Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #514641 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-17 08:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-17 17:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 14 participants |
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.
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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <gligtaprb4jl6mefrg55bslkbhft2i5jck@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515654 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:51:01 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>wrote in message news:bf9ea5b621f695afb329a73f7226d560@dizum.com...
>>
>>>> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
>>>> impossible.
>
>Gee, that time you removed every part of my post.
>
>So you can not accept the fact you were the victim of a BIG LIE that used
>CGIs and nukes instead of very very lucky hijackers and jet fuel to bring
>down very very tall buildings and reduce them to a pile of rubble that is no
>where near what a 110 story building should have left if it had really been
>a jet fuel controlled demolition.
Whereas it wasn't a controlled demolition of any sort, not even
NCD, your claim is *technically* correct. Not in the highly dishonest
way in which you present it, of course.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 18:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <h26kac-qcs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #515547 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > In reality the Twin Towers were so fcuking tall there was no other option to > bring them down than with nukes because that vaporizes them. FYI the debris > pile from a "Controlled Demolition" of the Twin Towers would have been so > tall they wouldn't have had a way to work with it. DUH. 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]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 16:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <k45ftahkoq3k2ut0tbds4dfg64821k2toa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515547 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:00:03 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>wrote in message :0030ff571ff4a86516555793b5aa550b@dizum.com...
>>
>> Your version of events isn't just implausible, it is wholly
>> impossible.
>
>Ok Friendly Neighborhood Nut, you really should do some reading about "The
>Big Lie" because that is exactly what the media version of events on 9/11/01
>was. See:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
>
>In reality the Twin Towers were so fcuking tall there was no other option to
>bring them down than with nukes because that vaporizes them. FYI the debris
>pile from a "Controlled Demolition" of the Twin Towers would have been so
>tall they wouldn't have had a way to work with it. DUH.
>
>And oddly enough the plan to bring them down was in place before they ever
>went up.
>
>Just don't forget what you have seen. You have seen:
>
>1. A near total destruction of the Twin Towers that could only be caused by
>a nuke.
>
No one has seen this since no nukes were used.
>2. The hypocenter from the nuke that was under WTC4 complete with the walls
>that showed it's matching spread pattern.
>
No one has seen this since there was no hypocenter.
>3. And you have even seen the mushroom cloud from the nuke that was under
>WTC4.
>
No one has seen this mushroom cloud. This is due to the failure
of one to exist. Since no nukes were used, we can understand it's
absence.
>4. Wasn't it you that gave me a video of the ground shaking event before
>the North Tower was vaporized?
Whereas no buildings were vaporized, the only possible answer
FNVW could give is, "No."
>FYI that shaking was described the same way
>a 5.5 earthquake is described and how many earth shaking events do you know
>that can be caught on camera?. <G>
It wasn't 5.5. It was 2.3. And it was very local.
All earth shaking events can be caught on camera. And if there is
a camera recording at the event, at the time the event occurs, it will
be caught on camera.
>
>5. And you've seen a video with multiple EMPs with the main EMP being at
>the exact same time the ground below WTC1 shook.
Once again, if it had been an EMP, the video camera would have
short out. That it is able to continue recording is absolute PROOF
that it was not an EMP.
But wait, there's more!
Had there been a nuclear EMP, the helicopter would have fallen
out of the sky due to its electronics burning out.
You want more? OK.
Had there been an EMP such as you claim, the whole electrical
grid for the five burrows would have been fried.
Just as so often before, your claim of an EMP is proved wrong.
>Oh if you are looking for
>other places that nukes were used on 9/11/01 this jpg should show how other
>much much smaller nukes were used to make a funky hole in WTC6.
> https://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/potentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukes.jpg
>
So now there were 34 nukes?
