Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #518963 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-04 17:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-05 06:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 61 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 17:29 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-04 18:42 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 18:22 -0500
Re: Rocky raves on yet again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 00:10 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-05 07:22 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-04 19:59 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-05 02:40 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-05 08:00 -0400
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-05 10:48 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-05 16:28 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 18:39 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 03:28 -0500
Re: Rocky imagines nukes yet again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 16:53 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 20:54 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still an idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 15:10 -0500
Re: Rocky the stalker raves on jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:03 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still an idiot) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 23:02 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:04 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 18:46 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 12:56 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 20:04 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Michael gives me a laugh) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:18 -0500
Re: Rocky continues to babble jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 22:38 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Michael gives me a laugh) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:07 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-07 03:21 +0200
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:19 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot & dmaster) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 17:16 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot & dmaster) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 03:53 -0500
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 00:08 +0000
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-05 08:11 -0400
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-05 15:36 +0000
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 18:40 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 02:41 -0500
Re: Rocky thinks cameas are seismographs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 16:55 +0000
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-06 11:43 -0400
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 10:58 -0500
Re: Rocky's one wing delusion jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 16:59 +0000
Re: Rocky's one wing delusion "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:58 -0500
Re: Rocky continues crazy raving "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:17 -0500
Re: Rocky hammers K the Krazy "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:39 -0500
Re: Rocky spews more delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 17:04 +0000
Re: Rocky hammers the Ediot "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 13:18 -0500
Re: Rocky raves against reality again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 18:41 +0000
Re: Rocky hammers jimp again "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 14:29 -0500
Re: Rocky will run away from the TRUTH. Yes, again. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:00 -0500
Re: Rocky will run away from the TRUTH. Yes, again. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-07 03:00 +0200
Re: Rocky doesn't get it jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:06 +0000
Re: Rocky hammers the Ediot "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:00 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (k kaught in more lies) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:43 -0500
Re: The Earth moves for Rocky jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 23:01 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (k kaught in more lies) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:07 -0500
Re: Rocky is exposed for the pathological liar he is. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:55 -0500
Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 10:08 -0500
Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-05 10:25 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 18:39 +0100
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 19:37 +0200
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 16:39 -0500
Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 16:37 -0500
Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 06:00 -0500
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 20:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Tony is still a big idiot) |
| Message-ID | <mskn1c$ocr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519597 |
On 07/09/2015 18:56, Rocky wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:mskie4$2pi$2@dont-email.me... >> On 06/09/2015 23:04, Rocky wrote: >>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:msid1m$roe$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On 06/09/2015 21:10, Rocky wrote: >>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:msi5i3$2iq$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>> On 06/09/2015 09:28, Rocky wrote: >>>>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky wrote: >>>>>>>>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the >>>>>>>>>> bombs >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" >>>>>>>>>> bombs >>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>> exactly the opposite. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The real question is why don't you just listen to the person that >>>>>>>>> knows >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> most? Here, I'll give you the link again: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length] >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And don't forget what you said about the Naudet Brothers editing >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> video. You said it was just a shadow but if that were true how >>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> smoke cloud make a square shadow? And if that were true then why >>>>>>>>> didn't >>>>>>>>> Phantom Flight 11 make a shadow too? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And regardless of what you say about the shadow Runrunner cutout in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> North Tower was still too short for the wingspan of a 767 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that >>>>>>>>>> underground >>>>>>>>>> nukes >>>>>>>>>> can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> debris flying into the air. