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

Groups > sci.physics > #517745 > unrolled thread

"Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 19:05 -0500
    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 20:42 -0500
      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 22:38 -0500
      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:35 +0000
    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:34 +0000
      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 21:25 -0500
        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 22:37 -0500
          Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 15:37 -0500
            Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 20:58 +0000
              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 16:33 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +0100
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 23:04 +0000
                  Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:35 -0500
                    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 02:00 +0000
                      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 21:58 -0500
                        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 03:21 +0000
                        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 06:28 +0200
                      hormesis (http://larouchepub.com noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 14:28 -0700
                    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 09:56 +0100
            Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34 Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +0100
        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:34 +0000
          Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 15:23 -0500
            Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 20:53 +0000
              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 16:23 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +0100
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 23:01 +0000
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 02:37 +0200
                  Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:00 -0500
                    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:18 -0700
                      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:27 -0500
                        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:36 -0700
                          Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:45 -0500
                            Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:58 -0700
                              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:59 -0500
                                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:14 -0700
                        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 04:29 -0500
                    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 04:29 -0500
                  Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:42 -0500
                    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:18 -0700
                    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 07:27 +0200
                  Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (FNN is using outright lies) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:45 -0500
    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-30 07:23 -0700
      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 11:37 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#517745 — "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed

"Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed

A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now 
confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event," 
but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York, 
radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem 
cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."

 ><http://presstv.com/detail/2014/04/21/359423/nuke-cancer-from-911-revealed/><And to see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero check out: https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+radiationRocky

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#517763 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed)

redone because OE screws up when some links are used.

 To see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero do a google search for 
"9/11 radiation"

"Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed

A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now
confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event,"
but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York,
radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem
cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."

 http://presstv.com/detail/2014/04/21/359423/nuke-cancer-from-911-revealed

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

#517786 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed)

On 8/29/2015 8:42 PM, Rocky wrote:
> redone because OE screws up when some links are used.
>
>   To see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero do a google search for

>
>   http://www.HugeManBoobs.com/andfat/Rocky/2014/04/21/359423/
>
>

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

#517795 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed)

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now
> confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event,"
> but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York,
> radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem
> cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."

There were no nukes, you raving, delusional, batshit crazy, nut job.

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.

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#517765

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed
> 
> A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now 
> confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event," 
> but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York, 
> radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem 
> cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."

Yet more raving kook babble.

There were no nukes, retard.

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.

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#517775 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>
> There were no nukes, retard.

ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then 
explain why the lowest 6-8 floors of both the Twin Towers were not crushed 
by the upper 100 floors.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

BTW Ground Zero should have really been called Ground Zero, Ground Zero and 
Ground Zero to indicate 3 deep underground nukes were used at the World 
Trade Center.  <G>

-----------------------------------------

"The thirteenth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United 
States fall later this year, surprisingly we still have many unanswered 
questions"

...

The use of micro-nukes in the WTC complex on 9/11-the smoking gun

It's safe to say that high energy releases have a distinct look.

Dr. Ed Ward has documented what he believes is the use of micro-nukes on the 
World Trade Center complex attack that took place in September of 2001.

One of the smoking guns in this case is that over 5.3 billion pounds of 
steel was instantly turned into 2 billion pounds of dust, but that's not 
all.

Massive steel beams were bent like pretzels as the towers collapsed.

One video shows the penthouse on building 7 being demolished on the roof 
just before the building comes down. This proves that a top-down demolition 
process was being utilized, otherwise the buildings might have just twisted, 
naturally falling over themselves. But perhaps the most startling revelation 
is the fact that vehicles looked incinerated up to one mile away from the 
towers. Cars were even flipped over as if they came out of a war zone.

The fact that many of the first responders are now dead if not very sick 
does not sound like the byproduct of a falling building but more like they 
got a massive dose of deadly radiation. Most of the responders have died of 
blood cancer, yet another sign of radiation exposure.

Cars not hit by falling debris yet totally destroyed far away from the 
towers

Molten metal was seen in and around the debris of the WTC for months.

There is also the fact that the debris field was substantially low for the 
magnitude of buildings that were destroyed, thus signifying that most of the 
debris was incinerated upon the demo blast.

Massive craters under the WTC complex were formed, likely from the 
detonation of micro-nukes, as the rock was even melted smooth. Later after 
the site was fairly cleaned up and the craters were excavated, the city of 
New York continued to wash down the cavities with hoses daily for years as 
traces of Tritium were found, signifying the use of nuclear weaponry. 
Evidence shows that levels of Tritium were 55 times higher than normal in 
the WTC debris. Tritium is a by-product of a nuclear blast.

The fact that the WTC buildings were pulverized into a fine dust, 20 microns 
in size or less, cannot be ignored. This is a tell-tale sign of a high 
energy release typical of a nuclear explosion. Eyewitness accounts and 
personal testimony indicate that people were thrown an entire city block 
from what was described as a warm wind just as the towers begin to collapse.

There were also multiple reports of "hanging skin" or "melted skin" on 
victims around ground zero. This was a common occurrence in the Hiroshima 
blast.

Major hot spots were reported in and around the debris for up to six months 
after 9/11.

