Groups > sci.physics > #516082 > unrolled thread

NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence

Started by	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
First post	2015-08-23 09:23 -0500
Last post	2015-08-24 04:05 -0500
Articles	20 on this page of 131 — 13 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.

  NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:23 -0500
    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:29 -0500
      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:38 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:55 +0000
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:23 -0500
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 19:51 +0000
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 22:09 -0500
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 06:15 +0000
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:09 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:08 -0500
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 14:33 -0500
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 14:42 -0500
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:51 -0700
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 16:05 -0500
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 15:13 -0700
                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 17:54 -0500
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:08 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:22 +0000
        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:54 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 19:14 +0000
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:39 -0700
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 16:17 -0500
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 21:30 +0000
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 15:08 -0700
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 18:00 -0500
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 00:05 +0000
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 23:16 +0100
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:04 -0500
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:03 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 23:42 +0200
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 17:12 -0500
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-24 01:21 +0200
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 00:06 +0000
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-24 13:28 -0400
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 12:45 -0500
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 17:54 +0000
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-25 05:41 +0200
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-25 11:05 -0400
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-25 20:53 +0200
                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-25 15:51 -0400
                      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 03:33 +0200
                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 07:47 -0400
                          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (FNN stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 08:34 -0500
                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (FNN stupid) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 09:55 -0400
                              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 09:36 -0500
                                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 11:00 -0400
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 15:43 -0500
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 16:52 -0400
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 14:14 -0700
                                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:00 +0000
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:12 -0400
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 21:24 +0000
                                      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:52 -0400
                                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 22:15 +0000
                                          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 19:19 -0400
                                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 23:52 +0000
                                              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-27 04:12 -0400
                                                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 17:04 +0000
                                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 13:11 -0500
                                          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Note 4 jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 09:25 -0500
                                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Note 4 jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 17:05 +0000
                                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Note 4 jim) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 12:45 -0500
                                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Note 4 jim) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 20:04 -0500
                                              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Note 4 jim) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-28 11:30 -0400
                                                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Note 4 jim) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:39 -0500
                                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Note 4 jim) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-28 23:16 -0400
                                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-26 18:29 -0400
                                          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 19:29 -0400
                                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-27 09:48 -0400
                                          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (NORAD lied) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 09:19 -0500
                                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (NORAD lied) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 10:34 -0500
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 16:26 -0500
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 21:40 +0000
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Fakery is stupid) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 04:47 +0200
                                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (Fakery is stupid) benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:01 -0400
                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (FNN stupid) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 19:08 +0200
                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (FNN stupid) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:27 -0500
                              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (FNN stupid) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-27 10:00 -0700
                                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence  (FNN stupid) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 17:13 +0000
                                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 16:12 -0500
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 16:26 -0500
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:22 +0000
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 16:42 -0500
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:54 -0700
                                      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 17:04 -0500
                                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 15:13 -0700
                                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 23:05 +0000
                                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 %) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 23:52 -0500
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:51 +0000
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 06:11 +0200
                                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 08:55 -0500
                                      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 19:02 +0200
                                      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 17:58 +0000
                                      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 23:53 -0500
                                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is worthlesss) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 22:06 -0700
                                        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( proving FNN is   worthlesss) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-29 08:49 +0200
                                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence ( 2 je suis) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 21:05 +0100
                          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 22:29 +0200
                            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-26 16:42 -0400
                              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-27 05:43 +0200
                    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:10 -0500
                      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 19:27 +0200
      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 20:49 +0200
        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 17:34 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-24 02:05 +0200
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 00:08 +0000
      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:05 -0500
        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:12 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 20:23 +0000
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 14:35 -0700
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 21:03 -0500
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 19:09 -0700
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 21:36 -0500
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-24 07:02 +0200
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 06:17 +0000
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 02:37 +0000
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:07 -0500
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 23:15 +0100
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:06 -0500
    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:19 +0000
      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:57 -0500
        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 19:16 +0000
        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:35 -0700
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:57 -0500
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 21:32 +0000
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 04:05 -0500

Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

#516082 — NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 09:23 -0500
Subject	NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
Message-ID	<yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com>

NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs

Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of the 
Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky

BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#516084

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 09:29 -0500
Message-ID	<AqCdnRL7XZRJRUTInZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#516082

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message 
news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>
> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of 
> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Rocky
>
> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from 
broadcast to broadcast so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos 
could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make very 
little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by the 
low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.