Wow. You've really gone over the edge, Rocky.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 06:59 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #515635 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> K Wills (Shill #3), in <news:k45ftahkoq3k2ut0tbds4dfg64821k2toa@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >> Oh if you are looking for >> other places that nukes were used on 9/11/01 this jpg should show how other >> much much smaller nukes were used to make a funky hole in WTC6. >> https://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/potentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukes.jpg > So now there were 34 nukes? > Wow. You've really gone over the edge, Rocky. Wow, I missed that because I merely skim his stupid bullshit. Usually I just apply the steel-toed boot, laugh and move on to other kooks more worthy of my time. Now that delusional in-dire-need-of-medication retard is saying there are 34 nukes, and therefore 34 mini-nukes dug their way up 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? His delusion is expanding. Must update the .sig. <snicker> -- 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) Now your broken brain is telling you, for some as-yet unfathomable reason, that there were 34 nukes, rather than your previously claimed 19 (or your previously, previously claimed 3), without explaining exactly how 34 nukes were attained and put into place without drawing any attention whatsoever (especially given that the WTC towers had regular rad sweeps because they were primarily rented by government agencies). Gullible idiots believe everything they read because their broken brains can't discern between reality and fantasy. LOL G) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those nuclear 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]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 05:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <9migtapmfvskl860l08ubct1v0dhhd3p0o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515721 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 06:59:59 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
>K Wills (Shill #3), in
><news:k45ftahkoq3k2ut0tbds4dfg64821k2toa@4ax.com> did thusly jump
>head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>>> Oh if you are looking for
>>> other places that nukes were used on 9/11/01 this jpg should show how other
>>> much much smaller nukes were used to make a funky hole in WTC6.
>>> https://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/potentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukes.jpg
>
>> So now there were 34 nukes?
>> Wow. You've really gone over the edge, Rocky.
>
>Wow, I missed that because I merely skim his stupid bullshit.
>Usually I just apply the steel-toed boot, laugh and move on to
>other kooks more worthy of my time.
>
Understandable.
>Now that delusional in-dire-need-of-medication retard is saying
>there are 34 nukes, and therefore 34 mini-nukes dug their way up
>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? His delusion is expanding. Must update the .sig.
>
><snicker>
Rocky has more recently claimed a minimum of 37 meters. Of
course, the time frame really fails him with such a claim. But we do
have the ability to tunnel down to 37 meters. He's found a way to
counter that problem.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 11:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <MP6dncUXrLvEPkXInZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515721 |
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message news:345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com... > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > K Wills (Shill #3), in > <news:k45ftahkoq3k2ut0tbds4dfg64821k2toa@4ax.com> did thusly jump > head first into the wood chipper again: > >>> Oh if you are looking for >>> other places that nukes were used on 9/11/01 this jpg should show how >>> other >>> much much smaller nukes were used to make a funky hole in WTC6. >>> https://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/potentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukes.jpg > >> So now there were 34 nukes? >> Wow. You've really gone over the edge, Rocky. > > Wow, I missed that because I merely skim his stupid bullshit. > Usually I just apply the steel-toed boot, laugh and move on to > other kooks more worthy of my time. > > Now that delusional in-dire-need-of-medication retard is saying > there are 34 nukes, and therefore 34 mini-nukes dug their way up > 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? His delusion is expanding. Must update the .sig. None of the nukes used to make the funky hole in WTC6 had to be buried because they were very low yield and you would know that just by looking at the link above you idiot. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 16:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <0jlmac-uto.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #515790 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > None of the nukes used to make the funky hole in WTC6 had to be buried > because they were very low yield and you would know that just by looking at > the link above you idiot. <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]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 12:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <rkdhtadut3ls5rnd8fqf6so4p9n9aa5tc1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515790 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 11:30:45 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>wrote in message news:345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com...
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> K Wills (Shill #3), in
>> <news:k45ftahkoq3k2ut0tbds4dfg64821k2toa@4ax.com> did thusly jump
>> head first into the wood chipper again:
>>
>>>> Oh if you are looking for
>>>> other places that nukes were used on 9/11/01 this jpg should show how
>>>> other much much smaller nukes were used to make a funky hole in WTC6.
>>>> https://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/potentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukes.jpg
>>
>>> So now there were 34 nukes?
>>> Wow. You've really gone over the edge, Rocky.
>>
>> Wow, I missed that because I merely skim his stupid bullshit.
>> Usually I just apply the steel-toed boot, laugh and move on to
>> other kooks more worthy of my time.
>>
>> Now that delusional in-dire-need-of-medication retard is saying
>> there are 34 nukes, and therefore 34 mini-nukes dug their way up
>> 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? His delusion is expanding. Must update the .sig.
