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

Groups > sci.physics > #514641 > unrolled thread

Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 08:28 -0500
    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 16:19 +0100
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 10:38 -0500
        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 20:40 +0200
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( needs photo of mushroom cloud at GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 18:26 -0500
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 18:49 -0500
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-19 08:48 -0500
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-19 16:41 +0100
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-19 18:03 +0000
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 18:06 -0500
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-20 07:54 +0200
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-18 19:08 -0500
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 06:57 +0200
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 09:22 -0500
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-20 17:26 +0000
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-20 19:52 +0200
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 16:49 -0500
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Apollyon <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 14:59 -0700
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 15:08 -0700
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-20 22:37 +0000
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 09:00 -0500
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-21 15:00 +0000
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:46 -0500
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:50 +0000
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:10 -0500
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-23 03:35 +0000
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger ) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 10:43 -0500
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 18:06 +0000
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:09 -0500
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:57 -0500
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 04:58 +0200
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 07:32 +0200
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 08:39 -0400
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 21:38 +0200
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 07:13 -0400
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-25 07:13 +0200
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 04:09 -0500
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-25 23:47 +0200
                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:14 -0500
                                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-26 06:46 +0200
                                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 03:57 -0500
                                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-26 21:25 +0200
                                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:12 -0500
                                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-28 05:16 +0200
                                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 04:17 -0500
                                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-28 19:10 +0200
                                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:36 -0500
                                                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-02 07:41 +0200
                                                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 04:13 -0500
                                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 12:58 -0700
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 06:51 -0400
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 10:00 -0500
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 19:55 +0200
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:51 -0500
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 14:59 -0700
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:37 -0500
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:11 -0700
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 21:34 -0700
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:17 +0200
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 18:08 +0000
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:15 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:59 +0200
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:30 -0500
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 16:45 +0000
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:51 -0500
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:48 -0700
                              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 22:02 +0200
                                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:48 -0500
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 04:22 +0200
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:13 +0000
                                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 08:20 -0500
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:56 -0500
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-19 21:00 +0200
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 04:08 -0500
    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 11:43 -0500
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 18:33 +0100
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 17:45 +0000
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 18:08 +0000
        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 19:40 +0100
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 14:28 -0500
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 21:09 +0100
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 15:17 -0500
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-17 21:41 +0100
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-17 15:48 -0500
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:21 +0000
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 08:14 -0500
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 08:51 -0500
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:40 +0000
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 07:43 -0500
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-25 09:04 -0700
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:16 -0500
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:03 +0000
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 21:01 +0000
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( t-annoy - cheap CGI) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 10:09 -0700
    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-17 17:44 +0000

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#514641 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments)

"naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:85417bf7-6590-49f6-94a8-b86f8f80f0c5@googlegroups.com...
> From looking at this ng for the past few weeks, it seems that Rocky has at 
> last told us what he is comparing 911 with to justify the 'underground 
> nukes'.

AND a quick glance at your following bullshit proves you love to make straw 
man arguments where you refuse to say what I really said so you can lead 
people astray.  I know that trick all too well because I've seen it lots of 
times.


> It would appear that he is comparing it with the bomb at Hiroshima.

and the fact that most of the Twin Towers floated away as ultra fine debris. 
I used to have a lot of links to photos of the debris cloud the day after 
9/11 but it seems google doesn't want me to see them anymore but I'll keep 
looking even if I have to find the ones I used before.


> So his whole belief is based on the similarity of an air burst nuclear 
> explosion & 'underground nukes'.

Please don't try to compare a deep underground nuke with one detonated in 
the air or at ground level because that is what too many people do already. 
And besides I've posted a link to this video over and over and over and now 
I have to do it again:

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

I've even had it time indexed before to the best 6 minutes which starts at 
2:23:15 if you want to check it out.


> He also tells us about an EMP, this EMP is strange because it didn't 
> affect videos or helicopter engines.

Most of the Network Helecopters were miles away from the TT and used their 
high power zoom to make it look like they were closer.  Why were they so 
afraid of the TTs?

The police helicopter got closer to the TT than any of them and what is 
weird about that is why didn't that helecopter show up in very many videos 
taken by the Networks?  It indicates the background was tainted.

And the part where the police helecopter would have recorded an EMP was 
removed from what we are allowed to see of that video.


> He also talks about 'rebooting transponders'.

Maybe they changed flight numbers without turning it off but then that would 
mean the media lied about everything and it would have been too easy to spot 
because the real flight 175 never flew out of good radar range.

