Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #518791 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-03 17:35 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-04 04:09 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-03 17:35 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-03 18:53 -0400
Re: Rocky's magic bombs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-03 23:06 +0000
Re: Rocky's magic bombs burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-03 20:07 -0400
Re: Rocky's magic bombs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Rocky's magic bombs gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-04 10:12 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 16:06 -0500
Re: Rocky still batshit crazy and jobless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-04 21:39 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled & there is always radiation> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 16:57 -0500
Re: Rocky still crazy and jobless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-04 22:15 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled & there is always radiation> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 18:10 -0500
Re: Rocky still a batshit crazy, jobless stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 00:05 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled & there is always radiation> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-05 11:00 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled & there is always radiation> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 18:39 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled & there is always radiation> noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 13:33 -0700
Re: Rocky still delusional and jobless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 18:24 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 23:29 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 18:05 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 00:16 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 18:25 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 10:12 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 17:45 -0700
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 00:16 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-05 06:39 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 07:08 +0200
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-05 06:16 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 02:25 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 05:59 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 13:30 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 08:47 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 15:10 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:21 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:13 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 20:54 +0100
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:12 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <K is for Krazy> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:21 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <K is for Krazy> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 20:54 +0100
Re: Rocky can't remember from one day to the next jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 16:50 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-06 21:22 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <liquid scintillation> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:01 -0500
Re: Rocky falls on his face again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 22:27 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-07 03:31 +0200
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 05:59 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 18:21 +0200
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 16:44 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 17:04 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-03 20:51 -0500
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 16:04 -0700
Re: Rocky still a jobless, batshit crazy stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-03 23:02 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-03 23:10 +0000
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell "Edward Higgs" <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 19:09 -0700
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 05:49 -0400
Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 04:09 -0500
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 10:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <msebiu$l21$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #518989 |
On 05/09/2015 00:25, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:msd8lk$rtj$2@dont-email.me... >> On 05/09/2015 00:05, Rocky wrote: >>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:msd5tl$g74$3@dont-email.me... >>>> On 04/09/2015 22:06, Rocky wrote: >>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In sci.physics burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> How did the top soil get contaminated from an underground explosion? >>>>>> >>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose >>>>>>> effects >>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>>>> >>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings >>>>> from >>>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>>> >>>> https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf >>> >>> And just where are the radiation readings? >>> >>> >> >> The same question I have asked you many times, you have always told us >> about the radiation. >> >> What was the radiation? >> How was it recorded? >> Who recorded it? > > You are supposed to tell me you clown. I'm the one that is saying the total > lack of any radiation at all at Ground Zero is also a smoking gun because > there is radiation everywhere. > No you are the one who has told us about nukes, people getting cancer from radiation. You told us about dosimeters being worn. You have told us about geigher counters going off. > >>>>>> no seismic signature >>>>> >>>>> But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if >>>>> it >>>>> were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were >>>>> not >>>>> allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene >>>>> discribed >>>>> as if it were a 5.5 quake. >>>>> >>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_LDEO_KIM.htm#seismic >>>> >>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html >>> >>> Those are inconsistant with the fact the North Tower shook like a tuning >>> fork, people started running then and the EMP recorded by an AM receiver >>> by >>> WCBS. >>> >>> >> >> Yes they are, I wonder why that would be????????? >> >> >>>>>> no >>>>>> EMP >>>>> >>>>> Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver >>>>> operated by WCBS in Nuke York City. >>>>> >>>>>> no fireball >>>>> >>>>> Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact >>>>> moment a flash would have occured. Some videos show the smoke jump as >>>>> if >>>>> part of the video was removed and one video even has a timer that >>>>> clearly >>>>> skips. >>>>> >>>>>> no mushroom cloud >>>>> >>>>> You missed the following because it shows two clouds from the Twin >>>>> Towers >>>>> that are consistant with underground nukes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ><http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.htm>< >>> >>>>> no 5.5 magnitude earthquakeJust visible evidence of a seismic event >>>>> that >>>>> could have rated a 5.5.> and no> BANG!Weird thing is one video recorded >>>>> a >>>>> sound from an explosion about 12 secondsbefore the North Tower was >>>>> vaporized and one didn't but it caught the NorthTower shaking like a >>>>> tuning fork.