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

Groups > sci.physics > #516417 > unrolled thread

The US has been caught lying about radiation before too

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 08:38 -0500
    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 15:54 +0200
      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:15 -0500
        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:23 +0200
          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:37 -0500
            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 09:43 -0500
              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:57 -0500
                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:51 -0500
                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:12 +0100
            re, nah noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:39 -0700
        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 09:34 -0500
          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:53 -0500
            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:55 -0500
              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 09:52 -0400
                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 15:30 +0100
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 09:59 -0500
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 10:36 -0500
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 15:41 -0400
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:50 +0000
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 15:50 -0400
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 20:21 +0000
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:46 -0500
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 23:46 +0000
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:24 -0400
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 03:55 +0200
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:22 -0400
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:11 +0000
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:35 -0400
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 17:10 -0500
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 22:13 +0000
                                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 17:31 -0500
                                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 23:02 +0000
                                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:32 -0500
                                    say dUh; thankyoiu noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 21:09 -0700
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-26 18:30 -0400
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 17:27 -0500
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 22:55 +0000
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:33 -0500
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:19 -0500
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:28 -0400
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:25 +0000
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:24 -0500
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 09:00 -0500
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:28 +0000
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:34 -0500
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:27 -0500
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 20:23 +0100
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 15:29 -0500
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 21:50 +0100
                                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 16:02 -0500
                                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:25 +0000
                                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 11:39 +0000
                                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 12:06 -0400
                                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 18:05 +0000
                                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (iimp is a complete idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-03 16:49 -0500
                                            Re: Rocky is still batshit crazy and jobless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-03 22:39 +0000
                                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a complete idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 16:31 -0500
                                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a joke) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 22:45 -0500
                                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a joke) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-07 08:29 +0200
                                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a joke) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:12 -0500
                                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (K proves she is an asshole) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 09:12 -0500
                                                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (K proves she is an asshole) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 17:44 -0500
                                              Re: Rocky's latest delusion jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-07 05:53 +0000
                                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-28 02:35 +0000
                                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 10:09 -0500
                                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-28 15:51 +0000
                                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 18:09 +0000
                                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 21:06 +0100
                                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 15:11 -0500
                                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 21:05 +0100
                                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 15:41 -0500
                                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 22:01 +0100
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 16:13 -0500
                                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:32 +0000
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:12 +0000
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 20:51 +0100
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:35 -0500
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 21:58 +0000
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 23:12 +0100
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too  gilber34 distroys links "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 17:25 -0500
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 23:52 +0100
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 22:33 -0500
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 03:28 +0200
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:19 -0500
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 11:08 -0400
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:53 +0000
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:34 -0400
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 08:50 -0500
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:31 +0000
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:35 -0500
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:25 -0500
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:30 +0000
                          hah, may be not noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:13 -0700
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:24 -0500
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 12:39 -0500
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:42 -0400
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 10:19 -0500
                    two noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:29 -0700
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 20:51 +0100
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:49 -0400
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-26 22:03 +0100
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-29 17:41 -0400
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 22:03 +0000
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-29 22:25 +0000
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 22:35 +0000
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 20:25 -0500
                                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:24 +0000
                                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:31 +0000
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dumptrucks full of M291 resin) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 18:30 -0500
                                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dumptrucks full of M291 resin) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:26 +0000
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-29 23:20 +0100
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 18:42 -0500
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:27 +0000
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:26 -0500
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-25 14:20 -0400
                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 09:40 -0500
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:55 +0000
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 10:17 -0700
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 11:01 -0400
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:39 +0000
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 20:50 +0100
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 22:38 -0500
                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:48 +0000
                Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 13:58 -0400
                  Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 13:07 -0500
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:59 -0500
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 22:40 -0500
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 00:27 -0400
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:50 -0400
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:31 -0500
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 11:31 -0400
                            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 11:35 -0500
                              Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 12:49 -0400
                          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:07 -0400
                      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 10:00 -0500
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:11 -0400
                        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:39 +0000
                    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:47 -0400
            Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-24 10:23 -0400
        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:12 -0500
          Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-24 13:41 -0400
    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 09:17 -0500
      Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:44 -0500
        Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:56 -0500
    Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 16:42 +0000

Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8  Next page →

#516887 — Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mrip5p$ml$1@dont-email.me...
> On 25/08/2015 22:35, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:mrigs5$stl$4@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.yourBoobs.com/watch?v=zvCuMULut33&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8y33vK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>>>>>>>
>>>> NIST the place that tried to say jets brought down the Twin Towers were
>>>> full
>>>> of complete and udder bullshit as proven by one of the people that 
>>>> helped
>>>> NIST run their initial test that did not go the way NIST wanted those
>>>> test
>>>> to go.  <G>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do please provide a link/cite/quote for that.
>>
>> Why t-annoy, when the link was in the exact same post you replied to? 
>> See
>> above
>>
>
> Error 404

After looking back at the old post it is easily proven that "gilber34" 
<invalid@invalid.com> destroyed that link.  Here is what the link proving 
that NIST was lie after lie after lie should have been.  So now gilber34 can 
be tagged as a link destroy and a defender of BIG LIES.

The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

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

#516890 — Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links

On 25/08/2015 23:25, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrip5p$ml$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 25/08/2015 22:35, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrigs5$stl$4@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.yourBoobs.com/watch?v=zvCuMULut33&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8y33vK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> NIST the place that tried to say jets brought down the Twin Towers were
>>>>> full
>>>>> of complete and udder bullshit as proven by one of the people that
>>>>> helped
>>>>> NIST run their initial test that did not go the way NIST wanted those
>>>>> test
>>>>> to go.  <G>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do please provide a link/cite/quote for that.
>>>
>>> Why t-annoy, when the link was in the exact same post you replied to?
>>> See
>>> above
>>>
>>
>> Error 404
>
> After looking back at the old post it is easily proven that "gilber34"
> <invalid@invalid.com> destroyed that link.  Here is what the link proving
> that NIST was lie after lie after lie should have been.  So now gilber34 can
> be tagged as a link destroy and a defender of BIG LIES.
>

How would he do that?

> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence:
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>


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

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

#516935 — Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links

On 8/25/2015 5:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrip5p$ml$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 25/08/2015 22:35, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrigs5$stl$4@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>>>> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.yourBoobs.com/watch?v=zvCuMULut4433&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8y33vK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

>>>>> NIST the place that tried to say jets brought down the Twin Towers were
>>>>> full
>>>>> of complete and udder bullshit as proven by one of the people that
>>>>> helped
>>>>> NIST run their initial test that did not go the way NIST wanted those
>>>>> test
>>>>> to go.  <G>
>>>>>

>>>> Do please provide a link/cite/quote for that.
>>>
>>> Why t-annoy, when the link was in the exact same post you replied to?
>>> See
>>> above
>>>

>> Error 404
>
> After looking back at the old post it is easily proven that "gilber34"
> <invalid@invalid.com> destroyed that link.  Here is what the link proving
> that NIST was lie after lie after lie should have been.  So now gilber34 can
> be tagged as a link destroy and a defender of BIG LIES.

impossible, but why are you posting links to www.yourBoobs.com ?
Your computer you post with must have a virus or malware.

why are you pushing NIST as evil?

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

they tell you what time it is, are you saying NIST fooled around with 
all the clocks at WTC ?

besides, you sell the BIG LIES.

>
> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence:
>   https://www.youBoobs.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3ircxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H3_11kBDS8W
>

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

#516914

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

Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC),
in <news:AMKdnRU4vpRdQkHInZ2dnUU7-QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly
jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
> news:mrigs5$stl$4@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.yourBoobs.com/watch?v=zvCuMULut33&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8y33vK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

How the towers fell has already been explained to you, that the
viscoelastic dampers, the lack of staggered bolt connections of the
outer truss frame at mechanical room floors, and the inferior spray-on
fireproofing were the key. The building designers didn't account for
the fact that a plane strike would take out sections of outer truss
frame and thus the viscoelastic dampers that held the truss frame from
bowing outward and the floor spars from drooping downward. The truss
frame gave vertical support to the floor spars, the floor spars gave
horizontal support to the truss frame, through those viscoelastic
dampers. Quite literally, a house of cards.