>
>None of the nukes used to make the funky hole in WTC6 had to be buried
>because they were very low yield and you would know that just by looking at
>the link above you idiot. <G>
>
The link that claims *34* nukes were used? 34 nukes, but not a
single seismograph anywhere recorded a nuclear explosion. How do you
rationalize this?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 12:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <8n78vl.net.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #515790 |
Rocky wrote: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" > <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message > news:345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com... >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> K Wills (Shill #3), in >> <news:k45ftahkoq3k2ut0tbds4dfg64821k2toa@4ax.com> did thusly jump >> head first into the wood chipper again: >> >>>> Oh if you are looking for >>>> other places that nukes were used on 9/11/01 this jpg should show >>>> how other >>>> much much smaller nukes were used to make a funky hole in WTC6. >>>> https://donaldfox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/potentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukes.jpg >> >>> So now there were 34 nukes? >>> Wow. You've really gone over the edge, Rocky. >> >> Wow, I missed that because I merely skim his stupid bullshit. >> Usually I just apply the steel-toed boot, laugh and move on to >> other kooks more worthy of my time. >> >> Now that delusional in-dire-need-of-medication retard is saying >> there are 34 nukes, and therefore 34 mini-nukes dug their way up >> 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? His delusion is expanding. Must update the .sig. > > None of the nukes used to make the funky hole in WTC6 had to be buried > because they were very low yield and you would know that just by > looking at the link above you idiot. <G> > > Rocky why are you the only one that believes nukes were used
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 22:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( Advice to FNN ) |
| Message-ID | <99a8a3d2c9cf01cea4d6cfe2edf9be76@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #515790 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky, in <news:MP6dncUXrLvEPkXInZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > wrote in message news:345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com... >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> K Wills (Shill #3), in >> <news:k45ftahkoq3k2ut0tbds4dfg64821k2toa@4ax.com> did thusly jump >> head first into the wood chipper again: >>>> O<SMACKAKOOK!> Retards will shut the fuck up. I repeat, retards will shut the fuck up. Kook. LOL >>> So now there were 34 nukes? >>> Wow. You've really gone over the edge, Rocky. >> Wow, I missed that because I merely skim his stupid bullshit. >> Usually I just apply the steel-toed boot, laugh and move on to >> other kooks more worthy of my time. >> >> Now that delusional in-dire-need-of-medication retard is saying >> there are 34 nukes, and therefore 34 mini-nukes dug their way up >> 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? His delusion is expanding. Must update the .sig. > N<SMACKAKOOK!> Then we're right back to the timing discrepancy between your k'lamed "EMP" on the WCBS video and the time of the building shaking then collapsing, Ko0kTard. That's your unresolvable logic hole that's caused your broken brain to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). Kook. LOL > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 16 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 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes (MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3 nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is? While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps (radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in place without drawing any attention whatsoever. 12) 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? 13) 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)? 14) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes (now 34 nukes, per your latest k'lame) you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 15) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 16) Explain how these 19 nukes (now 34 nukes per your latest k'lame) 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 are now 16 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, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain 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 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]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 20:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) |
| Message-ID | <nMOdna9YnOAbu0TInZ2dnUU7-VmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #515842 |
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote in message news:99a8a3d2c9cf01cea4d6cfe2edf9be76@dizum.com... Ok, let me test your brain. What tell tale signs are in the following photo? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And I'll even help you by breaking the question down a bit. Why does the photo above not support a jet fuel collapse? Why does the photo above not support a Controlled Demolition? Why does the photo above support the use of deep underground nukes? And this is even an open newsgroup test where you can leave your newsreader open. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 04:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) |
| Message-ID | <03c1797aa933ab543dc00ab5ebe8839e@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #515931 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Rocky, in <news:nMOdna9YnOAbu0TInZ2dnUU7-VmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > wrote in message news:99a8a3d2c9cf01cea4d6cfe2edf9be76@dizum.com... > O<SMACKAKOOK!> Until you are able to explain exactly how your kooky little tard theory can violate several laws of physics, you are not allowed a voice, because idiotic retards spewing incomprehensible blather are akin to the street-corner crazies "preaching" about doomsday. You are that street-corner crazy. Therefore, you will shut the fuck up until you take your meds and provide scientific proof that your kooky conspiracy theory is somehow exempt from the immutable laws of physics. Kook. LOL > Rocky Now, get to addressing the 16 ways your kook conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics: ====================================================== 1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's *why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep. 2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for dozens of miles radius. 3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how delusional you are. 4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or anywhere in NYC. They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation. 5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed, from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2 MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were buried. 6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any sort of nuclear chain reaction. 