> Hushaboom technology!Just a lot of edited videos where >>>>> only CGIs can make their wings disappearand don't have shadows around >>>>> 9am. <G>And a shit load of lies and cartoons from NIST as they >>>>> scrambled >>>>> to useCartoon Physics to try and convince near total idiots that 5 >>>>> buildings inNuke York City just decided to commit hari kari where WTC3 >>>>> and Fiterman Hallwere not crushed by falling debris but something >>>>> coming >>>>> from below just likeWTC1 and WTC2 had to be destroyed to leave what >>>>> they >>>>> left behind. <G>Since this thread was hijacked much like the 9/11 >>>>> Commission was the OP hasbeen reinstalled:========================= >>>> ========Look how NIST explains the sudden and complete destruction of >>>> WTC7 >>>> in thelink below.NIST used fcuking cartoons because the only way to >>>> explain a life sizedcartoon or an outright lie is with another lie.BTW >>>> the >>>> fact the building north of WTC7 was also destroyed tells us >>>> anunderground >>>> nuke was used on WTC7 and the radiation from small nukes is notnear as >>>> bad >>>> as people have been led to believe but they still had to haul ina lot of >>>> fresh dirt and haul out a lot of contaminated dirt in the processso the >>>> contaminated dirt would lose the majority of it's >>>> radiationelsewhere.NIST >>>> Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc >>> >>> Rocky > > Rocky sheeple > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 17:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <174bd6e3-2d19-442f-9679-c836865a4b2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518982 |
wOw, that is intersting, although it must have a gOOd explanation ... what was the specialness of building #7 > >>> But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if it > >>> were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were > >>> not > >>> allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene > >>> discribed > >>> as if it were a 5.5 quake. > >>> > >> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_LDEO_KIM.htm#seismic > >> > >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html > > > > Those are inconsistant with the fact the North Tower shook like a tuning > > fork, people started running then and the EMP recorded by an AM receiver by > > WCBS. > > > > > > Yes they are, I wonder why that would be????????? > > > >>>> no > >>>> EMP > >>> > >>> Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver > >>> operated by WCBS in Nuke York City. > >>> > >>>> no fireball > >>> > >>> Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact > >>> moment a flash would have occured. Some videos show the smoke jump as if > >>> part of the video was removed and one video even has a timer that clearly > >>> skips. > >>> > >>>> no mushroom cloud > >>> > >>> You missed the following because it shows two clouds from the Twin Towers > >>> that are consistant with underground nukes: > >>> > >>> ><http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.htm>< > > > >>> no 5.5 magnitude earthquakeJust visible evidence of a seismic event that > >>> could have rated a 5.5.> and no> BANG!Weird thing is one video recorded a > >>> sound from an explosion about 12 secondsbefore the North Tower was > >>> vaporized and one didn't but it caught the NorthTower shaking like a > >>> tuning fork.> Hushaboom technology!Just a lot of edited videos where > >>> only CGIs can make their wings disappearand don't have shadows around > >>> 9am. <G>And a shit load of lies and cartoons from NIST as they scrambled > >>> to useCartoon Physics to try and convince near total idiots that 5 > >>> buildings inNuke York City just decided to commit hari kari where WTC3 > >>> and Fiterman Hallwere not crushed by falling debris but something coming > >>> from below just likeWTC1 and WTC2 had to be destroyed to leave what they > >>> left behind. <G>Since this thread was hijacked much like the 9/11 > >>> Commission was the OP hasbeen reinstalled:========================= > >> ========Look how NIST explains the sudden and complete destruction of WTC7 > >> in thelink below.NIST used fcuking cartoons because the only way to > >> explain a life sizedcartoon or an outright lie is with another lie.BTW the > >> fact the building north of WTC7 was also destroyed tells us anunderground > >> nuke was used on WTC7 and the radiation from small nukes is notnear as bad > >> as people have been led to believe but they still had to haul ina lot of > >> fresh dirt and haul out a lot of contaminated dirt in the processso the > >> contaminated dirt would lose the majority of it's radiationelsewhere.NIST > >> Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc > > > > Rocky > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 00:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <msd8lo$rtj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #518975 |
On 05/09/2015 00:05, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:msd5tl$g74$3@dont-email.me... >> On 04/09/2015 22:06, Rocky wrote: >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com writes: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> How did the top soil get contaminated from an underground explosion? >>>> >>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose effects >>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>>> >>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>> >>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from >>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >> >> https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf > > And just where are the radiation readings? > > >>>> no seismic signature >>> >>> But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if it >>> were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were >>> not >>> allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene >>> discribed >>> as if it were a 5.5 quake. >>> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_LDEO_KIM.htm#seismic >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html > > Those are inconsistant with the fact the North Tower shook like a tuning > fork, people started running then and the EMP recorded by an AM receiver by > WCBS. > > >>>> no >>>> EMP >>> >>> Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver >>> operated by WCBS in Nuke York City. >>> >>>> no fireball >>> >>> Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact >>> moment a flash would have occured. Some videos show the smoke jump as if >>> part of the video was removed and one video even has a timer that clearly >>> skips. >>> >>>> no mushroom cloud >>> >>> You missed the following because it shows two clouds from the Twin Towers >>> that are consistant with underground nukes: >>> >>> ><http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.htm>< > >>> no 5.5 magnitude earthquakeJust visible evidence of a seismic event that >>> could have rated a 5.5.> and no> BANG!Weird thing is one video recorded a >>> sound from an explosion about 12 secondsbefore the North Tower was >>> vaporized and one didn't but it caught the NorthTower shaking like a >>> tuning fork.