Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #519762 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-08 11:30 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-13 05:41 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 202 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 11:30 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 12:44 -0400
Re: Rocky has no clue about airplanes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 18:26 +0000
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 20:08 +0100
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 19:46 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 16:11 -0500
Re: Rocky is shooken jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 21:19 +0000
Re: Rocky is shooken Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 16:38 -0500
Re: Rocky is shooken jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 21:48 +0000
Re: Rocky is shooken Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:32 -0500
Re: Rocky is shooken benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 22:39 -0400
Re: Rocky is shooken HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 06:06 -0400
Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 07:17 -0700
Re: Rocky is shooken HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:53 -0400
Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 08:08 -0700
Re: Rocky is shooken "Chad Fistpumper" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-09-09 17:50 -0700
Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:21 -0700
Re: Rocky is shooken benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 19:30 -0400
Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:10 -0700
Re: die ass hat spammer, die jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-09 03:34 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:17 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 17:29 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-09 00:00 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 02:13 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-09 02:03 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 10:27 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-09 17:22 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 18:16 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 17:16 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 03:54 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:43 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 23:36 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 10:12 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Andrew W" <spam_ajwerner@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-09-10 18:06 +1000
Re: Plane truth HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 07:39 -0400
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-10 20:58 +0100
Re: Plane truth george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> - 2015-09-11 08:14 +1200
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-10 16:57 -0500
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-10 23:03 +0100
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 19:51 +0100
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 15:45 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 16:20 -0400
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 16:54 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 17:21 -0400
Re: Plane truth Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 16:48 -0700
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 16:53 -0500
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:17 +0100
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 23:09 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 09:27 -0500
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 16:15 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-09 13:35 -0400
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 18:31 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 17:28 -0500
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:42 -0500
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 04:21 +0000
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:41 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-10 08:59 -0400
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 13:52 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 12:31 -0500
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-19 18:37 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 20:03 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 20:10 -0500
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-20 05:21 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 10:56 -0500
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-20 19:52 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 15:22 -0500
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:29 -0500
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-21 01:42 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 22:11 -0500
Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-21 05:06 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 06:14 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 14:06 -0500
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-21 20:19 +0100
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 15:38 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 09:21 -0500
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-21 20:19 +0100
Re: Plane truth (Wow Michael found an interesting link ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 15:51 -0500
Re: Plane truth (Wow Michael found an interesting link ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:30 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 16:56 -0500
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:30 -0500
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 21:05 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( WTC Core Columns Turn To Dust? ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 09:40 -0500
Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 09:52 +0100
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:10 -0500
Re: Plane truth BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-10 10:26 -0400
Re: Plane truth 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-11 09:34 -0400
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:34 -0500
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 19:54 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-09 12:09 -0400
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:41 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 07:29 -0400
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:05 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Kid is caught lying again ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:32 -0500
Re: Plane truth (More proof, if any were needed, that Roger is mentally ill) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:47 -0500
edtiem subjectum noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:37 -0700
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 15:55 -0500
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 17:03 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 17:36 -0400
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 19:56 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-09 12:29 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 09:05 -0500
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-11 12:32 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 15:09 -0500
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-11 18:53 -0400
