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

Groups > sci.physics > #518596 > unrolled thread

Ping K Wills: What truth???

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-02 15:40 -0500
    Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:51 -0500
      Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  ?s 4 K "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-02 16:19 -0500
        Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  ?s 4 K "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:14 -0500
          Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-03 07:47 -0500
            Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-03 15:05 +0000
              Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-03 17:10 -0500
                Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 23:29 +0100
                  Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-03 19:07 -0400
                  Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 09:39 -0500
                Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 09:46 -0500
            Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-04 07:17 +0200
              Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 23:29 +0100
            Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 03:59 -0500
            Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 06:41 +0200
            Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 18:27 +0200
      Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-03 05:38 -0400
        Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 03:57 -0500
          Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 10:00 -0500
            Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 06:00 -0500

#518596 — Ping K Wills: What truth???

You stated in the following:

From: "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.usenet.kooks,sci.physics
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: 911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.

" Your admission that you can't counter the truth I posted is noted and 
accepted."

Oh, and to those that just tuned in this was about the crash dynamics of the 
CGIs that flew into the Twin Towers.  See:

911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6ZQUWvDFs

or two see a better description of the bogus crash dynamics used on 9/11 
see:

Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U

A note on the above video.

James points out inconsistencies between what we saw on 9/11 and what we 
should have seen.

Steve points out all sorts of things that help prove that the crash dynamics 
used in the 9/11 Prime Time Disney Presentation could not have happened in 
real life.

======================

Ok, now for your alleged truth.

>>     A four engine turboprop won't reach the same speed as a jet
>>airliner. As such, there would never be the same inertia.

Wing are made to support weight and not for ramming so it really doesn't 
matter how much inertia they had because real jets fly apart instead of 
disappear completely into buildings or into the ground like the stupid life 
sized Disney Cartoons they used at Pranksville, PA, the Disney script they 
used at the Pentagon and the Disney animations they used in Nuke York City.


>>     The plane had just taken off, so it would not have been at max
>>speed. This further decreased the inertia present.

How much "inertia" do you really think aluminum jets have in their wing 
tips.  And as Bast has proven what happened to your alleged inertia from the 
tail section of the jet what was supposed to have left the following 
roadrunner cutout in the North Tower?  See:

 http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpegAnd if you ever did a comparison between that roadrunner cutout and a real767 you would see not only is the roadrunner cutout in the North Towermissing the tail section it was even too short from end to end and that isthe reason why the Naudet Brothers tried to extend that cutout in theirvideo.>>     I understand you have a learning disability, but it can't be as>>severe as you're presenting. You're acting, right?You are wrong again and what you are really dealing with is cognitivedissidence where you have lived a total lie for so long that you havetrouble with the truth.  <G> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceRocky

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#518600

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:40:31 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>You stated in the following:
>
>From: "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.usenet.kooks,sci.physics
>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: 911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
>
>" Your admission that you can't counter the truth I posted is noted and 
>accepted."
>

     Please post the MID so that anyone with an interest can verify
the context.

>Oh, and to those that just tuned in this was about the crash dynamics of the 
>CGIs that flew into the Twin Towers.  See:
>
>911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6ZQUWvDFs
>

     Already addressed.

>or two see a better description of the bogus crash dynamics used on 9/11 
>see:
>
>Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>
>A note on the above video.
>
>James points out inconsistencies between what we saw on 9/11 and what we 
>should have seen.
>

     What is most sad is that a few items presented are accurate, but
they are lost in all the bunk he presents.

>Steve points out all sorts of things that help prove that the crash dynamics 
>used in the 9/11 Prime Time Disney Presentation could not have happened in 
>real life.
>

     No, he didn't. Steve clearly has no more than an high school
level understanding of physics.

>======================
>
>Ok, now for your alleged truth.
>
>>>     A four engine turboprop won't reach the same speed as a jet
>>>airliner. As such, there would never be the same inertia.
>
>Wing are made to support weight and not for ramming so it really doesn't 
>matter how much inertia they had because real jets fly apart instead of 
>disappear completely into buildings or into the ground like the stupid life 
>sized Disney Cartoons they used at Pranksville, PA, the Disney script they 
>used at the Pentagon and the Disney animations they used in Nuke York City.
>

     Again, you do not understand physics.

>
>>>     The plane had just taken off, so it would not have been at max
>>>speed. This further decreased the inertia present.
>
>How much "inertia" do you really think aluminum jets have in their wing 
>tips.  

     As much as the rest of the plane. DUH.

