and they prove no nuclear > explosions could have happened on that day. They prove something vaporized those 3 buildings or the seismic activity would have been a lot higher when parts of those three buildings floated away. So if not MRR nukes that don't leave a seismic record the way American made nukes do then what? Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568348 |
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: > > <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings so >>>>> what >>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>> >>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, >>> >>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >> >> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >> collapsed >> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. > > Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and > then compare them to small buildings yourself. I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any kind, kook. -------------- Rocky is so kooky that even BJ disavows him
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 16:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Y1eNy.2487$4C4.617@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #568375 |
On 04/06/2016 03:53 PM, HVAC wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings so
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris?
>>>>>
>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building,
>>>>
>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent
>>>
>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that
>>> collapsed
>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise.
>>
>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and
>> then compare them to small buildings yourself.
>
> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack
> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any
> kind, kook.
> --------------
>
> Rocky is so kooky that even BJ disavows him
This is true for once.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 16:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oN-dndICQf9CGJjKnZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568375 |
"HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com > In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >> >> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>> so >>>>>> what >>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>> >>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, >>>> >>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>> >>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>> collapsed >>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >> >> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and >> then compare them to small buildings yourself. > > I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack > of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any > kind, kook. riiight. Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were nuked end with a crash because over 80 floors of the 110 story buildings floated away before they could crash to the ground. And I've seen your post about the seismic readings but you never once compared them to controlled demolitions of 20 story buildings and you know that as well as I do. The fact remains over 80 floors of each of the Twin Towers did not end up on the ground or in the ground or crash to the ground as proven by photos and the seismic readings themselves. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568407 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>>> so >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>> >>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, >>>>> >>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>> >>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>> collapsed >>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>> >>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and >>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >> >> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack >> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >> kind, kook. > > Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were nuked The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 16:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wtGdnSZ7QKsPV5vKnZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568412 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>> building, >>>>>> >>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>> collapsed >>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>> >>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 >>>> and >>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>> >>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack >>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >>> kind, kook. >> >> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were nuked > > The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of > any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is something happened to the physical makeup of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 because they should have hit the ground a lot harder than they did if they were not nuked and the way WTC7 hit the ground wasn't much harder than a jackhammer. The only way they could do that is if they were nuked so you had better learn more about MRR nukes before you try saying they can be spotted by a seismec signature because they can also be spotted by what they do to buildings that do not crash to the ground the way they should. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568699 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>>> collapsed >>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 >>>>> and >>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>> >>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack >>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >>>> kind, kook. >>> >>> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were nuked >> >> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of >> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. > > YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <La-dneiOqauGRJvKnZ2dnUU7-L_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568719 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 >>>>>> and >>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>> >>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter >>>>> lack >>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >>>>> kind, kook. >>>> >>>> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were nuked >>> >>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of >>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >> >> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. > > Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. > > No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way way smaller than they should have been so something had to vaporize those 3 buildings before they could crash to the ground. DUH. Too bad there is more than one way to prove we were not given the entire story about 9/11. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web