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 13:09 -0400
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 17:57 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 17:57 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 00:11 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 20:47 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:12 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-12 23:16 -0400
Re: Ignorance of aircraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:30 +0000
Re: Ignorance of aircraft BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-13 10:10 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:16 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:01 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-13 10:11 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon 2 Kid ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:27 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon 2 Kid ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:46 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon 2 Kid ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:10 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Roger is not mentally able to answer questions) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:20 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 01:55 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 09:14 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:56 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-13 07:31 +0200
Re: delusions about airplanes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:26 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 19:27 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 20:35 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 07:55 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 11:14 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:48 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) ( Kid can not quote NIST ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:33 -0500
Re: Rocky's ignorance jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:52 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) ( Kid can not quote NIST ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:21 -0500
Re: Rocky babbles on jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:32 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 22:26 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 09:35 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the T-Annoy ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 18:22 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the T-Annoy ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 02:17 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( Michael stilll thinks he is super smart but he is a nobody ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:31 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( rep to the T-Annoy ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 06:40 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:12 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 22:16 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:20 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:33 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 05:57 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:01 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 15:56 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:02 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 21:35 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 17:35 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 17:32 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:23 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 10:31 -0400
Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:39 -0500
Re: Rocky runs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 22:51 +0000
Re: Rocky runs Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 19:09 -0400
Re: Rocky runs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:48 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Imaginary missiles jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 00:29 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 09:06 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-14 17:07 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 12:25 -0500
Re: Rocky still delusional jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 17:58 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-14 22:05 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 17:40 -0500
Re: Rocky is really stupid jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 23:11 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:45 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 18:09 -0500
Re: Rocky still stupid jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 23:40 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:46 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 01:45 +0000
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:24 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 06:40 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 04:12 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-15 04:46 +0200
Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 06:40 +0100
Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-15 05:49 +0200
Re: Phantom missiles jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:35 +0000
Re: Phantom missiles "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-13 10:56 -0700
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 20:38 -0400
Re: Plane truth Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:01 -0400
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:06 -0500
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 16:41 -0500
Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 20:02 -0400
Re: More Rocky fantasy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 21:13 +0000
Re: More Rocky fantasy Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:17 +0100
Re: More Rocky fantasy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 22:59 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 18:36 -0500
Re: Plane truth jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 00:12 +0000
Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 20:56 -0400
Re: Plane truth Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:03 -0400
Re: Plane delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:39 +0000
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:13 -0500
Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:00 -0500
Re: more delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:41 +0000
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 19:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky runs |
| Message-ID | <8d0cvapal07iudc9341kk7kulong0cfuh6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520839 |
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:51:50 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:d4lbvah961inned4hvfa0brh6he6dmmv6a@4ax.com... >> >> Nothing you say matters after I caught you in two outright lies about the >> jury trial that I won 12 to 0. > >Rocky always runs when his delusional drivel backs him into a corner. > We all see what's going on here. Rocky and his cohorts have nothing but to post youtube links and parrot back kook cites. Under scrutiny their claims don't hold up so they begin the name calling and threats. It's like dealing with a bunch of 4 year olds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 23:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky runs |