> Hushaboom technology!Just a lot of edited videos where >>> only CGIs can make their wings disappearand don't have shadows around >>> 9am. <G>And a shit load of lies and cartoons from NIST as they scrambled >>> to useCartoon Physics to try and convince near total idiots that 5 >>> buildings inNuke York City just decided to commit hari kari where WTC3 >>> and Fiterman Hallwere not crushed by falling debris but something coming >>> from below just likeWTC1 and WTC2 had to be destroyed to leave what they >>> left behind. <G>Since this thread was hijacked much like the 9/11 >>> Commission was the OP hasbeen reinstalled:========================= >> ========Look how NIST explains the sudden and complete destruction of WTC7 >> in thelink below.NIST used fcuking cartoons because the only way to >> explain a life sizedcartoon or an outright lie is with another lie.BTW the >> fact the building north of WTC7 was also destroyed tells us anunderground >> nuke was used on WTC7 and the radiation from small nukes is notnear as bad >> as people have been led to believe but they still had to haul ina lot of >> fresh dirt and haul out a lot of contaminated dirt in the processso the >> contaminated dirt would lose the majority of it's radiationelsewhere.NIST >> Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 06:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <mse2mb$kd6$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #518975 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >news:msd5tl$g74$3@dont-email.me... >> On 04/09/2015 22:06, Rocky wrote: >>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>> >>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from >>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >> >> https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf >And just where are the radiation readings? Read the report! Oh, I'll help you, since it uses words with two and more syllables: They took water and plant samples from several places in NYC mostly downwind of the towers as well as 3 samples from the WTC site itself. The two highest samples were from water in the basement of WTC6. They were 1/7th the maximum level of tritium allowed in drinking water. The third WTC sample was barely above the detection limit, and all the other samples were below detection limits. In other words, hardly any tritium, and the aircraft exit signs explains what they did find. >>>> no seismic signature >Those are inconsistant with the fact the North Tower shook like a tuning >fork, people started running then and the EMP recorded by an AM receiver by >WCBS. Once again, the Richter scale measures the total energy of a quake, not the amount of shaking at a particular spot. The collapses measured 2.1 and 2.3, which is about what is expected if you calculated the gravitational energy released in the collapses. And, once again, no nuclear explosion signature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 07:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <d7c853aa54a0c4b647aa9146b8046c21@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #518943 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
woman-stalking truck crashing kook), in
<news:29mdnVxgU9JzmnfInZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com writes:
>>> In sci.physics burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> wrote:
>>>> How did the top soil get contaminated from an underground explosion?
>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose effects
>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards.
>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation,
> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from
> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from?
So now you admit that no radiation above background levels was
detected at the WTC site, except for slightly elevated beta radiation
from tritium in the aircraft exit signs and LEO weapons sights... and
you're somehow trying to k'lame that the *lack* of elevated radiation
levels proves there was radiation! Can you get any more delusional,
Roger? LOL
<http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf>
===============
The data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due
to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus,
tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the "smoking gun." Can
proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases
of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?
Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade
Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top
3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of
copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a
geochemist. "Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments
contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made
radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine
concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers,
which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the
attacks."
Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an
EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma
counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed
approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance
(counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium,
actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation
analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke
samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument,
Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi)
based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD).
Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide
activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three
samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice
the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g
except for naturally occurring potassium-40. These very low levels of
radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves
sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at
the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts
the empirical facts.
===============
{NOTE: The elevated beta radiation was likely just as I stated, the
tritium from the airplane exit signs and law enforcement weapon
sights. Beta particles are nothing more than high-energy electrons.}
- Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb
fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong
evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
- The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower
in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
- Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which
is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not
rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the
mini-nuke hypothesis.
- Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium,
actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background
level for WTC dust.
- Nuclear activation or residual "fall-out" radioactivity (above
background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on
actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131
measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low
radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling
evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.
- No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground
zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. No observed
melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
- One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where
vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse,
and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten
metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)
=====================================================
This has all been explained several times to you before, Roger. That
you keep popping back up like some retarded Weebles Wobble But They
Don't Fall Down after your idiocy is smacked down into the gutter
where it belongs proves your broken brain is desperately grasping at
straws because having to admit *you* *are* *wrong* would send you
spinning into an unrelenting insanity from which you'd never recover.
So your broken brain has decided to ease its way into that insanity.
Take your meds, Roger Wittekind. This doesn't end until you get
professional psychiatric help and admit *you* *are* *wrong*. Until
then, your life just gets worse and worse. We'll see to that.
