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

Groups > sci.physics > #517842 > unrolled thread

Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 07:37 -0500
    Re: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-08-30 09:12 -0400
    Re: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 16:19 +0100
      Re: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 08:28 -0700
      Re: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 11:19 -0500
        Re: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +0100
          c) what he say noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 17:04 -0700
          Re: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 03:37 +0200
        Re: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 17:53 -0500

#517842 — Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep a list of your exhibits because T-annoy claimed he 
gave me evidence once that he would not repost and he is a big liar too.

One of the sites I used to prove that there were 3 exit holes at the 
Pentagon was changed after they realized it was inconsistent with the story 
they were trying to tell.  In other words some evidence that we were told 
lie after lie after lie about Ground Zero is drying up.

But that does not mean all the evidence that we were lied to about Ground 
Zero is drying up because the fact Ground Zero was radioactive has more 
supporting evidence now than ever.  <G>

There is plenty of evidence that NIST used outright lies in their 
"Hypothetical Collapse Initiation Sequence" and you will not deal with any 
of that because in reality you can't.  <G>

I keep posting the same graphic over and over and you will not tell me 
exactly what it means to you because to this date only Dimitri K. has 
bothered to explain why so much survived of the Twin Towers.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

The crap I keep getting about EMPs is clearly bogus because FNN listed the 
data he was using and they were both large airborne nukes and not small 
nukes detonated 77 meters underground in solid rock.

The deal with the mushroom cloud from the North Tower.  It is consistent 
with an underground nuke and it is also consistent with a nuke that wasn't 
directly under the majority of the smoke.

The fact that the North Tower shook so violently 12 seconds before it was 
vaporized that it was caught on camera and yet that was not recorded by the 
USGS tells us the USGS has given us falsified information.  <G>

I could go on and on and on and you know that but the point being where the 
fcuk is your evidence?  <G>

Rocky 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#517845

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:37:35 -0500
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> From: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
> Subject: Ping: Kent Wills: WHERE THE FCUK IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:37:35 -0500
> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931

You a founder? 
Also get a better spell checker..Fuck!

Members of the #FYF911 or #FukYoFlag and #BlackLivesMatter movements
called for the lynching and hanging of white people and cops. They
encouraged others on a radio show Tuesday night to “turn the tide” and
kill white people and cops to send a message about the killing of black
people in America.

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

#517874

On 30/08/2015 13:37, Rocky wrote:
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep a list of your exhibits because T-annoy claimed he
> gave me evidence once that he would not repost and he is a big liar too.
>

I would be interested in your explanation of the above.

> One of the sites I used to prove that there were 3 exit holes at the
> Pentagon was changed after they realized it was inconsistent with the story
> they were trying to tell.  In other words some evidence that we were told
> lie after lie after lie about Ground Zero is drying up.
>

So yet again your evidence 'disappears' how convenient.

> But that does not mean all the evidence that we were lied to about Ground
> Zero is drying up because the fact Ground Zero was radioactive has more
> supporting evidence now than ever.  <G>

What sort of radiation was it?
What were the levels of radiation?
How was it measured?
Who measured it?

>
> There is plenty of evidence that NIST used outright lies in their
> "Hypothetical Collapse Initiation Sequence" and you will not deal with any
> of that because in reality you can't.  <G>
>
> I keep posting the same graphic over and over and you will not tell me
> exactly what it means to you because to this date only Dimitri K. has
> bothered to explain why so much survived of the Twin Towers.
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> The crap I keep getting about EMPs is clearly bogus because FNN listed the
> data he was using and they were both large airborne nukes and not small
> nukes detonated 77 meters underground in solid rock.
>
> The deal with the mushroom cloud from the North Tower.  It is consistent
> with an underground nuke and it is also consistent with a nuke that wasn't
> directly under the majority of the smoke.
>
> The fact that the North Tower shook so violently 12 seconds before it was
> vaporized that it was caught on camera and yet that was not recorded by the
> USGS tells us the USGS has given us falsified information.  <G>
>
> I could go on and on and on and you know that but the point being where the
> fcuk is your evidence?  <G>
>
> Rocky
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

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

#517877

everything was connected to w.t.c7,
according to the NYTimes

> What were the levels of radiation?
> How was it measured?
> Who measured it?