| Message-ID | <9jehcc-afo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #520847 |
In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:51:50 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> "Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>> news:d4lbvah961inned4hvfa0brh6he6dmmv6a@4ax.com... >>> >>> Nothing you say matters after I caught you in two outright lies about the >>> jury trial that I won 12 to 0. >> >>Rocky always runs when his delusional drivel backs him into a corner. >> > > We all see what's going on here. Rocky and his cohorts have nothing > but to post youtube links and parrot back kook cites. Under scrutiny > their claims don't hold up so they begin the name calling and threats. > It's like dealing with a bunch of 4 year olds. 4 year olds are more rational than Rocky; maybe 2 year olds. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 18:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) |
| Message-ID | <7bmdnY2T2e9lkWvInZ2dnUU7-VGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #520640 |
<edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:04139028-272a-4db3-92fb-89cad3debb3b@googlegroups.com... > Do you know how FAST a cruise missile travels? It would, at best, smear > across that slow camera. That is exactly what the missile did if you look at the 5 frames of video released months after 9/11 to quash a rumor about a truck bomb being used at the Pentagon. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html Keep in mind that at the time those five frames were given to the public it was not to prove a 757 rammed the Pentagon but to disprove a truck bomb was used at the Pentagon so in the process they made a lot of people think a missile hit the Pentagon instead. <G> Still no massive debris field at the Pentagon, no massive debris field at Pranksville, PA and a helicopter cameraman that proved to us there was no jet in the wide shot all adds up to the fact there were no hijacked jets on 9/11 unless if you count the two jets that ended up in Cleveland, OH. 9/11 and Media Fakery http://fakemedia911.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-plane-speed.html Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 00:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Imaginary missiles |
| Message-ID | <80hhcc-h2p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #520869 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:04139028-272a-4db3-92fb-89cad3debb3b@googlegroups.com... > >> Do you know how FAST a cruise missile travels? It would, at best, smear >> across that slow camera. > > That is exactly what the missile did if you look at the 5 frames of video > released months after 9/11 to quash a rumor about a truck bomb being used at > the Pentagon. What type of missile and what platform, kook? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 09:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) |
| Message-ID | <KOidnQiTd4ELSWvInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #520869 |
<edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7825fb7c-3663-40b1-bea8-7586fd79560c@googlegroups.com... > No debris field at the Pentagon because it was all INSIDE the building. But the story of how it got in there kept changing from person to person or even from time to time. And besides how many 757s do you know of that can fold their wings back so engines and wings both go into a small hole? Dude, it doesn't matter who started all the bullshit about 9/11 only that it takes more lies to keep the bullshit going and going and going and what do you thinik you are doing now? > No debris field at PA, because the pilot rammed the plane into the ground. > (Normal crashes have the pilot trying to keep the plane level, as such, it > spreads across a wide area.) ROTFLMAO because that was one of the other stories that changed once they realized they were caught in a lie. And don't worry there are way too many lies for the 9/11 hoaxsters like you to deal with all of them. > No plane in the wide shot because it was too far away in the far shot. The > planes were travelling at 500 mph. So it was still outside the field of > view for the camera during the wide shot and came in during the tight > shot. Nope wrong again 9/11 Hoaxster because that was dealt with in the exact same video that pointed it out in the first place. All you had to do was keep watching the next part of the video. Here, incase you need the link again but it is not indexed so you will have to fast forward to 4:04 yourself. Is that too much to ask? 07 - The Key https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?list=PLEA05F393EC843D80 Oh and your above lie was also deal with in the following site: 9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film. 9/11 and Media Fakery http://fakemedia911.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-plane-speed.html > Bonus answers; Sorry dealing with 3 BIG lies from you is enough for now. Oh and if you want to see more bullshit that we were fed on 9/11 see: news:ALednStl0pr9TWvInZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@giganews.com... Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 17:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) |
| Message-ID | <mt6ut6$pqr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #521022 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> No debris field at PA, because the pilot rammed the plane into the ground. >> (Normal crashes have the pilot trying to keep the plane level, as such, it >> spreads across a wide area.) >ROTFLMAO because that was one of the other stories that changed once they >realized they were caught in a lie. And don't worry there are way too many >lies for the 9/11 hoaxsters like you to deal with all of them. They recovered 95% of the wreckage of Flight 93, k00ktard. BTW, they recovered 95% of Flight 77 from in and around the Pentagon as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 12:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) |
| Message-ID | <bM6dnQLILba4nmrInZ2dnUU7-QednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #521073 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mt6ut6$pqr$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>> No debris field at PA, because the pilot rammed the plane into the >>> ground. >>> (Normal crashes have the pilot trying to keep the plane level, as such, >>> it >>> spreads across a wide area.) > >>ROTFLMAO because that was one of the other stories that changed once they >>realized they were caught in a lie. And don't worry there are way too >>many >>lies for the 9/11 hoaxsters like you to deal with all of them. > > They recovered 95% of the wreckage of Flight 93, k00ktard. BTW, they > recovered 95% of Flight 77 from in and around the Pentagon as well. Your complete failure to provide supporting evidence speak volumes. And I don't call a link from CNN without photos evidence. And we know for one thing for damn sure and that is nobody ever tried to rent a hanger and put the airplanes back together like they did with Flight 800. See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/14/us/twa-flight-800-five-things/ ============================= FYI about the radiation from the nukes that were detonated deep underground. So nobody in the area had radiation burns from when those nukes were detonated. Did you ever stop to think that the people that were in the path of the blast were all vaporized so we have no idea how much radiation they got. DUH. What you really need to do is find out exactly how deep underground nukes work in rock and stop making assumptions about them from nukes in dirt and above ground nukes. OK? Again, so many people say the following did not happen but photos prove it did happen so why did it happen? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And for those in the know, the haze is coming from the remains of the 3 deep underground nukes and was also where the molten metal was found. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 17:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky still delusional |