7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it* *was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical support column and *NO* EMP: ====================== <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo> You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP. ====================== 8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K? 9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding rock. 10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft. 11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent down to service those nukes (because now that you know the neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33 years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960 to 1840 degree heat? 12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>) that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all 1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized" (your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)? 13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC site on 11 Sep 2001? 14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep underground, Ko0K? 15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.). 16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes (MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3 nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is? While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps (radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this *still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed "EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly head again. LOL ====================================================== There are now 16 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 conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower 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 (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 05:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) |
| Message-ID | <kd1oac-n4t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #515931 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: <snip kook babble> > Why does the photo above support the use of deep underground nukes? Only to a raving lunatic. 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]
| From | gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 08:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( ?s 4 Friendly Neighborhood Nut ) |
| Message-ID | <mrhq33$3gq$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #515931 |
On 8/22/2015 8:48 PM, Rocky wrote: > "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > wrote in message news:99a8a3d2c9cf01cea4d6cfe2edf9be76@dizum.com... > > Ok, let me test your brain. > > What tell tale signs are in the following photo? > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > And I'll even help you by breaking the question down a bit. your "help" is in misleading people > > Why does the photo above not support a jet fuel collapse? it does. > > Why does the photo above not support a Controlled Demolition? no chemical traces of explosives at all > > Why does the photo above support the use of deep underground nukes? no radiation > > And this is even an open newsgroup test where you can leave your newsreader > open. <G> comment of wise ass. > > Rocky, the flying Squirrellie > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 20:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter 4 FNV ) |
| Message-ID | <n91dtats00ti54odstbush8jsovljvctt8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515399 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:22:22 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"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.
>
There is no difference since it was and is a real ice age
pothole.
>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.
There was no hypocenter. As such, your lie about it fails.
>
>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.
>
No, it could not.
>Still there is a lot more evidence that says the Twin Towers were nuked than
There is NO evidence that they were nuked.
>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
The corners PROVE an uncontrolled collapse.
>outside their spread pattern that was determined by the rock the deep
>underground nukes left in place. <G>
For 37, or more, miles below the surface? Really?
>
>Rest of your spinning removed.
You mean the rest of that which you could not address removed.
At least be honest, Rocky. If you're able.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 21:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( photo of hypocenter ) |
| Message-ID | <edcf5b0b103a580f888a5abfd0d9c140@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #515141 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> dmaster, in <news:a6873afb-700e-45ea-8bda-15c3f3c03c34@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:09:36 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote: >> "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!> Delusional dimwitted dumbshits will sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. That means you, ShortBus. When you are ready to address the 15 ways your kooky conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics, you will be allowed a voice. Until then, keep that halitosis-spewing sinkhole you call a mouth shut, you pathetic retard. Kook. LOL >>> TH >> 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 > And in standard Rocky fashion, a photo clearly showing no > nuclear blast damage. Why does Rocky post clear evidence > that his "theories" are wrong? > > Dan (Woj...) It's because he's a broken-brained kook with no concept of the explosive force contained within a nuclear weapon, let alone within his k'lamed 19 nuclear weapons. Of course, that unresolvable logic hole in his kooky theory pretty much scotches the whole thing without even having to examine *any* further evidence except Rocky's own delusional blathering. LOL Can you spot the logical hole in Rocky's kooky theory in my .sig? -- 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 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]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 04:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( 2 t-annoy ) |
| Message-ID | <fqh8tapstad8nto977565puavqnd87ovtc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515095 |
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:40:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>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!
>
Most of it ended up in the bath tub. This is well documented.
>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.
And how deep was the bath tub?
That's the part you k00ks don't want to address.
>
>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!).
A small percentage of the pulverized concrete and drywall did
float away. The amount is statistically insignificant.
>
>You explain this by assumed underground nukes.
>
>But where is a crater? And the underground looked actually unscratched.
It looked as if most of the towers had collapsed into it.
>
>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?
A lot of pieces would have been thrown into the sky. But there
would be no nuclear cloud if the explosion was underground.
>
>None of these features had actually been observed, hence nukes do not
>match with observation.