> > The deal with the mushroom cloud from the North Tower.  It is consistent
> > with an underground nuke and it is also consistent with a nuke that wasn't
> > directly under the majority of the smoke.
> >
> > The fact that the North Tower shook so violently 12 seconds before it was
> > vaporized that it was caught on camera and yet that was not recorded by the
> > USGS tells us the USGS has given us falsified information.  <G>
> >
> > I could go on and on and on and you know that but the point being where the
> > fcuk is your evidence?  <G>
> >
> > Rocky
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

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

#517891

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mrv6qa$lok$3@dont-email.me...
> On 30/08/2015 13:37, Rocky wrote:
>> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep a list of your exhibits because T-annoy claimed 
>> he
>> gave me evidence once that he would not repost and he is a big liar too.
>>
>
> I would be interested in your explanation of the above.
>
>> One of the sites I used to prove that there were 3 exit holes at the
>> Pentagon was changed after they realized it was inconsistent with the 
>> story
>> they were trying to tell.  In other words some evidence that we were told
>> lie after lie after lie about Ground Zero is drying up.
>>
>
> So yet again your evidence 'disappears' how convenient.

Not all of it disappears but the photo that showed 3 exit holes in the 
Pentagon did.


>> But that does not mean all the evidence that we were lied to about Ground
>> Zero is drying up because the fact Ground Zero was radioactive has more
>> supporting evidence now than ever.  <G>
>
> What sort of radiation was it?
> What were the levels of radiation?
> How was it measured?
> Who measured it?

You don't care that people have died from it all you want to do is play with 
the details like a kid in a sandbox.  And you can't google "9/11 radiation" 
for yourself why?


>> There is plenty of evidence that NIST used outright lies in their
>> "Hypothetical Collapse Initiation Sequence" and you will not deal with 
>> any
>> of that because in reality you can't.  <G>
>>
>> I keep posting the same graphic over and over and you will not tell me
>> exactly what it means to you because to this date only Dimitri K. has
>> bothered to explain why so much survived of the Twin Towers.
>>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>> The crap I keep getting about EMPs is clearly bogus because FNN listed 
>> the
>> data he was using and they were both large airborne nukes and not small
>> nukes detonated 77 meters underground in solid rock.
>>
>> The deal with the mushroom cloud from the North Tower.  It is consistent
>> with an underground nuke and it is also consistent with a nuke that 
>> wasn't
>> directly under the majority of the smoke.
>>
>> The fact that the North Tower shook so violently 12 seconds before it was
>> vaporized that it was caught on camera and yet that was not recorded by 
>> the
>> USGS tells us the USGS has given us falsified information.  <G>
>>
>> I could go on and on and on and you know that but the point being where 
>> the
>> fcuk is your evidence?  <G>
>>
>> Rocky

Rocky 

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

#517973

On 30/08/2015 17:19, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrv6qa$lok$3@dont-email.me...
>> On 30/08/2015 13:37, Rocky wrote:
>>> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep a list of your exhibits because T-annoy claimed
>>> he
>>> gave me evidence once that he would not repost and he is a big liar too.
>>>
>>
>> I would be interested in your explanation of the above.
>>
>>> One of the sites I used to prove that there were 3 exit holes at the
>>> Pentagon was changed after they realized it was inconsistent with the
>>> story
>>> they were trying to tell.  In other words some evidence that we were told
>>> lie after lie after lie about Ground Zero is drying up.
>>>
>>
>> So yet again your evidence 'disappears' how convenient.
>
> Not all of it disappears but the photo that showed 3 exit holes in the
> Pentagon did.
>
>

The amount of time that your evidence 'disappears' is strange, if any 
other person had that trouble they would make back ups.