| Message-ID | <ceejcc-772.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #521076 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > FYI about the radiation from the nukes that were detonated deep underground. No nukes and no radiation, kook. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events. A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any governmental agency. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. > So nobody in the area had radiation burns from when those nukes were > detonated. Did you ever stop to think that the people that were in the path > of the blast were all vaporized so we have no idea how much radiation they > got. DUH. Anything "vaporized" by a nuclear explosion just adds to the total contamination of the area, kook. DUH. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 22:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) |
| Message-ID | <mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #521076 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >And we know for one thing for damn sure and that is nobody ever tried to >rent a hanger and put the airplanes back together like they did with Flight >800. See: > http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/14/us/twa-flight-800-five-things/ K00ktard, as you can see from the picture, Flight 800 was relatively few large pieces. It blew apart in the air and fell into the ocean. Flight 93 slammed into the ground at 500+ mph and except for the largest pieces, one ton pieces of the engines and a section of fuselage measuring 6'x7', just about all of the rest of the plane was obliterated into pieces ranging from notebook sized to 2". Kinda hard to piece that back together. >FYI about the radiation from the nukes that were detonated deep underground. >So nobody in the area had radiation burns from when those nukes were >detonated. Did you ever stop to think that the people that were in the path >of the blast were all vaporized so we have no idea how much radiation they >got. DUH. You mean like those firemen who barely escaped with the video of the tower shaking? Why weren't they vaporized? And where the hell was the million degree fireball that was vaporizing everything? And where was all the radiation it would have scattered into the air or the nonexistent mushroom cloud??? >What you really need to do is find out exactly how deep underground nukes >work in rock and stop making assumptions about them from nukes in dirt and >above ground nukes. OK? Well, first we have to figure out how many nukes there were and whether they were buried 77 feet underground or 77 miles underground since you keep changing your story. And of course, even if the radiation didn't vent somehow, you have to explain why there was no 5.5 magnitude earthquake (a 1kT is good for a 4.0), why there was no distinctive nuclear explosion signatures on any seismometers anywhere in the world, why there were no EMPs, why etc. etc. >Again, so many people say the following did not happen but photos prove it >did happen so why did it happen? Look at all that debris! 1.5 million tons of it!! It did happen!!! >And for those in the know, the haze is coming from the remains of the 3 deep >underground nukes and was also where the molten metal was found. So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was no radioactivity detected??? At least I see that you are back to having 3 nukes. Until you change your mind again, anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 17:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) |
| Message-ID | <ubqdnQeKeqRi0WrInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #521156 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com... > > Look at all that debris! 1.5 million tons of it!! It did happen!!! WHERE THE FCUK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Why can't you post a picture or are you just telling stories like the 9/11 hoaxsters have been doing since 9/11/01? If the Twin Towers had been through a "Controlled Demolition" the pile of rubble would have been over 8 stories tall. Yet there was a pile of debris from both the Towers smaller than what was left of WTC7 and don't give me that underground bullshit because I know that is a load of crap. And then how do you explain the Survivors? Funny that you have never made an attempt explain why they survived or why it was beyond the scope of NIST to find out why they survived. > So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was > no radioactivity detected??? We have been through this. They didn't take the readings right at GZ they shipped samples elsewhere and there is no doubt they stayed away from the places where the nukes were detonated. DUH. > At least I see that you are back to having 3 nukes. Until you change your > mind again, anyway. It has always been 3 deep underground nukes but what made a big hole in WTC6 could have been caused by very small nukes since that debris is nowhere to be found either. There are two things you have not done to this very day. 1. Prove you know the difference between nukes detonated underground in solid rock or nukes detonated in dirt. 2. Explain why there were Survivors in floors 2-6 of Stairwell B in the North Tower and why there was less debris on the ground than there would be from a 10 story building. Oh and do not forget about why there were free standing walls and nothing in the basement either.. See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 23:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky is really stupid |
| Message-ID | <5q0kcc-i14.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #521162 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com... >> >> Look at all that debris! 1.5 million tons of it!! It did happen!!! > > WHERE THE FCUK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? All the debris that wound up in what used to be underground areas, you delusional fuckwit. <snip> >> So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was >> no radioactivity detected??? > > We have been through this. They didn't take the readings right at GZ they > shipped samples elsewhere and there is no doubt they stayed away from the > places where the nukes were detonated. Yes, radiation readings were taken on site and they showed nothing unusual AND samples were taken for more extensive analasis, delusional fuckwit. <snip> > It has always been 3 deep underground nukes but what made a big hole in WTC6 > could have been caused by very small nukes since that debris is nowhere to > be found either. Look in what used to be underground areas, delusional fuckwit. > There are two things you have not done to this very day. > > 1. Prove you know the difference between nukes detonated underground in > solid rock or nukes detonated in dirt. One detonated in solid rock has an even bigger seismic signature due to the lack of dampening that dirt would provide, raving, delusional, fuckwit. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 18:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) |
| Message-ID | <10nevapknfjevnf64gkqbo1h98am9ma7pr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521162 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:40:15 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>> Look at all that debris! 1.5 million tons of it!! It did happen!!!