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oddly enough there is a video that shows an explosion when the nuke >>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>> WTC3 was detonated so maybe something did blast through after all. >>>>>>>>> <G> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >>>>>>>> evidence that you have 'lost'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 >>>>>>> seconds >>>>>>> before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra >>>>>>> fine >>>>>>> dust >>>>>>> with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> WCBS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 9/11 Eyewitness rare unfiltered / unaltered amateur footage | What >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>> shown on TV >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ******************** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You argue that the "surviving walls" only survived because they >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> outside the range of the "underground nukes," but the picture you >>>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>>> hawking shows a "surviving wall" right in the path of the >>>>>>>>>> underground >>>>>>>>>> nuke. >>>>>>>>>> (Look in the lower right corner.) I pointed this out to you once >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> responded; "That wall used to be taller" which misses the point >>>>>>>>>> entirely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most all of WTC4 was missed even though the nuke that vaporized the >>>>>>>>> South >>>>>>>>> Tower was detonated under WTC4. But it might not have been planned >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>> or I'm sure they would have tried harder not to blow up part of >>>>>>>>> Fiterman >>>>>>>>> Hall when they nuked WTC7. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ***** ORIGINAL POST BELOW ***** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>>>>>>>> away >>>>>>>>> after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this >>>>>>>>> post >>>>>>>>> until now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at >>>>>>>>> Ground >>>>>>>>> Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation >>>>>>>>> everywhere. >>>>>>>>> <G> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings >>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was >>>>>>>>> bumped. >>>>>>>>> Plus >>>>>>>>> a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous >>>>>>>>> EMP >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> why people started running at the exact same event. <G> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to >>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>> why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left >>>>>>>>> standing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> just standing but standing with survivors. <G> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Phantom Flight 175? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://911planeshoax.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rocky >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rocky >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But no nuclear signatures. >>>>> >>>>> All you need for a "nuclear signature" is a sudden onset and you can >>>>> see >>>>> that when the North Tower starts shaking and shaking and shaking. DUH. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But there was no nuclear signature. >>> >>> And where is your proof that you even know what a "nuclear signature" is? >>> ROTFLMAO >>> >>> >> >> You have been told enough times on this NG what it is, if you don't >> believe what has been posted, feel free to prove otherwise. > > Guess #1 you get two more tries before you are out. > > Keep wriggling. --- 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 | 2015-09-06 22:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) |
| Message-ID | <msid28$lek$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #519234 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds >before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine dust >with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that >explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by WCBS. One hour 40 minutes of kookery? Really? What explosion? Looked pretty minor. Where was the EMP that should have knocked out the camera videoing it? Where was the nuclear fireball? Where was the mushroom cloud that should have risen 12,000 feet in the air? Where is the 1200' diameter crater? But actually, that video does have a use. It is one of the few that I have seen that shows the core collapsing. Starting at 45:18 you can see the core fall to the left although it is partially blocked by the inset. Maybe I can find a non-kooked-up version of that particular video. Anyway, that helps show the sequence of events of the collapse was that each floor fell onto the one below it, causing it to collapse and fall (repeat all the way down), then the now-unsupported outer walls started to fall away (repeat all the way down), then the central core fell over/collapsed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Michael gives me a laugh) |
| Message-ID | <YYadnYSKO4J9JnHInZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519390 |
alt.astronomy restored "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:msid28$lek$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds >>before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine >>dust >>with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that >>explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by >>WCBS. > > One hour 40 minutes of kookery? Really? > > What explosion? Looked pretty minor. Where was the EMP that should have > knocked out the camera videoing it? Where was the nuclear fireball? > Where was the mushroom cloud that should have risen 12,000 feet in the > air? Where is the 1200' diameter crater? > > But actually, that video does have a use. It is one of the few that I > have seen that shows the core collapsing. Starting at 45:18 you can see > the core fall to the left although it is partially blocked by the inset. > Maybe I can find a non-kooked-up version of that particular video. > Anyway, that helps show the sequence of events of the collapse was that > each floor fell onto the one below it, causing it to collapse and fall > (repeat all the way down), then the now-unsupported outer walls started > to fall away (repeat all the way down), then the central core fell > over/collapsed. ROTFLMAO because you are trying to describe a "Pancake Collapse" but even NIST could not use that term because of the lack of pancaked floors at the very bottom of the Twin Towers so they had to use the term "Progressive Collapse" instead. And what makes this even funnier is neither you or NIST has been able to explain how a pancake collapse or a progressive collapse leaves the exact same standing outside walls that a Nuclear Controlled Demolition leaves behind: See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Thanks for the laugh I needed that especially after seeing that jimp was beyond help. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 22:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues to babble |
| Message-ID | <lsrubc-2l4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #519405 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > And what makes this even funnier is neither you or NIST has been able to > explain how a pancake collapse or a progressive collapse leaves the exact > same standing outside walls that a Nuclear Controlled Demolition leaves > behind: See: How do you explain the fact that seismographs all over the East Coast recorded the tiny (about 2) signatures of the two towers collapsing and the miniscule (about 1.5) signatures of the airplanes crashing in the Pentagon and the woods, but no seismograph anyhwere on the planet recorded the huge (about 6) signatures that EACH nuclear device would have created? Either every government, academic instutution, seismic research organization, seismologist and amateur seismologist on the planet is part of a world wide conspiracy or there were no nuclear bombs involved on 9/11. How do you explain the fact that there is video of New York when an EMP would have killed all the cameras in the area and EACH nuclear bomb would create it's own EMP? Either everyone in New York had EMP hardened cameras or there was no EMP because there was no nuclear bomb. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 06:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Michael gives me a laugh) |
| Message-ID | <ftrqua1h6fkavkhg637r4h68iteinqf5ak@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519405 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:18:22 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>alt.astronomy restored
And removed.
