Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #518963 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-04 17:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-05 06:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 61 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 17:29 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-04 18:42 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 18:22 -0500
Re: Rocky raves on yet again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 00:10 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-05 07:22 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-04 19:59 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-05 02:40 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-05 08:00 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-05 10:48 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-05 16:28 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 18:39 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 03:28 -0500
Re: Rocky imagines nukes yet again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 16:53 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 20:54 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still an idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 15:10 -0500
Re: Rocky the stalker raves on jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:03 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still an idiot) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 23:02 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:04 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 18:46 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 12:56 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 20:04 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Michael gives me a laugh) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:18 -0500
Re: Rocky continues to babble jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 22:38 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Michael gives me a laugh) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:07 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-07 03:21 +0200
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:19 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot & dmaster) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 17:16 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot & dmaster) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 03:53 -0500
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 00:08 +0000
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-05 08:11 -0400
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-05 15:36 +0000
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 18:40 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 02:41 -0500
Re: Rocky thinks cameas are seismographs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 16:55 +0000
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-06 11:43 -0400
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 10:58 -0500
Re: Rocky's one wing delusion jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 16:59 +0000
Re: Rocky's one wing delusion "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:58 -0500
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:17 -0500
Re: Rocky hammers K the Krazy "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:39 -0500
Re: Rocky spews more delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 17:04 +0000
Re: Rocky hammers the Ediot "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 13:18 -0500
Re: Rocky raves against reality again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 18:41 +0000
Re: Rocky hammers jimp again "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 14:29 -0500
Re: Rocky will run away from the TRUTH. Yes, again. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:00 -0500
Re: Rocky will run away from the TRUTH. Yes, again. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-07 03:00 +0200
Re: Rocky doesn't get it jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:06 +0000
Re: Rocky hammers the Ediot "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:00 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (k kaught in more lies) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:43 -0500
Re: The Earth moves for Rocky jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 23:01 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (k kaught in more lies) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:07 -0500
Re: Rocky is exposed for the pathological liar he is. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:55 -0500
Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 10:08 -0500
Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-05 10:25 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 18:39 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 19:37 +0200
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 16:39 -0500
Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 16:37 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 06:00 -0500
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 17:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero |
| Message-ID | <YuidnTczJLcth3fInZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com> |
Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post until now. And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation everywhere. <G> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't just shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. Plus a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP and why people started running at the exact same event. <G> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to explain why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing and not just standing but standing with survivors. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the Phantom Flight 175? http://911planeshoax.com Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U Rocky Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 18:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20150904184238.00007a16@uk.mo> |
| In reply to | #518963 |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:29:00 -0500 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > From: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> > Subject: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:29:00 -0500 > Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 When was the last time you visit the Alien space craft?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 18:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dqWdnd6VHNRnunfInZ2dnUU7-bmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #518968 |
"burfordtjustice" <burford@uk.mo> wrote in message news:20150904184238.00007a16@uk.mo... > On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:29:00 -0500 > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> From: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> >> Subject: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:29:00 -0500 >> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics >> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > > When was the last time you visit the Alien space craft? Lame attempt at a thread hijacking has been noticed and the OP has been reintroduced below: ==================================== Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post until now. And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation everywhere. <G> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't just shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. Plus a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP and why people started running at the exact same event. <G> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to explain why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing and not just standing but standing with survivors. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the Phantom Flight 175? http://911planeshoax.com Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U Rocky Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 00:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky raves on yet again. |
