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

Groups > sci.physics > #516080 > unrolled thread

Re: Nukes

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.

Contents

  Re: Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 09:17 -0500
    Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
      Re: Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:46 -0500
        Re: Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 18:53 +0000
          Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:12 -0500
            Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:18 -0500
              Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:11 -0500
        Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 21:33 +0100
          Re: Nukes ( Tony has no proof of a collapse ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 02:47 -0500
            Re: Rocky's imagined nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-07 15:14 +0000
            Re: Nukes ( Tony has no proof of a collapse ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 18:46 +0100
        Re: Nukes je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:33 -0700
          2 je suis charly (was: Nukes) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:53 -0500
            Re: 2 je suis charly (was: Nukes) je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 14:32 -0700
              Re: 2 je suis charly (was: Nukes) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 16:59 -0500
                depleted uranium (u-238 ... or U235? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 14:18 -0700
            Re: 2 je suis charly Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 23:16 +0100
            Re: 2 je suis charly gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:14 -0500
    Re: Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 17:18 +0000
      Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:19 -0500
        Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 23:47 +0100
          Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:15 -0500
            Re: Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 23:51 +0100
      Re: Nukes collapse videos could be all bogus "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 17:00 -0500
        Re: Nukes collapse videos could be all bogus "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 -0500
        Re: Nukes collapse videos could be all bogus noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:21 -0700
    Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 15:37 -0500
      Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:21 -0500
        Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:18 -0500
          Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:17 -0500
            Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 20:12 -0500
              Re: Re: Nukes Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-26 04:11 -0500
                Re: Nukes gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-07 19:00 -0500
                Re: Re: Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 19:41 -0500
                  Re: Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 03:53 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#516080 — Re: Nukes

"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1ckjta513j3ih5ijdv9l5dnq6sq3ql9ph8@4ax.com...
> Why is Israel's Nuclear Arsenal Not Mentioned in Iran Deal Debate?
> McClatchy
> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31470917.html
>
> There's one major issue that President Barack Obama, his supporters
> and his critics assiduously have avoided as they battle over the deal
> designed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons: Israel's own
> nuclear arsenal. An open secret for decades, the Israeli stockpile is
> estimated at some 80-100 warheads, though Israel refuses to confirm or
> deny its existence under a policy of deliberate ambiguity ... Yet as
> the sides joust over the Iran deal's impact on Israel's security,
> Obama has been silent on the Israeli arsenal as a potential deterrent
> against Iranian cheating on the accord ... To some experts, the fierce
> debate over whether the Iran deal endangers Israel or makes it safer
> will be incomplete and misleading as long as it skirts the Middle
> East's only nuclear arms stockpile.

ROTFLMAO because you are forgetting one thing.  Israel could be blackmailing 
us.  Israel could be telling Obama if he mentions their nukes they will 
prove the Twin Towers were nuked.

And the following photo is a good start because even NIST could not explain 
how a collapse initiation could lead to something that looks more like a 
nuclear detonation or two than (NIST words) "a Global Collapse."
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Oh, and I just saw this too:

NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: Step 1
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs

Rocky 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#516127

On 23/08/2015 15:17, Rocky wrote:
> "Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1ckjta513j3ih5ijdv9l5dnq6sq3ql9ph8@4ax.com...
>> Why is Israel's Nuclear Arsenal Not Mentioned in Iran Deal Debate?
>> McClatchy
>> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31470917.html
>>
>> There's one major issue that President Barack Obama, his supporters
>> and his critics assiduously have avoided as they battle over the deal
>> designed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons: Israel's own
>> nuclear arsenal. An open secret for decades, the Israeli stockpile is
>> estimated at some 80-100 warheads, though Israel refuses to confirm or
>> deny its existence under a policy of deliberate ambiguity ... Yet as
>> the sides joust over the Iran deal's impact on Israel's security,
>> Obama has been silent on the Israeli arsenal as a potential deterrent
>> against Iranian cheating on the accord ... To some experts, the fierce
>> debate over whether the Iran deal endangers Israel or makes it safer
>> will be incomplete and misleading as long as it skirts the Middle
>> East's only nuclear arms stockpile.
>
> ROTFLMAO because you are forgetting one thing.  Israel could be blackmailing
> us.  Israel could be telling Obama if he mentions their nukes they will
> prove the Twin Towers were nuked.

Could be, could be??

>
> And the following photo is a good start because even NIST could not explain
> how a collapse initiation could lead to something that looks more like a
> nuclear detonation or two than (NIST words) "a Global Collapse."
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

What nuclear detonation are you comparing it to?