Moron. LOL
--
Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394
Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.
Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.
For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.
B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".
C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).
D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.
E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL
F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL
G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL
H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.
I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.
IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================
Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 06:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #518943 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose effects >>>are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >> >> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from >Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? Someone else posted the tritium readings. Slightly above normal, due to use in airliner exit signs and law enforcement gunsights. With all the other stuff going on after 9/11, non-news like no unusual radiation found just doesn't get reported. As you must know, tritium is a major component of thermonuclear weapons, so if nukes were used, there should be tritium all over the place. But there wasn't. So, I'll repeat: "Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation (and don't scatter tritium)..." >> no seismic signature >But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if it >were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were not >allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene discribed >as if it were a 5.5 quake. Kooktard, I'll repeat yet again. The Richter scale is a measure of total energy, not of the amount of shaking at a particular spot. A 1 kt nuke has enough energy to produce about a 4 on the Richter scale. But the collapses of the towers measured 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale. So the collapses had quite a bit less energy than a 1kt nuke. That should tell you something, but you're too k00ktarded to catch on. And of course, you didn't address *at all* the complete lack of the distinctive nuclear signature that nuclear explosions produce. Why is that? >> no >> EMP >Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver >operated by WCBS in Nuke York City. A nuke produces an EMP *MUCH* bigger than that. That receiver would have been wiped out *permanently*, not just a momentary hiccup. As would all electronics for miles around. Helicopters crashing left and right and so forth. But none of that happened. Because there simply was no nuclear EMP. >> no fireball >Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact >moment a flash would have occured. Hahahahahahaha! This is the usual fallback excuse of kooktards when they really truly don't have an answer. (unless they ignore it completely, like no nuclear seismic signature) It was a conspiracy where "they" edited all the videos of all those thousands of videocameras, professional and amateur, that were pointed at the towers when they fell. And, of course, nobody witnessed any fireball in person. A nuclear fireball is freaking *OBVIOUS*. > Some videos show the smoke jump as if >part of the video was removed and one video even has a timer that clearly >skips. Spin, spin, spin. >> no mushroom cloud >You missed the following because it shows two clouds from the Twin Towers >that are consistant with underground nukes: Nope. No mushroom cloud rising from the towers after they were nuked. That's because they weren't nuked! <snip kookattack rendering the rest of Rocky's reply into unreadable drool> I'll let you reply again regarding no 5.5 magnitude earthquake, and no BANG! that a nuke would make. The NIST report mentioned explosives needed to cut a column of WTC7 would be some 130 decibels. How much larger to cut the columns of a 110 story tower? How much even louder a nuke would be! Hey, Bullwinkle and Rocky (not you) were popular when the towers were built. Did they lend them their Hushaboom technology?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 02:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <8-idnaTORNALd3bInZ2dnUU7-RGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519037 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... > >>>>In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose effects >>>>are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>> >>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, > >>And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from >>Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? > > Someone else posted the tritium readings. ROTFLMAO because NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES MUST BE UTILIZED. From: http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger counter published for Ground Zero. DUH. >>But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if it >>were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were not >>allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene discribed >>as if it were a 5.5 quake. > > Kooktard, I'll repeat yet again. The Richter scale is a measure of total > energy, not of the amount of shaking at a particular spot. Obviously there was a seismic activity when the North Tower shook like a tuning fork so the question should be why were we not told how strong that shaking was? <G> > >>> no >>> EMP > >>Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver >>operated by WCBS in Nuke York City. > > A nuke produces an EMP *MUCH* bigger than that. You fcuking asshole. We are talking about small deep underground nukes and you obviously forgot that with your comment above. If you really want an EMP weapon those need to be detonated in the atmosphere and not deep underground. DUH. >>> no fireball > >>Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact >>moment a flash would have occured. > > Hahahahahahaha! Just don't forget that there is a lot more evidence proving the four jets were bogus than there is proving they were real and given that we were lied to about the jets why not the radiation and the seismic readings too? DUH. See: RARE Footage Pentagon 9 11 Surveillance Camera Video Impact Crash 9-11 / LIVE LEAK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk But in reality it was the Feds themselves that proved none of the other videos confiscated by the feds showed a 757 because what they came up with was the best they could do to prove the Pentagon was not blown up by a truck bomb. <G> Look at it this way. Views of the north side of the Twin Towers show smoke made a shadow on the building so on the south side of the Towers there should have been a shadow from the building on the bogus jets but there wasn't. <G> ***** OP Reinstalled ***** Look how NIST explains the sudden and complete destruction of WTC7 in the link below. NIST used fcuking cartoons because the only way to explain a life sized cartoon or an outright lie is with another lie. BTW the fact the building north of WTC7 was also destroyed tells us an underground nuke was used on WTC7 and the radiation from small nukes is not near as bad as people have been led to believe but they still had to haul in a lot of fresh dirt and haul out a lot of contaminated dirt in the process so the contaminated dirt would lose the majority of it's radiation elsewhere. NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 05:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <947oua9549936d4ag0aickov73fiv02frm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519230 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 02:25:26 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>>>>>In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose effects
>>>>>are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation,
>>
>>>And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from
>>>Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from?
