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

#515542 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:4e1iac-9jb.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> 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.

Only to idiots that think a jet really went down in Pranksville, PA  And if 
you look the smoke cloud from that event it was a very clear mushroom cloud. 
<G>

And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the 
Twin Towers.  See:

1.  There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers.

2.  People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5 
quake instead of a 2.3.

3.  Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3 
quakes?  <G>

4.  There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4 and 
the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the 
nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do 
much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3.

And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't they 
hit the ground with more force than was recorded?  Seems there was more 
messed up with those seismic readings than just the failure to jive with 
real life before the North Tower was vaporized.

Rocky 

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

#515548 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

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

>And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the 
>Twin Towers.  See:

>1.  There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers.

No, there wasn't.

>2.  People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5 
>quake instead of a 2.3.

Yet seismometers the world over didn't record anything larger than a 2.3.
And none recorded with the characteristics of a nuclear detonation.

>3.  Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3 
>quakes?  <G>

Yes, if you're right on top of the epicenter, like anyone close to the
towers were!

>4.  There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4

No there wasn't.

> and 
>the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the 
>nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do 
>much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3.

No, it wasn't.

0 for 4.  That's about as good as could be expected from kooktards.

>And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't they 
>hit the ground with more force than was recorded?

The gravitational potential energy of the buildings converted to the 
kinetic energy of falling was consistent with the recorded 2.x earthquake
readings.

>  Seems there was more 
>messed up

Yup. It's the heads of kooktards that's messed up.

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

#515652 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger )

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mr7eel$h5t$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> kooked:
>
>>And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the
>>Twin Towers.  See:
>
>>1.  There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers.
>
> No, there wasn't.

Did you even bother to watch the following video:

04 - Phenomena
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU
and you can fast forward to 29:20 or 30:07 to see more about things that 
only nukes could do.


>>2.  People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5
>>quake instead of a 2.3.
>
> Yet seismometers the world over didn't record anything larger than a 2.3.
> And none recorded with the characteristics of a nuclear detonation.

Oh yes and since when do 2.3s get recorded on video?  <G>


>>3.  Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3
>>quakes?  <G>
>
> Yes, if you're right on top of the epicenter, like anyone close to the
> towers were!

And your supporing evidence is what?


>>4.  There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4
>
> No there wasn't.

You obviously didn't compare the alleged Ice age pothole to a real ice age 
pothole.


>> and
>>the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the
>>nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do
>>much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3.
>
> No, it wasn't.

How can you say that when one wall was nearly straight up and one wall was 
bowed or blowed out.  And you are still overlooking the fact only a nuke 
could turn the Twin Towers into ultra fine debris that floated away instead 
of land on the ground.


> 0 for 4.  That's about as good as could be expected from kooktards.
>
>>And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't 
>>they
>>hit the ground with more force than was recorded?
>
> The gravitational potential energy of the buildings converted to the
> kinetic energy of falling was consistent with the recorded 2.x earthquake
> readings.

And where is your supporing evidence on that?

BTW your lack of evidence and your sudden rush to deny points to the fact 
that you are a TV Hugger.  ( New term )

Rocky. 

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

#515679 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger )

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> and you can fast forward to 29:20 or 30:07 to see more about things that 
> only nukes could do.

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]

#515750 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger )

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:46:09 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mr7eel$h5t$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> kooked:
>>
>>>And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the
>>>Twin Towers.  See:
>>
>>>1.  There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers.
>>
>> No, there wasn't.
>
>Did you even bother to watch the following video:
>
>04 - Phenomena
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU
>and you can fast forward to 29:20 or 30:07 to see more about things that 
>only nukes could do.
>

     I've seen it. And it is PROOF that more than nukes can do what is
shown in the video. <G>

>>>2.  People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5
>>>quake instead of a 2.3.
>>
>> Yet seismometers the world over didn't record anything larger than a 2.3.
>> And none recorded with the characteristics of a nuclear detonation.
>
>Oh yes and since when do 2.3s get recorded on video?  <G>
>

     Since always, if the person recording is close enough to the
epicenter. <G>

>>>3.  Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3
>>>quakes?  <G>
>>
>> Yes, if you're right on top of the epicenter, like anyone close to the
>> towers were!
>
>And your supporing evidence is what?

     Probably countless videos showing this. <G>

>
>>>4.  There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4
>>
>> No there wasn't.
>
>You obviously didn't compare the alleged Ice age pothole to a real ice age 
>pothole.
>

     He likely did. Anyone who has will not the similarity.