| Message-ID | <lgopbc-66h.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #518988 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Lame attempt at a thread hijacking has been noticed and the OP has been > reintroduced below: His post was much better than yours, you lunatic. The facts are some airliners were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed almost 2 hours later. One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature that can be detected anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. Everything else is kook babble. That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble. That there is missing rubble is kook babble. That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble. That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble. That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear devices is kook babble. That there was an EMP is kook babble. That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble. That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything to do with what happened is kook babble. That the scene was radioactive is kook babble. That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima or Nagasaki is kook babble. That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear is kook babble. That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance and still be expected to work is kook babble. That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear bombs is kook babble. That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the airplanes hit the towers is kook babble. That all the video was CGI is kook babble. That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble. That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the windows is kook babble. That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble. That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion is kook babble. There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble. Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble. Rantings about specially treated dirt is kook babble. Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is kook babble. Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 07:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20150905072206.00007945@uk.mo> |
| In reply to | #518988 |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:22:53 -0500 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > From: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> > Subject: Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:22:53 -0500 > Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > > > "burfordtjustice" <burford@uk.mo> wrote in message > news:20150904184238.00007a16@uk.mo... > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:29:00 -0500 > > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > > >> From: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> > >> Subject: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero > >> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:29:00 -0500 > >> Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics > >> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > > > > When was the last time you visited the Alien space craft? You did not answer the question. When was the last time you visited the Alien space craft?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 19:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <msdb4v$3bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #518963 |
Rocky wrote: > Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away > after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post > until now. > > And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground > Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation > everywhere. <G> > > And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't > just shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was > bumped. Plus a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a > simultaneous EMP and why people started running at the exact same > event. <G> > And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to > explain why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left > standing and not just standing but standing with survivors. <G> > > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the > Phantom Flight 175? > > http://911planeshoax.com > > > Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U > > Rocky > > Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero > http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html You should find this interesting http://www.britannica.com/technology/neutron-bomb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 02:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qICdnak_94cuAXfInZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #518996 |
<edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2fd01384-c558-42e3-a944-f8e6b33d4998@googlegroups.com... On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 7:59:10 PM UTC-4, Bast wrote: > Rocky wrote: > > Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away > > after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post > > until now. > > > > And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground > > Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation > > everywhere. <G> > > > > And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't > > just shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was > > bumped. Plus a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a > > simultaneous EMP and why people started running at the exact same > > event. <G> > > And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to > > explain why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left > > standing and not just standing but standing with survivors. <G> > > > > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > > > And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the > > Phantom Flight 175? > > > > http://911planeshoax.com > > > > > > Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U > > > > Rocky > > > > Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero > > http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html > > > > > > > > You should find this interesting > http://www.britannica.com/technology/neutron-bomb No he wouldn't. Rocky tried to suggest the "deep underground nukes" were "neutron" bombs until it was pointed out to him that "neutron bombs" don't "vaporize" buildings, they cause minimum building damage and mostly kill people with heavy dosages of radiation. ======= Wrong Ediot because her link also talks about "clean" nukes. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 08:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <msele8$loe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519042 |