>>
>> Someone else posted the tritium readings.
>
>ROTFLMAO because
>NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES MUST
>BE UTILIZED.
>From:
>http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm
>
>So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger counter
>published for Ground Zero. DUH.
>
But you claimed readings did exist, but had been altered. What
became of that claim?
>>>But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if it
>>>were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were not
>>>allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene discribed
>>>as if it were a 5.5 quake.
>>
>> Kooktard, I'll repeat yet again. The Richter scale is a measure of total
>> energy, not of the amount of shaking at a particular spot.
>
>Obviously there was a seismic activity when the North Tower shook like a
>tuning fork so the question should be why were we not told how strong that
>shaking was? <G>
>
We were. Roughly two on the scale. The reading was caused by the
collapse of the towers.
This isn't a secret.
>>>> no
>>>> EMP
>>
>>>Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver
>>>operated by WCBS in Nuke York City.
>>
>> A nuke produces an EMP *MUCH* bigger than that.
>
>You fcuking asshole. We are talking about small deep underground nukes and
>you obviously forgot that with your comment above.
>
>If you really want an EMP weapon those need to be detonated in the
>atmosphere and not deep underground. DUH.
So then you are finally admitting there was no EMP, even though
your reason for the lack of an EMP is faulty.
>
>>>> no fireball
>>
>>>Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact
>>>moment a flash would have occured.
>>
>> Hahahahahahaha!
>
>Just don't forget that there is a lot more evidence proving the four jets
>were bogus than there is proving they were real and given that we were lied
Why is it none of this phantom evidence has been presented? What
you've offered has been proved wrong.
>to about the jets why not the radiation and the seismic readings too? DUH.
>See:
> RARE Footage Pentagon 9 11 Surveillance Camera Video Impact Crash 9-11 /
>LIVE LEAK
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk
>
Youtube is not Live Leak. Your inability to tell the difference
between sites aside, the camera shows what looks like a jet.
Of course, to any educated person, the credibility of the video
is shot when the claim of the Pentagon being the most guarded building
on earth. Fort Knox beats it, and it's not even the most guarded.
>But in reality it was the Feds themselves that proved none of the other
>videos confiscated by the feds showed a 757 because what they came up with
>was the best they could do to prove the Pentagon was not blown up by a truck
>bomb. <G>
>
Now it was a truck bomb? Really?
>Look at it this way. Views of the north side of the Twin Towers show smoke
>made a shadow on the building so on the south side of the Towers there
>should have been a shadow from the building on the bogus jets but there
>wasn't. <G>
>
Yes, there was. There wasn't much of one, due to light
refraction, but it was there.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <mshbgq$ov3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519230 |
On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote: > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >> >>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose effects >>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>>> >>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >> >>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from >>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >> >> Someone else posted the tritium readings. > > ROTFLMAO because > NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES MUST > BE UTILIZED. > From: > http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm > > So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger counter > published for Ground Zero. DUH. > > Could you post where I said that, or are you lying again. You are the one who has told us about the radiation. You told us that Geiger counters went off. I have asked you for proof of this radiation, so far you have not provided this proof. Are you going to provide your evidence or not? >>> But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if it >>> were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were not >>> allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene discribed >>> as if it were a 5.5 quake. >> >> Kooktard, I'll repeat yet again. The Richter scale is a measure of total >> energy, not of the amount of shaking at a particular spot. > > Obviously there was a seismic activity when the North Tower shook like a > tuning fork so the question should be why were we not told how strong that > shaking was? <G> > > >> >>>> no >>>> EMP >> >>> Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver >>> operated by WCBS in Nuke York City. >> >> A nuke produces an EMP *MUCH* bigger than that. > > > You fcuking asshole. We are talking about small deep underground nukes and > you obviously forgot that with your comment above. > > If you really want an EMP weapon those need to be detonated in the > atmosphere and not deep underground. DUH. > > > >>>> no fireball >> >>> Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact >>> moment a flash would have occured. >> >> Hahahahahahaha! > > Just don't forget that there is a lot more evidence proving the four jets > were bogus than there is proving they were real and given that we were lied > to about the jets why not the radiation and the seismic readings too? DUH. > See: > RARE Footage Pentagon 9 11 Surveillance Camera Video Impact Crash 9-11 / > LIVE LEAK > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk > > But in reality it was the Feds themselves that proved none of the other > videos confiscated by the feds showed a 757 because what they came up with > was the best they could do to prove the Pentagon was not blown up by a truck > bomb. <G> > > Look at it this way. Views of the north side of the Twin Towers show smoke > made a shadow on the building so on the south side of the Towers there > should have been a shadow from the building on the bogus jets but there > wasn't. <G> > > ***** OP Reinstalled ***** > > Look how NIST explains the sudden and complete destruction of WTC7 in the > link below. > > NIST used fcuking cartoons because the only way to explain a life sized > cartoon or an outright lie is with another lie. > > BTW the fact the building north of WTC7 was also destroyed tells us an > underground nuke was used on WTC7 and the radiation from small nukes is not > near as bad as people have been led to believe but they still had to haul in > a lot of fresh dirt and haul out a lot of contaminated dirt in the process > so the contaminated dirt would lose the majority of it's radiation > elsewhere. > > NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 08:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> |