As a matter of fact because Flight 175 didn't fly out of good radar range 
that data had to be lost or destroyed anyway and it was.


> Mind you, in the past he was telling us how the TT were brought down by 
> thermi(a)te, that the planes were 3d images projected on artificial 
> clouds.

I've explained that.  I was told one thing about the Evan Fairbanks video 
and once I saw what was really wrong with Even Fairbanks video I realized 
all the jets in Nuke York City were CGIs.  And the video that showed me what 
was really wrong with Evan Fairbanks video was:

07 - The Key
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds

As for the Thermate.  Once I saw what AE911truth does not tell people like:

1.  The lack of large debris piles from the TT prove they were not a 
collapse or a "Controlled Demolition"

2.  The damage done to Fiterman Hall proves something had to destroy it that 
obviously did not fall off of WTC7 so maybe it was something under WTC7 that 
came up and it even looks like that too.

then I had to go with the only option that explains everything and it was 
the one given by Dimitri Khalezov.


> He avers that at least one witness did not hear the planes hit the TT's & 
> he ignores all the one that did see the planes hit.

BULLSHIT.  I refer to them as "Crisis Actors."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crisis_actor

Is there a reason you could not mention that?  Don't tell me you don't 
believe in "Crisis Actors."

And yes, there were videos with no CGIs and people that did not see the 
CGIs.  The following is one of them.

9/11 no planes compilation - interesting!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw


> He harps on about the flights not being due to take off that day but he 
> fails to produce evidence of this.

That is becasue the place that had the evidence blocked that evidence.  Now 
if you search for any of the four flights it gives you a nasty stop screen.


> He tell us that the hijackers are still alive, but again no evidence.

BULLSHIT.  I've posted a link to that and oddly enough nobody can find some 
of those names because it was like they were just first names and last names 
put together that never existed in real life.


> When he does produce evidence, usually from a web site he ignores the 
> followups on the same sites.

Oh, you are talking about the site about nukes.  That doesn't really matter 
because the remains of the TTs could only be the result of deep underground 
nukes.  And I've posted that photo over and over and over too and because it 
has screwed up the rest of my post I kept it for the last thing again.


> He has refused to tell this ng what sort of radiation was present in the 
> wreckage, and then infers that 'cheap' Geiger counters were used.

I've also stated Geiger counters were filmed going off, nobody was allowed 
at GZ for the first 2 days and then only Iron Workers on the 3rd day that 
stayed in machines most the time and then even after the 3 days people were 
still monitoring the rads they were receiving.  I've also posted this link:

Radiological Cleanup on ground zero - This video is dedicated to Dimitri 
Khalezov
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9npQPZh2po


> He has given no evidence for the 'molten steel' and again refuses to 
> acknowledge other followups.

WTF  The main guy with "Controlled Demoltions INC" never lied about the 
pools of molten metal.  And when someone pointed out exactly where one of 
them was he pointed to the hypocenter that was under WTC3.


> All in all, he is all talk and no substance.

In reality all people have to do is look at what is left in real Controlled 
Demolitions to see that the TTs were not a CD or a "collapse" leaving only 
an NCD.  <G>


> One of his standard answers to questions is to not answer the points 
> raised but then ask the questioner to prove something else.

And you yourself have failed to state way so much of the TTs floated away. 
<G>


> His lack of knowledge on many subjects is in fact amazing.

And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3 is 
noted.  BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I post 
all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of WTC3.
 http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#514666

On 17/08/2015 14:28, Rocky wrote:
> "naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:85417bf7-6590-49f6-94a8-b86f8f80f0c5@googlegroups.com...
>>  From looking at this ng for the past few weeks, it seems that Rocky has at
>> last told us what he is comparing 911 with to justify the 'underground
>> nukes'.
>
> AND a quick glance at your following bullshit proves you love to make straw
> man arguments where you refuse to say what I really said so you can lead
> people astray.  I know that trick all too well because I've seen it lots of
> times.
>
>

I will help Naazim out.

