Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #570023 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 52 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 07:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 17:55 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-19 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 15:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 18:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 17:36 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes |
| Message-ID | <aMOdnTQPAPKf5JDKnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a few >>>>> hundred feet away. >>>> >>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there was >>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at the >>>> World >>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have been >>>> for >>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone down >>>> and >>>> ended up floating away instead. >>> >>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >> >> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. > > You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing unusual? Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other buildings that have collapsed because of jet fuel fires. ROTFLMAO As a matter of fact try to find one building that has ever been vaporized by jet fuel before or after 9/11. ROTFLMAO Jet fuel doesn't leave this behind but nuclear demolitions do: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570023 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a few >>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>> >>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there was >>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at the >>>>> World >>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have been >>>>> for >>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone down >>>>> and >>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>> >>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>> >>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >> >> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing unusual? > > Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other Posted many times before by many people. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 15:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RLqdnTXv5YywNpPKnZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570034 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a few >>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>> >>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there >>>>>> was >>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at >>>>>> the >>>>>> World >>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have been >>>>>> for >>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone down >>>>>> and >>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>> >>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>> >>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>> unusual? >> >> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other > > Posted many times before by many people. Bullshit because the seismic reading for when WTC7 was vaporized have never been posted on this NG other than by me. DUH And the seismic reading for WTC1 and WTC2 have never been compared to the destruction of other buildings except by me. And again, jet fuel or controlled demolitions do not leave "Surviving Corners" but MRR nukes can and did. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570249 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a few >>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> World >>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have been >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone down >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>> >>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>> >>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>> unusual? >>> >>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >> >> Posted many times before by many people. > > Bullshit Nope and noted by many other people.' -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 07:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <s72dnQksr-G4FpLKnZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570272 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a >>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone >>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>> >>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>> unusual? >>>> >>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>> >>> Posted many times before by many people. >> >> Bullshit > > Nope and noted by many other people.' BULLSHIT because you have never posted the seismic reading for when WTC7 was vaporized and you have never compared the seismic readings taken when WTC1 and WTC2 were partially vaporize to any o other building collapses or a jackhammer. There are you happy now you have got me to repeat myself about a dozen times if not more already. And what you and NIST can not explain: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570393 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a >>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone >>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>>> unusual? >>>>> >>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>>> >>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>> >>> Bullshit >> >> Nope and noted by many other people.' > > BULLSHIT Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Sr2dnWrsJ9THn43KnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570465 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a >>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone >>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>> >>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>>>> >>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>> >>>> Bullshit >>> >>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >> >> BULLSHIT > > Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS AND YOU NEVER EVEN TRIED TO POST HOW LITTLE THE GROUND SHOOK WHEN WTC7 WAS PARTIALLY VAPORIZED. Now why do you keep tying to lie about what you didn't do? Oh, and something NIST can not explain with their "Global Collapse" bullshit: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570519 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a >>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove >>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings >>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have >>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone >>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>>>>> >>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit >>>> >>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>> >>> BULLSHIT >> >> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. > > YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 08:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bbOdnUuwwPGkdo3KnZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570543 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone >>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit >>>>> >>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>> >>>> BULLSHIT >>> >>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >> >> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS > > Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570692 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove >>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone >>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>> >>>>> BULLSHIT >>>> >>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>> >>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >> >> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. > > Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but it has been posted many times. Or you could do a google search. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 22:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UMudnXyGseIXlY7KnZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570774 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>> >>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>> >>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>> >>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>> >>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >> >> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. > > Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? > > Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but > it has been posted many times. > > Or you could do a google search. I know what was posted and what was not posted. You are the one with your head in the sand. What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison of the destruction of other buildings. WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID? Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 05:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #571102 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing >>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>> >>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>> >>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>> >>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >> >> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >> >> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >> it has been posted many times. >> >> Or you could do a google search. > > What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison of > the destruction of other buildings. Sure it was. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 02:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Q7qdneBggab83I7KnZ2dnUU7-dHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571135 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>> >>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>> >>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>> >>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>> >>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>> >>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>> it has been posted many times. >>> >>> Or you could do a google search. >> >> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison of >> the destruction of other buildings. > > Sure it was. THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT TOO. And I've dealt with LIARS like you that will lie and lie and lie even after proven to be liars. Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground are comparable to much much smaller buildings and the seismic record for when WTC7 hit the ground is comparable to a jackhammer. Those three buildings were obviously vaporized before they could crash to the ground and the following photo shows they were vaporized before they could crush the "Surviving Corners." http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg The only person you are really lying to is yourself. And don't forget MRR nukes don't make as much seismic activity as American made nukes do. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #571154 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>> >>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>> >>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>> >>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>> >>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>> it has been posted many times. >>>> >>>> Or you could do a google search. >>> >>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison of >>> the destruction of other buildings. >> >> Sure it was. > > Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground are Exactly what one would expect. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JMOdnaRSSbHSPIvKnZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571194 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>> >>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>> >>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>> >>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison >>>> of >>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>> >>> Sure it was. >> >> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >> are > > Exactly what one would expect. So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as a Jackhammer? Wow? Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #571679 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>> >>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a comparison >>>>> of >>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>> >>>> Sure it was. >>> >>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >>> are >> >> Exactly what one would expect. > > So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as a > Jackhammer? Wow? Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XqSdnbmzB-swiITKnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571685 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>> >>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>> comparison >>>>>> of >>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>> >>>>> Sure it was. >>>> >>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >>>> are >>> >>> Exactly what one would expect. >> >> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as >> a >> Jackhammer? Wow? > > Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 so where was WTC7's "energy?" 47 floors of building and it hits the ground with the same amount of energy and force as a jackhammer. ROTFLMAO Somoehing is clearly wrong with your seismic readings and Michaels BULLSHIT about how debris ended up in the basement without crushing the "Surviving Corners." http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572153 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, but >>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>> >>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground >>>>> are >>>> >>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>> >>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy as >>> a >>> Jackhammer? Wow? >> >> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. > > There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at best. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m6OdnXC7BLb6vITKnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572160 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>> ground >>>>>> are >>>>> >>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>> >>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>> as >>>> a >>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>> >>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >> >> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 > > Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at best. And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? Are you that st00pid? You are insane and the following is not supported by NIST's "Global Collapse" theory but the fact the Twin Towers were vaporized before they could crush the "Surviving Corners" where over a dozen people survived. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <evmnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572167 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:3finuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:maliuc-2vi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:jatcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:htibuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:2d18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:80h5uc-r65.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:r525uc-nl3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7an2uc-67p.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:lob0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred feet away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Posted many times before by many people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope and noted by many other people.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you just didn't want to acknowlege it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU NEVER DID A COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Such was done in the text that accompanied the data. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Funny how you don't have a message ID to support your bullshit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why in the world would I keep track of message IDs to kooks? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also the first time such was posted is well over a year ago now, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> it has been posted many times. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or you could do a google search. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What was NOT posted was the seismic readings for WTC7 and a >>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the destruction of other buildings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure it was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the >>>>>>> ground >>>>>>> are >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>> >>>>> So you expected WTC7 to hit the ground with the same force and energy >>>>> as >>>>> a >>>>> Jackhammer? Wow? >>>> >>>> Nope, that is your delusion that jackhammers have any energy. >>> >>> There were no S-waves or P-waves from WTC7 >> >> Of course there wasn't; to expect them would be extremely stupid at best. > > And you are also saying that the surface waves of WTC7's destruction were > supposed to be comparable to a jackhammer too? Of course not; that would be stupid, much like your including the same link eleven times. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web