Rocky wrote: > <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:2fd01384-c558-42e3-a944-f8e6b33d4998@googlegroups.com... > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 7:59:10 PM UTC-4, Bast wrote: >> Rocky wrote: >>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>> away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of >>> this post until now. >>> >>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at >>> Ground Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>> everywhere. <G> >>> >>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings >>> don't just shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod >>> was bumped. Plus a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a >>> simultaneous EMP and why people started running at the exact same >>> event. <G> >>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>> explain why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left >>> standing and not just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>> >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>> >>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and >>> the Phantom Flight 175? >>> >>> http://911planeshoax.com >>> >>> >>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>> >>> Rocky >>> >>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You should find this interesting >> http://www.britannica.com/technology/neutron-bomb > > No he wouldn't. Rocky tried to suggest the "deep underground nukes" were > "neutron" bombs until it was pointed out to him that "neutron bombs" > don't "vaporize" buildings, they cause minimum building damage and > mostly kill people with heavy dosages of radiation. > > ======= > > Wrong Ediot because her link also talks about "clean" nukes. > > Rocky Exactly. They are often low yield, and very controllable. Most of the radiation would be contained in the building dust. NOTE: I a not saying this was used on 9/11, but I will consider it a possibility/hypothesis until someone can prove it wrong. ...And proving it wrong requires facts,....not just saying it's "kookdom" or "kooktalk".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 10:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ErqdnWWg8b2lk3bInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519042 |
<edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... > > I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs were > able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because they were > "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" bombs do > exactly the opposite. The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that knows the most? Here, I'll give you the link again: Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing their video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could a smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why didn't Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in the North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 > You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground nukes > can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and > debris flying into the air. Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke under WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. <G> >You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you keep >hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the underground nuke. >(Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and you >responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point entirely. Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the South Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned that way or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of Fiterman Hall when they nuked WTC7. ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post until now. And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation everywhere. <G> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't just shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. Plus a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP and why people started running at the exact same event. <G> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to explain why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing and not just standing but standing with survivors. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the Phantom Flight 175? http://911planeshoax.com Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U Rocky Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msf577$i2n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #519093 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I Four hours and 16 minutes? And that's just Part 1?? Is that all kooktards do, watch 911 Youtube videos? Maybe that's how kooktards are brainwashed into being nice little sheeple. They watch multiple 4 hour Youtube videos where the planes crash into the towers over and over again while chanting "There were no planes!", and then watching the towers collapse over and over again while chanting "There were no collapses!" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519093 |
On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: > <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >> >> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs were >> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because they were >> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" bombs do >> exactly the opposite. > > The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that knows the > most? Here, I'll give you the link again: > > Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I > > And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing their > video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could a > smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why didn't > Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? > > And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in the > North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 > > >> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground nukes >> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >> debris flying into the air. > > Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke under > WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. <G> > > Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of evidence that you have 'lost'. >> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you keep >> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the underground nuke. >> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and you >> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point entirely. > > Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the South > Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned that way > or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of Fiterman > Hall when they nuked WTC7. > > ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** > > Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away > after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post > until now. > > And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground > Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation everywhere. > <G> > > And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't just > shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. Plus > a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP and > why people started running at the exact same event. <G> > > And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to explain > why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing and not > just standing but standing with survivors. <G> > > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the > Phantom Flight 175? > > http://911planeshoax.com > > > Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U > > Rocky > > Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero > http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 03:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) |