I said "Waiting for you to post the event tat you are comparing the 
'NCD' to."

yOU REPLIED "> Oh gaud t-annoy you are so stupid you can't even spell 
Hiroshima.
"

>> It would appear that he is comparing it with the bomb at Hiroshima.
>
> and the fact that most of the Twin Towers floated away as ultra fine debris.
> I used to have a lot of links to photos of the debris cloud the day after
> 9/11 but it seems google doesn't want me to see them anymore but I'll keep
> looking even if I have to find the ones I used before.
>

If the pictures were that important to you, you would have kept them on 
your PC

>
>> So his whole belief is based on the similarity of an air burst nuclear
>> explosion & 'underground nukes'.
>
> Please don't try to compare a deep underground nuke with one detonated in
> the air or at ground level because that is what too many people do already.
> And besides I've posted a link to this video over and over and over and now
> I have to do it again:
>

You are the one that has made the comparison.
Now tell us the event you are comparing it to,
I'm not going to look through a long video, either provide the time 
stamp or just post a link to the event.

> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
> I've even had it time indexed before to the best 6 minutes which starts at
> 2:23:15 if you want to check it out.
>
>

Tell me the time stamp that gives the ncd event you are comparing 911 to.

>> He also tells us about an EMP, this EMP is strange because it didn't
>> affect videos or helicopter engines.
>
> Most of the Network Helecopters were miles away from the TT and used their
> high power zoom to make it look like they were closer.  Why were they so
> afraid of the TTs?
>

So it was a little emp, so small it did not effect anything close, like 
the emergency services vehilles & radios.

> The police helicopter got closer to the TT than any of them and what is
> weird about that is why didn't that helecopter show up in very many videos
> taken by the Networks?  It indicates the background was tainted.
>
> And the part where the police helecopter would have recorded an EMP was
> removed from what we are allowed to see of that video.
>
>
>> He also talks about 'rebooting transponders'.
>
> Maybe they changed flight numbers without turning it off but then that would
> mean the media lied about everything and it would have been too easy to spot
> because the real flight 175 never flew out of good radar range.
>

'About turn'

> As a matter of fact because Flight 175 didn't fly out of good radar range
> that data had to be lost or destroyed anyway and it was.
>
>
>> Mind you, in the past he was telling us how the TT were brought down by
>> thermi(a)te, that the planes were 3d images projected on artificial
>> clouds.
>
> I've explained that.  I was told one thing about the Evan Fairbanks video
> and once I saw what was really wrong with Even Fairbanks video I realized
> all the jets in Nuke York City were CGIs.  And the video that showed me what
> was really wrong with Evan Fairbanks video was:
>

So you were wrong/lying then.

> 07 - The Key
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds
>
> As for the Thermate.  Once I saw what AE911truth does not tell people like:
>
> 1.  The lack of large debris piles from the TT prove they were not a
> collapse or a "Controlled Demolition"
>
> 2.  The damage done to Fiterman Hall proves something had to destroy it that
> obviously did not fall off of WTC7 so maybe it was something under WTC7 that
> came up and it even looks like that too.
>
> then I had to go with the only option that explains everything and it was
> the one given by Dimitri Khalezov.
>
>
>> He avers that at least one witness did not hear the planes hit the TT's &
>> he ignores all the one that did see the planes hit.
>
> BULLSHIT.  I refer to them as "Crisis Actors."
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crisis_actor
>

So everybody you disagree with is a 'crisis actor'

> Is there a reason you could not mention that?  Don't tell me you don't
> believe in "Crisis Actors."
>
> And yes, there were videos with no CGIs and people that did not see the
> CGIs.  The following is one of them.
>
> 9/11 no planes compilation - interesting!
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw
>
>
>> He harps on about the flights not being due to take off that day but he
>> fails to produce evidence of this.
>
> That is becasue the place that had the evidence blocked that evidence.  Now
> if you search for any of the four flights it gives you a nasty stop screen.
>
>

So againg you made no back up of your evidence, how strange.

>> He tell us that the hijackers are still alive, but again no evidence.
>
> BULLSHIT.  I've posted a link to that and oddly enough nobody can find some
> of those names because it was like they were just first names and last names
> put together that never existed in real life.
>
>
>> When he does produce evidence, usually from a web site he ignores the
>> followups on the same sites.
>
> Oh, you are talking about the site about nukes.  That doesn't really matter
> because the remains of the TTs could only be the result of deep underground
> nukes.  And I've posted that photo over and over and over too and because it
> has screwed up the rest of my post I kept it for the last thing again.
>
>

So again if you don't agree with something you ignore it.

>> He has refused to tell this ng what sort of radiation was present in the
>> wreckage, and then infers that 'cheap' Geiger counters were used.
>
> I've also stated Geiger counters were filmed going off, nobody was allowed
> at GZ for the first 2 days and then only Iron Workers on the 3rd day that
> stayed in machines most the time and then even after the 3 days people were
> still monitoring the rads they were receiving.  I've also posted this link:
>

And still you refuse to answer the question asked.