>And as Bast has proven what happened to your alleged inertia from the 
>tail section of the jet what was supposed to have left the following 
>roadrunner cutout in the North Tower?  See:
>
> http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpegAnd if you ever did a comparison between that roadrunner cutout and a real767 you would see not only is the roadrunner cutout in the North Towermissing the tail section it was even too short from end to end and that isthe reason why the Naudet Brothers tried to extend that cutout in theirvideo.>>     I understand you have a learning disability, but it can't be as>>severe as you're presenting. You're acting, right?You are wrong again and what you are really dealing with is cognitivedissidence where you have lived a total lie for so long that you havetrouble with the truth.  <G> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceRocky

      Please learn how to post links.
     How is that whole ignoring my posts thing working out for you,
Rocky? <G>

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

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

#518607 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? ?s 4 K

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:u9oeuap8karh5lbbjvlll905rdbp4inb3q@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:40:31 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>You stated in the following:
>>
>>From: "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
>>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.usenet.kooks,sci.physics
>>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 3:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: 911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
>>
>>" Your admission that you can't counter the truth I posted is noted and
>>accepted."
>>
>
>     Please post the MID so that anyone with an interest can verify
> the context.

I quote your alleged truth below did I not?


>>Oh, and to those that just tuned in this was about the crash dynamics of 
>>the
>>CGIs that flew into the Twin Towers.  See:
>>
>>911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6ZQUWvDFs
>>
>
>     Already addressed.

And I pointed out below that your assumptions were bogus


>>or two see a better description of the bogus crash dynamics used on 9/11
>>see:
>>
>>Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>>
>>A note on the above video.
>>
>>James points out inconsistencies between what we saw on 9/11 and what we
>>should have seen.
>>
>
>     What is most sad is that a few items presented are accurate, but
> they are lost in all the bunk he presents.

To bad you can not be more precise because it looks to me like your real 
problem is you are dealing with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance



>>Steve points out all sorts of things that help prove that the crash 
>>dynamics
>>used in the 9/11 Prime Time Disney Presentation could not have happened in
>>real life.
>>
>
>     No, he didn't. Steve clearly has no more than an high school
> level understanding of physics.

Ok, then lets see you show how airplane wings are built and that there are 
types of metal that bend and types that break and the Twin Towers should 
have bent before it broke.

>>======================
>>
>>Ok, now for your alleged truth.
>>
>>>>     A four engine turboprop won't reach the same speed as a jet
>>>>airliner. As such, there would never be the same inertia.
>>
>>Wing are made to support weight and not for ramming so it really doesn't
>>matter how much inertia they had because real jets fly apart instead of
>>disappear completely into buildings or into the ground like the stupid 
>>life
>>sized Disney Cartoons they used at Pranksville, PA, the Disney script they
>>used at the Pentagon and the Disney animations they used in Nuke York 
>>City.
>>
>
>     Again, you do not understand physics.

Oh shit it's your 9/11 physics again or should I call your physics Disney 
Physics.  I should have seen that coming.

And why is it that there nobody will support the 9/11 physics other than 
clowns like you on the Internet?


>>>>     The plane had just taken off, so it would not have been at max
>>>>speed. This further decreased the inertia present.
>>
>>How much "inertia" do you really think aluminum jets have in their wing
>>tips.
>
>     As much as the rest of the plane. DUH.
>
>>And as Bast has proven what happened to your alleged inertia from the
>>tail section of the jet what was supposed to have left the following
>>roadrunner cutout in the North Tower?  See:
>>
>> http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpegAnd 
>> if you ever did a comparison between that roadrunner cutout and a real767 
>> you would see not only is the roadrunner cutout in the North Towermissing 
>> the tail section it was even too short from end to end and that isthe 
>> reason why the Naudet Brothers tried to extend that cutout in 
>> theirvideo.>>     I understand you have a learning disability, but it 
>> can't be as>>severe as you're presenting. You're acting, right?You are 
>> wrong again and what you are really dealing with is cognitivedissidence 
>> where you have lived a total lie for so long that you havetrouble with 
>> the truth.  <G> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceRocky
>
>      Please learn how to post links.

Is that because you are not smart enough to figure out where links should 
end?  <G>

Besides you've seen her link and I see now because that link has a '-' it 
will have to be placed at the very end of this post so it is there.