Thus, the floor spars, with no perimeter vertical support from the
destroyed viscoelastic dampers, bowed downward in the area of the
plane strike and the fire melted the viscoelastic dampers in other
areas. The floor spars drooped, putting an uneven load on the central
column, which had been weakened by fire because a change in federal
regulations prohibited the construction crew from continuing to use
asbestos all the way to the top of the building, so they used the
inferior spray-on insulation.

Because the designers had tied all outer truss frame members together
at one floor on the floors that had mechanical rooms (they were
staggered everywhere else), the forces broke that single-line truss
frame connection at those mechanical room floors, bolted together with
only two small 5/8" bolts per truss frame section... thus not just the
floors in the area of the fire were affected... *all* the floor spars
above the top-most mechanical floor below the fire had lost their
vertical support and were thus transferring uneven force to the
central column through the top-hat truss and the outer truss frame
above the mechanical room floor.

The top-hat truss transferred the uneven load to the central column,
magnifying the buckling force the column was experiencing. Once the
central column was heat-weakened enough to exceed its plastic
deformation limit, it slumped (causing the shaking), which ripped even
more viscoelastic dampers loose, which allowed even more floor spars
to bow downward, which ripped even more viscoelastic dampers loose,
etc., etc. as the building fell.

The collapse of the truss frame at the mechanical room floor can be
seen in the videos as the building seems to collapse like an accordion
just after the collapse starts, *below* the area of the fire... that
was a mechanical room floor, where all the truss frames were bolted
together on one floor, rather than being staggered as they were on
other floors. The floor spars failed and drooped, they pulled apart
the viscoelastic dampers, and it all came crashing down.

A bit of extra info about that spray-on insulation... as the fire
rages, it tends to flake off all on its own... that's why it's got a
fire rating, how many hours it can protect the structural steel
underneath. In fact, one of the lessons learned from the fire at 1 New
York Plaza was that the spray-on insulation provided effectively *no*
protection after a short time.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/nyregion/tower-disaster-echoes-lessons-of-earlier-fires.html>
======================================================
A New York City skyscraper burns out of control, fireproofing is
absent or fails, structural steel warps and snaps, floors begin to
collapse, workers in the building die. The date is Aug. 5, 1970. The
skyscraper is called 1 New York Plaza.

"With the old buildings, you know the building's going to hold," said
Neil P. Winberry, a retired New York fire captain. "You've got time to
work." After the city fire code was changed in 1968, allowing a
widespread shift from masonry fireproofing to a light, spray-on
product, Mr. Winberry said, "we could not understand how this was
going to work; we had no faith in it."

Light, spray-on fireproofing, which at some point had been knocked
away, left steel supports for the floors exposed to the blaze. They
twisted and pulled away from their connections, initiating collapses
that stopped only because the concrete slabs of the floors refused to
give way.

No modern fire strikes as strong a resonance with the trade center as
the 19-hour, eight-floor fire at 1 Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia.
Three firefighters died, few compared with the 343 firefighters who
died at the World Trade Center. But just as on Sept. 11, multiple fire
protection systems failed, were overwhelmed or were simply knocked out
of service.

"Perhaps the most striking lesson to be learned from the 1 Meridian
Plaza high-rise fire is what can happen when everything goes wrong,"
said the FEMA report on the fire.

The water supply was inadequate; although the building remained
standing, huge floor beams heated and sagged as much as 36 inches.
======================================================

And the above examples were grid-constructed buildings, much stronger
than the construction of the WTC towers, in both the structural steel
and concrete. Any sagging in the WTC towers would have (did) result in
those viscoelastic dampers tearing free, allowing the floor spars to
droop, and thus exert that uneven force on the central column.

As the building collapses, one can see sections of the truss frame
being ejected from the sides of the buildings, proof that the
viscoelastic dampers had failed, the truss frame had bowed outward as
the building fell, and thus the total load was transferred to the
weakened central column, perpetuating the collapse.

The building designers were warned of just such a scenario by
competent building designers as far back as 1971, but they ignored the
warnings.