| Message-ID | <YNGdnc96HcOy2XHInZ2dnUU7-QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519250 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:mshbgq$ov3$2@dont-email.me... > On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote: >> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> >>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose >>>>>> effects >>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>>>> >>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>> >>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings >>>> from >>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>> >>> Someone else posted the tritium readings. >> >> ROTFLMAO because >> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES >> MUST >> BE UTILIZED. >> From: >> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm >> >> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger >> counter >> published for Ground Zero. DUH. >> >> > > Could you post where I said that, WTF? I replied to Michael and then you claim "where I said that?" Seems not only are there a lot of thing bogus with the Great 9/11 Escapade but now there are things bogus with Tony and Michael. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 15:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> |
| Message-ID | <mshhdl$flt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519254 |
On 06/09/2015 14:47, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:mshbgq$ov3$2@dont-email.me... >> On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote: >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> >>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose >>>>>>> effects >>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>>> >>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings >>>>> from >>>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>>> >>>> Someone else posted the tritium readings. >>> >>> ROTFLMAO because >>> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES >>> MUST >>> BE UTILIZED. >>> From: >>> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm >>> >>> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger >>> counter >>> published for Ground Zero. DUH. >>> >>> >> >> Could you post where I said that, > > WTF? I replied to Michael and then you claim "where I said that?" > > Seems not only are there a lot of thing bogus with the Great 9/11 Escapade > but now there are things bogus with Tony and Michael. > > Rocky > > My bad this time, but at least you used my name. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> |
| Message-ID | <UNmdnc96HcOD0XHInZ2dnUU7-VWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519257 |
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:mshhdl$flt$1@dont-email.me... > On 06/09/2015 14:47, Rocky wrote: >> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:mshbgq$ov3$2@dont-email.me... >>> On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote: >>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> >>>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose >>>>>>>> effects >>>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work >>>>>>>> backwards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>>>> >>>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings >>>>>> from >>>>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>>>> >>>>> Someone else posted the tritium readings. >>>> >>>> ROTFLMAO because >>>> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES >>>> MUST >>>> BE UTILIZED. >>>> From: >>>> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm >>>> >>>> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger >>>> counter >>>> published for Ground Zero. DUH. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Could you post where I said that, >> >> WTF? I replied to Michael and then you claim "where I said that?" >> >> Seems not only are there a lot of thing bogus with the Great 9/11 >> Escapade >> but now there are things bogus with Tony and Michael. >> >> Rocky >> >> > > My bad this time, but at least you used my name. So is Michael your name too or just a name you use on the Internet? Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 11:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> |
| Message-ID | <7gpouad9omqg07nt6e8l64pgej3c254p43@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519262 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:21:33 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:mshhdl$flt$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 06/09/2015 14:47, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mshbgq$ov3$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose
>>>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work
>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings
>>>>>>> from Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone else posted the tritium readings.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because
>>>>> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES
>>>>> MUST BE UTILIZED.
>>>>> From:
>>>>> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger
>>>>> counter published for Ground Zero. DUH.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you post where I said that,
>>>
>>> WTF? I replied to Michael and then you claim "where I said that?"
>>>
>>> Seems not only are there a lot of thing bogus with the Great 9/11
>>> Escapade but now there are things bogus with Tony and Michael.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My bad this time, but at least you used my name.
>
>So is Michael your name too or just a name you use on the Internet?
Are you really as far gone, mentally, as you suggest with your
post? You wrote, "...but now there are things bogus with Tony and
Michael."