| Message-ID | <B_-dnQPn8O_7ZHbInZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519111 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... > On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>> >>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs >>> were >>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because they >>> were >>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" bombs do >>> exactly the opposite. >> >> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that knows >> the >> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >> >> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >> >> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing their >> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could a >> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why didn't >> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >> >> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in the >> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >> >> >>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground >>> nukes >>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >>> debris flying into the air. >> >> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke under >> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. <G> >> >> > Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of > evidence that you have 'lost'. Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine dust with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by WCBS. 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What was NOT shown on TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k ******************** >>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you keep >>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the underground >>> nuke. >>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and you >>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>> entirely. >> >> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the South >> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned that >> way >> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of Fiterman >> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >> >> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >> >> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away >> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post >> until now. >> >> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground >> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >> everywhere. >> <G> >> >> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't >> just >> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. >> Plus >> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP and >> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >> >> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >> explain >> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing and >> not >> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >> >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >> >> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the >> Phantom Flight 175? >> >> http://911planeshoax.com >> >> >> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >> >> Rocky >> >> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >> >> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 16:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky imagines nukes yet again |
| Message-ID | <jl7ubc-lh2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #519234 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds > before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine dust > with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that > explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by WCBS. How do you explain the fact that seismographs all over the East Coast recorded the tiny (about 2) signatures of the two towers collapsing and the miniscule (about 1.5) signatures of the airplanes crashing in the Pentagon and the woods, but no seismograph anyhwere on the planet recorded the huge (about 6) signatures that EACH nuclear device would have created? Either every government, academic instutution, seismic research organization, seismologist and amateur seismologist on the planet is part of a world wide conspiracy or there were no nuclear bombs involved on 9/11. <snip remaining kook drool> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 20:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) |
| Message-ID | <msi5i3$2iq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519234 |
On 06/09/2015 09:28, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs >>>> were >>>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because they >>>> were >>>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" bombs do >>>> exactly the opposite. >>> >>> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that knows >>> the >>> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >>> >>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >>> >>> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing their >>> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could a >>> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why didn't >>> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >>> >>> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in the >>> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >>> >>> >>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground >>>> nukes >>>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >>>> debris flying into the air. >>> >>> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke under >>> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. <G> >>> >>> >> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >> evidence that you have 'lost'. > > Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds > before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine dust > with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that > explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by WCBS. > > 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What was NOT > shown on TV > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k > > ******************** > > >>>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >>>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you keep >>>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the underground >>>> nuke. >>>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and you >>>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>>> entirely. >>> >>> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the South >>> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned that >>> way >>> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of Fiterman >>> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >>> >>> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >>> >>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away >>> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post >>> until now. >>> >>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground >>> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>> everywhere. >>> <G> >>> >>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't >>> just >>> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. >>> Plus >>> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP and >>> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >>> >>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>> explain >>> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing and >>> not >>> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>> >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>> >>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the >>> Phantom Flight 175? >>> >>> http://911planeshoax.com >>> >>> >>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>> >>> Rocky >>> >>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>> >>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >>> > > Rocky > > But no nuclear signatures. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 15:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still an idiot) |
