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

Groups > sci.physics > #515667 > unrolled thread

The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:22 -0500
    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-08-21 18:54 -0400
    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:56 +0000
    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-21 18:59 -0500
    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:44 +0200
      Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-22 11:48 -0400
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 18:47 +0200
          Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-22 15:08 -0400
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 21:46 +0200
              Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:06 -0500
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 18:54 -0700
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 04:07 +0200
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:21 +0000
              Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-23 03:59 -0400
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 17:43 +0200
      Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 12:04 -0500
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 17:23 +0000
          Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 19:44 -0500
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:23 +0000
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:43 -0500
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 14:36 -0400
          Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 19:54 -0500
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 18:54 -0700
              Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:53 -0500
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:01 -0700
                  Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 21:02 -0500
                    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:49 -0700
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:26 +0000
                  ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 05:42 -0500
                    Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 04:07 -0700
                      2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:52 -0500
                        Re: 2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:28 -0700
                        Re: 2 je suis charly was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 20:20 +0000
                    Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 12:15 +0100
                      Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 07:23 -0500
                        seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:35 -0500
                          Re: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 08:42 -0500
                            Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:05 -0500
                              Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
                                T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:53 -0500
                                  Re: T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:19 +0000
                                  Re: T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
                              Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:13 +0000
                              Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:04 -0500
                                Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:18 -0500
                                  Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 19:50 +0000
                                    Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:28 -0500
                                      Re: Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 20:40 +0000
                                      Re: Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 14:20 -0700
                                  Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
                                    Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:08 -0500
                                  Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked)) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:03 -0500
                                Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
                          Re: seismic evidence is inconsistent jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:11 +0000
                    Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:46 -0500
                    Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:08 +0000
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:45 -0500
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:24 +0000
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:44 -0500
              Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 05:09 -0700
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 08:40 -0500
                  Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 09:36 -0700
                    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:07 -0500
                      Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 13:03 -0700
                  Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-24 11:59 -0400
                    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:57 -0500
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 21:35 +0200
          Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 19:41 -0500
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 17:55 -0700
              Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:13 -0500
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 18:55 -0700
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 03:44 +0200
              Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:50 -0500
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 05:18 +0200
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:29 +0000
                Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:45 -0500
            Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:28 +0000
    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Ming Tiggle" <none@nomail.com> - 2015-08-21 21:52 -0700
      Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:12 -0500
    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Ming Tiggle" <none@nomail.com> - 2015-08-21 21:53 -0700
      Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:55 -0500
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:54 -0500
    Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
      Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:21 -0500
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:30 +0000
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:44 -0500
        Re: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:50 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#516183 — Re: T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
> news:mrcua7$squ$5@dont-email.me...

>> But you have claimed that the ground shook, if it did then seismographs 
>> would record it.
> 
> T-annoy, I agree with that but that does not mean we will be given what they 
> recorded you idiot.

As there are thousands and thousands of seismographs across the planet,
someone somewhere would have noticed nuclear explosions, kook.

There are lots of seismograph recordings made on the day on the Internet,
kook.

There is nothing secret about seismographs, lots of people and organizations
have them, and many are connected to the Internet in real time, kook.

There is a sample of some at the end of my post, 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.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516253 — Re: T-annoy the pain keeps keeps the bullshit going

On 23/08/2015 18:53, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrcua7$squ$5@dont-email.me...
>> On 23/08/2015 15:05, Rocky wrote:
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>>>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
>>>>>>       Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
>>>>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds
>>>>> then
>>>>> it
>>>>> stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and
>>>>> where
>>>>> is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction
>>>>> to
>>>>> not line up again.  <G>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
>>>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>>>
>>> And yet you can't point to it?  Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me.
>>>
>>
>> But you have claimed that the ground shook, if it did then seismographs
>> would record it.
>
> T-annoy, I agree with that but that does not mean we will be given what they
> recorded you idiot.
>

So how do you know what the reading were?