>>> and
>>>the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the
>>>nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do
>>>much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3.
>>
>> No, it wasn't.
>
>How can you say that when one wall was nearly straight up and one wall was 
>bowed or blowed out.  And you are still overlooking the fact only a nuke 
>could turn the Twin Towers into ultra fine debris that floated away instead 
>of land on the ground.

     Since there was no ultra fine debris, as you mean it, none could
have floated away. duh

>
>> 0 for 4.  That's about as good as could be expected from kooktards.
>>
>>>And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't 
>>>they hit the ground with more force than was recorded?
>>
>> The gravitational potential energy of the buildings converted to the
>> kinetic energy of falling was consistent with the recorded 2.x earthquake
>> readings.
>
>And where is your supporing evidence on that?
>
>BTW your lack of evidence and your sudden rush to deny points to the fact 
>that you are a TV Hugger.  ( New term )
>

     So anyone who rejects your distortions and lies is worthy of a
pejorative? That says a lot about you. None of it good.

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

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

#515958 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger )

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mr7eel$h5t$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> kooked:
>>
>>>And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the
>>>Twin Towers.  See:
>>
>>>1.  There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers.
>>
>> No, there wasn't.

>Did you even bother to watch the following video:

Actually, I did, at least the part mentioned.  But I didn't bother with
the rest of your propaganda.

>>>2.  People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5
>>>quake instead of a 2.3.
>>
>> Yet seismometers the world over didn't record anything larger than a 2.3.
>> And none recorded with the characteristics of a nuclear detonation.

>Oh yes and since when do 2.3s get recorded on video?  <G>

Usually the hypocenter is well below ground, perhaps miles.  Not in this
case.

The fact remains that no seismometer recorded a 5.5 earthquake there.
Not even seismometers in countries unfriendly to the US or run by 
hobbyists, out of control of the boogeymen you imagine created some
conspiracy.  In particular, no earthquakes, of any magnitude, that has the
distinctive pattern a nuclear weapon makes.

There is simply no hiding a 5.5 magnitude earthquake.
There is simply no hiding a nuclear weapon detonation on or under the
earth's surface.
Those two facts are proof positive that there were no nuclear weapons
detonated under the WTC.  Period.

No radiation contaminating NYC, no EMP, no mushroom cloud, shall I go on?

>>>3.  Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3
>>>quakes?  <G>
>>
>> Yes, if you're right on top of the epicenter, like anyone close to the
>> towers were!

>And your supporing evidence is what?

1) The tower shook, as evidenced by the video.
2) There definitely was no 5.5 earthquake anywhere near there, but there 
was a 2.3 equivalent there.


>>>4.  There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4
>>
>> No there wasn't.

>You obviously didn't compare the alleged Ice age pothole to a real ice age 
>pothole.

I have seen real glacial potholes in western Massachusetts.  That photo 
looked like them.

>>> and
>>>the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the
>>>nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do
>>>much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3.
>>
>> No, it wasn't.

>How can you say that when one wall was nearly straight up and one wall was 
>bowed or blowed out.

Lots of things could cause the walls to remain straight or crooked.  Such 
as their buildings collapsing above/around them.

>  And you are still overlooking the fact only a nuke 
>could turn the Twin Towers into ultra fine debris that floated away instead 
>of land on the ground.

Except that it didn't.

You never did address the 108,222 truckloads of debris hauled out of the
WTC site.  (108,342-120).  Where did all that debris come from, if your
imaginary nukes converted the towers to dust?  That's because they didn't,
imaginary nukes can't do anything except give kooktards hallucinations!

>> 0 for 4.  That's about as good as could be expected from kooktards.
>>
>>>And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't 
>>>they
>>>hit the ground with more force than was recorded?
>>
>> The gravitational potential energy of the buildings converted to the
>> kinetic energy of falling was consistent with the recorded 2.x earthquake
>> readings.

>And where is your supporing evidence on that?

Do the math.  Calculate the potential gravitational energy of a standing
tower.  Convert that energy amount to an earthquake magnitude.  That gives
you a maximum earthquake magnitude the collapse could generate (assumes
100% of the energy is converted to earthquake energy.  The actual 
earthquake energy would be quite a bit less, but remember the Richter
scale is logarithmic)

>BTW your lack of evidence and your sudden rush to deny points to the fact 
>that you are a TV Hugger.  ( New term )

Hah.  I watch very little TV.

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

#516771 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Michael M is a TV Hugger )

On 8/21/2015 4:46 PM, Rocky wrote:




Hey Rocky, why don't you get a haircut and a real job ?

you spend WAY TOO much time chasing ghosts of twin-towers-atomic-coverup.

and c+p ghost stories NOBODY is interested in.


better to listen to Alex Jones, he has more conspiracy stories that are 
believable

nuke and no radiation, silly.