| Message-ID | <xqednWH44q57AHHInZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519345 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:msi5i3$2iq$3@dont-email.me... > On 06/09/2015 09:28, Rocky wrote: >> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >>> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >>>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs >>>>> were >>>>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because they >>>>> were >>>>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" bombs >>>>> do >>>>> exactly the opposite. >>>> >>>> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that knows >>>> the >>>> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >>>> >>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >>>> >>>> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing their >>>> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could a >>>> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why >>>> didn't >>>> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >>>> >>>> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in the >>>> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >>>> >>>> >>>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground >>>>> nukes >>>>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >>>>> debris flying into the air. >>>> >>>> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke >>>> under >>>> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. <G> >>>> >>>> >>> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >>> evidence that you have 'lost'. >> >> Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds >> before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine >> dust >> with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that >> explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by >> WCBS. >> >> 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What was >> NOT >> shown on TV >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k >> >> ******************** >> >> >>>>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >>>>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you keep >>>>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the underground >>>>> nuke. >>>>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and >>>>> you >>>>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>>>> entirely. >>>> >>>> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the >>>> South >>>> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned >>>> that >>>> way >>>> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of >>>> Fiterman >>>> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >>>> >>>> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >>>> >>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>>> away >>>> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this >>>> post >>>> until now. >>>> >>>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at >>>> Ground >>>> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>>> everywhere. >>>> <G> >>>> >>>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't >>>> just >>>> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. >>>> Plus >>>> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP >>>> and >>>> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >>>> >>>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>>> explain >>>> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing >>>> and >>>> not >>>> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>>> >>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>>> >>>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and >>>> the >>>> Phantom Flight 175? >>>> >>>> http://911planeshoax.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>>> >>>> Rocky >>>> >>>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>>> >>>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >>>> >> >> Rocky >> >> > > > But no nuclear signatures. All you need for a "nuclear signature" is a sudden onset and you can see that when the North Tower starts shaking and shaking and shaking. DUH. And the EMP recorded by an AM receiver operated by WCBS proves the shaking of the North Tower was caused by a small deep underground nuke. And the explosion recorded by a video might have been used to direct the nuke under WTC3 toward WTC1 since WTC2 had already been nuked. Plus the flash from the nuke under WTC3 could have taken place entirely underground as proven by the testing of other deep underground nukes. And do not forget there is plenty of supporting evidence that nukes had to be used on the Twin Towers because of how they floated away and what was left where the Twin Towers once stood. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 21:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky the stalker raves on |
| Message-ID | <h9mubc-k44.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #519356 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > All you need for a "nuclear signature" is a sudden onset and you can see > that when the North Tower starts shaking and shaking and shaking. DUH. Nope, kook boy, siesmic signatures are measuered with seismographs, you raving stalker lunatic. How do you explain the fact that seismographs all over the East Coast recorded the tiny (about 2) signatures of the two towers collapsing and the miniscule (about 1.5) signatures of the airplanes crashing in the Pentagon and the woods, but no seismograph anyhwere on the planet recorded the huge (about 6) signatures that EACH nuclear device would have created? Either every government, academic instutution, seismic research organization, seismologist and amateur seismologist on the planet is part of a world wide conspiracy or there were no nuclear bombs involved on 9/11. > And the EMP recorded by an AM receiver operated by WCBS proves the shaking > of the North Tower was caused by a small deep underground nuke. There was no EMP recoreded by anybody and if there were nuclear devices, there would have been an EMP for EACH device, your raving lunatic stalker. > And the explosion recorded by a video might have been used to direct the > nuke under WTC3 toward WTC1 since WTC2 had already been nuked. How do you explain the fact that seismographs all over the East Coast recorded the tiny (about 2) signatures of the two towers collapsing and the miniscule (about 1.5) signatures of the airplanes crashing in the Pentagon and the woods, but no seismograph anyhwere on the planet recorded the huge (about 6) signatures that EACH nuclear device would have created? Either every government, academic instutution, seismic research organization, seismologist and amateur seismologist on the planet is part of a world wide conspiracy or there were no nuclear bombs involved on 9/11. > And do not forget there is plenty of supporting evidence that nukes had to > be used on the Twin Towers because of how they floated away and what was > left where the Twin Towers once stood. <G> Nothing floated away, you raving lunatic stalker. How do you explain the fact that seismographs all over the East Coast recorded the tiny (about 2) signatures of the two towers collapsing and the miniscule (about 1.5) signatures of the airplanes crashing in the Pentagon and the woods, but no seismograph anyhwere on the planet recorded the huge (about 6) signatures that EACH nuclear device would have created? Either every government, academic instutution, seismic research organization, seismologist and amateur seismologist on the planet is part of a world wide conspiracy or there were no nuclear bombs involved on 9/11. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 23:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still an idiot) |
| Message-ID | <msid1m$roe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519356 |
On 06/09/2015 21:10, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:msi5i3$2iq$3@dont-email.me... >> On 06/09/2015 09:28, Rocky wrote: >>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >>>> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >>>>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs >>>>>> were >>>>>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because they >>>>>> were >>>>>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" bombs >>>>>> do >>>>>> exactly the opposite. >>>>> >>>>> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that knows >>>>> the >>>>> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >>>>> >>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >>>>> >>>>> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing their >>>>> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could a >>>>> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why >>>>> didn't >>>>> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >>>>> >>>>> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in the >>>>> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground >>>>>> nukes >>>>>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >>>>>> debris flying into the air. >>>>> >>>>> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke >>>>> under >>>>> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. <G> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >>>> evidence that you have 'lost'. >>> >>> Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds >>> before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine >>> dust >>> with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that >>> explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by >>> WCBS. >>> >>> 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What was >>> NOT >>> shown on TV >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k >>> >>> ******************** >>> >>> >>>>>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >>>>>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you keep >>>>>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the underground >>>>>> nuke. >>>>>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and >>>>>> you >>>>>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>>>>> entirely. >>>>> >>>>> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the >>>>> South >>>>> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned >>>>> that >>>>> way >>>>> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of >>>>> Fiterman >>>>> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >>>>> >>>>> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >>>>> >>>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>>>> away >>>>> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this >>>>> post >>>>> until now. >>>>> >>>>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at >>>>> Ground >>>>> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>>>> everywhere. >>>>> <G> >>>>> >>>>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't >>>>> just >>>>> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. >>>>> Plus >>>>> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP >>>>> and >>>>> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >>>>> >>>>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>>>> explain >>>>> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing >>>>> and >>>>> not >>>>> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>>>> >>>>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and >>>>> the >>>>> Phantom Flight 175? >>>>> >>>>> http://911planeshoax.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>>>> >>>>> Rocky >>>>> >>>>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>>>> >>>>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >>>>> >>> >>> Rocky >>> >>> >> >> >> But no nuclear signatures. > > All you need for a "nuclear signature" is a sudden onset and you can see > that when the North Tower starts shaking and shaking and shaking. DUH. > But there was no nuclear signature. > And the EMP recorded by an AM receiver operated by WCBS proves the shaking > of the North Tower was caused by a small deep underground nuke. > > And the explosion recorded by a video might have been used to direct the > nuke under WTC3 toward WTC1 since WTC2 had already been nuked. > > Plus the flash from the nuke under WTC3 could have taken place entirely > underground as proven by the testing of other deep underground nukes. > > And do not forget there is plenty of supporting evidence that nukes had to > be used on the Twin Towers because of how they floated away and what was > left where the Twin Towers once stood. <G> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) |
| Message-ID | <w_6dnXBcL649JXHInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519395 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:msid1m$roe$1@dont-email.me... > On 06/09/2015 21:10, Rocky wrote: >> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:msi5i3$2iq$3@dont-email.me... >>> On 06/09/2015 09:28, Rocky wrote: >>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>> news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >>>>>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" >>>>>>> bombs >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> exactly the opposite. >>>>>> >>>>>> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that >>>>>> knows >>>>>> the >>>>>> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >>>>>> >>>>>> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing >>>>>> their >>>>>> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could >>>>>> a >>>>>> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why >>>>>> didn't >>>>>> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >>>>>> >>>>>> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in >>>>>> the >>>>>> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground >>>>>>> nukes >>>>>>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >>>>>>> debris flying into the air. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke >>>>>> under >>>>>> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. >>>>>> <G> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >>>>> evidence that you have 'lost'. >>>> >>>> Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 >>>> seconds >>>> before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine >>>> dust >>>> with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that >>>> explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by >>>> WCBS. >>>> >>>> 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What was >>>> NOT >>>> shown on TV >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k >>>> >>>> ******************** >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >>>>>>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you >>>>>>> keep >>>>>>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the >>>>>>> underground >>>>>>> nuke. >>>>>>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>>>>>> entirely. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the >>>>>> South >>>>>> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned >>>>>> that >>>>>> way >>>>>> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of >>>>>> Fiterman >>>>>> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >>>>>> >>>>>> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>>>>> away >>>>>> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this >>>>>> post >>>>>> until now. >>>>>> >>>>>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at >>>>>> Ground >>>>>> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>>>>> everywhere. >>>>>> <G> >>>>>> >>>>>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings >>>>>> don't >>>>>> just >>>>>> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was >>>>>> bumped. >>>>>> Plus >>>>>> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP >>>>>> and >>>>>> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >>>>>> >>>>>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>>>>> explain >>>>>> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing >>>>>> and >>>>>> not >>>>>> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>>>>> >>>>>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and >>>>>> the >>>>>> Phantom Flight 175? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://911planeshoax.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>>>>> >>>>>> Rocky >>>>>> >>>>>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>>>>> >>>>>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Rocky >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> But no nuclear signatures. >> >> All you need for a "nuclear signature" is a sudden onset and you can see >> that when the North Tower starts shaking and shaking and shaking. DUH. >> > > But there was no nuclear signature. And where is your proof that you even know what a "nuclear signature" is? ROTFLMAO >> And the EMP recorded by an AM receiver operated by WCBS proves the >> shaking >> of the North Tower was caused by a small deep underground nuke. >> >> And the explosion recorded by a video might have been used to direct the >> nuke under WTC3 toward WTC1 since WTC2 had already been nuked. >> >> Plus the flash from the nuke under WTC3 could have taken place entirely >> underground as proven by the testing of other deep underground nukes. >> >> And do not forget there is plenty of supporting evidence that nukes had >> to >> be used on the Twin Towers because of how they floated away and what was >> left where the Twin Towers once stood. <G> >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >> >> Rocky Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 18:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) |