This is commonly referred to as "China Syndrome", where nuclear material 
will continue to undergo fission for a period of time, generating massive 
heat plumes.

To no surprise, videos  obtained via Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA) 
requests show that sections of the video and audio have been removed, 
especially during the beginning of the collapse of the towers. Why would the 
government need to remove these sections of the video and

https://www.intellihub.com/use-micro-nukes-takedown-wtc-complex-911-different-eyes/ 

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

#517785 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun)

On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>> There were no nukes, retard.
>
> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then

No Radiation, numbnuts.

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

#517942 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34

"gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:mrttpm$g7i$3@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>
>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>
> No Radiation

keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.

But now there are plenty of places where radiation from ground zero has to 
be tied to the problems people are having now or died from.

And back to the "synchronization flash" used by the people placing CGI into 
videos by the dozens.

Here's a good 3 min 9/11 Clip worth seeing!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w

But keep in mind only the flash is real and it was used to synchronize the 
CGIs to the real world.

Rocky 

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

#517954 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message 
> news:mrttpm$g7i$3@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>
>> No Radiation
> 
> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.

No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.

If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
than normal, and it is not, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#517961 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:bc7cbc-ump.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:mrttpm$g7i$3@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>>
>>> No Radiation
>>
>> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>
> No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
>
> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
> than normal, and it is not, kook.

And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak up 
radioactivity.

And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where it 
takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?

Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes left 
the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of NIST, 
NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#517974 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim)

On 30/08/2015 22:33, Rocky wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:bc7cbc-ump.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrttpm$g7i$3@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>>>
>>>> No Radiation
>>>
>>> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>>
>> No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
>>
>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>
> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak up
> radioactivity.
>
> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where it
> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>

What radiation would that be?
What type of Geiger counter would that be?

> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes left
> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of NIST,
> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS.  <G>
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

#517989 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim)

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:bc7cbc-ump.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrttpm$g7i$3@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>>>
>>>> No Radiation
>>>
>>> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>>
>> No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
>>
>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
> 
> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak up 
> radioactivity.

You can not soak radioactivity out of something.

> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where it 
> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?

That is jus babbling nonsense.

> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes left 
> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of NIST, 
> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS.  <G>

That is just delusional paranoia.

If you seek professional help, you may be able to hold a job.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#518013 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:8oecbc-fcq.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
...
>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>
>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak 
>> up
>> radioactivity.
>
> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.

Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.

Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why 
both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the 
location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.


>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where 
>> it
>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>
> That is jus babbling nonsense.

Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the 
radiation from Hanford.


>> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes 
>> left
>> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of 
>> NIST,
>> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS.  <G>
>
> That is just delusional paranoia.

And yet you or NIST have been unable to explain how two 110 story buildings 
can fall down and then leave large parts of the lower floors intact like the 
outside walls or Stairwell B in the North Tower where over a dozen people 
survived.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Or see:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/28/nuclear-911-revealed-theories-and-disinformation-the-misguided-and-the-inhuman/


Rocky 

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

#518023 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link)

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:8oecbc-fcq.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>
>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak 
>>> up
>>> radioactivity.
>>
>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
> 
> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
> 
> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why 
> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the 
> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.

You are attempting to change the subject.

If nukes were used, the background radiation in the whole area would
STILL be higher than normal, and it is not, kook.

>>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where 
>>> it
>>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>>
>> That is jus babbling nonsense.
> 
> Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the 
> radiation from Hanford.

Fukishima and Hanford have nothing to do with 9/11, kook.

There is no magic radiation that takes a "special Geiger counter" to
detect, kook.

If you seek help you may be able to hold a job.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#518034 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:73pcbc-qfr.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:8oecbc-fcq.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>>
>>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to 
>>>> soak
>>>> up
>>>> radioactivity.
>>>
>>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>>
>> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>>
>> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
>> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
>> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>
> You are attempting to change the subject.
>
> If nukes were used, the background radiation in the whole area would
> STILL be higher than normal, and it is not, kook.

You are thinking of dirty nukes and not clean nukes.  And who says all nukes 
have to be dirty?  Is it the same people that nuked the Twin Towers?

If you don't like me talking about the nukes that leveled the Twin Towers
with the exception of the walls that were left standing strong I wonder how
you will feel about the following video that was prepared by the only person
that could recreate the disappearing wing of the alleged Flight 175.:

----------------------------------

Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE

Published on Mar 22, 2014

Completed 3/22/2014
by James Easton and Steve Grage
THE EPITOME OF NO PLANES FILMS on the subject.

Are you a No Brainer? Then you probably believe there were PLANES on 9/11.
Well... THERE WEREN'T!

Produced by James Easton of WAKEUP PRODUCTIONS, creator of 9/11 The BIGGEST
LIE which has 700,000 views on Youtube.

Steve Grage is a credentialed ENGINEER with 25 years experience.

This is no joke. Word is spreading. Pretty soon you too will be saying THERE
WERE NO FUCKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!

James Easton - September 20, 2014

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U

THERE WERE NO FCUKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!