>> Are you saying that the ground did not shake, or are you saying that
>> seismographs did not record it?
>
> You gave two options and neither one of them was that we were lied to and
> yet there is all sorts of evidence that NIST lied to us so why shouldn't
> other government agencies lie too?
>
>

Then answer it as two questions then.
Are you saying that the ground did not shake?
Are you saying that seismographs did not record it?


>>> And don't forget NIST could not explain why the remains of the Twin
>>> Towers
>>> did not resemble a "Pancake collapse" so they were forced to quit using
>>> the
>>> term "pancake collapse" and then they simply went from a collapse
>>> initiation
>>> to a "Global Collapse" and never tried to address why there was so little
>>> debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  <G>
>>>
>>> Oh, but you think you can address the lack of debris at the base of the
>>> Twin
>>> Towers and I'll bet you will never try knowing exactly how NIST got
>>> around
>>> that issue.  <G>
>>>
>>> And don't forget how the Ediot from alt.conspiracy tried to explain the
>>> lack
>>> of debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  The Ediot from alt.conspiracy
>>> claimed the shaking by the jet weakened them.  ROTFLMAO
>>>
>>> The only way you will ever be able to figure out what really happened on
>>> 9/11 is if you track down why there were so many inconsistencies with the
>>> media bullshit about 9/11.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>
> And don't forget the best evidence that NIST was in on the "Great 9/11 Hoax"
> is the following playlist and the comments in those videos.  <G>
>
> "NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence"
> Published on Jun 28, 2015
> ...
> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the
> fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a
> horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building
> structure would still be there."
>
>   https://youtu.be/zvCuMULutHs?list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>
>


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

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

#516139 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And yet you can't point to it?  Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me.

Seismic signatures of the buildings collapsing and the airplane crashes
at the end, 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.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516204 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked))

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:05:05 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>>>>
>>>>     Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
>>>>     Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
>>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S.
>>>
>>>We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then 
>>>it
>>>stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and 
>>>where
>>>is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction to
>>>not line up again.  <G>
>>>
>>
>>     Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>
>And yet you can't point to it?  

     You've yet to point to a single seismograph that recorded any
nuclear explosions on 9/11/2001.

>Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me.
>

     Who is this Kent person about whom you are so obsessed?

>And don't forget NIST could not explain why the remains of the Twin Towers 
>did not resemble a "Pancake collapse" so they were forced to quit using the 
>term "pancake collapse" 

     The term was in regards to each floor falling onto the one
bellow. And it was the media that used the term. NIST used the term
progressive collapse.
     What compels you to lie about such things?

>and then they simply went from a collapse initiation 
>to a "Global Collapse" and never tried to address why there was so little 
>debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  <G>

     Most of the debris was found in the sub levels and bath tub. Old
news. But you are intellectually unable to accept the truth.
     What is most sad, is that I don't mean that as an insult.

>
>Oh, but you think you can address the lack of debris at the base of the Twin 
>Towers and I'll bet you will never try knowing exactly how NIST got around 
>that issue.  <G>
>

     Since there was no lack of debris, there was nothing to get
around.

>And don't forget how the Ediot from alt.conspiracy tried to explain the lack 
>of debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  The Ediot from alt.conspiracy 
>claimed the shaking by the jet weakened them.  ROTFLMAO

     Direct quote and MID. Unless, of course, you're lying.

>
>The only way you will ever be able to figure out what really happened on 
>9/11 is if you track down why there were so many inconsistencies with the 
>media bullshit about 9/11.

     In the early hours there was a lot of confusion. Some of what was
reported was wrong. This doesn't mean there were any inconsistencies.
Not to the educated mind.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#516218 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked))

So Kent and Jim both like to remove alt.astronomy for some reason.  Could it 
be Bast?