Now why didn't the tail section leave a cutout or end up on the ground?  And 
while you are at it explain why the length from end to end is too short for 
a 767 and had to be lengthened in the Naudet Brother's video.  <G>

 http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpeg

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

#518673 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? ?s 4 K

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:19:16 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:u9oeuap8karh5lbbjvlll905rdbp4inb3q@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:40:31 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You stated in the following:
>>>
>>>From: "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
>>>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.usenet.kooks,sci.physics
>>>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 3:55 PM
>>>Subject: Re: 911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
>>>
>>>" Your admission that you can't counter the truth I posted is noted and
>>>accepted."
>>>
>>
>>     Please post the MID so that anyone with an interest can verify
>> the context.
>
>I quote your alleged truth below did I not?
>

     You often try to change the context of a post when replying.
Please post the MID, lest people accept that you did it again.

>
>>>Oh, and to those that just tuned in this was about the crash dynamics of 
>>>the CGIs that flew into the Twin Towers.  See:
>>>
>>>911 CrashPhysics REAL plane hits bldg/ falls to the ground.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6ZQUWvDFs
>>
>>     Already addressed.
>
>And I pointed out below that your assumptions were bogus
>

     You tried, and failed, to counter them. It's OK. When you start
from a losing position, failure is almost assured.

>>>or two see a better description of the bogus crash dynamics used on 9/11
>>>see:
>>>
>>>Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>>>
>>>A note on the above video.
>>>
>>>James points out inconsistencies between what we saw on 9/11 and what we
>>>should have seen.
>>
>>     What is most sad is that a few items presented are accurate, but
>> they are lost in all the bunk he presents.
>
>To bad you can not be more precise because it looks to me like your real 
>problem is you are dealing with
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

     Your use of projection makes me giggle.
     Do it again, please.

>
>>>Steve points out all sorts of things that help prove that the crash 
>>>dynamics
>>>used in the 9/11 Prime Time Disney Presentation could not have happened in
>>>real life.
>>
>>     No, he didn't. Steve clearly has no more than an high school
>> level understanding of physics.
>
>Ok, then lets see you show how airplane wings are built and that there are 
>types of metal that bend and types that break and the Twin Towers should 
>have bent before it broke.

     Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
to me once you've done so.

>
>>>======================
>>>
>>>Ok, now for your alleged truth.
>>>
>>>>>     A four engine turboprop won't reach the same speed as a jet
>>>>>airliner. As such, there would never be the same inertia.
>>>
>>>Wing are made to support weight and not for ramming so it really doesn't
>>>matter how much inertia they had because real jets fly apart instead of
>>>disappear completely into buildings or into the ground like the stupid 
>>>life
>>>sized Disney Cartoons they used at Pranksville, PA, the Disney script they
>>>used at the Pentagon and the Disney animations they used in Nuke York 
>>>City.
>>
>>     Again, you do not understand physics.
>
>Oh shit it's your 9/11 physics again or should I call your physics Disney 
>Physics.  I should have seen that coming.
>

     You're the one taking the position that the laws of physics were
suspended during 9/11/01.

>And why is it that there nobody will support the 9/11 physics other than 
>clowns like you on the Internet?

     Since your physics didn't actually exist, the Internet is the
only place it can be supported. But, you'll note, it's only supported
by the mentally unstable. I have never supported your delusions that
the law of physics were suspended on 9/11.

>
>>>>>     The plane had just taken off, so it would not have been at max
>>>>>speed. This further decreased the inertia present.
>>>
>>>How much "inertia" do you really think aluminum jets have in their wing
>>>tips.
>>
>>     As much as the rest of the plane. DUH.
>>
>>>And as Bast has proven what happened to your alleged inertia from the
>>>tail section of the jet what was supposed to have left the following
>>>roadrunner cutout in the North Tower?  See:
>>>
>>> http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpegAnd 
>>> if you ever did a comparison between that roadrunner cutout and a real767 
>>> you would see not only is the roadrunner cutout in the North Towermissing 
>>> the tail section it was even too short from end to end and that isthe 
>>> reason why the Naudet Brothers tried to extend that cutout in 
>>> theirvideo.>>     I understand you have a learning disability, but it 
>>> can't be as>>severe as you're presenting. You're acting, right?You are 
>>> wrong again and what you are really dealing with is cognitivedissidence 
>>> where you have lived a total lie for so long that you havetrouble with 
>>> the truth.  <G> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceRocky
>>
>>      Please learn how to post links.
>
>Is that because you are not smart enough to figure out where links should 
>end?  <G>
>

     It is because it's your job to post properly. Sadly, your limited
intellect and other mental defects (I wish that were an insult rather
than a statement of fact) mean you don't know how.