Rocky 

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

#518047 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE)

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:73pcbc-qfr.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8oecbc-fcq.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to 
>>>>> soak
>>>>> up
>>>>> radioactivity.
>>>>
>>>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>>>
>>> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>>>
>>> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
>>> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
>>> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>>
>> You are attempting to change the subject.
>>
>> If nukes were used, the background radiation in the whole area would
>> STILL be higher than normal, and it is not, kook.
> 
> You are thinking of dirty nukes and not clean nukes.  And who says all nukes 
> have to be dirty?  Is it the same people that nuked the Twin Towers?

Basic physics says ALL nukes result in a LOT radiation, fruitcake.

<snip remaining delusional raving>

If you get help you may be able to hold a job, nutcase.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#518058 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE)

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

Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
woman-stalking failed truck driver), in
<news:d4WdnZqfsqhgX37InZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> You are thinking of dirty nukes and not clean nu<SMACKAKOOK!>

BWAAHHHAHAHAHAA! "clean nukes"

You fucking retard.

> Rocky

Now, get to addressing the 20 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:

======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below
the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to
today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that
depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's
*why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al
Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human
history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep
Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.

2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a
nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of
the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused
the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would
have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the
immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized
your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for
dozens of miles radius.

3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's
no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been
from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of
radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the
tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights
that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a
nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how
delusional you are.

4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or
anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>).
They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear
weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation.

5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people
in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed,
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2
MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were
buried.

6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay
byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it
decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any
sort of nuclear chain reaction.

7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it*
*was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical
support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount
of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================

8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to
survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be
approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature
would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?

9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a
hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding
rock.

10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were
detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects
were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft.

11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent
down to service those nukes (because now that you know the
neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a
periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire
facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the
technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with
"4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area
the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to
admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33
years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960
to 1840 degree heat?

12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all
1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the
Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your
kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized"
(your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)?

13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC
site on 11 Sep 2001?

14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris
kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep
underground, Ko0K?

15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have
tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles
deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC
complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to
detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up
your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which
you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference
was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The
Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).

16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes
(MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your
previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3
nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming
under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in
agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is?
While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps
(radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was
primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any
contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in
place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this
*still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed
"EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where
your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly
head again. LOL

17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your
"34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes
(MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d6f5a7b3f56eeeb6f@dizum.com>))... eventually,
your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the
real city was blown up by
1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes
which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground
MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet
and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC
and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the
fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn
out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every
piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's
*proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL

18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation
byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words
"with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID:
<43acc7488b179f3bfea83ef7076f92b9@dizum.com>).

19) 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, Roger Wittekind.

20) Now you're saying the Ogallala Aquifer is radioactive (what's that
got to do with the WTC?)... with absolutely no proof... all you have
is the paranoid delusional rantings of other schizophrenics like you.

Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back
on your meds, you delusional loon.
======================================================

There are now 20 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of
physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by
point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp
simple physics.

Kook. 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 buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL

G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole
seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.

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]

#518261 — hormesis (http://larouchepub.com

most of the folk of Chernobyl,
wish to go back home, because
they probably know the word, hormesis

> If nukes were used, the background radiation in the whole area would
> STILL be higher than normal, and it is not, kook.
> 
> >>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where 
> >>> it
> >>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
> >>
> >> That is jus babbling nonsense.
> > 
> > Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the 
> > radiation from Hanford.
> 
> Fukishima and Hanford have nothing to do with 9/11, kook.
> 
> There is no magic radiation that takes a "special Geiger counter" to
> detect, kook.
> 
> If you seek help you may be able to hold a job.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

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

#518087 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link)

On 31/08/2015 02:35, Rocky wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:8oecbc-fcq.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>
>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak
>>> up
>>> radioactivity.
>>
>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>
> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>
> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>
>
>>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where
>>> it
>>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>>

What radiation would that be?
What type of Geiger counter would that be?

>> That is jus babbling nonsense.
>
> Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the
> radiation from Hanford.
>
>
>>> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes
>>> left
>>> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of
>>> NIST,
>>> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS.  <G>
>>
>> That is just delusional paranoia.
>
> And yet you or NIST have been unable to explain how two 110 story buildings
> can fall down and then leave large parts of the lower floors intact like the
> outside walls or Stairwell B in the North Tower where over a dozen people
> survived.  See:
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Or see:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/28/nuclear-911-revealed-theories-and-disinformation-the-misguided-and-the-inhuman/
>
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

#517975 — Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34

On 30/08/2015 21:37, Rocky wrote:
> "gilber34" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:mrttpm$g7i$3@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s63abc-bei.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>
>> No Radiation
>
> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>

So where did you get your reports of radiation?
What sort of radiation was it?
Who recorded it?
What was it recorded with?

> But now there are plenty of places where radiation from ground zero has to
> be tied to the problems people are having now or died from.
>
> And back to the "synchronization flash" used by the people placing CGI into
> videos by the dozens.
>
> Here's a good 3 min 9/11 Clip worth seeing!
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w
>
> But keep in mind only the flash is real and it was used to synchronize the
> CGIs to the real world.
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web