> Radiological Cleanup on ground zero - This video is dedicated to Dimitri
> Khalezov
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9npQPZh2po
>
>
>> He has given no evidence for the 'molten steel' and again refuses to
>> acknowledge other followups.
>
> WTF  The main guy with "Controlled Demoltions INC" never lied about the
> pools of molten metal.  And when someone pointed out exactly where one of
> them was he pointed to the hypocenter that was under WTC3.
>
>
>> All in all, he is all talk and no substance.
>
> In reality all people have to do is look at what is left in real Controlled
> Demolitions to see that the TTs were not a CD or a "collapse" leaving only
> an NCD.  <G>
>
>
>> One of his standard answers to questions is to not answer the points
>> raised but then ask the questioner to prove something else.
>
> And you yourself have failed to state way so much of the TTs floated away.
> <G>
>
>

Oh look the answer expected.

>> His lack of knowledge on many subjects is in fact amazing.
>
> And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3 is
> noted.  BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I post
> all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of WTC3.
>   http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg
>
>

Why should he explain that, perhaps you should do some explaining.



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

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

#514669 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy )

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mqstun$hfi$2@dont-email.me...
> On 17/08/2015 14:28, Rocky wrote:

>>
>> And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3 
>> is
>> noted.  BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I 
>> post
>> all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of 
>> WTC3.
>> 
>> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg


> Why should he explain that, perhaps you should do some explaining.

ROTFLMAO because "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no 
matter how improbable, must be the truth" and the following photo says no 
collapse and no controlled demolition.:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky

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

#515095 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy )

Am 17.08.2015 17:38, schrieb Rocky:
> "Tony Dragon"<tony.dragon@btinternet.com>  wrote in message
> news:mqstun$hfi$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 17/08/2015 14:28, Rocky wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3
>>> is
>>> noted.  BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I
>>> post
>>> all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of
>>> WTC3.
>>>
>>> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg
>
>
>> Why should he explain that, perhaps you should do some explaining.
>
> ROTFLMAO because "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no
> matter how improbable, must be the truth" and the following photo says no
> collapse and no controlled demolition.:
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

I would like to draw your attention to this point:

if you look at these pictures: what do you see there from the remains of 
the twin towers?

Answer: not much. You can actually see the street level. Upon that 
street you see a lot of rusty steel. The pile is somehow three stories high.

But: that's not enough!

It is by far to little debris there!

And: The debris lying there is assumed to have crushed the 400m 
skyscraper down to the ground.

The hight of the debris could be estimated by the remains of the 
perimeter walls from the WTC lobby. This very characteristic panel beams 
are about four floors high. The debris doesn't even reach this high.

Actually a building contains about 10% solid material (the rest is air), 
hence we would expect a pile more then ten floors high.

But this is not the case.

We would also expect a LOT of concrete there, what is not visible neither.

So: it's blown in the wind .. (concrete!).

You explain this by assumed underground nukes.

But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched.

And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into the 
sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?

None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not 
match with observation.


TH

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

#515136 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( needs photo of mushroom cloud at GZ )

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message 
news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
> Am 17.08.2015 17:38, schrieb Rocky:
>> "Tony Dragon"<tony.dragon@btinternet.com>  wrote in message
>> news:mqstun$hfi$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 17/08/2015 14:28, Rocky wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> And your failure to explain why so little was left of WTC1, WTC2 and 
>>>> WTC3
>>>> is
>>>> noted.  BTW now that I'm at the end of this post, this is the photo I
>>>> post
>>>> all the time but it doesn't have a good shot of the sparse remains of
>>>> WTC3.
>>>>
>>>> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg
>>
>>
>>> Why should he explain that, perhaps you should do some explaining.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no
>> matter how improbable, must be the truth" and the following photo says no
>> collapse and no controlled demolition.:
>>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>
> I would like to draw your attention to this point:
>
> if you look at these pictures: what do you see there from the remains of 
> the twin towers?
>
> Answer: not much. You can actually see the street level. Upon that street 
> you see a lot of rusty steel. The pile is somehow three stories high.
>
> But: that's not enough!
>
> It is by far to little debris there!
>
> And: The debris lying there is assumed to have crushed the 400m skyscraper 
> down to the ground.
>
> The hight of the debris could be estimated by the remains of the perimeter 
> walls from the WTC lobby. This very characteristic panel beams are about 
> four floors high. The debris doesn't even reach this high.
>
> Actually a building contains about 10% solid material (the rest is air), 
> hence we would expect a pile more then ten floors high.
>
> But this is not the case.
>
> We would also expect a LOT of concrete there, what is not visible neither.
>
> So: it's blown in the wind .. (concrete!).
>
> You explain this by assumed underground nukes.
>
> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched.