>Besides you've seen her link and I see now because that link has a '-' it 
>will have to be placed at the very end of this post so it is there.
>

     If it's already been seen, what gain in there is posting it
again? Do you honestly think if you misrepresent what is shown enough
times, your lie will magically become the truth?

>Now why didn't the tail section leave a cutout or end up on the ground?  

     As before, I can see the marking from the rear stabilizer.

>And 
>while you are at it explain why the length from end to end is too short for 
>a 767 and had to be lengthened in the Naudet Brother's video.  <G>

     Since your claim is a lie, I can't. You may as well ask me to
explain why the Rockettes were dancing on the roof 10 minutes before
each building collapsed. It would have the same level of truth in it.
That is, none.

>
> http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpeg

     Post a link to this picture and LIE about what is seen as often
as your mental defects (again, I honestly wish that were an insult)
demand. The truth you fear will not be altered as a result.

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

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

#518693 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:19:16 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>>>>
>
>     Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
> to me once you've done so.

Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching 
Disney Cartoons.

BTW why didn't Flight 175 cast a shadow?  <G>

Rocky

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

#518711 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>>
>>     Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
>> to me once you've done so.

>Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching 
>Disney Cartoons.

And all those "tornado embeds straw into tree" stories are false as well.

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

#518778 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:msadrp$2gb$1@dont-email.me...
> On 03/09/2015 20:47, dmaster wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:05:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney 
>> wrote:
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>      Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
>>>>> to me once you've done so.
>>>
>>>> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from 
>>>> watching
>>>> Disney Cartoons.
>>>
>>> And all those "tornado embeds straw into tree" stories are false as 
>>> well.
>>
>> Not too long ago, someone posted a nice link to a video where a high 
>> speed ping pong ball blows a hole right through a paddle. Rocky's 
>> argument would be that there is no way a light-weight ping pong ball can 
>> possible break a hole through a much stronger paddle. Just one of those 
>> places where Rocky's "common sense" and Physics (or reality) do not 
>> correspond.
>>
>> Of course, this example made not even a dent in the Rocky's Shield of 
>> Screed (tm).
>>
>> Dan (Woj...)
>>
>
> But you forget, this would be '911 physics'.

Because NIST used cartoons to explain why WTC7 collapsed NIST was the party 
that proved Disney Physics were needed to explain a Disney Production where 
steel that should have slowly given up went straight down at Freefall speed.

Let me say that again.  Because NIST had to stoop to using cartoons to 
explain why WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed they were really telling us 
that 9/11 was just a life sized Disney cartoon with bogus jets where 
thermate was used for the roadrunner shaped holes.  See:

Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U

Rocky 

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

#518789 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

On 03/09/2015 23:10, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:msadrp$2gb$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 03/09/2015 20:47, dmaster wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:05:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
>>>>>> to me once you've done so.
>>>>
>>>>> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from
>>>>> watching
>>>>> Disney Cartoons.
>>>>
>>>> And all those "tornado embeds straw into tree" stories are false as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> Not too long ago, someone posted a nice link to a video where a high
>>> speed ping pong ball blows a hole right through a paddle. Rocky's
>>> argument would be that there is no way a light-weight ping pong ball can
>>> possible break a hole through a much stronger paddle. Just one of those
>>> places where Rocky's "common sense" and Physics (or reality) do not
>>> correspond.
>>>
>>> Of course, this example made not even a dent in the Rocky's Shield of
>>> Screed (tm).
>>>
>>> Dan (Woj...)
>>>
>>
>> But you forget, this would be '911 physics'.
>
> Because NIST used cartoons to explain why WTC7 collapsed

They did not, why are you lying?

> NIST was the party
> that proved Disney Physics were needed to explain a Disney Production where
> steel that should have slowly given up went straight down at Freefall speed.
>
> Let me say that again.  Because NIST had to stoop to using cartoons to
> explain why WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed they were really telling us
> that 9/11 was just a life sized Disney cartoon with bogus jets where
> thermate was used for the roadrunner shaped holes.  See:

No the did not, why are you lying?