Rocky

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

#516128

From	Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com>
Date	2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
Message-ID	<mrcu9v$squ$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#516084

On 23/08/2015 15:29, Rocky wrote:
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message
> news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>
>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of
>> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>> Rocky
>>
>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>
> BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from
> broadcast to broadcast so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos
> could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make very
> little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by the
> low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.

But you have said in another thread that the seismic readings were suspect.

>
> Rocky Sheeple
>
>

It was changed from 'broadcast' to 'broadcast', how quaint.

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

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

#516189

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 13:38 -0500
Message-ID	<jd2dnesHusJZj0fInZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#516128

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mrcu9v$squ$3@dont-email.me...
> On 23/08/2015 15:29, Rocky wrote:
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>>
>>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of
>>> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>>
>>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>
>> BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from
>> broadcast to broadcast so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos
>> could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make 
>> very
>> little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by 
>> the
>> low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.
>
> But you have said in another thread that the seismic readings were 
> suspect.

For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for the 
alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only a 
very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading 
could be too high instead of way too low.

The fact remains the playlist above can be used to prove that NIST lied 
about every part of their study because no part of their bullshit was 
supported by real life.

And given that NIST gave us compete and udder bullshit why shouldn't other 
government agencies give us complete and udder bullshit about 9/11 too?

Rocky

BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

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

#516203

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2015-08-23 18:55 +0000
Message-ID	<oihpac-qv4.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#516189

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

> For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for the 
> alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only a 
> very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading 
> could be too high instead of way too low.

All the seismic readings all over the planet are totally consistant
with four airplane crashes and two building collapses, 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 that rational people
would expect from such events.

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.

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]

#516219

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 14:23 -0500
Message-ID	<oJGdnROGGOLJgEfInZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#516203

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:oihpac-qv4.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for 
>> the
>> alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only 
>> a
>> very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading
>> could be too high instead of way too low.
>
> All the seismic readings all over the planet are totally consistant
> with four airplane crashes and two building collapses, kook.

And yet they are not consistent with videos taken at Ground Zero that show 
the North Tower shaking like mad about 12 seconds before it was vaporized? 
Weird.

And do not forget since the truth seekers can prove NIST lied and lied and 
lied and lied why should we believe any government agency about 9/11?  See:

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

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

#516233

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2015-08-23 19:51 +0000
Message-ID	<rrkpac-ka5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#516219

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

> And yet they are not consistent with videos taken at Ground Zero that show 
> the North Tower shaking like mad about 12 seconds before it was vaporized? 

Videos do not record seismic data, 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 that rational people
would expect from such events.

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]

#516254

From	Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com>
Date	2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
Message-ID	<mrdajl$hn4$7@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#516219

On 23/08/2015 20:23, Rocky wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:oihpac-qv4.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for
>>> the
>>> alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only
>>> a
>>> very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading
>>> could be too high instead of way too low.
>>
>> All the seismic readings all over the planet are totally consistant
>> with four airplane crashes and two building collapses, kook.
>
> And yet they are not consistent with videos taken at Ground Zero that show
> the North Tower shaking like mad about 12 seconds before it was vaporized?
> Weird.
>

What readings would you expect from the TT crashing to the ground?

> And do not forget since the truth seekers can prove NIST lied and lied and
> lied and lied why should we believe any government agency about 9/11?  See:
>
> The playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>   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]

#516359

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 22:09 -0500
Message-ID	<3OCdnb-u2vCRFkfInZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#516254

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mrdajl$hn4$7@dont-email.me...
> On 23/08/2015 20:23, Rocky wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:oihpac-qv4.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for
>>>> the
>>>> alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove 
>>>> only
>>>> a
>>>> very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that 
>>>> reading
>>>> could be too high instead of way too low.
>>>
>>> All the seismic readings all over the planet are totally consistant
>>> with four airplane crashes and two building collapses, kook.
>>
>> And yet they are not consistent with videos taken at Ground Zero that 
>> show
>> the North Tower shaking like mad about 12 seconds before it was 
>> vaporized?
>> Weird.
>>
>
> What readings would you expect from the TT crashing to the ground?

WTF?  Why did you move the goalpost?