See the following and where that treated dirt is marks the spot of the 
hypocenter that was under WTC3.
 http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2009/05/covering-ground-zero-with-dirt.html> And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into thesky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?Actually there was enough of a mushroom cloud to give it away and I'll tryto find those photos too.> None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do notmatch with observation.Just wait.  I've given you evidence that at least one hypocenter was filledwith treated dirt and I'll look for the photo that shows a mushroom cloud atGZ because the facts remain the reason why GZ is called Ground Zero isbecausee nukes were detonated there and that fits the pre-9/11 definition ofGZ too.> THRocky

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

#515138 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ )

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message 
news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into the 
> sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?

It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from 
underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but they 
still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show you 
it will do:

9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o

> None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not 
> match with observation.

I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get 
straight to the facts.  And I'll still try to find that site that tries to 
rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ.


> TH

Rocky 

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

#515209 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ )

<edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c83b9398-e522-4d1e-8eb1-c271b6510583@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote:
>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message
>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >
>> > And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into 
>> > the
>> > sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?
>>
>> It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from
>> underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but 
>> they
>> still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show 
>> you
>> it will do:
>>
>> 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o
>>
>> > None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not
>> > match with observation.
>>
>> I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get
>> straight to the facts.  And I'll still try to find that site that tries 
>> to
>> rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ.
>>
>>
>> > TH
>>
>> Rocky
>
> That is not a mushroom cloud, nor does it come UP from the ground the way 
> a mushroom cloud from an underground nuke would. There is also no sign of 
> dirt or debris being blown up in the air the way and underground nuke 
> would if it breached the surface.

I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't 
know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it.

But I did learn this from that video.  I can see why the nukes were placed 
below an adjacent building instead of right under the Towers.

The reason they used an adjacent building is the mushroom cloud would have 
been symmetrical if they placed it right under the Towers.

As it was with the heat source on the side instead of right below the tower 
it left a lopsided looking mushroom cloud and people could overlook it being 
from a nuke.

Rocky 

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

#515227 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ )

On 19/08/2015 14:48, Rocky wrote:
> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c83b9398-e522-4d1e-8eb1-c271b6510583@googlegroups.com...
>> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message
>>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into
>>>> the
>>>> sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?
>>>
>>> It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from
>>> underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but
>>> they
>>> still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show
>>> you
>>> it will do:
>>>
>>> 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse
>>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o
>>>
>>>> None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not
>>>> match with observation.
>>>
>>> I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get
>>> straight to the facts.  And I'll still try to find that site that tries
>>> to
>>> rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ.
>>>
>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> That is not a mushroom cloud, nor does it come UP from the ground the way
>> a mushroom cloud from an underground nuke would. There is also no sign of
>> dirt or debris being blown up in the air the way and underground nuke
>> would if it breached the surface.
>
> I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't
> know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it.
>
> But I did learn this from that video.  I can see why the nukes were placed
> below an adjacent building instead of right under the Towers.
>
> The reason they used an adjacent building is the mushroom cloud would have
> been symmetrical if they placed it right under the Towers.

So if it had been placed under the towers it would be symmetrical.
But if it had been placed under another building it would not be.
How strange.

>
> As it was with the heat source on the side instead of right below the tower
> it left a lopsided looking mushroom cloud and people could overlook it being
> from a nuke.
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

#515261 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ )

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't 
> know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it.

There was no mushroom cloud, kook.

A mushroom cloud is the result of the plasma ball generated by a nuclear
explosion rising in the air, kook.

There was no plasma ball above New York, kook.

There were no nuclear explosions in New York, kook.

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature
that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the 
collapse of the two towers was detected.