>
> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

#518801 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 23:10, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:msadrp$2gb$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 03/09/2015 20:47, dmaster wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:05:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings.
>>>>>>> Get back to me once you've done so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>> Disney Cartoons.
>>>>>
>>>>> And all those "tornado embeds straw into tree" stories are false as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> Not too long ago, someone posted a nice link to a video where a high
>>>> speed ping pong ball blows a hole right through a paddle. Rocky's
>>>> argument would be that there is no way a light-weight ping pong ball
>>>> can possible break a hole through a much stronger paddle. Just one
>>>> of those places where Rocky's "common sense" and Physics (or
>>>> reality) do not correspond.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this example made not even a dent in the Rocky's Shield of
>>>> Screed (tm).
>>>>
>>>> Dan (Woj...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you forget, this would be '911 physics'.
>>
>> Because NIST used cartoons to explain why WTC7 collapsed
>
> They did not, why are you lying?



Actually they did.
All their proof was based on computer ANIMATIONS.

Which they could create and manipulate any way hey wanted,....Just like 
Chuck Jones could make the road runner go right through a painted hole in a 
cliff wall.
Reality didn't matter as long as the "research" reached the result they 
decided in advance.

That type of psedo-science is done all the time. And after 9/11 it came in 
handy.
Only thing they had to do was keep the models away from scrutiny of 
engineers who would have pointed out the modeling physics flaws instantly.
.....And to this day no one has even been able to evaluate the programs they 
used.

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

#518892 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:msahhb$jjq$1@dont-email.me...
> On 03/09/2015 23:10, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:msadrp$2gb$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 03/09/2015 20:47, dmaster wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:05:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get 
>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>> to me once you've done so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>> Disney Cartoons.
>>>>>
>>>>> And all those "tornado embeds straw into tree" stories are false as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> Not too long ago, someone posted a nice link to a video where a high
>>>> speed ping pong ball blows a hole right through a paddle. Rocky's
>>>> argument would be that there is no way a light-weight ping pong ball 
>>>> can
>>>> possible break a hole through a much stronger paddle. Just one of those
>>>> places where Rocky's "common sense" and Physics (or reality) do not
>>>> correspond.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this example made not even a dent in the Rocky's Shield of
>>>> Screed (tm).
>>>>
>>>> Dan (Woj...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you forget, this would be '911 physics'.
>>
>> Because NIST used cartoons to explain why WTC7 collapsed
>
> They did not, why are you lying?

ROTFLMAO because you didn't suspect NIST was using cartoons because they 
didn't use a lot of bright colors in their animations.


>> NIST was the party
>> that proved Disney Physics were needed to explain a Disney Production 
>> where
>> steel that should have slowly given up went straight down at Freefall 
>> speed.
>>
>> Let me say that again.  Because NIST had to stoop to using cartoons to
>> explain why WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed they were really telling us
>> that 9/11 was just a life sized Disney cartoon with bogus jets where
>> thermate was used for the roadrunner shaped holes.  See:
>
> No the did not, why are you lying?

ROTFLMAO because you didn't suspect NIST was using cartoons because they 
didn't use a lot of bright colors in their animations.  Boy they sure fooled 
you, K and BKD.


>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U

Rocky 

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

#518894 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

<edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:44b50b34-8a58-4c13-b7eb-2f759246fbfd@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 6:10:49 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:msadrp$2gb$1@dont-email.me...
>> > On 03/09/2015 20:47, dmaster wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:05:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>      Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get 
>> >>>>> back
>> >>>>> to me once you've done so.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from
>> >>>> watching
>> >>>> Disney Cartoons.
>> >>>
>> >>> And all those "tornado embeds straw into tree" stories are false as
>> >>> well.
>> >>
>> >> Not too long ago, someone posted a nice link to a video where a high
>> >> speed ping pong ball blows a hole right through a paddle. Rocky's
>> >> argument would be that there is no way a light-weight ping pong ball 
>> >> can
>> >> possible break a hole through a much stronger paddle. Just one of 
>> >> those
>> >> places where Rocky's "common sense" and Physics (or reality) do not
>> >> correspond.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, this example made not even a dent in the Rocky's Shield of
>> >> Screed (tm).
>> >>
>> >> Dan (Woj...)
>> >>
>> >
>> > But you forget, this would be '911 physics'.
>>
>> Because NIST used cartoons to explain why WTC7 collapsed NIST was the 
>> party
>> that proved Disney Physics were needed to explain a Disney Production 
>> where
>> steel that should have slowly given up went straight down at Freefall 
>> speed.
>>
>> Let me say that again.  Because NIST had to stoop to using cartoons to
>> explain why WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed they were really telling us
>> that 9/11 was just a life sized Disney cartoon with bogus jets where
>> thermate was used for the roadrunner shaped holes.  See:
>
> Was NIST expected to build another WTC7 AND another Tower and crash a 
> plane into the new Tower so it would collapse into the new WTC7 so IT 
> would collapse the same way? Is THAT what you were expecting?