Message-ID: <a07468688db77a10dbf968ff5620e4c2@dizum.com>
====================================================
There is a long list of buildings that have had the spray-on
insulation and suffered fire damage resulting in partial or complete
collapse. The McCormick Center, the Sight and Sound Theater, the Kader
Toy Factory in Singapore, the Dogwood Elementary School in Virginia,
the Windsor Tower in Madrid, the Wisma Kosgoro in Jakarta, the Alexis
Nihon Plaza Montreal, One New York Plaza (connection bolts sheared
during fire, causing several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors
to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders),
and several other examples.

Oh look... here's one that got hit with a plane, and had a fire that
resulted in a partial collapse: The Bijlmermeer Apartment Complex in	
Amsterdam Zuidoost, Netherlands.

And the complete list. 22 multi-story buildings from 1970 to 2002 have
collapsed solely from fire damage weakening their structural
integrity... 6 of them being steel-framed buildings, all of those 6
being taller than 20 stories:
<http://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/White_Paper_Historical_Survey_Building_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf>
====================================================

Kook. LOL

>>> NI<SMACKAKOOK!>

> <SMACKAKOOK!>

> Judiciary Hearing on Post-9/11 Air Quality: Weiner's Opening
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsT12hgM-Lw

And that video is about asbestos dust, not radiation. No mention of
radiation was even made in that video, you fucking retard.

Kook. LOL

> Rocky

Now, get to addressing the 18 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:

======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below
the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to
today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that
depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's
*why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al
Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human
history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep
Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.

2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a
nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of
the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused
the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would
have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the
immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized
your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for
dozens of miles radius.

3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's
no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been
from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of
radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the
tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights
that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a
nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how
delusional you are.

4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or
anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>).
They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear
weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation.

5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people
in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed,
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2
MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were
buried.

6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay
byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it
decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any
sort of nuclear chain reaction.

7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it*
*was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical
support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount
of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================

8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to
survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be
approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature
would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?

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

10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were
detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects
were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft.

11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent
down to service those nukes (because now that you know the
neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a
periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire
facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the
technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with
"4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area
the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to
admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33
years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960
to 1840 degree heat?

12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all
1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the
Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your
kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized"
(your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)?

13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC
site on 11 Sep 2001?

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

15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have
tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles
deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC
complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to
detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up
your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which
you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference
was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The
Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).

16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes
(MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your
previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3
nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming
under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in
agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is?
While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps
(radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was
primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any
contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in
place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this
*still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed
"EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where
your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly
head again. LOL

17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your
"34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes
(MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d6f5a7b3f56eeeb6f@dizum.com>))... eventually,
your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the
real city was blown up by
1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes
which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground
MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet
and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC
and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the
fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn
out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every
piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's
*proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL

18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation
byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words
"with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID:
<43acc7488b179f3bfea83ef7076f92b9@dizum.com>).

Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back
on your meds, you delusional loon.
======================================================

There are now 18 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of
physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by
point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp
simple physics.

Kook. LOL

-- 

------------------------------------
Michael Scott Guthrie (aka Rocky)
336-643-6611
6913 Maynard Road
Summerfield, NC 27358-9206

Now that everyone knows who you are, they can get you the psychiatric
help you so desperately need. Perhaps they could call your mother
Paula S. Guthrie, given that you're in your 30's and you still live at
home with mommy... and Grandma Martha. LOL

Your brother Scott certainly won't be happy to know you're
embarrassing the Guthrie family name, how's he gonna find real estate
clients if everyone knows the Guthries are a pack of schizo kooks? LOL

Just how many backwoods redneck hillbillies can fit in one small 1200
sf 3bd/1.5 ba house?! Does RockyRetard share a bedroom with his
brother? Or do they make Grandma Martha sleep on the porch? LOL
------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H) Your brain becoming more and more broken, in just one short day it
moved from G) above to now telling you there are *more* than 34 nukes.
Where does your broken brain stop, Ko0k? Billions of intelligent
nano-nukes covering every metal surface of the twin towers? Robot
"crisis actors" able to withstand the extreme radiation? All of NYC
being blow up, replaced by a CGI that we all are fooled by today? LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================

Kook. LOL

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

#516930

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:59:17 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> So WHO actually checked ?
>>> The Federalies only seemed to see what they wanted to see.
>>>
>>> They completely missed the molten metal,...even though everyone else saw 
>>> it.
>>
>> Everybody else did not see it.
>
>T-annoy you are such an idiot.
>

     If everyone did see it, then you and/or Bast will find providing
the evidence of this very easy. If the claim that every one else saw
it is wrong, or a lie, no evidence can be offered since none can
exist.