> Oh, and I just saw this too:
>
> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: Step 1
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>
> Rocky sheeple
>
>


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

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

#516193

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mrcu9r$squ$2@dont-email.me...
> On 23/08/2015 15:17, Rocky wrote:
>> "Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1ckjta513j3ih5ijdv9l5dnq6sq3ql9ph8@4ax.com...
>>> Why is Israel's Nuclear Arsenal Not Mentioned in Iran Deal Debate?
>>> McClatchy
>>> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31470917.html
>>>
>>> There's one major issue that President Barack Obama, his supporters
>>> and his critics assiduously have avoided as they battle over the deal
>>> designed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons: Israel's own
>>> nuclear arsenal. An open secret for decades, the Israeli stockpile is
>>> estimated at some 80-100 warheads, though Israel refuses to confirm or
>>> deny its existence under a policy of deliberate ambiguity ... Yet as
>>> the sides joust over the Iran deal's impact on Israel's security,
>>> Obama has been silent on the Israeli arsenal as a potential deterrent
>>> against Iranian cheating on the accord ... To some experts, the fierce
>>> debate over whether the Iran deal endangers Israel or makes it safer
>>> will be incomplete and misleading as long as it skirts the Middle
>>> East's only nuclear arms stockpile.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because you are forgetting one thing.  Israel could be 
>> blackmailing
>> us.  Israel could be telling Obama if he mentions their nukes they will
>> prove the Twin Towers were nuked.
>
> Could be, could be??

Of course.  You have seen the remains of Ground Zero and if you watched the 
following video you would know why those remains support two NCDs.

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>> And the following photo is a good start because even NIST could not 
>> explain
>> how a collapse initiation could lead to something that looks more like a
>> nuclear detonation or two than (NIST words) "a Global Collapse."
>>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>
> What nuclear detonation are you comparing it to?

Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD and Judy Wood could 
not prove it was a DEW so Dimitri Khalezov easily wins with the following 
video because he was the only person to address what was left on the ground 
at Ground Zero and why it was called Ground Zero.  <G>

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I


>> Oh, and I just saw this too:
>>
>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: Step 1
>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs

Oddly enough it is SOP for you to skip over evidence that proves not only 
did the media lie to us but so did NIST.

Rocky 

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

#516202

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> Of course.  You have seen the remains of Ground Zero and if you watched the 
> following video you would know why those remains support two NCDs.

One doesn't have to watch any video to know what happend, kook.

The facts are some airliners were hijacked.

Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires
which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed
almost 2 hours later.

One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the
western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

Everything else is kook babble.

That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble.

That there is missing rubble is kook babble.

That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble.

That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble.

That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear
devices is kook babble.

That there was an EMP is kook babble.

That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not
seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble.

That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything
to do with what happened is kook babble.

That the scene was radioactive is kook babble.

That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima
or Nagasaki is kook babble.

That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear
is kook babble.

That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance 
and still be expected to work is kook babble.

That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear
bombs is kook babble.

That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the
airplanes hit the towers is kook babble.

That all the video was CGI is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the
windows is kook babble.

That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble.

That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion
is kook babble.

There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to
ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble.

Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble.

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

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the 
collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon
and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected.

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

Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is
kook babble.

Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble.


<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#516619

CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have 
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. 

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?


The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is 
compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most 
sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies
that make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely
intercepts off course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds,
especially near such security-sensitive areas as New York City and the
Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial
jets were out of communication and flying towards known terrorist
targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of these planes was intercepted
by NORAD!  We were told that NORAD only looks for aircraft coming from
outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given the history of
NORAD's routine interceptions!


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented 
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity 
alone. 

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!


So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line


It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane,  also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.  

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

 No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...



www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

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

#516682

On 8/24/2015 4:12 PM, Topaz wrote:
<snip crap>

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

#516881

         There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

       Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

       "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

        "the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
       
"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

  Here is a quote from Steven Spielberg, "film is the greatest weapon
in the world".