NIST built a life sized floor of the Twin Towers only to find out lies and 
cartoons worked better for their hypothesis than real life.

And NIST tried to build a scale model of WTC7 and again found out a second 
time that manipulating cartoons gave them what they wanted.

And the fact NIST failed to put the building north of WTC7 into the equation 
proves their story about WTC7 was a lie to start with.

Rocky 

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

#518845 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

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:XI-dnVwTvLEa3HXInZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...

>> Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
>> to me once you've done so.

> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching 
> Disney Cartoons.

Too bad you're too fucking stupid to understand even cartoon physics,
let alone physics in the real world.

A Boeing plane wing strength test:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ai2HmvAXcU0>
The wing went to 154% of the stresses possible in any flight
situation. IOW, you could dive the thing at 600 MPH and pull out at 5
G, and the wings would survive... how do we know this? Because it's
happened. Look up China Airlines Flight 006.

Also research the Empire State Building airplane crash... a 10-ton
Mitchell B-25 bomber at a much lower speed, not as strongly built as
modern aircraft, crashed into the Empire State Building... a
grid-constructed building of *much* stronger construction than the WTC
towers. And it ripped a hole right through that building's outer wall
(in fact,the main fuselage impact hole was spread over two floors, so
the plane ripped through the flooring structural steel) and in fact
some parts went right through the entire building. Exactly as happened
at the WTC towers. The Empire State Building stood because it had
asbestos fireproofing, plentiful structural concrete, and was of the
much stronger grid construction.

<http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4q35xHzjxB0>
Note how the F-4 Phantom jet at 500 MPH punches through the 3.66
meters thick concrete wall. Note especially the side view at 0:36
showing the wing slicing through the concrete. You'll note the plane
turns to confetti, concentrates its force in a very small area, and
punches through that very small area.

Remember, both the thickness and the grade of steel used in the WTC
towers went down as the height of the building increased. At the top,
the outer truss frame members were A36 steel of only 1/4" thick. Where
the first plane hit it was likely on 5/16" thick. And those truss
frame members were spaced 6 feet 8 inches apart. Not a lot of metal to
punch through at all.

Now, for the kooks who are still disbelievers... 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo>
A ping-pong ball fired through a ping-pong paddle.

Now, you're saying "Oh, but that's just a *plastic* paddle"...
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/a8683/behold-the-900-mph-supersonic-ping-pong-bazooka-15097897/>
Ping-pong ball through a plywood paddle.

You moron. LOL

> BTW why didn't Flight 175 cast a shadow?  <G>

Your retarded brain believes every stupid goddamned thing you read on
the internet or watch on YouTube. If you could afford a TV, you'd be
the world's biggest "TV Hugger", you pathetic moronic piece of shit.

Uh oh... what's this, you fucking retard?
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html>
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/summaryimages/shadowsequence.jpg>

Oh, is that a high-resolution high-framerate sequence of photos that
prove you're a delusional retard? Yeah, it is. Take your meds, Roger.

Moron. LOL

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

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

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

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

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]