>
>WHERE THE FCUK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
>
>Why can't you post a picture or are you just telling stories like the 9/11
>hoaxsters have been doing since 9/11/01?
>
You've linked to the picture that PROVES the claim several times.
>If the Twin Towers had been through a "Controlled Demolition" the pile of
>rubble would have been over 8 stories tall.
>
Which is why we KNOW it was not a controlled demolition of any
sort. Such a demolition wouldn't have allowed the debris to end up in
the sub-levels and bathtub.
>Yet there was a pile of debris from both the Towers smaller than what was
>left of WTC7 and don't give me that underground bullshit because I know that
>is a load of crap.
>
You often see the truth as crap. I expect everyone is used to it.
>And then how do you explain the Survivors? Funny that you have never made
>an attempt explain why they survived or why it was beyond the scope of NIST
>to find out why they survived.
>
This has been explained to you MANY times. It's a sad testament
to your mental defects and learning disability (I honestly wish that
were an insult) that you can't understand.
>
>> So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was
>> no radioactivity detected???
>
>We have been through this. They didn't take the readings right at GZ they
>shipped samples elsewhere and there is no doubt they stayed away from the
>places where the nukes were detonated. DUH.
>
What about the Geiger counters you claimed were used? And why
have you abandoned that claim?
>
>> At least I see that you are back to having 3 nukes. Until you change your
>> mind again, anyway.
>
>It has always been 3 deep underground nukes
Lair. At one point you were claiming 34.
>but what made a big hole in WTC6
>could have been caused by very small nukes since that debris is nowhere to
>be found either.
Not now, but during the days after 9/11 it was.
>
>There are two things you have not done to this very day.
>
>1. Prove you know the difference between nukes detonated underground in
>solid rock or nukes detonated in dirt.
>
Jim and FNVW have both proved the difference. Sarah may have as
well.
>2. Explain why there were Survivors in floors 2-6 of Stairwell B in the
>North Tower and why there was less debris on the ground than there would be
>from a 10 story building. Oh and do not forget about why there were free
>standing walls and nothing in the basement either.. See:
>http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
There was a lot of debris in the sub-levels. You know this, but
you MUST lie.
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 18:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) |
| Message-ID | <Ofqdnb5bIpZCzmrInZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #521156 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com... > > So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was > no radioactivity detected??? ROTFLMAO Obviously the only way they could detect no radioactivity at all is if they never tested for radioactivity because there is always a background radioactivity everywhere. Don't tell me you are too stupid to know that? So your lies about no radioactivity at all only went to prove there was a reason why the level of radiation at Ground Zero was never taken or never published. Once more your lack of the facts has proven to me that the only way what was left of the Twin Towers could be left is if they were nuked from deep underground. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 23:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky still stupid |
| Message-ID | <7h2kcc-284.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #521167 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com... >> >> So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was >> no radioactivity detected??? > > ROTFLMAO > > Obviously the only way they could detect no radioactivity at all is if they > never tested for radioactivity because there is always a background > radioactivity everywhere. When one says no radioactivity was detected they mean nothing other than the normal background, delusional fuckwit. > Don't tell me you are too stupid to know that? You are so ignorant and delusional you didn't know that. > So your lies about no radioactivity at all only went to prove there was a > reason why the level of radiation at Ground Zero was never taken or never > published. Published many places as nothing unusual, delusional fuckwit. > Once more your lack of the facts has proven to me that the only way what was > left of the Twin Towers could be left is if they were nuked from deep > underground. Let's try with words more suited for you: Dig big hole. Build building over hole. Break up building (no matter how do, just break up) Pieces fall in hole. Is magic. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 18:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) |
| Message-ID | <u0nevadc6ccsvd801mrkqrsme35oa24eps@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521167 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:09:35 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>> So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was
>> no radioactivity detected???