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c86kta9ll422j11bs2qgfmne3eaudevttp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:05:05 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
>>>>>     Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
>>>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then
>>>>it
>>>>stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and
>>>>where
>>>>is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction 
>>>>to
>>>>not line up again.  <G>
>>>>
>>>
>>>     Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
>>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>>
>>And yet you can't point to it?
>
>     You've yet to point to a single seismograph that recorded any
> nuclear explosions on 9/11/2001.

Wrong because I can prove NIST lied through their teeth it is entirely 
possible that every government agency also lied through their teeth to help 
conceal the fact that not only were the Twin Towers brought down by a CD but 
it was an NCD.  <G>

The playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

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

#516232 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting

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

> Wrong because I can prove NIST lied through their teeth it is entirely 
> possible that every government agency also lied through their teeth to help 
> conceal the fact that not only were the Twin Towers brought down by a CD but 
> it was an NCD.  <G>

What anyone may have said is totally irrelevant when one looks at the
seismic record, 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 that rational people
would expect from such events.

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://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516241 — Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:bpkpac-ka5.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Wrong because I can prove NIST lied through their teeth it is entirely
>> possible that every government agency also lied through their teeth to 
>> help
>> conceal the fact that not only were the Twin Towers brought down by a CD 
>> but
>> it was an NCD.  <G>
>
> What anyone may have said is totally irrelevant when one looks at the
> seismic record, kook.

BULLSHIT because if one government agency lied big time why not all of them?

BTW I've looked at your seismic readings at
 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

and they don't show a gap of 12 seconds from when the ground shook and an 
EMP took place to when the towers started to come down so it appears that 
entire section was removed.  And it is easy to see why because then all of 
America would know the Twin Towers were nuked.  DUH.

Too bad there are still photos of the hypocenter under WTC4 and a mushroom 
cloud that is consistent with an underground nuke.  <G>

Oh yeah, and the "Surviving Corners" that could only be caused by a nuke 
that was planted so far down into the ground it could not reach the far 
sides of the Towers. <G>

So we have three things that are consistent with NCDs and one thing that 
isn't even consistent with videos taken at GZ and that is the seismic 
readings.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#516265 — Re: Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> BULLSHIT because if one government agency lied big time why not all of them?

Spoken like a true tin foil hat kook.
 
> BTW I've looked at your seismic readings at
>  http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
> 
> and they don't show a gap of 12 seconds from when the ground shook and an 
> EMP took place to when the towers started to come down so it appears that 
> entire section was removed.  And it is easy to see why because then all of 
> America would know the Twin Towers were nuked.  DUH.

There was no EMP, kook, as is proven by the fact that all the electronics
in the area continued to work, you babbling retard.

> Too bad there are still photos of the hypocenter under WTC4 and a mushroom 
> cloud that is consistent with an underground nuke.  <G>

One can create a mushroom cloud with a firecracker, 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://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516288 — Re: Jim the bullshitter keeps bullshitting

In article <ieidnaTZC_YDsUfInZ2dnUU7-YmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> BULLSHIT because if one government agency lied big time why not all of them?
> 
> BTW I've looked at your seismic readings at
>  http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
> 
> and they don't show a gap of 12 seconds from when the ground shook and an 
> EMP took place to when the towers started to come down so it appears that 
> entire section was removed.  And it is easy to see why because then all of 
> America would know the Twin Towers were nuked.  DUH.

It sounds like you are arguing that a lack of evidence is the evidence.

> Too bad there are still photos of the hypocenter under WTC4 and a mushroom 
> cloud that is consistent with an underground nuke.  <G>

Underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. A wide variety of 
hot rapid combustions do. A mushroom cloud is the visible trace of a pocket of 
hot gas rising and expanding into the air with some convective toroidal flow.

> Oh yeah, and the "Surviving Corners" that could only be caused by a nuke 
> that was planted so far down into the ground it could not reach the far 
> sides of the Towers. <G>

Or that the random trajectories of debris were.....random. What got hit or not 
hit was just a question of luck, good or bad.