Seek professional help for your OBSESSION with an unrelated
group. And soon.
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:msid28$lek$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>Jump to 44:25 of the following video to see an explosion about 12 seconds
>>>before the bottom section of the North Tower is converted to ultra fine
>>>dust
>>>with the exception of the part that was not able to be nuked. BTW that
>>>explosion or just slightly before it coincides with an EMP recorded by
>>>WCBS.
>>
>> One hour 40 minutes of kookery? Really?
>>
>> What explosion? Looked pretty minor. Where was the EMP that should have
>> knocked out the camera videoing it? Where was the nuclear fireball?
>> Where was the mushroom cloud that should have risen 12,000 feet in the
>> air? Where is the 1200' diameter crater?
>>
>> But actually, that video does have a use. It is one of the few that I
>> have seen that shows the core collapsing. Starting at 45:18 you can see
>> the core fall to the left although it is partially blocked by the inset.
>> Maybe I can find a non-kooked-up version of that particular video.
>> Anyway, that helps show the sequence of events of the collapse was that
>> each floor fell onto the one below it, causing it to collapse and fall
>> (repeat all the way down), then the now-unsupported outer walls started
>> to fall away (repeat all the way down), then the central core fell
>> over/collapsed.
>
>ROTFLMAO because you are trying to describe a "Pancake Collapse" but even
>NIST could not use that term because of the lack of pancaked floors at the
>very bottom of the Twin Towers so they had to use the term "Progressive
>Collapse" instead.
>
NIST used the term progressive collapse right away. It was the
media, not NIST, that used the term pancake collapse. But you already
knew that.
What happened to your claim that NIST used the term global
collapse? Did it finally dawn on you that no one was buying your
delusion inspired lie?
>And what makes this even funnier is neither you or NIST has been able to
>explain how a pancake collapse or a progressive collapse leaves the exact
>same standing outside walls that a Nuclear Controlled Demolition leaves
>behind: See:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
What NCD are you using for comparison? Unless you're lying,
again, you will provide the cite.
>Thanks for the laugh I needed that especially after seeing that jimp was
>beyond help.
>
I've noticed you make this claim of anyone who proves your
delusions wrong. This should be a sign to you.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 03:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (Link for Tony) |
| Message-ID | <774b41fda6c750fc981103ee13f6fce4@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #519234 |
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:B_-dnQPn8O_7ZHbInZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:msf99a$bmg$3@dont-email.me... >> On 05/09/2015 16:48, Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind >> the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional woman-stalking >> truck crashing kook) wrote: >>> <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:7b13b459-d8cf-4d7d-aa13-33df781f08fd@googlegroups.com... >>>> I don't care what her link says, you tried to suggest that the bombs >>>> were able to vaporize the buildings without showing radiation because they >>>> were "neutron" bombs until someone pointed out to you that "neutron" bombs do >>>> exactly the opposite. >>> Th<SMACKAKOOK!> >>>> You still haven't provided any independent evidence that underground >>>> nukes can affect the surface without bursting through and sending dirt and >>>> debris flying into the air. >>> O<SMACKAKOOK!> >> Do please provide the link to that video, or is it another piece of >> evidence that you have 'lost'. > Ju<SMACKAKOOK!> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k > > ******************** "Oh my god, it just collapsed from the top!" - 4:44 in that video. "You could see it tipping over and just crashing to the ground." - 8:08 in that video. "[aircraft] wreckage was also reported seen embedded in the upper floors of the skyscraper" - 10:42 "actually, the one in the back is the one that tilted, I thought the whole... I thought it fell" - 23:00 perfect shot of the top-most part of the building falling at an angle. - 23:17 "like a banana unpeeling" - 37:34 Whoopsie... aren't you the kook k'laming that the towers fell into their own footprints, Roger? That they didn't tilt over at the cut in the building from the impact, the top part tilting then falling down onto the rest of the building? Yeah... that's because you're a retard and a schizo kook. The collapse happened exactly as I said... ========================================================= The plane took out a chunk of the outer truss frame and the viscoelastic dampers that provided a connection between the floor spars and truss frame. The truss frame provided vertical support to the floor spars, the floor spars provided horizontal support to the truss frame, through those viscoelastic dampers. The fire melted a good majority of the rest of the upper-floor viscoelastic dampers. The uneven loading on the outer truss frame due to the impact site was transferred to the weakest area in the truss frame, which was at the top-most mechanical room floor below the fire. At mechanical room floors the building designers had inexplicably joined all truss frame members together at the same