>
>ROTFLMAO
>
>Obviously the only way they could detect no radioactivity at all is if they
>never tested for radioactivity because there is always a background
>radioactivity everywhere.
>
>Don't tell me you are too stupid to know that?
>
To the mentally sound and educated, Michael meant nuclear
radiation. It's very sad that you will never understand.
>So your lies about no radioactivity at all only went to prove there was a
>reason why the level of radiation at Ground Zero was never taken or never
>published.
>
That you've been reduced to LYING about his meaning proves you
know you've lost.
>Once more your lack of the facts has proven to me that the only way what was
>left of the Twin Towers could be left is if they were nuked from deep
>underground. <G>
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
The image continues to PROVE your claims wrong.
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 01:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) |
| Message-ID | <mt7t7k$o6f$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #521167 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com... >> >> So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was >> no radioactivity detected??? >ROTFLMAO >Obviously the only way they could detect no radioactivity at all is if they >never tested for radioactivity because there is always a background >radioactivity everywhere. >Don't tell me you are too stupid to know that? Kõõktard, you know perfectly well that I meant no radiation above normal background. It's plainly obvious that you are playing word games because you know you lost the radiation argument big time. If a nuke went off there, the site would be much too hot to enter for about 70 days, just like the "Sedan" crater. BTW, underground nukes are "dirtier" than airborne nukes because of neutron activation of the surrounding rock/soil in addition to the hot and nasty fission products. >So your lies about no radioactivity at all only went to prove there was a >reason why the level of radiation at Ground Zero was never taken or never >published. You have been given pointers to at least the tritium measurements and the measurements of the Hudson River sediment. Results: Tritium slightly elevated as expected (aircraft exit signs), Hudson River sediment LOWER than usual! > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Look at that huge pile of debris! It's enormous! Imagine, 108,342 truckloads to haul all of that away!! 1.5 million tons!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 21:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) |
| Message-ID | <nN2dnZVN-r0GHGrInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #521206 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mt7t7k$o6f$2@pcls7.std.com... > > Kõõktard, you know perfectly well that I meant no radiation above normal > background. BULLSHIT if they really had a reading you would know what it was. Besides maybe it was a normal background for where 3 nukes had just been detonated. DUH. And don't forget people didn't have to worry too much because where the nukes were detonated was deep underground and covered with M291 resin. And it doesn't take that long for a cavity created by an underground nuke to be safe to go into. Hell, Dimitri even stated that in his video. And do not forget that Tritium wasn't the only sign we were given for radio activity at GZ. You should take a look at the following video to see more: 04 - Phenomena https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > Look at that huge pile of debris! It's enormous! Imagine, 108,342 > truckloads to haul all of that away!! 1.5 million tons!!! Take a closer look at what you think is debris. It is just a wall with nothing on either side and in some of the later shots the wall from WTC1 even fell against WTC6. There is no real debris pile there and if you look at that little clump of stuff in the middle of the remains for WTC1 that is Stairwell B were over a dozen people survived so you can't call that a debris pile when it was more like a safe haven below the vaporization range of a deep underground nuke. And don't forget that even though the 9/11 hoaxsters could easily use their 3D model of Nuke York City to add CGIs to videos by the hundreds their model only worked with buildings so when it came to a crane their process of adding CGIs to a video screwed up. See: Believe Your Own Eyes - 9/11 - No "Planes" Were Ever Used.mp4 ( Time indexed to start at 25:58 ) https://youtu.be/IL8cJWyOxWQ?t=25m58s "9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film." Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 06:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) |
| Message-ID | <mt8aso$jut$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521214 |