> So we have three things that are consistent with NCDs and one thing that 
> isn't even consistent with videos taken at GZ and that is the seismic 
> readings.  <G>

The State Department has 31 nuclear communist spies.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

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

#516252 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent

On 23/08/2015 20:18, Rocky wrote:
> So Kent and Jim both like to remove alt.astronomy for some reason.  Could it
> be Bast?
>
> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c86kta9ll422j11bs2qgfmne3eaudevttp@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:05:05 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>>>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
>>>>>>      Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
>>>>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then
>>>>> it
>>>>> stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and
>>>>> where
>>>>> is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction
>>>>> to
>>>>> not line up again.  <G>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
>>>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>>>
>>> And yet you can't point to it?
>>
>>      You've yet to point to a single seismograph that recorded any
>> nuclear explosions on 9/11/2001.
>
> Wrong

If it's wrong, then point us to these recordings.

> because I can prove NIST lied through their teeth it is entirely
> possible that every government agency also lied through their teeth to help
> conceal the fact that not only were the Twin Towers brought down by a CD but
> it was an NCD.  <G>
>
> The playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>


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

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

#516388 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:33:23 +0100, Tony Dragon
<tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>> We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction
>>>>>> to not line up again.  <G>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
>>>>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>>>>
>>>> And yet you can't point to it?
>>>
>>>      You've yet to point to a single seismograph that recorded any
>>> nuclear explosions on 9/11/2001.
>>
>> Wrong
>
>If it's wrong, then point us to these recordings.

     But Rocky is claiming he already has. I've asked that he post the
MID for it. Since it was another Rocky lie, as he will prove, he won't
be able to offer the MID for the post.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#516380 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent (was: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked))

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:18:42 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:


Once again, alt.astronomy has been removed.
  
Your OBSESSION with unrelated groups is not healthy, Rocky. 


>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:c86kta9ll422j11bs2qgfmne3eaudevttp@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:05:05 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>>>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
>>>>>>     Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
>>>>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then
>>>>>it
>>>>>stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and
>>>>>where is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction 
>>>>>to not line up again.  <G>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
>>>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>>>
>>>And yet you can't point to it?
>>
>>     You've yet to point to a single seismograph that recorded any
>> nuclear explosions on 9/11/2001.
>
>Wrong 

     Please post the MID wherein you did point to a seismograph that
recorded any nuclear explosions on 9/11/2001.

>because I can prove NIST lied through their teeth it is entirely 
>possible that every government agency also lied through their teeth to help 
>conceal the fact that not only were the Twin Towers brought down by a CD but 
>it was an NCD.  <G>

     No nukes were used, as you have proved.
     And your LIE that you pointed to any seismographs that recorded a
nuclear explosion on 9/11/2001 has been exposed.
     Would you like to try another lie?

>>>Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me.
>>
>>     Who is this Kent person about whom you are so obsessed?
>>


     Rocky? Are you going to answer?


>>>And don't forget NIST could not explain why the remains of the Twin Towers 
>>>did not resemble a "Pancake collapse" so they were forced to quit using the 
>>>term "pancake collapse" 
>>
>>     The term was in regards to each floor falling onto the one
>>bellow. And it was the media that used the term. NIST used the term
>>progressive collapse.
>>     What compels you to lie about such things?
>>


     Rocky?


>>>and then they simply went from a collapse initiation 
>>>to a "Global Collapse" and never tried to address why there was so little 
>>>debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  <G>
>>
>>     Most of the debris was found in the sub levels and bath tub. Old
>>news. But you are intellectually unable to accept the truth.
>>     What is most sad, is that I don't mean that as an insult.


     Does the truth frighten you so much you couldn't reply?


>>>Oh, but you think you can address the lack of debris at the base of the Twin 
>>>Towers and I'll bet you will never try knowing exactly how NIST got around 
>>>that issue.  <G>
>>
>>     Since there was no lack of debris, there was nothing to get
>>around.
>>


     Is your trying to hide from the truth of my comment your way of
admitting I was, and am, correct?