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group



www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

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

#516250

On 23/08/2015 19:46, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrcu9r$squ$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 23/08/2015 15:17, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1ckjta513j3ih5ijdv9l5dnq6sq3ql9ph8@4ax.com...
>>>> Why is Israel's Nuclear Arsenal Not Mentioned in Iran Deal Debate?
>>>> McClatchy
>>>> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31470917.html
>>>>
>>>> There's one major issue that President Barack Obama, his supporters
>>>> and his critics assiduously have avoided as they battle over the deal
>>>> designed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons: Israel's own
>>>> nuclear arsenal. An open secret for decades, the Israeli stockpile is
>>>> estimated at some 80-100 warheads, though Israel refuses to confirm or
>>>> deny its existence under a policy of deliberate ambiguity ... Yet as
>>>> the sides joust over the Iran deal's impact on Israel's security,
>>>> Obama has been silent on the Israeli arsenal as a potential deterrent
>>>> against Iranian cheating on the accord ... To some experts, the fierce
>>>> debate over whether the Iran deal endangers Israel or makes it safer
>>>> will be incomplete and misleading as long as it skirts the Middle
>>>> East's only nuclear arms stockpile.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because you are forgetting one thing.  Israel could be
>>> blackmailing
>>> us.  Israel could be telling Obama if he mentions their nukes they will
>>> prove the Twin Towers were nuked.
>>
>> Could be, could be??
>
> Of course.  You have seen the remains of Ground Zero and if you watched the
> following video you would know why those remains support two NCDs.
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>>> And the following photo is a good start because even NIST could not
>>> explain
>>> how a collapse initiation could lead to something that looks more like a
>>> nuclear detonation or two than (NIST words) "a Global Collapse."
>>>    http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>
>>
>> What nuclear detonation are you comparing it to?
>
> Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD

Why would I want to prove it was a CD?

> and Judy Wood could
> not prove it was a DEW so Dimitri Khalezov easily wins with the following
> video because he was the only person to address what was left on the ground
> at Ground Zero and why it was called Ground Zero.  <G>
>

So no answer then.

> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>
>>> Oh, and I just saw this too:
>>>
>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: Step 1
>>>    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>
> Oddly enough it is SOP for you to skip over evidence that proves not only
> did the media lie to us but so did NIST.
>
> Rocky sheeple
>
>


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

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

#519497 — Re: Nukes ( Tony has no proof of a collapse )

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mrdaj7$hn4$3@dont-email.me...
> On 23/08/2015 19:46, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:mrcu9r$squ$2@dont-email.me...
< snip >
>> Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD
>
> Why would I want to prove it was a CD?

I'm just poking fun at the fact that you have no proof of either one because 
the crime scene photos don't support a collapse or a CD.  <G>

>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>>
>>>> Oh, and I just saw this too:
>>>>
>>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: Step 1
>>>>    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>
>> Oddly enough it is SOP for you to skip over evidence that proves not only
>> did the media lie to us but so did NIST.

BTW incase you missed it the way excess radiation from GZ went undetected 
was they sent samples to another area completely and they probably sat for a 
long enough time that any excess radiation decreased in amount before the 
samples were actually looked at.

And I'm sure the people that collected the samples knew enough not to take 
them from anywhere near the molten metal under WTC3, WTC4 and WTC7.

Rocky 

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

#519547 — Re: Rocky's imagined nukes

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> BTW incase you missed it the way excess radiation from GZ went undetected 
> was they sent samples to another area completely and they probably sat for a 
> long enough time that any excess radiation decreased in amount before the 
> samples were actually looked at.

You mean like a few thousand years, you ignorant, babbling kook?

If nukes had been used in New York, the radiation levels would still
be higher today and for a very long time, ignorant kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519595 — Re: Nukes ( Tony has no proof of a collapse )

On 07/09/2015 08:47, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mrdaj7$hn4$3@dont-email.me...
>> On 23/08/2015 19:46, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrcu9r$squ$2@dont-email.me...
> < snip >
>>> Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD
>>
>> Why would I want to prove it was a CD?
>
> I'm just poking fun at the fact that you have no proof of either one because
> the crime scene photos don't support a collapse or a CD.  <G>
>

You're not doing a very good job then.

>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>>    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Oh, and I just saw this too:
>>>>>
>>>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: Step 1
>>>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>>
>>> Oddly enough it is SOP for you to skip over evidence that proves not only
>>> did the media lie to us but so did NIST.
>
> BTW incase you missed it the way excess radiation from GZ went undetected
> was they sent samples to another area completely


You have proof of this, please provide it.

> and they probably sat for a
> long enough time that any excess radiation decreased in amount before the
> samples were actually looked at.
>

Well we had better add 'half life' to the things you nothing about.
But in case I'm wrong, what was the half life of this radiation?
What sort of radiation was it?


> And I'm sure the people that collected the samples knew enough not to take
> them from anywhere near the molten metal under WTC3, WTC4 and WTC7.
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

#516255

In article <P76dnal9k4MwiUfInZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD and Judy Wood could 
> not prove it was a DEW so Dimitri Khalezov easily wins with the following 
> video because he was the only person to address what was left on the ground 
> at Ground Zero and why it was called Ground Zero.  <G>

Are you saying the truth is revealed by whoever can outcrazy everyone else?