On 15/09/2015 03:24, Rocky wrote: > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mt7t7k$o6f$2@pcls7.std.com... >> >> Kõõktard, you know perfectly well that I meant no radiation above normal >> background. > > BULLSHIT if they really had a reading you would know what it was. > > Besides maybe it was a normal background for where 3 nukes had just been > detonated. DUH. > > And don't forget people didn't have to worry too much because where the > nukes were detonated was deep underground and covered with M291 resin. > > And it doesn't take that long for a cavity created by an underground nuke to > be safe to go into. Hell, Dimitri even stated that in his video. > > And do not forget that Tritium wasn't the only sign we were given for radio > activity at GZ. You should take a look at the following video to see more: > So there was radioactivity. What type? What value? How was it measured? Who measured it? > 04 - Phenomena > https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU > >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > >> Look at that huge pile of debris! It's enormous! Imagine, 108,342 >> truckloads to haul all of that away!! 1.5 million tons!!! > > Take a closer look at what you think is debris. It is just a wall with > nothing on either side and in some of the later shots the wall from WTC1 > even fell against WTC6. > > There is no real debris pile there and if you look at that little clump of > stuff in the middle of the remains for WTC1 that is Stairwell B were over a > dozen people survived so you can't call that a debris pile when it was more > like a safe haven below the vaporization range of a deep underground nuke. > > And don't forget that even though the 9/11 hoaxsters could easily use their > 3D model of Nuke York City to add CGIs to videos by the hundreds their model > only worked with buildings so when it came to a crane their process of > adding CGIs to a video screwed up. See: > > Believe Your Own Eyes - 9/11 - No "Planes" Were Ever Used.mp4 > ( Time indexed to start at 25:58 ) > https://youtu.be/IL8cJWyOxWQ?t=25m58s > > "9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film." > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 04:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) |
| Message-ID | <v5ofva5rvusqdfvhd1bg2lgres31gjc465@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #521214 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:24:44 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mt7t7k$o6f$2@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>> Kõõktard, you know perfectly well that I meant no radiation above normal
>> background.
>
>BULLSHIT if they really had a reading you would know what it was.
>
>Besides maybe it was a normal background for where 3 nukes had just been
>detonated. DUH.
>
That's not what is meant, and you know it.
What does your LYING gain you?
>And don't forget people didn't have to worry too much because where the
>nukes were detonated was deep underground and covered with M291 resin.
>
>And it doesn't take that long for a cavity created by an underground nuke to
>be safe to go into. Hell, Dimitri even stated that in his video.
>
But, as you have helped to prove, Demitri knows nothing of
nuclear radiation. <G>
>And do not forget that Tritium wasn't the only sign we were given for radio
>activity at GZ. You should take a look at the following video to see more:
Tritium isn't actually radiation. And it's definitely not nuclear
radiation. But you already know this.
[...]
"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 04:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) |
| Message-ID | <4abdf95b672a8138d57246b9114f47f8@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #521167 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
woman-stalking truck crashing kook), in
<news:Ofqdnb5bIpZCzmrInZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:mt7gau$o4f$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> So the nukes did vent and release all their radioactivity!! But why was
>> no radioactivity detected???
> RO<SMACKAKOOK!>
You're too fucking stupid to be arguing about any of this shit, Roger.
You have absolutely no fucking clue how things work in the real world,
your broken brain accepts as fact any laughably implausible or
impossible conspiracy theory because you're a schizo kook, and you're
just delusional enough, in the depths of your insanity and stupidity,
to think you know better than anyone else, when in fact you know jack
shit about jack shit.
If you weren't such a retarded paranoid-delusional schizo kook, you'd
actually be embarrassed at how fucking stupid you are... but you're
profoundly retarded.
<snicker>
> Obviously the only way they could detect no radioactivity at all is if they
> never tested for radioactivity because there is always a background
> radioactivity everywhere.
Convention dictates that when one says there is "no radioactivity",
it's commonly known to mean "no radioactivity over background", you
fucking pedantic moron. Please don't tell me you're really this
fucking stupid, Roger.
And your sleazy attempts to sidestep the fact that radiation
monitoring started before the WTC towers even fell, and continued
non-stop until the clean-up was completed... and no radiation from
nukes was found, is noted.
You moron.
> Do<SMACKAKOOK!>
<http://www.si.edu/mci/downloads/articles/wtc_dust.pdf>
"Similarly no ionizing radiation has been detected at the site."