#518964 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

On 04/09/2015 06:17, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 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:XI-dnVwTvLEa3HXInZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
> head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>
>>> Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
>>> to me once you've done so.
>
>> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching
>> Disney Cartoons.
>
> Too bad you're too fucking stupid to understand even cartoon physics,
> let alone physics in the real world.
>
> A Boeing plane wing strength test:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ai2HmvAXcU0>
> The wing went to 154% of the stresses possible in any flight
> situation. IOW, you could dive the thing at 600 MPH and pull out at 5
> G, and the wings would survive... how do we know this? Because it's
> happened. Look up China Airlines Flight 006.
>
> Also research the Empire State Building airplane crash... a 10-ton
> Mitchell B-25 bomber at a much lower speed, not as strongly built as
> modern aircraft, crashed into the Empire State Building... a
> grid-constructed building of *much* stronger construction than the WTC
> towers. And it ripped a hole right through that building's outer wall
> (in fact,the main fuselage impact hole was spread over two floors, so
> the plane ripped through the flooring structural steel) and in fact
> some parts went right through the entire building. Exactly as happened
> at the WTC towers. The Empire State Building stood because it had
> asbestos fireproofing, plentiful structural concrete, and was of the
> much stronger grid construction.
>
> <http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4q35xHzjxB0>
> Note how the F-4 Phantom jet at 500 MPH punches through the 3.66
> meters thick concrete wall. Note especially the side view at 0:36
> showing the wing slicing through the concrete. You'll note the plane
> turns to confetti, concentrates its force in a very small area, and
> punches through that very small area.
>
> Remember, both the thickness and the grade of steel used in the WTC
> towers went down as the height of the building increased. At the top,
> the outer truss frame members were A36 steel of only 1/4" thick. Where
> the first plane hit it was likely on 5/16" thick. And those truss
> frame members were spaced 6 feet 8 inches apart. Not a lot of metal to
> punch through at all.
>
> Now, for the kooks who are still disbelievers...
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo>
> A ping-pong ball fired through a ping-pong paddle.
>
> Now, you're saying "Oh, but that's just a *plastic* paddle"...
> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/a8683/behold-the-900-mph-supersonic-ping-pong-bazooka-15097897/>
> Ping-pong ball through a plywood paddle.
>
> You moron. LOL
>
>> BTW why didn't Flight 175 cast a shadow?  <G>
>
> Your retarded brain believes every stupid goddamned thing you read on
> the internet or watch on YouTube. If you could afford a TV, you'd be
> the world's biggest "TV Hugger", you pathetic moronic piece of shit.
>
> Uh oh... what's this, you fucking retard?
> <http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html>
> <http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/summaryimages/shadowsequence.jpg>
>
> Oh, is that a high-resolution high-framerate sequence of photos that
> prove you're a delusional retard? Yeah, it is. Take your meds, Roger.
>
> Moron. LOL
>
>> 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
>

I think Rocky is ignoring you.


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

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

#518859 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:47:26 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:19:16 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>>
>>     Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
>> to me once you've done so.
>
>Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching 
>Disney Cartoons.
>

     I've taken several physics classes. While I am not even close to
Hawking's level, it's clear I understand more than you.
     What did you learn of physics? Clearly very little.

>BTW why didn't Flight 175 cast a shadow?  <G>

     It did. Why are you LYING about it?
     How is that whole ignoring my posts thing working out for you,
Rocky?

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

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

#519032 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

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:XI-dnVwTvLEa3HXInZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump 
head first into the wood chipper again:

> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching 
> Disney Cartoons.

Too bad you're too fucking stupid to understand even cartoon physics, 
let alone physics in the real world.

A Boeing plane wing strength test:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ai2HmvAXcU0>
The wing went to 154% of the stresses possible in any flight
situation. IOW, you could dive the thing at 600 MPH and pull out at 5
G, and the wings would survive... how do we know this? Because it's
happened. Look up China Airlines Flight 006.

Also research the Empire State Building airplane crash... a 10-ton
Mitchell B-25 bomber at a much lower speed, not as strongly built as
modern aircraft, crashed into the Empire State Building... a
grid-constructed building of *much* stronger construction than the WTC
towers. And it ripped a hole right through that building's outer wall
(in fact,the main fuselage impact hole was spread over two floors, so
the plane ripped through the flooring structural steel) and in fact
some parts went right through the entire building. Exactly as happened
at the WTC towers. The Empire State Building stood because it had
asbestos fireproofing, plentiful structural concrete, and was of the
much stronger grid construction.

<http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4q35xHzjxB0>
Note how the F-4 Phantom jet at 500 MPH punches through the 3.66
meters thick concrete wall. Note especially the side view at 0:36
showing the wing slicing through the concrete. You'll note the plane
turns to confetti, concentrates its force in a very small area, and
punches through that very small area.

Remember, both the thickness and the grade of steel used in the WTC
towers went down as the height of the building increased. At the top,
the outer truss frame members were A36 steel of only 1/4" thick. Where
the first plane hit it was likely on 5/16" thick. And those truss
frame members were spaced 6 feet 8 inches apart. Not a lot of metal to
punch through at all.

Now, for the kooks who are still disbelievers... 
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/a8683/behold-the-900-mph-supersonic-ping-pong-bazooka-15097897/>
Ping-pong ball through a plywood paddle.