-- 
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]

#516268 — 2 je suis charly (was: Nukes)

"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message 
news:charlie-gordon1492-BF92F1.13334323082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> In article <P76dnal9k4MwiUfInZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD and Judy Wood 
>> could
>> not prove it was a DEW so Dimitri Khalezov easily wins with the following
>> video because he was the only person to address what was left on the 
>> ground
>> at Ground Zero and why it was called Ground Zero.  <G>
>
> Are you saying the truth is revealed by whoever can outcrazy everyone 
> else?

I didn't think I was saying that but if looking at you is an example someone 
that has been outcrazyed by the bullshit from the media then you are proof 
of that.

Look at some of the crazy shit you must believe in.

Alleged hijackers who were so pissed at America they would give their lives 
and yet they were not pissed enough to say anything to their girlfriends?  I 
doubt that.

And that these alleged hijackers could park a 757 inside the Pentagon after 
doing a 270 degree turn and knowing exactly when to pull out of the turn 
when they could not use an autopilot to descend at that rate and they had 
very little if any flight time in a real 757.

Hell, the pilot that was alleged to have made the perfect maneuver to hit 
the Pentagon the way it was alleged to have hit it wasn't even allowed to 
fly a Cessna because he was so bad at flying.  BTW they wanted to use a more 
experienced pilot for that bullshit but he proved he was still alive.  <G>

And why the hell did the alleged hijackers have to miss the easy side of the 
Pentagon where important people were to go for the people investigating 
government corruption when they could have been shot down during that 270 
degree turn?  Talking about that 270 degree turn, the flight data shows it 
was made but nobody witnessed it from the ground.  <G>

You have no idea how much crap you really believe in because all you do is 
blow your Television Set kisses every time you swear by it.

Rocky 

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

#516293 — Re: 2 je suis charly (was: Nukes)

In article <beCdnXD9Obnkr0fInZ2dnUU7-VGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> Alleged hijackers who were so pissed at America they would give their lives 
> and yet they were not pissed enough to say anything to their girlfriends?  I 
> doubt that.

They maintained operational security? Can non-white people do that?

> And that these alleged hijackers could park a 757 inside the Pentagon after 
> doing a 270 degree turn and knowing exactly when to pull out of the turn 
> when they could not use an autopilot to descend at that rate and they had 
> very little if any flight time in a real 757.

You do not know what they are aiming making it difficult to know how successful 
they were. It turned out the damage and loss of life were not critical. Also the 
pictures show the plane hitting the ground outside the Pentagon, which would 
count as a miss except the airframe retained enough momentum to continue into 
the building.

> Hell, the pilot that was alleged to have made the perfect maneuver to hit 

It was only a perfect maneuver if he had intended to hit the lawn first. One 
plane was not going to destroy the entire five buildings (not enough energy in 
the plane, its fuel, nor enough potential energy is buildings that low); that 
leaves open the question of what he did intend.

> You have no idea how much crap you really believe in because all you do is 
> blow your Television Set kisses every time you swear by it.

The Sacred Trinatron.

-- 
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]

#516302 — Re: 2 je suis charly (was: Nukes)

"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message 
news:charlie-gordon1492-C34BF1.14320923082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> In article <beCdnXD9Obnkr0fInZ2dnUU7-VGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Alleged hijackers who were so pissed at America they would give their 
>> lives
>> and yet they were not pissed enough to say anything to their girlfriends? 
>> I
>> doubt that.
>
> They maintained operational security? Can non-white people do that?

Talking about non-whites.  They never found any DNA from those non-whites at 
the PentaCON.  See:

Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw

>> And that these alleged hijackers could park a 757 inside the Pentagon 
>> after
>> doing a 270 degree turn and knowing exactly when to pull out of the turn
>> when they could not use an autopilot to descend at that rate and they had
>> very little if any flight time in a real 757.
>
> You do not know what they are aiming making it difficult to know how 
> successful
> they were. It turned out the damage and loss of life were not critical. 
> Also the
> pictures show the plane hitting the ground outside the Pentagon, which 
> would
> count as a miss except the airframe retained enough momentum to continue 
> into
> the building.

You still think there were hijackers because the fact the part of the 
Pentagon that dealt with government corruption was hit helps prove 9/11 was 
an inside job and not shear luck by the alleged hijackers.