Note that you used Tony's name. DUH.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 20:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <Is Tony Michael?> |
| Message-ID | <msi5hv$2iq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519262 |
On 06/09/2015 15:21, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:mshhdl$flt$1@dont-email.me... >> On 06/09/2015 14:47, Rocky wrote: >>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:mshbgq$ov3$2@dont-email.me... >>>> On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote: >>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose >>>>>>>>> effects >>>>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work >>>>>>>>> backwards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>>>>> >>>>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>>>>> >>>>>> Someone else posted the tritium readings. >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLMAO because >>>>> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES >>>>> MUST >>>>> BE UTILIZED. >>>>> From: >>>>> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm >>>>> >>>>> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger >>>>> counter >>>>> published for Ground Zero. DUH. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Could you post where I said that, >>> >>> WTF? I replied to Michael and then you claim "where I said that?" >>> >>> Seems not only are there a lot of thing bogus with the Great 9/11 >>> Escapade >>> but now there are things bogus with Tony and Michael. >>> >>> Rocky >>> >>> >> >> My bad this time, but at least you used my name. > > So is Michael your name too or just a name you use on the Internet? > > Rocky > > Do you see conspiracies in everything? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 11:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <dfpouahfe03mrupc2huksm5ft9qcnh589l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519250 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:30:01 +0100, Tony Dragon
<tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote:
>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>
>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose effects
>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation,
>>>
>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from
>>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from?
>>>
>>> Someone else posted the tritium readings.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because
>> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES MUST
>> BE UTILIZED.
>> From:
>> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm
>>
>> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger counter
>> published for Ground Zero. DUH.
>
>Could you post where I said that, or are you lying again.
Actually, he was replying to Michael.
>You are the one who has told us about the radiation.
>You told us that Geiger counters went off.
>I have asked you for proof of this radiation, so far you have not
>provided this proof.
>Are you going to provide your evidence or not?
Your comments and question are valid. Of course Roger will never
address them. He can't without admitting his claims are, at best,
mistaken.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 11:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <K is for Krazy> |
| Message-ID | <ZLSdnW2XxOzh-nHInZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519269 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dfpouahfe03mrupc2huksm5ft9qcnh589l@4ax.com... > On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:30:01 +0100, Tony Dragon > <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote: >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> >>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose >>>>>>> effects >>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>>> >>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings >>>>> from >>>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>>> >>>> Someone else posted the tritium readings. >>> >>> ROTFLMAO because >>> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES >>> MUST >>> BE UTILIZED. >>> From: >>> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm >>> >>> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger >>> counter >>> published for Ground Zero. DUH. >> >>Could you post where I said that, or are you lying again. > > Actually, he was replying to Michael. > >>You are the one who has told us about the radiation. >>You told us that Geiger counters went off. >>I have asked you for proof of this radiation, so far you have not >>provided this proof. >>Are you going to provide your evidence or not? > > Your comments and question are valid. But it doesn't matter if her questions are valid or not only that most the time her question are pointless and even if answered do not change anything. The facts remain, the jets used in Nuke York City have more consistencies with CGIs than they have with real jets and the remains of the Twin Towers demonstrate more consistencies with nukes than jet fuel. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 20:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <K is for Krazy> |
| Message-ID | <msi5hr$2iq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519275 |
On 06/09/2015 17:21, Rocky wrote: > "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:dfpouahfe03mrupc2huksm5ft9qcnh589l@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:30:01 +0100, Tony Dragon >> <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> On 06/09/2015 08:25, Rocky wrote: >>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>> news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:mscbao$rc4$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> >>>>>>>> In Rocky's delusional mind, there are magic nuclear bombs whose >>>>>>>> effects >>>>>>>> are first felt hundreds of meters from the bomb then work backwards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>>>> >>>>>> And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings >>>>>> from >>>>>> Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>>>> >>>>> Someone else posted the tritium readings. >>>> >>>> ROTFLMAO because >>>> NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES >>>> MUST >>>> BE UTILIZED. >>>> From: >>>> http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/41rm_monitorinstru.htm >>>> >>>> So what you basically told me there were no readings from a geiger >>>> counter >>>> published for Ground Zero. DUH. >>> >>> Could you post where I said that, or are you lying again. >> >> Actually, he was replying to Michael. >> >>> You are the one who has told us about the radiation. >>> You told us that Geiger counters went off. >>> I have asked you for proof of this radiation, so far you have not >>> provided this proof. >>> Are you going to provide your evidence or not? >> >> Your comments and question are valid. > > But it doesn't matter if her questions are valid or not only that most the > time her question are pointless and even if answered do not change anything. > It's funny that any question that you can't/won't answer is pointless. > The facts remain, the jets used in Nuke York City have more consistencies > with CGIs than they have with real jets and the remains of the Twin Towers > demonstrate more consistencies with nukes than jet fuel. <G> > > Rocky > > BTW is me being female another of your delusions? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 16:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky can't remember from one day to the next |