| Message-ID | <mskie4$2pi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519399 |
On 06/09/2015 23:04, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:msid1m$roe$1@dont-email.me... >> On 06/09/2015 21:10, Rocky wrote: >>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:msi5i3$2iq$3@dont-email.me... >>>> On 06/09/2015 09:28, Rocky wrote: >>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >>>>>>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" >>>>>>>> bombs >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> exactly the opposite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that >>>>>>> knows >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing >>>>>>> their >>>>>>> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how could >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why >>>>>>> didn't >>>>>>> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground >>>>>>>> nukes >>>>>>>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >>>>>>>> debris flying into the air. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke >>>>>>> under >>>>>>> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. >>>>>>> <G> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >>>>>> evidence that you have 'lost'. >>>>> >>>>> Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 >>>>> seconds >>>>> before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine >>>>> dust >>>>> with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that >>>>> explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by >>>>> WCBS. >>>>> >>>>> 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What was >>>>> NOT >>>>> shown on TV >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k >>>>> >>>>> ******************** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they were >>>>>>>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you >>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the >>>>>>>> underground >>>>>>>> nuke. >>>>>>>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once and >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>>>>>>> entirely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the >>>>>>> South >>>>>>> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of >>>>>>> Fiterman >>>>>>> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>>>>>> away >>>>>>> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this >>>>>>> post >>>>>>> until now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at >>>>>>> Ground >>>>>>> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>>>>>> everywhere. >>>>>>> <G> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was >>>>>>> bumped. >>>>>>> Plus >>>>>>> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>>>>>> explain >>>>>>> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Phantom Flight 175? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://911planeshoax.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rocky >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rocky >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But no nuclear signatures. >>> >>> All you need for a "nuclear signature" is a sudden onset and you can see >>> that when the North Tower starts shaking and shaking and shaking. DUH. >>> >> >> But there was no nuclear signature. > > And where is your proof that you even know what a "nuclear signature" is? > ROTFLMAO > > You have been told enough times on this NG what it is, if you don't believe what has been posted, feel free to prove otherwise. >>> And the EMP recorded by an AM receiver operated by WCBS proves the >>> shaking >>> of the North Tower was caused by a small deep underground nuke. >>> >>> And the explosion recorded by a video might have been used to direct the >>> nuke under WTC3 toward WTC1 since WTC2 had already been nuked. >>> >>> Plus the flash from the nuke under WTC3 could have taken place entirely >>> underground as proven by the testing of other deep underground nukes. >>> >>> And do not forget there is plenty of supporting evidence that nukes had >>> to >>> be used on the Twin Towers because of how they floated away and what was >>> left where the Twin Towers once stood. <G> >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>> >>> Rocky > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 12:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) |
| Message-ID | <OOidnc7QoqHKUnDInZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519594 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:mskie4$2pi$2@dont-email.me... > On 06/09/2015 23:04, Rocky wrote: >> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:msid1m$roe$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 06/09/2015 21:10, Rocky wrote: >>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>> news:msi5i3$2iq$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 06/09/2015 09:28, Rocky wrote: >>>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >>>>>>>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the >>>>>>>>> bombs >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" >>>>>>>>> bombs >>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>> exactly the opposite. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that >>>>>>>> knows >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why >>>>>>>> didn't >>>>>>>> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that >>>>>>>>> underground >>>>>>>>> nukes >>>>>>>>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> debris flying into the air. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. >>>>>>>> <G> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >>>>>>> evidence that you have 'lost'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 >>>>>> seconds >>>>>> before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra >>>>>> fine >>>>>> dust >>>>>> with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW >>>>>> that >>>>>> explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded >>>>>> by >>>>>> WCBS. >>>>>> >>>>>> 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What >>>>>> was >>>>>> NOT >>>>>> shown on TV >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k >>>>>> >>>>>> ******************** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you >>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the >>>>>>>>> underground >>>>>>>>> nuke. >>>>>>>>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>>>>>>>> entirely. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the >>>>>>>> South >>>>>>>> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of >>>>>>>> Fiterman >>>>>>>> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>>>>>>> away >>>>>>>> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this >>>>>>>> post >>>>>>>> until now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at >>>>>>>> Ground >>>>>>>> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>>>>>>> everywhere. >>>>>>>> <G> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was >>>>>>>> bumped. >>>>>>>> Plus >>>>>>>> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous >>>>>>>> EMP >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left >>>>>>>> standing >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Phantom Flight 175? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://911planeshoax.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rocky >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rocky >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But no nuclear signatures. >>>> >>>> All you need for a "nuclear signature" is a sudden onset and you can >>>> see >>>> that when the North Tower starts shaking and shaking and shaking. DUH. >>>> >>> >>> But there was no nuclear signature. >> >> And where is your proof that you even know what a "nuclear signature" is? >> ROTFLMAO >> >> > > You have been told enough times on this NG what it is, if you don't > believe what has been posted, feel free to prove otherwise. Guess #1 you get two more tries before you are out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web