>>>And don't forget how the Ediot from alt.conspiracy tried to explain the lack 
>>>of debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  The Ediot from alt.conspiracy 
>>>claimed the shaking by the jet weakened them.  ROTFLMAO
>>
>>     Direct quote and MID. Unless, of course, you're lying.


     Your default admission that you were lying is noted and accepted.
     What did you think you would gain from lying about what Ed
claimed? And how is that whole ignoring my posts thing working out for
you?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#516249 — Re: Kent the bullshitter keeps bullshitting (was: seismic evidence is inconsistent

On 23/08/2015 20:04, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:05:05 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2djjtalggfqkvfl5u2us1pu43d4h0qtued@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:35:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:roejtalvjnnbv3hiuv81trbmhlc4jmmhrd@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:15:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>>>> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/08/2015 11:42, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why have you not replied about the lack of seismic signature?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this yet another question that you refuse to answer?
>>>>>
>>>>>      Rocky is trying to claim everyone lied about the readings.
>>>>>      Because, you know, the people who monitor seismographs in China
>>>>> would naturally lie to help the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then
>>>> it
>>>> stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and
>>>> where
>>>> is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction to
>>>> not line up again.  <G>
>>>>
>>>
>>>      Local seismographs recorded the shaking of the ground when the
>>> towers collapsed. This is not a secret.
>>
>> And yet you can't point to it?
>
>       You've yet to point to a single seismograph that recorded any
> nuclear explosions on 9/11/2001.
>
>> Looks like more Kent Bullshit to me.
>>
>
>       Who is this Kent person about whom you are so obsessed?
>

Superman, perhaps?

>> And don't forget NIST could not explain why the remains of the Twin Towers
>> did not resemble a "Pancake collapse" so they were forced to quit using the
>> term "pancake collapse"
>
>       The term was in regards to each floor falling onto the one
> bellow. And it was the media that used the term. NIST used the term
> progressive collapse.
>       What compels you to lie about such things?
>
>> and then they simply went from a collapse initiation
>> to a "Global Collapse" and never tried to address why there was so little
>> debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  <G>
>
>       Most of the debris was found in the sub levels and bath tub. Old
> news. But you are intellectually unable to accept the truth.
>       What is most sad, is that I don't mean that as an insult.
>
>>
>> Oh, but you think you can address the lack of debris at the base of the Twin
>> Towers and I'll bet you will never try knowing exactly how NIST got around
>> that issue.  <G>
>>
>
>       Since there was no lack of debris, there was nothing to get
> around.
>
>> And don't forget how the Ediot from alt.conspiracy tried to explain the lack
>> of debris at the base of the Twin Towers.  The Ediot from alt.conspiracy
>> claimed the shaking by the jet weakened them.  ROTFLMAO
>
>       Direct quote and MID. Unless, of course, you're lying.
>
>>
>> The only way you will ever be able to figure out what really happened on
>> 9/11 is if you track down why there were so many inconsistencies with the
>> media bullshit about 9/11.
>
>       In the early hours there was a lot of confusion. Some of what was
> reported was wrong. This doesn't mean there were any inconsistencies.
> Not to the educated mind.
>


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

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

#516138 — Re: seismic evidence is inconsistent

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> We have video evidence that the North Tower shook for a few seconds then it 
> stopped shaking and then about 12 seconds later it started to fall and where 
> is that in the seismic evidence?  FYI for some reason fact and fiction to 
> not line up again.  <G>

The collapse of the buildings show up in nearby seismic recordings, kook.

A nuclear explosion would have pegged the equipment, 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.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516048 — Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked (was: The wings folded back like a birds wings going into a birdhouse)

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 05:42:55 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>news:u42oac-n4t.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were 
>>> used
>>> at Ground Zero.  DUH
>>
>> Are just as batshit crazy as you are, kook.
>
>And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs 
>are in the following:
>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

     You seem obsessed with linking to a picture the proves your
claims wrong. Why is that?