level, whereas on other floors the joins were staggered to increase strength. Thus that one-floor-join was greatly stressed by the uneven forces, and that caused the two small 5/8" bolts holding each truss frame section together to break. This means the entire top of the building above the top-most mechanical room floor below the fire had broken free of the confines of the floor spars and was wrenching on the central column, not just that area around the hole the aircraft had created. The entire top section of the truss frame of the building was ripped loose at that mechanical room floor. The top-hat truss (which provided horizontal support to the truss frame at the top of the building where there were no more floors) transmitted the uneven force from the truss frame to the central column, magnifying the buckling force the central column was subjected to. Since the federal regulations changed mid-construction, the construction crews weren't allowed to finish the upper floors with asbestos fireproofing. They used the inferior spray-on fluffy shit that flakes off all on its own in a fire... and can easily be knocked off if you just hit it with your hand. I'm sure you can imagine how much of that shit got knocked off when the planes hit. Thus the central column, soaked in burning jet fuel, was no longer fireproofed. The central column metal didn't melt, but it got incandescently hot, easily hot enough to lose most of its strength. The uneven forces being transmitted from the now-disconnected upper truss frame through the top-hat truss and into the central column, combined with the heat weakening the central column, made the central column buckle, transferring some of the weight of the building back onto the now broken (at the top-most mechanical room floor below the fire) truss frame. You can see in the videos the outer truss frame along one floor seems to collapse all at once immediately prior to the building collapsing... that was the mechanical room floor where the truss frame sections were all joined at one floor, creating a weak point in the outer truss frame. The 2 small 5/8" bolts holding each truss frame section together had already been broken by the uneven forces, ripping the upper portion of the truss frame free of the lower portion. The viscoelastic dampers had already been wrenched apart, the floor spars no longer had vertical support and drooped as much as 36" in the fire, the truss frame no longer had horizontal support and when the load got to be too much, the truss frame at the mechanical room floor simply collapsed. That collapse ripped apart even more viscoelastic dampers, and the whole-building collapse rapidly escalated from there, like a zipper unzipping or, as one eyewitness said, like a banana unpeeling. The "explosions" you kooks keep bleating about were from the central column buckling, and the floor spar / truss frame junctions through those melting viscoelastic dampers ripping loose. They were pre-tensioned to keep the outer truss frame horizontally loaded to counteract the bowing effect on the outer truss frame from the weight of the building, after all. When those viscoelastic dampers melted sufficiently and ripped loose, a lot of force was released. You'll note the top-most part of the building tilted a bit before it fell, just as a tree falls in the direction it's been cut. That slight angle dragged the rest of the building off-center as it collapsed, leaving behind your "surviving stairs" at the rear of the 'fall shadow' and providing proof that it was not a controlled collapse. ========================================================= No nukes, no lightbeams, no thermate or thermite, no explosives whatsoever, no government conspiracy, just a poorly designed building for which the designers didn't take into account the weaknesses inherent in their design and didn't consider just what would happen to those viscoelastic dampers in a major fire. They ignored warnings from competent building designers of just such a scenario from as far back as 1971. They'd claimed the building could withstand a strike from a Boeing 707... sure, it would withstand the impact, but they never tested for or even considered the resultant fire. Had they done something as simple as install anchor cables between the floor spars and truss frame, the buildings would have stood. Had they upgraded to better fireproofing insulation, the buildings would have stood. The building designers and owners didn't. They were negligent for 33 years, despite the warnings. And now you're adopting another schizo paranoid-delusional kook's conspiracy theory that "news / police choppers shoot crazy lightbeams into a building, creating instant vaporization of said building." (their words). You'll note that video shows no EMP prior to collapse. Had a nuclear weapon detonated, that'd be the last thing we saw from that camera, even at that distance. According to Roger Wittekind, there were *dozens* of nuclear weapons detonated at the WTC site, each 105 kT in size, which would have displaced approximately 400 million *tons* of soil and lifted the relatively light WTC tower's 1.5 million tons of steel and concrete several hundred feet in the air... yet the WTC towers never lifted even a fraction of an inch prior to collapsing, thereby proving yet again from yet another angle that no nukes were detonated at the WTC site. Why can't you explain the total lack of nuclear weapon-related radiation at the WTC site, KookTard Roger? Had even *one* nuke been detonated, there'd be ~500 rads of radiation... with your *dozens* of nukes, every single person in a 10 mile radius area would have died of radiation poisoning nearly instantly. Yet *no* *one* has exhibited radiation burns or radiation sickness and *no* *one* died from radiation at the WTC site. Because there was no radiation at the WTC site except nano-curie levels of tritium from aircraft exit signs and LEO weapons sights, producing slightly elevated beta radiation. No other radiation above background levels was detected, both by Geiger counter and liquid scintillation device, as I've proven to you several times. Now your broken brain will have to come up with even more implausible leaps of logic to cling to your delusion, Roger. You moron. <snicker> -- 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. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. 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 | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot) |
| Message-ID | <1rCdnaZOvuUr1nHInZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519093 |
alt.astronomy & sci.physics restored <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8ac9199e-187a-4155-ac94-955dbc2e1a31@googlegroups.com... > > I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Don't worry I'll try to find your post because it gives me two things. It helps prove you are lying again and it helps prove Phantom Flight 11 was bogus by the lack of a shadow. > Would you expect an actual full size hole in the wall? I wouldn't, the > tips of the wings don't have enough mass. But that excuse does not hold true for the South Tower because every part of that alleged wing made a roadrunner type hole in that building so you are caught telling a partial truth but a truth that is inconsistant with what happened to the South Tower. <G> > If anything made it through, there would be a huge pile of dirt and debris > flying upwards. So no. Maybe there was but unlike normal explosions whatever went up was probably ultra fine particles that floated away instead of crashed to the ground. > No, no, no. Your claim is that the "surviving walls" only survived because > they were outside the influence of the "deep underground nukes." But the > picture YOU provide shows a surviving wall right in the path of the nuke. > (Lower right corner) So your theory falls down on the face of the evidence > you yourself provided. So the nuke under WTC3 was more toward the east side of WTC3. Even the marks on that photo show that. Plus we have never seen the hole left by that particular nuke so we don't know what it's spread pattern was but if it was like the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" then the spread pattern of that nuke didn't go very far west either.. > There is no EXCESSIVE radiation that would signify nuclear energy being > used. There were no published radiation readings from Ground Zero. If you doubt that then prove there were some. <G> >Nobody said "bumped tripod." dmaster did and so did one of the stupid comments on that video. > And to this very date, You and your Cartoon physics. I seem to recall that you stated you would believe NIST hypothesis more than anybody's facts and now it is clear you believe Cartoon Physics. But you will use real physics when cartoon physics do not apply like with the right wing of Phantom Flight 11. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 17:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot & dmaster) |
| Message-ID | <dNudnQ33WdBdwHLInZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519260 |
"dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:3d1347b1-5980-4c31-9e41-f1034b1ad8a5@googlegroups.com... > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Rocky wrote: > ... >> >> >Nobody said "bumped tripod." >> >> dmaster did and so did one of the stupid comments on that video. > ... >> Rocky > > I actually said that the camera shook, as it clearly did in whichever > video Rocky was promoting at the time. But the video shows the camera shook and shook and shook so your explanation is bullshit. Plus an AM receiver caught a very small EMP at the exact same time just like it was from a nuke buried 77 meters underground so if it was a camera shake and shake and shake it also had a small EMP associated with it. <G> And do not forget to this very day the only explanation for why there was so little at the base of two 110 story buildings and then what was left was left standing is a Nuclear Controlled Demolition. See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Radiation? Test were sent elsewhere to avoid being contaminated by stuff at GZ and those test gave me my first clue that nukes were used. Earthquake? That too was proven by the person that spilled the beans in the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers. BOTTOM LINE: If nukes did not leave their signature at the base of the Twin Towers then how could a "Global Collapse" do what was done? <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 03:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero (answers 4 d Ediot & dmaster) |
| Message-ID | <mrsvua9snqj1m5bh4k78jtj3616i58odhc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519852 |
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:16:47 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:3d1347b1-5980-4c31-9e41-f1034b1ad8a5@googlegroups.com...
>> On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> >Nobody said "bumped tripod."