I was talking about the seismic readings before the North Tower started to 
fall when it shook for a few seconds and then nothing for 12 seconds and 
then you change the subject to after the TT landed.  Please stay on the 
subject you clown.

Here, this video will help you see what I'm talking about that the seismic 
readings never recorded and yet people talked about the ground shaking 
before the North Tower was vaporized at a level that is comparable to a 5.5 
and not a 2.3.

9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. Visible shaking 12 seconds 
before collapse
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA

And there is something else strange in that video.  The destruction stays in 
one place while the top of the towers comes down so the top part wasn't 
crushing the bottom part of the building the top part was really crushing 
itself first so where did all the weight come from to crush the bottom of 
the Twin Towers?  And then why didn't it end up at the base of the Twin 
Towers?  <G>

>> And do not forget since the truth seekers can prove NIST lied and lied 
>> and
>> lied and lied why should we believe any government agency about 9/11? 
>> See:
>>
>> The playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

Rocky

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

#516411

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2015-08-24 06:15 +0000
Message-ID	<ldpqac-n51.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#516359

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

> I was talking about the seismic readings before the North Tower started to 
> fall when it shook for a few seconds and then nothing for 12 seconds and 
> then you change the subject to after the TT landed.  Please stay on the 
> subject you clown.

The seismic reading are totally consistant with a building collapse,
you babbling kook. That the building shook before collapsing is to
be expected, you babbling 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]

#516611

From	Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com>
Date	2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
Message-ID	<mrg17b$llc$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#516359

On 24/08/2015 04:09, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrdajl$hn4$7@dont-email.me...
>> On 23/08/2015 20:23, Rocky wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:oihpac-qv4.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for
>>>>> the
>>>>> alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove
>>>>> only
>>>>> a
>>>>> very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that
>>>>> reading
>>>>> could be too high instead of way too low.
>>>>
>>>> All the seismic readings all over the planet are totally consistant
>>>> with four airplane crashes and two building collapses, kook.
>>>
>>> And yet they are not consistent with videos taken at Ground Zero that
>>> show
>>> the North Tower shaking like mad about 12 seconds before it was
>>> vaporized?
>>> Weird.
>>>
>>
>> What readings would you expect from the TT crashing to the ground?
>
> WTF?  Why did you move the goalpost?
>
> I was talking about the seismic readings before the North Tower started to
> fall when it shook for a few seconds and then nothing for 12 seconds and
> then you change the subject to after the TT landed.  Please stay on the
> subject you clown.

So are you trying to tell us that a shaking building would give no 
readings, how quaint.

>
> Here, this video will help you see what I'm talking about that the seismic
> readings never recorded and yet people talked about the ground shaking
> before the North Tower was vaporized at a level that is comparable to a 5.5
> and not a 2.3.
>
> 9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. Visible shaking 12 seconds
> before collapse
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA
>
> And there is something else strange in that video.  The destruction stays in
> one place while the top of the towers comes down so the top part wasn't
> crushing the bottom part of the building the top part was really crushing
> itself first so where did all the weight come from to crush the bottom of
> the Twin Towers?  And then why didn't it end up at the base of the Twin
> Towers?  <G>
>

Oh I know the answer to that, the weight came from the parts of the 
building above.

>>> And do not forget since the truth seekers can prove NIST lied and lied
>>> and
>>> lied and lied why should we believe any government agency about 9/11?
>>> See:
>>>
>>> The playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>
> Rocky sheeple
>
>


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

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

#516390

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-08-24 04:09 -0500
Message-ID	<8pnltadeqjdm3qv7pmc3fmfaj6gbgk5gsh@4ax.com>
In reply to	#516219

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:23:40 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>news:oihpac-qv4.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for 
>>> the
>>> alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only 
>>> a
>>> very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading
>>> could be too high instead of way too low.
>>
>> All the seismic readings all over the planet are totally consistant
>> with four airplane crashes and two building collapses, kook.
>
>And yet they are not consistent with videos taken at Ground Zero that show 
>the North Tower shaking like mad about 12 seconds before it was vaporized? 
>Weird.
>

     But it wasn't vaporized. You've helped to prove this.

>And do not forget since the truth seekers can prove NIST lied and lied and 
>lied and lied why should we believe any government agency about 9/11? 

     That you claim they lied is very strong evidence that they did
not.