>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>
>Ok so explain why the remains of the Twin Towers look like they were 
>vaporized by two deep underground nukes.  See:
>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

     The picture is proof that the buildings fell as a result of an
uncontrolled collapse.

>From a video posted by the Friendly Neighborhood Nut we know the North Tower 
>shook violently, stopped shaking for around 12 seconds and then started it's 
>trip down.  Where is that series of events on those seismograph readings?
>
>Since photographic evidence give us tell tale signs that they were nuked 
>there are only three possibilitys.:
>

     There is no such photographic evidence.

>1.  The people with the seismographs lied   That is what I suspected.
>

     So everyone with access to a seismograph all over the world all
chose to lie?
     Do you have any idea how crazy such a claim is?

>2.  With all the testing of undergroun nukes done by the USA they learned 
>how to fool the seismographs making you a LIAR.
>

     There is no way to fool a seismograph. 

>3.  Or a deep underground nuke leaves a different signature completely.  It 
>is very hard to tell from the readings you show where the building shook for 
>a few seconds and than sat for 12 seconds and then started to fall.
>

     Your most recent claim, as far as I am aware, is that the nukes
were only about 37 meters below the surface. To the educated mind, 37
meters is not deep.

>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>
>And on the other hand the following is clear evidence that two deep 
>underground nukes were used on the Twin Towers.  <G>
>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

     The picture proves NO nukes were used.

>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
>
>ROTFLMAO because that site proves it is screwed up right off the bat.  It 
>states: "were able to determine accurate times of the plane impacts and 
>building collapses."  They should get real because real jets don't have 
>disappearing wings but 3D CGIs do.
>

     No planes had a wing that disappeared. I was able to PROVE your
claim that one did to be the lie it was, and is. The best part is I
used the video you linked to.

>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
>
>We already know from videos taken of the Twin Towers that they shook for a 
>few seconds stopped shaking for about 12 seconds then started their way 
>down.  Where is the video taken of the North Tower represened by the 
>seismograph readings?  <G>

     There was a local reading of 2.3. This wasn't due to any nukes,
of course. it was the result of the ground shaking due to the
uncontrolled collapse of the towers.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#516137 — Re: ? 4 Jim about why the Twin Towers look like they were nuked

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And yet it is you who has never been able to address what tell tale signs 
> are in the following:

Nuclear exposions leave giant, fucking enormous signs, not "tell tale"
signs, you babbling 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.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

Note especially that 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.

 
<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516047

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:53:52 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>> but you're the only one that thinks so
>
>And the people that convinced me deep underground nukes and CGIs were used 
>at Ground Zero.  DUH

     But there were no nukes or CGIs. You've proved this more times
than I care to count.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#515984

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
<snip kook babble> 
 
> As for the Nukes and the CGIs.  I am calling it like I see it.  The remains 
> of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from below and not above 
> and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 could only be 
> recreated exactly by using 3D software.

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.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516044

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:54:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>> Rocky you are worse than a Kook. You are a disinformation specialist like 
>> HVAC (or maybe you ARE one of HVAC's "personalities").
>>
>> Anyone looking into the Pentagon evidence finds SEVERE problems with the 
>> official story. For one thing supposed flight path of the aircraft 
>> compared to eye witnesses showed that story impossible and wrong. Also 
>> there are problems with the size and shape of the Hole in the building and 
>> parts scattered around that at first glance are not from the supposed 
>> crash plane.
>>
>> So, as usual signs are everywhere of one more gummint coverup. So WHAT is 
>> being covered up? Who knows? The idea is to KEEP it covered up! But the 
>> fact that there IS a cover-up is beyond question.
>>
>> And "Rocky" is doing his part in the cover up. He brings together a bunch 
>> of the anomalous facts that gets all the conspiracy folks interested and 
>> then after he ties all the "kooks" with a big red bow, he proposes his 
>> "NUKE" theory that discredits them all wholesale! This is wonderful 
>> tradecraft at the HVAC level!
>
>WTF???  I know there are a lot of other things that prove the Pentagon was a 
>BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis Actors had to say a 757 
>folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the wall.
>

     There were no crisis actors. This lie of yours has been exposed a
few times. You should cease offering it.