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

#515590 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the 
> Twin Towers.  See:

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]

#515629 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:27 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>news:4e1iac-9jb.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> 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.
>
>Only to idiots that think a jet really went down in Pranksville, PA  And if 
>you look the smoke cloud from that event it was a very clear mushroom cloud. 
><G>
>

     There was no mushroom cloud.

>And don't forget there are plenty of similarities between a nuke and the 
>Twin Towers.  See:
>
>1.  There was a mushroom cloud from the Twin Towers.
>

     No, there wasn't.

>2.  People there described the ground shaking event as if there was a 5.5 
>quake instead of a 2.3.

     But only local seismographs recorded anything, and they recorded
a 2.

>
>3.  Videos caught the ground shaking and does that happen with just 2.3 
>quakes?  <G>
>

     Yes.

>4.  There is a very clear photo of the hypocenter that was under WTC4 and 
>the walls of that hypocenter are consistent with the spread pattern of the 
>nuke that was detonated under WTC4 because the straight up wall didn't do 
>much damage but the angled wall allowed the nuke to vaporize part of WTC3.
>

     There was no hypocenter.

>And if two 110 story buildings really crashed to the ground why didn't they 
>hit the ground with more force than was recorded?  Seems there was more 
>messed up with those seismic readings than just the failure to jive with 
>real life before the North Tower was vaporized.

     No buildings at the WTC Complex were vaporized. None.

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

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

#515494 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:49:32 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> 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.
>

     Since there was no hypocenter, no one could have seen it. DUH!

>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.
>

     Nothing of the WTC Complex was vaporized.

>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.

     Nope. But continue to lie if you must.

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

     Since there were no nukes, under or over ground, your lie about
them fails.

>
>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


     There was no hypocenter. The video does not show a mushroom
cloud.

>
>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.
>

     There is no mushroom cloud shown. Since none occurred, it's lack
of being shown is to be expected.

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

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

#515503 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

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

Rocky, in <news:17udnW0rSv0F1kvInZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> "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,

> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!>

Idiotic gullible fuckwits who believe every stupid thing they
read and who don't have the brainpower necessary to discern
fantasy from reality will be minimized, dismissed, laughed at and
pointed at as the fools they are, until they can explain in
detail and using scientific terms and proof as to how exactly
their kooky conspiracy theory is able to violate several laws of
physics.

Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
impossible. It could not have happened the way you claim. Never
in a million eons. Therefore you are insane.

Kook. LOL

> Rocky

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]

#515508 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 21.08.2015 04:58, schrieb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt.<snicker>
>
> Rocky, in<news:17udnW0rSv0F1kvInZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> "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,
>
>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!>
>
> Idiotic gullible fuckwits who believe every stupid thing they
> read and who don't have the brainpower necessary to discern
> fantasy from reality will be minimized, dismissed, laughed at and
> pointed at as the fools they are, until they can explain in
> detail and using scientific terms and proof as to how exactly
> their kooky conspiracy theory is able to violate several laws of
> physics.
>
> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
> impossible. It could not have happened the way you claim. Never
> in a million eons. Therefore you are insane.
>

In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such 'starwars-like' 
weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.

Anyhow, the starship 'Enterprise' would be proud to have one of those.

This development is highly secret, hence we don't know, how and if they 
work or if they exist at all.


But you may like to read this:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

This is from Judy Wood and about such speculations.

In my eyes this explanation is far better than -say - nukes or other 
explosives.

Other proponents of such ideas are John Hutchison or Tom Bearden.

(Both of them are a little strange people, but that does not render 
their ideas wrong.)


TH

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

#515530 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such 'starwars-like'
> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.


Do you even know what a scalar is?


> Anyhow, the starship 'Enterprise' would be proud to have one of those.


Oh, BJ would be interested in this. His hero is Captain Kerk and he 
binge watches star wars all day long.


-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

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

#515609 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such 'starwars-like'
>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>
>
> Do you even know what a scalar is?


Actually yes.

But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)

If you like to know about such devices, you simply copy and past this 
text into the google search-page and read a few pages.
https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=scalar+wave+lasers&tbm=vid&start=20

To my great surprise, there are a LOT of pages found by google and they 
all have to do with some sort of alternative medicine.


Here is an interview with Tom Bearden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wypYFe3JXdE

He is one of these 'Quaternion-guys'.