>>> But that does not mean all the evidence that we were lied to about Ground
>>> Zero is drying up because the fact Ground Zero was radioactive has more
>>> supporting evidence now than ever.  <G>
>>
>> What sort of radiation was it?
>> What were the levels of radiation?
>> How was it measured?
>> Who measured it?
>
> You don't care that people have died

Yet another attempt from you to divert the thread from the questions asked.

Where is the proof that I don't care if people died?

> from it all you want to do is play with
> the details like a kid in a sandbox.  And you can't google "9/11 radiation"
> for yourself why?
>

I'm waiting for your answers, not a youtube video.
You must know the answers, if you make the claims.
Perhaps you do not have the answers, in which case your claims fail.

>
>>> There is plenty of evidence that NIST used outright lies in their
>>> "Hypothetical Collapse Initiation Sequence" and you will not deal with
>>> any
>>> of that because in reality you can't.  <G>
>>>
>>> I keep posting the same graphic over and over and you will not tell me
>>> exactly what it means to you because to this date only Dimitri K. has
>>> bothered to explain why so much survived of the Twin Towers.
>>>    http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>
>>> The crap I keep getting about EMPs is clearly bogus because FNN listed
>>> the
>>> data he was using and they were both large airborne nukes and not small
>>> nukes detonated 77 meters underground in solid rock.
>>>
>>> The deal with the mushroom cloud from the North Tower.  It is consistent
>>> with an underground nuke and it is also consistent with a nuke that
>>> wasn't
>>> directly under the majority of the smoke.
>>>
>>> The fact that the North Tower shook so violently 12 seconds before it was
>>> vaporized that it was caught on camera and yet that was not recorded by
>>> the
>>> USGS tells us the USGS has given us falsified information.  <G>
>>>
>>> I could go on and on and on and you know that but the point being where
>>> the
>>> fcuk is your evidence?  <G>
>>>
>>> Rocky
>
> Rocky sheeple
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

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

#517992 — c) what he say

he thinks that a)
the bombs were not b)
planes

> Perhaps you do not have the answers, in which case your claims fail.
> 
> >
> >>> There is plenty of evidence that NIST used outright lies in their
> >>> "Hypothetical Collapse Initiation Sequence" and you will not deal with
> >>> any
> >>> of that because in reality you can't.  <G>
> >>>
> >>> I keep posting the same graphic over and over and you will not tell me
> >>> exactly what it means to you because to this date only Dimitri K. has
> >>> bothered to explain why so much survived of the Twin Towers.
> >>>    http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
> >>>
> >>> The crap I keep getting about EMPs is clearly bogus because FNN listed
> >>> the
> >>> data he was using and they were both large airborne nukes and not small
> >>> nukes detonated 77 meters underground in solid rock.
> >>>
> >>> The deal with the mushroom cloud from the North Tower.  It is consistent
> >>> with an underground nuke and it is also consistent with a nuke that
> >>> wasn't
> >>> directly under the majority of the smoke.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that the North Tower shook so violently 12 seconds before it was
> >>> vaporized that it was caught on camera and yet that was not recorded by
> >>> the
> >>> USGS tells us the USGS has given us falsified information.  <G>
> >>>
> >>> I could go on and on and on and you know that but the point being where
> >>> the
> >>> fcuk is your evidence?  <G>
> >>>
> >>> Rocky
> >
> > Rocky sheeple
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

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

#518015

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

Tony Dragon, in <news:mrvvaf$uc0$2@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> On 30/08/2015 17:19, Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
> failed truck driver and deadly menace behind the wheel) wrote:

>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:mrv6qa$lok$3@dont-email.me...

>>> On 30/08/2015 13:37, Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
>>> failed truck driver and deadly menace behind the wheel)  wrote:

>>>> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep a list of your exhibits because T-annoy claimed
>>>> he gave me evidence once that he would not repost and he is a big liar too.

>>> I would be interested in your explanation of the above.

>>>> One of the sites I used to prove that there were 3 exit holes at the
>>>> Pentagon was changed after they realized it was inconsistent with the
>>>> story they were trying to tell.  In other words some evidence that we were told
>>>> lie after lie after lie about Ground Zero is drying up.

>>> So yet again your evidence 'disappears' how convenient.