>>> I will not say there was proof of a nuclear device,.....I'm just saying
>>> there is no conclusive proof THERE WASN'T a Nuke.
>>
>> If it were a nuke where was the radiation, where were the seismic 
>> signatures?
>
>The EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero and everybody knows that
>

     Presuming for the moment that your claim is true (stop laughing
people, it's just a presumption), where is your evidence that the EPA
offered such a lie?

>The NNSA lied about why First Responders had to wear doimeter badges.  They 
>were told it was to monitor the air quality but it that were true they 
>wouldn't have been allowed to work at ground zero at all becaue of the 
>dangerous toxins there and all the fiberglass in the air.
>

     They were told no such thing. Though you're still free to provide
valid, verifiable evidence that they were.

>NIST the place that tried to say jets brought down the Twin Towers were full 
>of complete and udder bullshit as proven by one of the people that helped 
>NIST run their initial test that did not go the way NIST wanted those test 
>to go.  <G>
>

     Your cite for this is..?

>The USGS obviously removed the ground shaking from before the North Tower 
>was vaporized or the seismic readings would have shown just background noise 
>for 12 seconds.

     Whereas nothing was vaporized, a truth you've helped to prove,
your lie continues to fail.

>
>Now given that 4 government agencies all lied about Ground Zero why not the 
>one in charge of possibly bogus radiation readings too?

     None of the agencies lied. Certainly no evidence has been
presented that they lied. And your claim that they did is very strong
evidence that they did not.

>
>But one thing we do know is nobody was allowed at GZ for 2 days except those 

     This lie of yours has been exposed numerous times. What is the
*specific* reason you keep presenting it when you know it's been
proved a lie?
     Serious question.

>that helped to cover up the holes left by the nukes and then on the 3 day 
>only Iron Workers who were probably assigned to making sure those hole 
>stayed covered.
>
>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/04/gordon-duff-nuclear-911-undenialble/ 
>

     That picture continues to prove your claims wrong, stupid.

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

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

#516759

Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 25/08/2015 14:52, Bast wrote:
>> gilber34 wrote:
>>>>> moron, you think "...the US..." is the only one with a flipping
>>>>> Geiger counter ?
>>>>>
>>>>> No radiation was detected by anybody in NYC then and now.
>>>>
>>>> You are such an idiot.  All you really have to do is see that the
>>>> following does not resemble a "Collapse" or a "Controlled
>>>> Demolition" and since
>>>> DEWs have never been proven to exist that only leaves nukes.
>>>>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>
>>> NO RADIATION
>>>
>>>
>>>> Plain and simple the evidence outweighs the lies and we have evidence
>>>> of not just NIST using lie after lie after lie but the EPA using
>>>> lies and then the fact the US has lied before is more evidence that
>>>> they would do it
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> NO RADIATION DETECTED
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shit, if you can't even face the fact NIST was full of complete and
>>>> udder bullshit when they charged the taxpayers millions for their
>>>> fubar hypotheses that didn't have a single fact supporting it.  See:
>>>
>>> NO RADIATION  your silly kook conspiritcies videos are for idiots and
>>> morons,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence by Ko0k:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.yourBoobs.com/watch?v=zvCuMULut33&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8y33vK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>>>
>>>
>>> all that is totally meaningless and off topic, as there was NO
>>> RADIATION DETECTED then or now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So WHO actually checked ?
>> The Federalies only seemed to see what they wanted to see.
>>
>> They completely missed the molten metal,...even though everyone else
>> saw it.
>
> Everybody else did not see it.
>
>>
>> I will not say there was proof of a nuclear device,.....I'm just saying
>> there is no conclusive proof THERE WASN'T a Nuke.
>>
>
> If it were a nuke where was the radiation, where were the seismic
> signatures?
>
>> And like dynamite, that can take out a mountain side, or be scaled
>> down to make firecrackers for kids.
>> Nukes can be scaled down as well.
>>





What you should be looking at is why seismic events on 9/11 did not match 
anything else.