My own idea is slightly different, but not very much. You can read my 
'book' here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

The difference is in the use of bi-quaternions (instead of quaternions).

>
>> Anyhow, the starship 'Enterprise' would be proud to have one of those.
>
>
> Oh, BJ would be interested in this. His hero is Captain Kerk and he
> binge watches star wars all day long.
>
Well, maybe. Only I didn't want to advertise this kind of 'soap-opera' 
(with Cpt. Kirk), but wanted to address some sort of future spaceship.


TH

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

#515761 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On 8/21/2015 3:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
>> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such 'starwars-like'
>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>
>>
>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>
>
> Actually yes.
>
> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)


Correct


-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

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

#516709 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 22.08.2015 13:13, schrieb HVAC:
> On 8/21/2015 3:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
>>> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>
>>
>> Actually yes.
>>
>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29

Quote

"..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has 
magnitude but no direction.."

But how could a undirected entity wiggle???

To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.

According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called 
'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.

The field is represented with bi-quaternions and those could be 
visualised by a geometric figure called 'star-tetrahedron'.

Now these two tetrahedrons could also be put under stress and that would 
make a scalar unit (mass) wiggle.

This is certainly difficult to understand with conventional physics. But 
actually I have my own and you may read about it here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

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

#516718 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:13:12 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 22.08.2015 13:13, schrieb HVAC:
>> On 8/21/2015 3:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
>>>> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually yes.
>>>
>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>
>Quote
>
>"..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has 
>magnitude but no direction.."
>
>But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>
>To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>

     So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.

>According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called 
>'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>

     Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

[...]

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

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

#516870 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 25.08.2015 11:09, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually yes.
>>>>
>>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>>
>> Quote
>>
>> "..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has
>> magnitude but no direction.."
>>
>> But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>>
>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>
>       So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>
>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>
>
>       Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.

But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity 
QM:=Quantum Mechanics).

So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).

This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.

I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of 
GR). To do this I assume a physical entity called 'spacetime' and say, 
that matter is actually 'structures' of this entity (actually: timelike 
stable patterns).

So the concept is called 'structured spacetime'.

The idea is quite simple, but it is VERY counter-intuitive. You only 
need to assume, that a point has a direction. This direction is 
represented by a pointer (vector) and this is 'glued' to the point.

These pointers perform all sort of weird movements, but certain patterns 
emerge, if a certain axis of time is used. These patterns are (according 
to my idea), what QM calls particles (as special form of matter).

The idea is - to the best of my knowledge- my own creative work. There 
are a few similar concepts, like e.g. that of Peter Rowland or Tom 
Bearden.  But actually it's closer to 19th century physics, like that of 
James Clark Maxwell, who initially used quaternions.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

So, spacetime was known for a while and I didn't claim to have invented 
this idea.

I'm also not dishonest, but possible my idea is not very well developed. 
The reason is, that I'm just a hobbyist. And since the real physicists 
didn't like amateurish ideas, I had given up the subject some years ago.

TH

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

#516924 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:47:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 25.08.2015 11:09, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>>>
>>> Quote
>>>
>>> "..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has
>>> magnitude but no direction.."
>>>
>>> But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>>>
>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>>       So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>
>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>
>>       Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>
>
>Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>
>But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity 
>QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>
>So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>
>This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>

     You did a very poor job of it.

>I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of 
>GR). To do this I assume

     Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!

[snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
assumptions.]

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

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

#516950 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 26.08.2015 04:14, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>>
>>>        So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>>
>>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>>
>>>        Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>>
>>
>> Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>>
>> But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity
>> QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>>
>> So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>>
>> This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>>
>
>       You did a very poor job of it.
>
>> I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of
>> GR). To do this I assume
>
>       Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!
>
> [snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
> assumptions.]
>

Your definition of the term 'science' is different to mine.

You apparently refer to certain believes that are commonly called 
'materialism'. Within this context science is 'hard' (material) and done 
by (approved!) scientists.

So you reject immaterial things like ideas.

The other extreme is called 'idealism'. This is more 'immaterial', hence 
would have less problems with ideas.

I personally think, that what is in fact important is quality (as 
universal principle) and that is neither matter nor idea.

Pure materialism is not a very good idea, since it leaves out such 
important questions like direction, amount or e.g. harmony.

If you subtract matter from the behaviour of a system you get to the 
immaterial world, that idealists deal with. This is wrong, too, since - 
obviously - stuff exists.

To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume 
something. And this is actually what I do.

You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself, 
since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY 
unlikely to find one.

And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea 
(assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But 
this is more or less your problem and not mine.


TH

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web