| Message-ID | <fg7ubc-lh2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #519230 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > ROTFLMAO because > NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES MUST > BE UTILIZED. And as been posted several times, such were used, kook. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 21:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <OP reinstalled> |
| Message-ID | <msiaq2$tnj$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #519230 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> >>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >> >>>And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from >>>Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >> >> Someone else posted the tritium readings. >ROTFLMAO because >NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES MUST >BE UTILIZED. You're right that tritium produces very low energy radiation. That's why they use something *extremely* sensitive to radiation like liquid scintillation. A liquid scintillation detector would go nucking futs in the presence of high levels of radiation such as from a nuke. Oh, by the way, even if you ignore that, liquid scintillation didn't detect all the tritium that a real nuke would spew all over the place. So, we're back to magic nukes that release no radiation, and don't scatter their tritium, either. >>>But an obvious seismic event big enough to shake the North Tower as if it >>>were a tuning fork. And to this date nobody has explained why we were not >>>allowed to see any data from that event that people on the scene discribed >>>as if it were a 5.5 quake. >> >> Kooktard, I'll repeat yet again. The Richter scale is a measure of total >> energy, not of the amount of shaking at a particular spot. >Obviously there was a seismic activity when the North Tower shook like a >tuning fork so the question should be why were we not told how strong that >shaking was? <G> There was seismic activity detected when the towers collapsed. As I already stated, they registered 2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter scale. And as I also mentioned, the Richter scale measures total energy, not the amount of shaking at one spot. A lot of shaking at a small spot (such as at one tower) has a relatively small amount of energy compared to a real 5.0 earthquake. Also, a real 5.0 quake has its active shaking miles below the surface. The shaking in a real 5.0 quake is from miles away even if you're right at the epicenter. And once again, you have no answer to the lack of the unique signature that only a nuclear detonation produces. There's no way to hide a 5.0 earthquake with a nuclear signature from seismometers in places like Russia, China and North Korea... >>>> no >>>> EMP >> >>>Just EMPs bigger than a lightning storm that srcrewed up an AM receiver >>>operated by WCBS in Nuke York City. >> >> A nuke produces an EMP *MUCH* bigger than that. >You fcuking asshole. We are talking about small deep underground nukes and >you obviously forgot that with your comment above. An underground nuke has an EMP range of only 10 miles. Are you back to claiming your nukes were 32-96 miles underground? >If you really want an EMP weapon those need to be detonated in the >atmosphere and not deep underground. DUH. Atmospheric nukes can have an EMP range of 1000 miles or more. A ground level or underground nuke has an EMP range of only 10 miles. Were those cameras and helicopters within 10 miles of the Twin Towers? >>>> no fireball >> >>>Just a lot of clearly edited videos of WTC7 that are missing the exact >>>moment a flash would have occured. >> >> Hahahahahahaha! >Just don't forget that there is a lot more evidence proving the four jets >were bogus than there is proving they were real and given that we were lied >to about the jets why not the radiation and the seismic readings too? DUH. What evidence? So far you haven't produced *any* evidence that the jets were bogus! Just kookblather that gets shot down in flames repeatedly. And I see you have no answer to why there was no nuclear fireball.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Complete bullshit: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell <liquid scintillation> |
| Message-ID | <dfKdnQXWse2UJXHInZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519375 |
alt.astronomy restored "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:msiaq2$tnj$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mse1cj$kd6$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> >>>>> Magic nuclear bombs that produce no radiation, >>> >>>>And yet nobody has been able to come up with any radiation readings from >>>>Ground Zero so just where are you getting your bullshit from? >>> >>> Someone else posted the tritium readings. > >>ROTFLMAO because >>NO GEIGER COUNTER WILL DETECT TRITIUM; LIQUID SCINTILLATION TECHNIQUES >>MUST >>BE UTILIZED. > > You're right that tritium produces very low energy radiation. That's why > they use something *extremely* sensitive to radiation like liquid > scintillation. A liquid scintillation detector would go nucking futs in > the presence of high levels of radiation such as from a nuke. STOPPED RIGHT THERE. Who ever said the "liquid scintillation" took place at Ground Zero? From what I heard those test samples were shipped elsewhere probably because they didn't want their test messed up by all the radiation from Ground Zero. <G> And what bullshit are you going to give me about the ultra fine debris that they found all over GZ that can not be created by anything else but nukes? Everything still points to CGIs, Nukes and a seismic signature of a nuke where you have to use the sudden shaking of the North Tower itself to do what the USGS would not do and that was show us a seismic reading from 12 seconds before the North Tower was partially vaporized. And after the bottom of the Twin Towers were partially vaporized it made it very easy for the top to crush the bottom part but in the process of crushing the bottom part the top part too to would be vaporized leaving only the part of the Twin Towers that an underground nuke under a adjacent building could not reach. See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg It is all very simple and everything fit together like a glove once you realize the sudden shaking of the North Tower itself gives us the seismic signature of a nuke and that the 11 second delay is how long the nuke took to make a cavity in rock. More about that cavity at: This video is dedicated to Dimitri Khalezov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZ8UcMgucY Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web