The video below goes into that and even asks why the collapse of WTC 7 made 
no ground shaking at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qkv3bAFy7s

The buildings didn't fall,....they turned to dust.
Now ask yourself why buildings like that would turn to dust.

....And then the possibility of a small nuke (or several) , starts making a 
lot of sense.

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

#516806

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
 
> What you should be looking at is why seismic events on 9/11 did not match 
> anything else.

Such as what, exactly?

Seismic recordings near, i.e. on the Eastern Seaboard, show background
noise and the very slight distrubances of the building collapes and
the airplane crashes as would be expected by anyone with half a brain.

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

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.

A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.

Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.

Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.

Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
governmental agency.

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

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

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516976

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What you should be looking at is why seismic events on 9/11 did not
>> match anything else.
>
> Such as what, exactly?
>
> Seismic recordings near, i.e. on the Eastern Seaboard, show background
> noise and the very slight distrubances of the building collapes and
> the airplane crashes as would be expected by anyone with half a brain.
>
> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>
> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
> by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
> Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.
>
> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
>
> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
>
> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
>
> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
> governmental agency.
>
> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
>
> <snip remaining kook babble>






Since you deleted the link I provided in my last response
(why would you do that ?)
I'll post it again.

The video below goes into that and even asks why the collapse of WTC 7 made
no ground shaking at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qkv3bAFy7s

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

#516995

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mrk4jp$o5s$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
> Since you deleted the link I provided in my last response
> (why would you do that ?)
> I'll post it again.
>
> The video below goes into that and even asks why the collapse of WTC 7 
> made
> no ground shaking at all.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qkv3bAFy7s

Thanks for the video.  Yes, I read part of that in her book and I'm glad it 
made it to a video.

Neither Tower crashed to the ground.  I like to say most of them floated 
away before they could get to the ground.

Too bad Judy didn't say anything about the ground shaking 12 seconds before 
the North Tower was vaporized because the USGS lost that data for some 
reason.

As for WTC7 the pile of debris was small for a 47 story building so 
something vaporized the rest of it along with part of Fiterman Hall.

Rocky 

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

#517055

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

<snip kook babble>
 
> Neither Tower crashed to the ground.  I like to say most of them floated 
> away before they could get to the ground.

The building collapes were recorded by nearby seismographs, kook.

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

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.

A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.

Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.

Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.

Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
governmental agency.

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

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

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#517147

On 8/26/2015 8:50 AM, Rocky wrote:
>
> Neither Tower crashed to the ground.


LIES.

I like to say most of them floated
> away before they could get to the ground.

LIES

>
> Too bad Judy didn't say anything about the ground shaking 12 seconds before
> the North Tower was vaporized because the USGS lost that data for some
> reason.


LIES
>
> As for WTC7 the pile of debris was small for a 47 story building so
> something vaporized the rest of it along with part of Fiterman Hall.

LIES

>
> Rocky
>
>

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

#517167

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:50:11 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:mrk4jp$o5s$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Since you deleted the link I provided in my last response
>> (why would you do that ?)
>> I'll post it again.
>>
>> The video below goes into that and even asks why the collapse of WTC 7 
>> made no ground shaking at all.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qkv3bAFy7s
>
>Thanks for the video.  Yes, I read part of that in her book and I'm glad it 
>made it to a video.
>
>Neither Tower crashed to the ground.  I like to say most of them floated 
>away before they could get to the ground.
>

     100% of the evidence shows they collapsed. This includes all of
evidence you've offered.

>Too bad Judy didn't say anything about the ground shaking 12 seconds before 
>the North Tower was vaporized because the USGS lost that data for some 
>reason.

     So your claim can't be verified. Isn't that convenient?

>
>As for WTC7 the pile of debris was small for a 47 story building so 
>something vaporized the rest of it along with part of Fiterman Hall.

     It wasn't small to the educated mind.

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

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

#517052

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
 
> Since you deleted the link I provided in my last response
> (why would you do that ?)

Because it is just kook babble.

> I'll post it again.
> 
> The video below goes into that and even asks why the collapse of WTC 7 made
> no ground shaking at all.