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

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

#516212

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-08-23 14:08 -0500
Message-ID	<l56kta54cjqaefutis65mmnduboahqutie@4ax.com>
In reply to	#516189

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:38:34 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
>news:mrcu9v$squ$3@dont-email.me...
>> On 23/08/2015 15:29, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>>>
>>>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of
>>>> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>>
>>>> Rocky
>>>>
>>>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>>
>>> BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from
>>> broadcast to broadcast so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos
>>> could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make 
>>> very
>>> little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by 
>>> the
>>> low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.
>>
>> But you have said in another thread that the seismic readings were 
>> suspect.
>
>For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for the 
>alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only a 
>very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading 
>could be too high instead of way too low.
>

     2.3 is a reasonable reading.

>The fact remains the playlist above can be used to prove that NIST lied 
>about every part of their study because no part of their bullshit was 
>supported by real life.

     But it doesn't prove anything of the sort.

>
>And given that NIST gave us compete and udder bullshit why shouldn't other 
>government agencies give us complete and udder bullshit about 9/11 too?
>
>Rocky
>
>BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W

     I've not watched all of the videos, but what I have watched
proves your claim wrong.

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

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

#516225

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 14:33 -0500
Message-ID	<gqqdneiZFscHgkfInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#516212

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:l56kta54cjqaefutis65mmnduboahqutie@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:38:34 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>
>     I've not watched all of the videos, but what I have watched
> proves your claim wrong.

And your SOP is to say absolute bullshit without an counter issue.

Don't forget if the heat caused the trusses to bow they would have pushed 
the outside walls out and not in.  DUH.

And there was so much metal in those Towers they could have easily absorbed 
the heat from a lot of jet fuel.

And there wasn't enough jet fuel to damage the lower levels of the Twin 
Towers so why did they fail at lightening speed?

And above all why did NIST use statements that they could not support in 
real life so they resorted to computer cartoons instead?  <G>

Fact is NIST is one big time liar and you haven't been able to say one thing 
that NIST said that you can support in real life.  <G>

Rocky

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

#516226

From	gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2015-08-23 14:42 -0500
Message-ID	<mrd7mj$jg9$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#516225

On 8/23/2015 2:33 PM, Rocky wrote:




  Ko0k !!   QUacK !!!

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

#516267

From	je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where>
Date	2015-08-23 13:51 -0700
Message-ID	<charlie-gordon1492-8181E0.13513223082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
In reply to	#516225

In article <gqqdneiZFscHgkfInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> Don't forget if the heat caused the trusses to bow they would have pushed 
> the outside walls out and not in.  DUH.

No. Watch a bow bow. When a bow is drawn the tips approach each other. As steel 
heats it expands, but I expect *you* to do the calculations showing coefficient 
expansion is greater than reduced horizontal displacement due to increasing 
curvature under gravity.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

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

#516279

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 16:05 -0500
Message-ID	<hOSdnYsdbayrqEfInZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#516267

"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message 
news:charlie-gordon1492-8181E0.13513223082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> In article <gqqdneiZFscHgkfInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't forget if the heat caused the trusses to bow they would have pushed
>> the outside walls out and not in.  DUH.
>
> No. Watch a bow bow. When a bow is drawn the tips approach each other.

But that requires a force opposed to the bowing to get it to bow.

Here, look at it a different way.  If the trusses between the core columns 
and the outside wall lengthened by heat would that pull the outside wall in 
or push it out?

It would push the walls out and in the video it shows them being pulled in 
after the radio tower started to fall.

So both those together required that the internal supports give way instead 
then there would be enough strength to pull the outside walls in and not 
before.  <G>

Just watch the videos below you clown.

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

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

#516307

From	je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where>
Date	2015-08-23 15:13 -0700
Message-ID	<charlie-gordon1492-7B9116.15134423082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
In reply to	#516279

In article <hOSdnYsdbayrqEfInZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message 
> news:charlie-gordon1492-8181E0.13513223082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> > In article <gqqdneiZFscHgkfInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't forget if the heat caused the trusses to bow they would have pushed
> >> the outside walls out and not in.  DUH.
> >
> > No. Watch a bow bow. When a bow is drawn the tips approach each other.
> 
> But that requires a force opposed to the bowing to get it to bow.