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

<snip remaining kook babble>

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#515314 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ )

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:14 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
><edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:c83b9398-e522-4d1e-8eb1-c271b6510583@googlegroups.com...
>> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message
>>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> >
>>> > And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into 
>>> > the sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?
>>>
>>> It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from
>>> underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but 
>>> they still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show 
>>> you it will do:
>>>
>>> 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse
>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o
>>>
>>> > None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not
>>> > match with observation.
>>>
>>> I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get
>>> straight to the facts.  And I'll still try to find that site that tries 
>>> to rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ.
>>>
>>>
>>> > TH
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> That is not a mushroom cloud, nor does it come UP from the ground the way 
>> a mushroom cloud from an underground nuke would. There is also no sign of 
>> dirt or debris being blown up in the air the way and underground nuke 
>> would if it breached the surface.
>
>I'll look for the still photo of the mushroom cloud because if you don't 
>know exactly what you are looking for in that video you will miss it.
>

     At this point, everyone reading will know what a mushroom cloud
looks like. 

>But I did learn this from that video.  I can see why the nukes were placed 
>below an adjacent building instead of right under the Towers.
>
>The reason they used an adjacent building is the mushroom cloud would have 
>been symmetrical if they placed it right under the Towers.

     But there was no such cloud.

>
>As it was with the heat source on the side instead of right below the tower 
>it left a lopsided looking mushroom cloud and people could overlook it being 
>from a nuke.

     OMFSM!
     Do you honestly think the mushroom cloud would have gone at an
angel? It would have gone straight up regardless of where the nuke was
placed.

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

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

#515368 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( mushroom cloud from GZ )

Am 19.08.2015 15:48, schrieb Rocky:

>>>> And even if there was a nuke: wouldn't that throw the pieces up into
>>>> the
>>>> sky? And wouldn't there be a large mushroom cloud?
>>>
>>> It didn't have to be a real large mushroom cloud because photos from
>>> underground nukes prove they don't make real large mushroom clouds but
>>> they
>>> still make mushroom clounds and while this is not what I wanted to show
>>> you
>>> it will do:
>>>
>>> 9/11 WTC mushroom cloud timelapse
>>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay056s1TB_o
>>>
>>>> None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not
>>>> match with observation.
>>>
>>> I like your input better than anybody's here because you can help me get
>>> straight to the facts.  And I'll still try to find that site that tries
>>> to
>>> rename one of the hypocenters that were uncovered at GZ.
>>>
>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> That is not a mushroom cloud, nor does it come UP from the ground the way
>> a mushroom cloud from an underground nuke would. There is also no sign of
>> dirt or debris being blown up in the air the way and underground nuke
>> would if it breached the surface.

What you do is perpetuating a certain idea and refuse to question it. So 
people will tell you over and over again, that nukes produce a blast and 
that was not observed.

A pressure wave is an expanding front with higher pressure. This will 
throw things in radial direction away from the centre.

But a nuke has also the opposite, that is an implosion. This implosion 
is actually, what causes real damage.

Now imagine such an implosion, but without explosion.

This sounds a little strange, but this is apparently the mode of 
operation of certain advanced weapons.

It is this 'starwars' kind of stuff, about what little is known.

But we could estimate the direction, from where the destructive forces 
originated. That was mainly from above. This would make the destruction 
start at the top and leave certain remains at the bottom.

'Underground nukes' have mostly the opposite characteristics, hence this 
assumption does not fit to observation. E.g. the garage in the basement 
was almost completely intact.

So you should eventually reconsider you idea.


TH

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

#515141 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter )

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message 
news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched.

Here, you will like this.  This is a photo of hypocenter that was under WTC4 
and the media is trying to get the clowns to believe it was an Ice age 
pothole but it is not consistent with an ice age pothole.  What it is 
consistent with is a hypocenter..
 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html?_r=0

> TH

Rocky 

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

#515167 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter )

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

Rocky, in <news:GuidnXSYz4OiVE7InZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Awww, did RockyRetard run away from AUK because the intellectual
titans there were kicking the kook's ass? LOL

> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message 
> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...

>> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched.

> Here, you will like this.  This is a photo of hypocenter that was under WTC4 
> and the media is trying to get the clowns to believe it was an Ice age 
> pothole but it is not consistent with an ice age pothole.  What it is 
> consistent with is a hypocenter..
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html?_r=0

You mean the little 40 foot "pothole" they were discussing in the
article? LOL

Unless that hole in the bedrock topology was from 37.28 to 96.93
*miles* deep (how deep your k'lamed nukes had to be according to
the time difference between your k'lamed "EMP" (which was
actually satellite uplink disturbance on a WCBS video) and the
collapse of the tower, you're still a fucking idiotic moron.

