Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #570023 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 52 — 3 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: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 07:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 17:55 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-19 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 15:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 18:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 17:36 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SZydnW2qCbl4s4TKnZ2dnUU7-fHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572181 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>>>> as >>>>>> a >>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>> >>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>> >>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>> >>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>> best. >> >> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were >> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? > > Of course not; that would be stupid, Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? You are not making any sense. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572184 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>> >>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>> >>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>> best. >>> >>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were >>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >> >> Of course not; that would be stupid, > > Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface > waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? What delusion makes you think they were? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xcGdnVsv5PF3q4TKnZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572189 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>> >>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>> best. >>>> >>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>> were >>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>> >>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >> >> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? > > What delusion makes you think they were? Sure I know you posted the seismic readings for WTC1 and WTC2 and I also know you never posted them for WTC7 and you never explained why the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2 are comparable to much much much smaller buildings. AND YOU STILL FAIL TO PROVE HOW A "GLOBAL COLLAPSE" can not crush the "Surviving Corners" the exact same way a deep underground MRR nuke misses the "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572193 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>>> best. >>>>> >>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>>> were >>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>> >>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>> >>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >> >> What delusion makes you think they were? As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Xq6dnTvHLsvz3YTKnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572210 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>>>> best. >>>>>> >>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>>>> were >>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>> >>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>> >>> What delusion makes you think they were? > > As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AND OVER THIS AND OVER THIS and it was the very small surface waves and the lack of p-waves and the lack of s-waves. And don't forget this is not the result of a Global Collaspe because those would not have left "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky > > -- > Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572212 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at >>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>> >>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small surface >>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>> >>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >> >> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UNudnd785MqQ9YfKnZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572221 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>> surface >>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>> >>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>> >>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. > > As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot > think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 that fell at free fall speed for over 100 feet then where is it's "seismic signature?" ROTFLMAO Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ifquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572457 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>>> surface >>>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>>> >>>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>>> >>>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. >> >> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. > > And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 14:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3MSdne8WYolawr_KnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572502 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:6ifquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>>>> >>>>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. >>> >>> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >>> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. >> >> And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 > > As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot > think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. Given that WTC7 didn't make any s-waves or p-waves when it was supposed to have crashed to the ground then it left the same seismic signature of a jackhammer. And the one thing that only nukes can explain: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <316avc-kd8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #574005 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:6ifquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:02tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:48rnuc-so6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:iconuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kooks? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's >>>>>>>>>>> destruction >>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course not; that would be stupid, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then why was the lack of p-waves and s-waves and the very small >>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>> waves from WTC7 comparable to a jackhammer? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What delusion makes you think they were? >>>>>> >>>>>> As expected, no answer to the jackhammer question. >>>> >>>> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >>>> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. >>> >>> And if you looked for s-waves or p-waves from the 47 story building WTC7 >> >> As expected, still no answer to what delusion makes this halfwit idiot >> think a jackhammer has a seismic signature. > > Given that WTC7 didn't make any s-waves or p-waves Only delusional fuckwits thinks falling buildings have the seismic signature of an earthquake. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 03:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #571154 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT TOO. >And I've dealt with LIARS like you that will lie and lie and lie even after >proven to be liars. >Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground are >comparable to much much smaller buildings and the seismic record for when >WTC7 hit the ground is comparable to a jackhammer. So why haven't you shown us those seismic records of WTC 1 & 2, or those of known smaller buildings, or those of WTC 7, or even that of a jackhammer???? (Watch Roger Run Away yet again!!!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 07:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <E7WdnRRcr-BATInKnZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571257 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT TOO. > >>And I've dealt with LIARS like you that will lie and lie and lie even >>after >>proven to be liars. > >>Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground are >>comparable to much much smaller buildings and the seismic record for when >>WTC7 hit the ground is comparable to a jackhammer. > > So why haven't you shown us those seismic records of WTC 1 & 2, or those > of known smaller buildings, or those of WTC 7, or even that of a > jackhammer???? You know idiot. It is because I keep showing you over and over and over again that the Twin Towers could not even crush the side of the Twin Tower furthest from the MRR nuke that vaporized most of it you idi00t. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And since you can't handle the evidence you keep removing it from your replies. so: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf2rl5$b1i$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #571287 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... >> So why haven't you shown us those seismic records of WTC 1 & 2, or those >> of known smaller buildings, or those of WTC 7, or even that of a >> jackhammer???? >You know idiot. It is because I keep showing you over and over and over >again that the Twin Towers could not even crush the side of the Twin Tower >furthest from the MRR nuke that vaporized most of it you idi00t. So where are the WTC seismic records, containing the distinctive nuclear explosion signature? Where are the seismic records of other collapsing buildings? Where are the seismic records of a jackhammer? Where are the engineering specs of these mysterious "MRR Nukes"? Does it explain how the Magic works? Was Disney involved? And, of course, where is that mass spectrometry analysis of the dust samples? Kooktard? You are running away *again*?????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i9SdnfLoeoFRPovKnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571304 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf2rl5$b1i$3@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... > > >>> So why haven't you shown us those seismic records of WTC 1 & 2, or those >>> of known smaller buildings, or those of WTC 7, or even that of a >>> jackhammer???? > >>You know idiot. It is because I keep showing you over and over and over >>again that the Twin Towers could not even crush the side of the Twin Tower >>furthest from the MRR nuke that vaporized most of it you idi00t. > > So where are the WTC seismic records, containing the distinctive nuclear > explosion signature? Where are the seismic records of other collapsing > buildings? Where are the seismic records of a jackhammer? Who says an MRR nuke has a "distinctive nuclear" signature? > Where are the engineering specs of these mysterious "MRR Nukes"? Does it > explain how the Magic works? Was Disney involved? Don't forget that MRR nukes explain the following a lot better than your BS or NIST BS about a "Global Collapse" that couldn't even crush both sides of the Twin Towers. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf83iv$sbo$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #571682 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nf2rl5$b1i$3@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... >> >> So where are the WTC seismic records, containing the distinctive nuclear >> explosion signature? Where are the seismic records of other collapsing >> buildings? Where are the seismic records of a jackhammer? >Who says an MRR nuke has a "distinctive nuclear" signature? *ALL* nukes have a "distinctive nuclear" detonation signature! >> Where are the engineering specs of these mysterious "MRR Nukes"? Does it >> explain how the Magic works? Was Disney involved? <snip Roger running away from this question> So how come you can't answer this simple question? How come you can't produce the seismic records showing the distinctive nuclear detonation signature 3 times that day, once for each tower collapse? How come you *still* can't produce the mass spectrometry results proving nuclear detonation? Keep running away!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xKKdnROU-f6JYoXKnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571817 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf83iv$sbo$3@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf2rl5$b1i$3@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>news:nf1is7$dug$2@pcls7.std.com... >>> >>> So where are the WTC seismic records, containing the distinctive nuclear >>> explosion signature? Where are the seismic records of other collapsing >>> buildings? Where are the seismic records of a jackhammer? > >>Who says an MRR nuke has a "distinctive nuclear" signature? > > *ALL* nukes have a "distinctive nuclear" detonation signature! But you keep failing to see the MRR nukes can hide in the background seismic activity especially since other seismic readings were a lot smaller than they should have been. ROTFLMAO AND YOU AND NIST HAVE FAILED TO PROVE WHY GAZILLIONS OF DEBRIS COULD NOT CRUSH THE SURVIVING CORNERS. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Something is clearly wrong with your viewpoint. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And given that the seismic reading taken when WTC7 appeared to crash to the ground was comparable to a jackhammer it is possible that the seismic reading for when the nukes were detonated were also a lot smaller than they should have been. Cool huh? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfb7j3$92t$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572129 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nf83iv$sbo$3@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>Who says an MRR nuke has a "distinctive nuclear" signature? >> >> *ALL* nukes have a "distinctive nuclear" detonation signature! >But you keep failing to see the MRR nukes can hide in the background seismic >activity especially since other seismic readings were a lot smaller than >they should have been. ROTFLMAO You can't hide a magnitude 5 explosion when the background is quiet enough to detect Magnitude 0.6 plane impacts into the towers, or, as you k00kclaim, when "Building 7 collapsed with the energy of a jackhammer"! Gawd, are k00ktards ever stooopid!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <O4WdnSluMv20u4TKnZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572168 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nfb7j3$92t$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf83iv$sbo$3@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>>>Who says an MRR nuke has a "distinctive nuclear" signature? >>> >>> *ALL* nukes have a "distinctive nuclear" detonation signature! > >>But you keep failing to see the MRR nukes can hide in the background >>seismic >>activity especially since other seismic readings were a lot smaller than >>they should have been. ROTFLMAO > > You can't hide a magnitude 5 explosion when the background is quiet enough > to detect Magnitude 0.6 plane impacts into the towers, "Plane impacts into the towers?" You forget, you never proved there were any plane impacts into the towers and all the Media proved is they used a minimum of 3 different CGIs for their bullshit story about 19 hijackers who were found living or never born because their names were just fabrications where a first name was taken from one area and a second name was taken from another area. 9/11: 16 CGIs which fooled the world http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGI/CGI_aprilfools.html And your complete failure to provide evidence proving that "Global Collapses" leave "Surviving Corners" just like deep underground MRR nukes leave is noted. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nelku8$gie$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570023 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: ><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>> >>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >> >> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing unusual? >Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >buildings that have collapsed because of jet fuel fires. ROTFLMAO K00ktard, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, You are the one coming here with an extraordinary (kooktarded!) claim, that "nukes" vaporized the towers. It is up to you to supply the extraordinary evidence to prove that extraordinary claim. If someone barges in here claiming the sky is yellow, it is not up to everyone else to prove the sky is blue. It is up to the yellow sky claimer with the extraordinary claim the sky is yellow to prove that. Similarly, you mention seismic readings. It is up to you to claim the seismic readings support your extraordinary kookclaim, not for Jim to prove nothing was unusual. The seismic data is readibly available on the net. Now prove to us that "nukes" were used from it, if you can. Or admit that there simply is no evidence of that. >As a matter of fact try to find one building that has ever been vaporized by >jet fuel before or after 9/11. ROTFLMAO Nobody anywhere thinks that anything was vaporized by jet fuel that day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 15:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f-mdnZwn8MyEMZPKnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570145 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nelku8$gie$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > >>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>> >>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>> >>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>> unusual? > >>Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>buildings that have collapsed because of jet fuel fires. ROTFLMAO > > K00ktard, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, You are the > one coming here with an extraordinary (kooktarded!) claim, that "nukes" > vaporized the towers. It is up to you to supply the extraordinary evidence > to prove that extraordinary claim. If someone barges in here claiming the > sky is yellow, it is not up to everyone else to prove the sky is blue. It > is up to the yellow sky claimer with the extraordinary claim the sky is > yellow to prove that. Similarly, you mention seismic readings. It is up > to you to claim the seismic readings support your extraordinary kookclaim, > not for Jim to prove nothing was unusual. You are FCUKING FULL OF SHIT because you have it in your power to compare the seismic activity at GZ with other destroyed buildings and jackhammers and all you want to do is play ST00PID just like you have been doing for years. Oh and a photo of "Surviving Corners" that NIST has failed to explain with their "global collapse" BULLSHIT. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web