The building collapes were recorded by nearby seismographs, kook.

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

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.

A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.

Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.

Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.

Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
governmental agency.

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

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

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#517085 — hah, may be not

that would be interesting;
what did it say, if I don't have to lOOk through it
for hours and hours of yOOtOOby?

do you know the specia status ot building # 7

> > The video below goes into that and even asks why the collapse of WTC 7 made
> > no ground shaking at all.

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

#517166

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:34:02 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> What you should be looking at is why seismic events on 9/11 did not
>>> match anything else.
>>
>> Such as what, exactly?
>>
>> Seismic recordings near, i.e. on the Eastern Seaboard, show background
>> noise and the very slight distrubances of the building collapes and
>> the airplane crashes as would be expected by anyone with half a brain.
>>
>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>>
>> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
>> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
>> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
>> by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
>> Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.
>>
>> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
>> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
>>
>> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
>> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
>>
>> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
>> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
>>
>> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
>> governmental agency.
>>
>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
>>
>> <snip remaining kook babble>
>
>
>
>Since you deleted the link I provided in my last response
>(why would you do that ?)
>I'll post it again.
>
>The video below goes into that and even asks why the collapse of WTC 7 made
>no ground shaking at all.
>

     To say it made none is wrong, of course. But Troofers don't care
about what is right or wrong.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qkv3bAFy7s
>

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

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

#516821

>
> The buildings didn't fall,....they turned to dust.

wrong. they fell, guess you missed that.  But why do you believe they 
turned to dust ?  you believe in the "magic dust ray" ?


> Now ask yourself why buildings like that would turn to dust.

no, you ask yourself that.

>
> ....And then the possibility of a small nuke (or several) , starts making a
> lot of sense.

no they dont, radiation is too big a problem.

a nuke would close at least the lower 1/2 of Manhattan for 200 years.

Got That ?

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

#516977

gilber34 wrote:
>> The buildings didn't fall,....they turned to dust.
>
> wrong. they fell, guess you missed that.  But why do you believe they
> turned to dust ?  you believe in the "magic dust ray" ?
>
>
>> Now ask yourself why buildings like that would turn to dust.
>
> no, you ask yourself that.
>
>>
>> ....And then the possibility of a small nuke (or several) , starts
>> making a lot of sense.
>
> no they dont, radiation is too big a problem.
>
> a nuke would close at least the lower 1/2 of Manhattan for 200 years.
>
> Got That ?






Radiation is not a problem for the feds.
They just raise the "safe" limit, anytime it saves them from having to do 
something.

Look at how they did it after Chrernobyl, and again after Fukishima.
Now you can eat fish that almost glow in the dark, and all it took was a 
stroke of a pen to make it perfectly safe..


You still believe they are looking after your best interests, and saving you 
from the boogie-men, right ? 

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

#516762

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mrhu3l$d6l$2@dont-email.me...
>>
>> They completely missed the molten metal,...even though everyone else saw 
>> it.
>
> Everybody else did not see it.

T-annoy you are a complete imbecile because only the people that didn't know 
what caused that molten metal would get anywhere near it.  DUH

And at least two of them are on record for saying they had heard about the 
molten metal.  And this is some good stuff for you:

Nuclear destruction of the WTC
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

Rocky 

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

#516790 — two

once again, rockyNthemovie,
what was special about building seven

> And at least two of them are on record for saying they had heard about the 
> molten metal.  And this is some good stuff for you:
> 
> Nuclear destruction of the WTC
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y
> 
> Rocky

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

#516848

On 25/08/2015 16:19, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrhu3l$d6l$2@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> They completely missed the molten metal,...even though everyone else saw
>>> it.
>>
>> Everybody else did not see it.
>
> T-annoy you are a complete imbecile because only the people that didn't know
> what caused that molten metal would get anywhere near it.  DUH

So not everybody then, glad you have changed your mind (again)
So the only people that saw the molten metal are people who know nothing 
about molten metal, what a quiant idea.

>
> And at least two of them are on record for saying they had heard about the
> molten metal.  And this is some good stuff for you:
>
So these two people did not see the metal.

> Nuclear destruction of the WTC
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y
>
> Rocky sheeple
>
>


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

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

Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web