>As for the Nukes and the CGIs.  I am calling it like I see it.  

     But no nukes or CGIs were used, so you could not have seen them.

>The remains 
>of the Twin Towers prove something vaporized them from below and not above 

     Since they were no vaporized, they could not have been vaporized
from above or below. Or the middle.

>and the wing that fades in and out on the alleged Flight 175 could only be 
>recreated exactly by using 3D software.

     And yet I was able to PROVE the wing did not disappear using the
video you linked to. 

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#516054

In article <ifcjta9pca3jrge9qr3gaapqt40375vfiq@4ax.com>,
 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:

> >WTF???  I know there are a lot of other things that prove the Pentagon was a 
> >BIG LIE but I like the fact that one of the Crisis Actors had to say a 757 
> >folded it's wings back to go into the small hole in the wall.
> >
> 
>      There were no crisis actors. This lie of yours has been exposed a
> few times. You should cease offering it.

Don't pretend we weren't warned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzoC01dFXHU

It's all for the best.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V5KaicVg34

    Flights of black horseman soar over churches
    Pursued by an army of birds in the rain
    None of them can see the clouds, the polished wings don't care
    Animal ways through the hazy dreams full of pain

The flight of the two helpless planes over the 'churches' of Wall Street, 
followed by the Air Force interceptors overriding controlling their flight.

    Wings wetted down, stumbling on the ground
    It all turns around, in the end
    The voices sound deadly, sometimes I hear
    Echoes of empires, spread throughout the sky

The towers crashing to the ground, a seeming blow to the American financial 
empire (World _Trade_ Center). Actually the bankers prosperred lending money to 
the US government and arms manufacturers ramping up production.

    Wings wetted down, stumbling on the ground
    It all turns around, in the end

    Flights of black horseman soar over churches
    Pursued by an army of birds in the rain
    Wings wetted down, stumbling on the ground
    It all turns around, in the end

It turned around American attitudes about Iraq, as Bush and the IJC intended.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylMaRaYc6mM

    White bird,
    in a golden cage,
    on a winter's day,
    in the rain.

A metaphorical winter's day.

    White bird,
    in a golden cage,
    alone.
    
Only one cruise missile would be used against the Pentagon.

    The leaves blow,
    Across the long black road.
    To the darkened skies,
    in its rage

And the enraged Americans, manipulated by Bush.

    But the white bird just sits in her cage,
    unknown.

The real airliner was diverted to Wright Patterson, disassembled (plane and 
passengers), and hidden in the underground vaults of Hangar 18.

    White bird must fly
    Or she will die

The airliner failed to escape the Air Force.

    White bird,
    dreams of the aspen trees,
    with their dying leaves,
    turning gold.

The bankers get rich with the murder of Real Americans.

    But the white bird just sits in her cage,
    growing old.

Bush Sr had missed his opportunity for greatness by killing Saddam Hussein.

    White bird must fly or she will die.
    White bird must fly or she will die.

    The sunsets come, the sunsets go.
    The clouds roll by,and the earth turns old.
    And the young bird's eyes do always glow.

'As they pretend it's a chore/to ship us off to war.'

    She must fly,
    She must fly,
    She must fly.

The cruise missile will strike the Pentagon.

    White bird,
    In a golden cage,
    On a winter's day, in the rain.

    White bird,
    In a golden cage alone.

    White bird must fly or she will die.
    White bird must fly or she will die.
    White bird must fly or she will die.
    White bird must fly

The sacrificial Pentagon employees were sitting ducks.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web