You moron. LOL

> BTW why didn't Flight 175 cast a shadow?  <G>

Your retarded brain believes every stupid goddamned thing you read on
the internet or watch on YouTube. If you could afford a TV, you'd be
the world's biggest "TV Hugger", you pathetic moronic piece of shit.

Uh oh... what's this, you fucking retard?
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html>
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/summaryimages/shadowsequence.jpg>

Oh, is that a high-resolution high-framerate sequence of photos that
prove you're a delusional retard? Yeah, it is. Take your meds, Roger.

Moron. LOL

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

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

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

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're 
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" 
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no 
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon 
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

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]

#519100 — Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

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:XI-dnVwTvLEa3HXInZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump 
head first into the wood chipper again:

> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching 
> Disney Cartoons.

Too bad you're too fucking stupid to understand even cartoon physics, 
let alone physics in the real world.

A Boeing plane wing strength test:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ai2HmvAXcU0>
The wing went to 154% of the stresses possible in any flight
situation. IOW, you could dive the thing at 600 MPH and pull out at 5
G, and the wings would survive... how do we know this? Because it's
happened. Look up China Airlines Flight 006.

Also research the Empire State Building airplane crash... a 10-ton
Mitchell B-25 bomber at a much lower speed, not as strongly built as
modern aircraft, crashed into the Empire State Building... a
grid-constructed building of *much* stronger construction than the WTC
towers. And it ripped a hole right through that building's outer wall
(in fact,the main fuselage impact hole was spread over two floors, so
the plane ripped through the flooring structural steel) and in fact
some parts went right through the entire building. Exactly as happened
at the WTC towers. The Empire State Building stood because it had
asbestos fireproofing, plentiful structural concrete, and was of the
much stronger grid construction.

<http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4q35xHzjxB0>
Note how the F-4 Phantom jet at 500 MPH punches through the 3.66
meters thick concrete wall. Note especially the side view at 0:36
showing the wing slicing through the concrete. You'll note the plane
turns to confetti, concentrates its force in a very small area, and
punches through that very small area.

Remember, both the thickness and the grade of steel used in the WTC
towers went down as the height of the building increased. At the top,
the outer truss frame members were A36 steel of only 1/4" thick. Where
the first plane hit it was likely on 5/16" thick. And those truss
frame members were spaced 6 feet 8 inches apart. Not a lot of metal to
punch through at all.

Now, for the kooks who are still disbelievers... 
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/a8683/behold-the-900-mph-supersonic-ping-pong-bazooka-15097897/>
Ping-pong ball through a plywood paddle.

You moron. LOL

> BTW why didn't Flight 175 cast a shadow?  <G>

Your retarded brain believes every stupid goddamned thing you read on
the internet or watch on YouTube. If you could afford a TV, you'd be
the world's biggest "TV Hugger", you pathetic moronic piece of shit.

Uh oh... what's this, you fucking retard?
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html>
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/summaryimages/shadowsequence.jpg>

Oh, is that a high-resolution high-framerate sequence of photos that
prove you're a delusional retard? Yeah, it is. Take your meds, Roger.

Moron. LOL

> Rocky

Moron. LOL

-- 

Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394

Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.

Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.

B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".

C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).

D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.

E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL

F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL

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

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

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.

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]

#518676

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:40:31 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>




Wilis favorite 9/11 video

How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8

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

#518857

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 05:38:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:40:31 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>
>

"I wonder how much of your life you can keep denying just by cropping
it out, and just pretending it doesn't exist.
Does that work for you with the IRS as well ????"

-- You in Message-ID: <ms930t$i3i$1@dont-email.me>

>
>Wilis favorite 9/11 video
>
>How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8
>
>

     Are you even capable of honesty?
     Serious question.

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

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

#518896

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:37niua14tmu3il5nq1fq63bn454qrt6v0j@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 05:38:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
...
>>How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8
>
>     Are you even capable of honesty?

So says one of the faithful followers of NIST's Cartoon Physics.

>     Serious question.

A "Serious question" from someone that worships NIST and their Cartoon 
Physics.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#519059

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:37niua14tmu3il5nq1fq63bn454qrt6v0j@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 05:38:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>...
>>>How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8
>>
>>     Are you even capable of honesty?
>
>So says one of the faithful followers of NIST's Cartoon Physics.
>

     Since no such physics were followed by the NIST, your lie fails.

>>     Serious question.
>
>A "Serious question" from someone that worships NIST and their Cartoon 
>Physics.  <G>

     Since no such physics were followed by the NIST, your lie fails.
     Would you like to try some different lies?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web