On top of that, there are several places you can go to determine that
there were no nuclear weapon detonation byproducts. Here's a couple:
<http://www2.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-time-and-laboratory-data-state>
No increase in radiation levels above background except for trace beta
(tritium in exit signs and LEO weapons sights) and alpha (radium from
pharmacologic laboratory), from the day before the WTC attack to the
day after cleanup completed, as measured at the NYC EML station.
<http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query>
Again, no increase from the NYC monitoring stations.
In addition, several outside groups were present at various times at
the WTC site to take radiation readings.
NO radiation over background was found (not just at the WTC site, but
throughout all of NYC) for anything other than slightly greater than
background beta radiation from nano-curie concentrations of tritium in
aircraft exit signs and LEO weapons sights, and almost imperceptibly
greater than background alpha radiation from radium (which was related
to industrial processes in a pharmacologic lab in the WTC complex, not
nuclear weapons).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<http://www.brazoshealth.org/sites/all/themes/health/images/pdfs/messages_in_the_dust.pdf>
============================================================
Once the event had been declared an act of terrorism, the first
response was to send in inspectors to check the air and debris to make
sure there were no signs of radiation or radioactive cargo, says
McKinney.
A major concern was that terrorists could have unleashed a so-called
"dirty bomb", an explosive device containing radioactive compounds
like cesium. Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological
health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He
reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department's office
of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way
to work when the first tower was hit.
Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation
before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have
originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing
beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some
radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used
in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane
wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might
also be left from any medical or dental offices. The far more serious
threat, of course, was the chance that one of the hijackers might have
carried a suitcase of radioactive materials or a dirty bomb, a
conventional bomb spiked with radioactive material. Such a bomb has
been compared to TNT, strapped to a container of plutonium or
plutonium-contaminated waste. This kind of a device would not produce
a nuclear explosion, but it could spread deadly radioactive matter
across a swath of city. According to Borri, the fear with a dirty bomb
is that hundreds, maybe thousands, could die from radiation poisoning
and cancer, and the area could be poisoned for years. (Plutonium-239
has a half-life of 24,000 years, says Borri.)
That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable
liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a
Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the
few available in the United States, is far more precise than its
century-old cousin, the Geiger counter with a much more refined
ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.
"If you're creative you can get what you need to without getting in
another agency's way pulling samples," says Borri, who was dodging
fire trucks and police vehicles and hordes of people streaming out of
the building. "It's not a good idea to walk into the center of the
action. Some of the people weren't walking as slowly as I was."
Although Borri didn't turn up any problematic radioactive readings by
the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal
Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued
to sample.
[Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would
radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a
pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]
============================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Further proving your schizophrenic paranoid-delusional rantings wrong:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf>
===============
The data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due
to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus,
tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the "smoking gun." Can
proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases
of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?
Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade
Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top
3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of
copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a
geochemist. "Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments
contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made
radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine
concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers,
which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the
attacks."
Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an
EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma
counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed
approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance
(counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium,
actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation
analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke
samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument,
Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi)
based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD).
Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide
activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three
samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice
the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g
except for naturally occurring potassium-40. These very low levels of
radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves
sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at
the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts
the empirical facts.
===============
{NOTE: The elevated beta radiation was likely just as I stated, the
tritium from the airplane exit signs and law enforcement weapon
sights. Beta particles are nothing more than high-energy electrons.}
- Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb
fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong
evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
- The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower
in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
- Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which
is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not
rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the
mini-nuke hypothesis.
- Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium,
actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background
level for WTC dust.
- Nuclear activation or residual "fall-out" radioactivity (above
background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on
actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131
measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low
radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling
evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.
- No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground
zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. No observed
melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Moron. LOL
--
Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394
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 building shook, 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 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, Roget Wittekind.
I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.
J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.
K) Your broken brain has now stated (MID:
<YtWdnQvC1PTFNWjInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>) that "liquid freon in
the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo [sic]
nuclear bomb" (your words). Complete and utter nonsense from your
thoroughly broken schizophrenic brain, Roger.
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]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web