There were no nukes. This has been proved many, many times.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 11:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) |
| Message-ID | <OtednUuFKZTIkk_InZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #514641 |
"naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:698eaf87-5ce0-47ce-bf67-7b263584ba11@googlegroups.com... > > You have lost your evidence, that must be either very convenient or very > stupid. What went up into the sky is not as important as what very little remained on the ground anyway: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >> 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. Huh? Why did't you comment on the above? >> 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. > > So you know little about transponders. Are you telling me that all jets can easily change the flight number in their transponder in mid air? And if so what is your source? >> 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: >> > > wtf? It simply means with more information I could make an informed decision. DUH. >> 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. >> >> > > So you were wrong. Again with more information I could make an informed decision. Or do you find something wrong with that too? >> > 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." >> > > So everybody at 911 was an actor, some cast list. No, because as proven so many times all it took was one crisis actor and bad CGIs to fool hundreds of people and then those people went on to fool other unsuspecting sheeple. Pay special attention to why the guy that says he saw a plane says why he saw it. FYI it was because it was on "Television." <G> 911 FOX - an eye-witness says it was a bomb, no plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0 >> 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 Funny that you failed to comment on that video too. >> > 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. > > Do post the link again, if you haven't lost it. Why? There is already more than enough evidence to prove 9/11 was a big hoax. >> Radiological Cleanup on ground zero - This video is dedicated to Dimitri >> Khalezov >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9npQPZh2po Again, no comment? >> > 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> >> >> > > So tell us about the NCD you are comparing 911 to. I'm saying the near total lack of debris from the Twin Towers and WTC3 rule out a collapse or a controlled demoltion leaving only an NCD. Did you forget that "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >> 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 And again no comment. BTW I welcome anybody that can try to explain the near total lack of debris at GZ but the problem is in really it is too late now because NIST and the 9/11 Commission should have dealt with that issue instead of helping to maintain the Great 9/11 Hoax. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 18:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) |
| Message-ID | <mqt5qu$jo9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514691 |
On 17/08/2015 17:43, Rocky wrote: > "naazim palan" <naazimpalan@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:698eaf87-5ce0-47ce-bf67-7b263584ba11@googlegroups.com... >> >> You have lost your evidence, that must be either very convenient or very >> stupid. > > What went up into the sky is not as important as what very little remained > on the ground anyway: > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > >>> 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. > > Huh? Why did't you comment on the above? > > He did in his other reply. >>> 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. >> >> So you know little about transponders. > > Are you telling me that all jets can easily change the flight number in > their transponder in mid air? And if so what is your source? > > They can change their squawk codes. >>> 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: >>> >> >> wtf? > > It simply means with more information I could make an informed decision. > DUH. > > >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> So you were wrong. > > Again with more information I could make an informed decision. Or do you > find something wrong with that too? > > >>>> 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." >>> >> >> So everybody at 911 was an actor, some cast list. > > No, because as proven so many times all it took was one crisis actor and bad > CGIs to fool hundreds of people and then those people went on to fool other > unsuspecting sheeple. > > Pay special attention to why the guy that says he saw a plane says why he > saw it. FYI it was because it was on "Television." <G> > > 911 FOX - an eye-witness says it was a bomb, no plane > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0 > > >>> 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 > > Funny that you failed to comment on that video too. > > >>>> 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. >> >> Do post the link again, if you haven't lost it. > > Why? There is already more than enough evidence to prove 9/11 was a big > hoax. > > Why, because he asked for it, do you have a problem with providing it? >>> Radiological Cleanup on ground zero - This video is dedicated to Dimitri >>> Khalezov >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9npQPZh2po > > Again, no comment? > > >>>> 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> >>> >>> >> >> So tell us about the NCD you are comparing 911 to. > > I'm saying the near total lack of debris from the Twin Towers and WTC3 rule > out a collapse or a controlled demoltion leaving only an NCD. > You haven't answered his question or mine. > Did you forget that "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no > matter how improbable, must be the truth" > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > >>> 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 > > And again no comment. > > BTW I welcome anybody that can try to explain the near total lack of debris > at GZ but the problem is in really it is too late now because NIST and the > 9/11 Commission should have dealt with that issue instead of helping to > maintain the Great 9/11 Hoax. > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 17:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's beliefs ( about maazim's straw man arguments #2) |
| Message-ID | <j6j9ac-ju3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #514691 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > What went up into the sky is not as important as what very little remained > on the ground anyway: There is no missing rubble, kook. The facts are some airliners were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed almost 2 hours later. One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Everything else is kook babble. That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble. That there is missing rubble is kook babble. That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble. That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble. That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear devices is kook babble. That there was an EMP is kook babble. That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not seen by every eismograph in the world is kook babble. That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything to do with what happened is kook babble. That the scene was radioactive is kook babble. That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima or Nagasaki is kook babble. That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear is kook babble. That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance and still be expected to work is kook babble. That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear bombs is kook babble. That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the airplanes hit the towers is kook babble. That all the video was CGI is kook babble. That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble. That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature that can be detected 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. Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web