And you forget to notice that they didn't take the easy target instead they 
flew around in a 270 to get the back side of the Pentagon for some stupid 
reason instead of going for the easy side.  You didn't even address that 
issue.


>> Hell, the pilot that was alleged to have made the perfect maneuver to hit
>
> It was only a perfect maneuver if he had intended to hit the lawn first. 
> One
> plane was not going to destroy the entire five buildings (not enough 
> energy in
> the plane, its fuel, nor enough potential energy is buildings that low); 
> that
> leaves open the question of what he did intend.

Again, the people that were killed can be used to prove it was an inside job 
because the people that were killed were looking into government corruption.

And the news claimed everybody in that group died but the fact is one of 
them lived so that is pretty interesting too.  See:

Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw

>> You have no idea how much crap you really believe in because all you do 
>> is
>> blow your Television Set kisses every time you swear by it.
>
> The Sacred Trinatron.

Dang is that old stuff but I still have my first Sony Trinitron.

Rocky

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

#516621 — depleted uranium (u-238 ... or U235?

unfortunately, most experts & the general public, believe
in the "linear no-threshold hypothesis,
which vastly overrates the toxicity of radiation.

viz, "gulfwar syndrome was rally because of a)
chemical toxicity of heavy metals ("DU

> Dang is that old stuff but I still have my first Sony Trinitron.
> 
> Rocky

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

#516311 — Re: 2 je suis charly

On 23/08/2015 21:53, Rocky wrote:
> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message
> news:charlie-gordon1492-BF92F1.13334323082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>> In article <P76dnal9k4MwiUfInZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD and Judy Wood
>>> could
>>> not prove it was a DEW so Dimitri Khalezov easily wins with the following
>>> video because he was the only person to address what was left on the
>>> ground
>>> at Ground Zero and why it was called Ground Zero.  <G>
>>
>> Are you saying the truth is revealed by whoever can outcrazy everyone
>> else?
>
> I didn't think I was saying that but if looking at you is an example someone
> that has been outcrazyed by the bullshit from the media then you are proof
> of that.
>
> Look at some of the crazy shit you must believe in.
>
> Alleged hijackers who were so pissed at America they would give their lives
> and yet they were not pissed enough to say anything to their girlfriends?  I
> doubt that.
>

Why would they want to provide evidence of their intentions?


> And that these alleged hijackers could park a 757 inside the Pentagon after
> doing a 270 degree turn and knowing exactly when to pull out of the turn
> when they could not use an autopilot to descend at that rate and they had
> very little if any flight time in a real 757.
>
> Hell, the pilot that was alleged to have made the perfect maneuver to hit
> the Pentagon the way it was alleged to have hit it wasn't even allowed to
> fly a Cessna because he was so bad at flying.  BTW they wanted to use a more
> experienced pilot for that bullshit but he proved he was still alive.  <G>
>
> And why the hell did the alleged hijackers have to miss the easy side of the
> Pentagon where important people were to go for the people investigating
> government corruption when they could have been shot down during that 270
> degree turn?  Talking about that 270 degree turn, the flight data shows it
> was made but nobody witnessed it from the ground.  <G>
>
> You have no idea how much crap you really believe in because all you do is
> blow your Television Set kisses every time you swear by it.
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

#516679 — Re: 2 je suis charly

On 8/23/2015 3:53 PM, Rocky wrote:
> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message
> news:charlie-gordon1492-BF92F1.13334323082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>> In article <P76dnal9k4MwiUfInZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>>> Look at you, you can't prove it was a collapse or a CD and Judy Wood
>>> could
>>> not prove it was a DEW so Dimitri Khalezov easily wins with the following
>>> video because he was the only person to address what was left on the
>>> ground
>>> at Ground Zero and why it was called Ground Zero.  <G>
>>
>> Are you saying the truth is revealed by whoever can outcrazy everyone
>> else?
>

<snip QUack QuaCk Bat sHit cRaZY poop>


> I didn't think I was saying that but if looking at  kisses every time you swear by it.
>
> Rocky
>
>


you goof ball, you up f*ckie

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

#516145

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> ROTFLMAO because you are forgetting one thing.  Israel could be blackmailing 
> us.  Israel could be telling Obama if he mentions their nukes they will 
> prove the Twin Towers were nuked.

The world knows Israel has nukes, kook.

There are seismographs in every country on the planet, 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.

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]

#516622

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:18:28 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:


>The world knows Israel has nukes, kook.

That's right, you worthless piece of shit.

>
>There are seismographs in every country on the planet, kook.

Shut your worthless pie hole you snivelling sack of shit.


www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web