Yes. And trusses on earth have weight. Actually the whole point of trusses is to 
store gravitational potential energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutJLb-c0vs

> Here, look at it a different way.  If the trusses between the core columns 
> and the outside wall lengthened by heat would that pull the outside wall in 
> or push it out?

This is your explanation: you do the calculation. Show the thermal expansion is 
greater than the sag from the force of gravity.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

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

#516317

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-08-23 17:54 -0500
Message-ID	<b7idnYKZC_hT00fInZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#516307

"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message 
news:charlie-gordon1492-7B9116.15134423082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> In article <hOSdnYsdbayrqEfInZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message
>> news:charlie-gordon1492-8181E0.13513223082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>> > In article <gqqdneiZFscHgkfInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Don't forget if the heat caused the trusses to bow they would have 
>> >> pushed
>> >> the outside walls out and not in.  DUH.
>> >
>> > No. Watch a bow bow. When a bow is drawn the tips approach each other.
>>
>> But that requires a force opposed to the bowing to get it to bow.
>
> Yes. And trusses on earth have weight. Actually the whole point of trusses 
> is to
> store gravitational potential energy.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutJLb-c0vs
>
>> Here, look at it a different way.  If the trusses between the core 
>> columns
>> and the outside wall lengthened by heat would that pull the outside wall 
>> in
>> or push it out?
>
> This is your explanation: you do the calculation. Show the thermal 
> expansion is
> greater than the sag from the force of gravity.

Just watch the videos below you clown and then comment because you have 
proven already you don't know what is in the videos.

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

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

#516387

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-08-24 04:08 -0500
Message-ID	<2nnltadf96eko4k049ik926o375k08urei@4ax.com>
In reply to	#516225

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:33:22 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>>>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:mrcu9v$squ$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 23/08/2015 15:29, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains of
>>>>>> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
>>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from
>>>>> broadcast to broadcast so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos
>>>>> could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make 
>>>>> very little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by 
>>>>> the low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.
>>>>
>>>> But you have said in another thread that the seismic readings were 
>>>> suspect.
>>>
>>>For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for the 
>>>alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only a 
>>>very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading 
>>>could be too high instead of way too low.
>>
>>     2.3 is a reasonable reading.
>>


     Rocky?


>>>The fact remains the playlist above can be used to prove that NIST lied 
>>>about every part of their study because no part of their bullshit was 
>>>supported by real life.
>>
>>     But it doesn't prove anything of the sort.
>>


     Rocky?


>>>And given that NIST gave us compete and udder bullshit why shouldn't other 
>>>government agencies give us complete and udder bullshit about 9/11 too?
>>>
>>>BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>
>>     I've not watched all of the videos, but what I have watched
>>proves your claim wrong.
>
>And your SOP is to say absolute bullshit without an counter issue.
>

     To the educated mind, the truth cannot be bullshit. YMMV, of
course.

>Don't forget if the heat caused the trusses to bow they would have pushed 
>the outside walls out and not in.  DUH.
>

     I await your valid, verifiable evidence for this claim. If, as
you will soon prove, you're lying, you'll offer only avoidance, if you
offer anything at all. <G>

>And there was so much metal in those Towers they could have easily absorbed 
>the heat from a lot of jet fuel.
>

     I await your valid, verifiable evidence for this claim. If, as
you will soon prove, you're lying, you'll offer only avoidance, if you
offer anything at all. <G>

>And there wasn't enough jet fuel to damage the lower levels of the Twin 
>Towers so why did they fail at lightening speed?
>

     They didn't. Lightning travels very near the speed of light. The
towers didn't collapse anywhere near the speed of light. DUH.

>And above all why did NIST use statements that they could not support in 
>real life so they resorted to computer cartoons instead?  <G>

     I await your valid, verifiable evidence for this claim. If, as
you will soon prove, you're lying, you'll offer only avoidance, if you
offer anything at all.

>
>Fact is NIST is one big time liar and you haven't been able to say one thing 
>that NIST said that you can support in real life.  <G>
>

     You've supported the bulk of my claims. The best part is, unless
you're going to claim you were lying, you have to accept the evidence
you presented.
     How's that whole ignoring my posts thing working for you?

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

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

Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

csiph-web

NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence

Contents

#516082 — NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence

#516084

#516128

#516189

#516203

#516219

#516233

#516254

#516359

#516411

#516611

#516390

#516212

#516225

#516226

#516267

#516279

#516307

#516317

#516387