And that's not even mentioning that the article states the hole
has been there for ~20,000 years, since the end of glaciation in
that region. It was the glaciers that created those holes, after
all.

Kook. LOL

>> TH

> Rocky

Now, get to addressing the 14 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 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 most
likely the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapon sights that was the source. You didn't specify what type
of radiation was experienced, and I doubt you're smart or
educated enough to even know what types of radiation there are.

4) 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.

5) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally 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.

6) 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.
======================

7) 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?

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

9) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 satellite
uplink disruptions 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.

10) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel 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 base 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?

11) You admitted (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)?

12) 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?

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

14) Explain how these 19 nukes could tunnel holes from their
underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep, 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
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.).
======================================================

There's now 14 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

-- 

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 theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of
illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink disruption seen in the 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 video *you* *provided* between the video
disturbance due to satellite uplink disruption (what you deemed
to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling 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 (depending upon soil composition and
thus speed of compressive blast transmission... and since we're
talking solid bedrock here, it'd be at the upper end of that
scale). 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, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore,
now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, 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, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an
impossibly deep hole, 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). Nevermind that at that depth range,
temperature ranges from 960 to 1840 degrees F, so equipment would
fail and people would die.

D) Your broken brain is now saying there were 19 nukes instead of
your original 3, because you know there were 19 satellite uplink
disturbances in the video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed
one of the satellite uplink disturbances 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, and
completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation
byproducts were found in the rubble or its vicinity.

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" on the video *you* *provided* and the time the
buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So you've
proven by skirting the perimeter of sanity full-circle that
you're insane. LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality. And the harder you try, the more you run around in
little tard-circles, banging your head and doing your very best
Rainman imitation. I can twist your brain into a pretzel 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]

#515399 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV )

"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
wrote in message news:accd42e55c288388bfa9c1e60837f6aa@dizum.com...
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Rocky, in <news:GuidnXSYz4OiVE7InZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> Awww, did RockyRetard run away from AUK because the intellectual
> titans there were kicking the kook's ass? LOL
>
>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message
>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched.
>
>> Here, you will like this.  This is a photo of hypocenter that was under 
>> WTC4
>> and the media is trying to get the clowns to believe it was an Ice age
>> pothole but it is not consistent with an ice age pothole.  What it is
>> consistent with is a hypocenter..
>>  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html?_r=0
>
> You mean the little 40 foot "pothole" they were discussing in the
> article? LOL

You better do two things.

1.  Compare that hypocenter to a real ice age pothole and you will see the 
difference.

2.  Notice that the hypocenter that was under WTC4 has been filed with 
concrete so it could have been 50 meters deep instead of 40 feet.

And if you notice it is blown out on once side more than it is blown out on 
the other and it just so happens that very little of WTC4 was missing so 
that could blamed on the rock preventing it from going toward more of WTC4.

Still there is a lot more evidence that says the Twin Towers were nuked than 
there is that they collapsed because every photo that contains the surviving 
corners of the Twin Towers is evidence of deep underground nukes that were 
outside their spread pattern that was determined by the rock the deep 
underground nukes left in place.  <G>

Rest of your spinning removed.

Rocky 

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

#515427 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV )

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> Still there is a lot more evidence that says the Twin Towers were nuked than 
> there is that they collapsed because every photo that contains the surviving 
> corners of the Twin Towers is evidence of deep underground nukes that were 
> outside their spread pattern that was determined by the rock the deep 
> underground nukes left in place.  <G>

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs.

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

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


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#515430 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV )

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

Rocky, in <news:E9idnfdQybvVf0jInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
> wrote in message news:accd42e55c288388bfa9c1e60837f6aa@dizum.com...

>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> Rocky, in <news:GuidnXSYz4OiVE7InZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>
>> Awww, did RockyRetard run away from AUK because the intellectual
>> titans there were kicking the kook's ass? LOL

<crickets> LOL

>>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message
>>> news:d3hcgiFp4qgU1@mid.individual.net...

>>>> But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched.

>>> He<SMACKAKOOK!>

Mindless drivel from a mindless fuckwit will be redacted. You are
given no voice because you're retarded. And retards don't get to
spew their retarded bullshit until they can back it up with
irrefutable and corroborable proof.

Kook. LOL

>> You mean the little 40 foot "pothole" they were discussing in the
>> article? LOL

> Y<SMACKAKOOK!>

Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy
theory is able to violate several laws of physics, you'll remain
a pathetic laughingstock kicktoy for those who are intelligent
enough to know you're just a broken-brained loser.