>> Not all of it disappears but the photo that showed 3 exit holes in the
>> Pentagon did.

> The amount of time that your evidence 'disappears' is strange, if any 
> other person had that trouble they would make back ups.

There were three exit holes, but then, only the outer wall of the
Pentagon was fortified... the area the plane struck was open office
area with no walls to stop the debris until it punched those holes
through the inner wall, which is easily explained by plane parts and
chunks of building careening off the vertical support beams, changing
the angle at which they were flying.

For all the evidence one needs to completely squash this kook's
utterly impossible conspiracy theory, see:
<http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html>
"Further down take note of the construction of the Pentagon. Only the
outer wall was constructed with reinforcing. The C-Ring "punch out"
wall was plain brick and nothing more. Also note that the area AAL77
impacted; the bottom and second floors, is open space the entire
distance between the outer E-Ring and the inner C-Ring with no
dividing walls lower than the third floor. It can therefore clearly be
seen that AAL77 did not penetrate 6 reinforced walls, but only 1; the
outer most wall."

But Roger Wittekind will run from that proof that he's a
paranoid-delusional schizophrenic off his meds, likely by k'laming
that the site is done by a paid disinformation agent of the
conspirators.

That's part and parcel of his mental illness, after all.

<snicker>

-- 

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 buildings fell, 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 and collapse 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, Mike.

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

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

#517986

On 8/30/2015 11:19 AM, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrv6qa$lok$3@dont-email.me...
   On 30/08/2015 13:37, Rocky wrote:
>>> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep a list of your exhibits because T-annoy claimed
>>> he
>>> gave me evidence once that he would not repost and he is a big liar too.
>>>

>> I am not interested in your explanation of the above.
>>
>>> One of the sites I used to prove that there were 3 exit holes at the
>>> Pentagon was changed after they realized it was inconsistent with the
   story
>>> they were trying to tell.  In other words some evidence that we were told
>>> lie after lie after lie about Ground Zero is drying up.
>>>
>>
>> So yet again your evidence 'disappears' how convenient.

> Not all of it disappears but the photo that showed 3 exit holes in the
> Pentagon did.
>

>>> But that does not mean all the evidence that we were lied to about Ground
>>> Zero is drying up because the fact Ground Zero was radioactive has more
>>> supporting evidence now than ever.  <G>

>> What sort of radiation was it?
>> What were the levels of radiation?
>> How was it measured?
>> Who measured it?
>
> I don't care that people have died from it all I want to do is play with
> the details like a kid in a sandbox.  And I can't google "9/11 radiation"
> for myself why?

You Liar Rocky

>
>
>>> There is plenty of evidence that NIST used outright facts in their
>>> "Hypothetical Collapse Initiation Sequence" and I will not deal with
>>> any
>>> of that because in reality I can't.  <G>

>>> I keep posting the same graphic over and over and I will not tell you
>>> exactly what it means to me because to this date only Doimitri K. has
>>> bothered to explain why so much survived of the Twin Towers.
>>>    http://www.FatManBoobie$You.com/wp-content/uploads/Rocky.jpeg

>>> The crap I keep getting about EMPs is clearly bogus because FAA listed
>>> the
>>> data he was using and they were both large airborne nukes and not small
>>> nukes detonated 77 kilometers underground in solid rock.

>>> The deal with the mushroom cloud from the North Tower.  It is inconsistent
>>> with an underground nuke and it is also inconsistent with a nuke that
>>> wasn't
>>> directly under the majority of the smoke-um dope-um.

>>> The fact that the North Tower did not shake so violently 12 seconds before it was
>>> dematerialized by Aliens that it was caught on camera and yet that was not recorded by
>>> the Home Mothers Sewing Group of Sweeden (HMSGS)
>>> UGH tells us the UHS has given Rocky falsified information.  <Poop>

>>> I will go on and on and on and I know that but the point being where
>>> the
>>> fuck you, yes FUCK YOU and your evidence?  <poop>
>>>
>>> Rocky the lying squirrely
>
> Rocky the lying squirrely
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web