Now, get to addressing the 15 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 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 most
likely the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapon sights that was the source. You didn't specify what type
of radiation was experienced, and I doubt you're smart or
educated enough to even know what types of radiation there are.

4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex
or anywhere in NYC. 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 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 satellite
uplink disruptions 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 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 base 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 (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 these 19 nukes could tunnel holes from their
underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep, 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
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.).
======================================================

There's now 15 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

-- 

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 theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of
illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the 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 video *you* *provided* between the video
disturbance due to satellite uplink interference (what you deemed
to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower falling 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 (depending upon soil composition and
thus speed of compressive blast transmission... and since we're
talking solid bedrock here, it'd be at the upper end of that
scale). 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, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore,
now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, 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, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an
impossibly deep hole, 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 is now saying there were 19 nukes instead of
your original 3, because you know there were 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the 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, and completely ignoring the fact
that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble or
its vicinity.

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" on the video *you* *provided* and the time the
buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So you've
proven by skirting the perimeter of sanity full-circle that
you're insane. LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality. And the harder you try, 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]

#515457 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
wrote in message news:ac07e4bfd369fca6121253ff76e51606@dizum.com...
>
> Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy
> theory is able to violate several laws of physics,

ROTFLMAO because you have seen the hypocenter that was below WTC4.

You have seen that the one wall was nearly straight up and not much damage 
was done to WTC4 but the wall facing the South Tower was more angled and not 
only did it vaporize most of WTC2 but it took a large portion of WTC3 at the 
exact same time.

You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does not 
and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and the damage 
proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun with a screwed up 
barrel.

Once you realize that shotguns and deep underground nukes both have a spread 
pattern then you will be a lot closer to the truth.

As for the mushroom cloud created by the nuke under WTC4 and you have 
already seen it's hypocenter.  Now check the following video out
 https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s

and watch about a minute.

Or if you want the above link broken down check out
 04 - Phenomena
 https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

And then go to 29 minutes and 30 seconds and watch the video for a bit 
because you should see a mushroom cloud from one of the Twin Towers compared 
to another nuke from 30:04 to 30:12.

Rocky

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

#515458 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:50:21 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
<snip>
Stupid stuff like this creates a dislike for all issues regarding criminal conspiracy of 911, aka criminal negligence of US intelligence and the Bush Administration. It is similar to Kennedy conspiracy, where finally the "conspiracy theorists" were "heard", for example when the ludicrous "umbrella man" showed up and they made jokes about where he was pointing the umbrella.
Real governmental fuckups depend on people like you, perhaps even create them.
"The "umbrella man", identified by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 as Louie Steven Witt"

So, the CIA would have to have used a weapon that could only be traced to the CIA in broad daylight in front of many witnesses, and that obviously loony shit made it into major political show. 

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

#515459 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Rocky wrote:
> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus"
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message
> news:ac07e4bfd369fca6121253ff76e51606@dizum.com... 
>> 
>> Until you are able to prove exactly how your kooky conspiracy
>> theory is able to violate several laws of physics,
> 
> ROTFLMAO because you have seen the hypocenter that was below WTC4.
> 
> You have seen that the one wall was nearly straight up and not much
> damage was done to WTC4 but the wall facing the South Tower was more
> angled and not only did it vaporize most of WTC2 but it took a large
> portion of WTC3 at the exact same time.
> 
> You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does
> not and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and
> the damage proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun
> with a screwed up barrel.
> 
> Once you realize that shotguns and deep underground nukes both have a
> spread pattern then you will be a lot closer to the truth.
> 
> As for the mushroom cloud created by the nuke under WTC4 and you have
> already seen it's hypocenter.  Now check the following video out
> https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
> 
> and watch about a minute.
> 
> Or if you want the above link broken down check out
> 04 - Phenomena
> https://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
> 
> And then go to 29 minutes and 30 seconds and watch the video for a bit
> because you should see a mushroom cloud from one of the Twin Towers
> compared to another nuke from 30:04 to 30:12.
> 
> Rocky

there never was any trade towers

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

#515474 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> You claim a shotgun has a spread pattern but an underground nuke does not 
> and yet you can see the barrel used by the nuke under WTC4 and the damage 
> proves the nuke had a spread pattern just like a shotgun with a screwed up 
> barrel.

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs.

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

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

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web