>>>
>>> dmaster did and so did one of the stupid comments on that video.
>> ...
>>> Rocky
>>
>> I actually said that the camera shook, as it clearly did in whichever
>> video Rocky was promoting at the time.
>
>But the video shows the camera shook and shook and shook so your explanation
>is bullshit.
>
>Plus an AM receiver caught a very small EMP at the exact same time just like
There was no AM receiver in use. You are, of course, still free
to prove your claim that one was. Since it's another of your MANY
delusions, you'll not do so.
Using the evidence YOU provided, it has been PROVED there was no
EMP.
>it was from a nuke buried 77 meters underground so if it was a camera shake
>and shake and shake it also had a small EMP associated with it. <G>
>
Where did you come up with 77 meters?
>And do not forget to this very day the only explanation for why there was so
>little at the base of two 110 story buildings and then what was left was
>left standing is a Nuclear Controlled Demolition. See:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
Once again, that picture PROVES your claim wrong.
>Radiation? Test were sent elsewhere to avoid being contaminated by stuff at
>GZ and those test gave me my first clue that nukes were used.
>
What were the results of the tests? Be sure to include valid
cites.
>Earthquake? That too was proven by the person that spilled the beans in the
>Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers.
There was no earthquake.
>
>BOTTOM LINE: If nukes did not leave their signature at the base of the Twin
>Towers then how could a "Global Collapse" do what was done? <G>
What is a global collapse?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 00:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues crazy raving |
| Message-ID | <rdopbc-66h.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #518963 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away > after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post > until now. No one cares about your crackpot links or crackpot theoriies, lunatic. Have you found a job yet, you batshit crazy, demented stalker? When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events. A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any governmental agency. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 08:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues crazy raving |
| Message-ID | <msem2c$nqo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519007 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >> away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of >> this post until now. > > No one cares about your crackpot links or crackpot theoriies, lunatic. > > Have you found a job yet, you batshit crazy, demented stalker? > > When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic > signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. > > There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any > seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers > as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected > by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the > Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events. > > A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a > fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. > > Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it > has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. > > Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available > on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. > > Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any > governmental agency. > > This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html > > Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. > > <snip remaining kook babble Yup,...your links sure are credble sources.....NOT Bur if you want to go on the premise that, "if it's on the internet it must be true",...how about this link ??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh5x9Hnl5cg As whacky as it is, it's still far more bellievable than the fairytale the government is "officially" telling us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 15:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues crazy raving |
| Message-ID | <msf26i$da8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #519071 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> writes: >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea >> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html >> >> Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. >Yup,...your links sure are credble sources.....NOT What's up with the 911research.wtc7.net site? It used to be a major 9/11 conspiracy theory site and most of it is still like that. Now, however, it has lots of actual data/facts that counters the kook arguments and now even the kooks are denouncing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 18:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues crazy raving |
| Message-ID | <ciprbc-8mn.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #519071 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>> away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of >>> this post until now. >> >> No one cares about your crackpot links or crackpot theoriies, lunatic. >> >> Have you found a job yet, you batshit crazy, demented stalker? >> >> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic >> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. >> >> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any >> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers >> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected >> by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the >> Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events. >> >> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a >> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. >> >> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it >> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. >> >> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available >> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. >> >> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any >> governmental agency. >> >> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. >> >> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea >> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html >> >> Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. >> >> <snip remaining kook babble > > > > > > Yup,...your links sure are credble sources.....NOT You didn't read the links within the provided links, did you? There are LOTS of places, many of them outside the USA, where seismic data is archived and publically available, so anyone can do the research and find there were no nuclear events recorded anywhere on the planet on 9/11 and multiple nuclear events would have been recorded everywhere. <snip remaining nonsense> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 02:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <acWdndPBvs3Uc3bInZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519118 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:ciprbc-8mn.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> < wacked out jim's wacked out post > > > There are LOTS of places, many of them outside the USA, where seismic > data is archived and publically available, None of that matters because people can clearly see the North Tower shake and shake and shake roughly 12 seconds before the North Tower was vaporized, another camera caught an explosion at that same time and an AM receiver operated by WCBS caught an EMP at that exact same time too. Then when we consider the near total lack of the Twin Towers where they once stood and the tremendous clouds of debris in the air then both those and the signs listed above are all signs of a nuke. And the fact we were lied to about the seismic readings that do not show anything from when the North Tower shook and shook and shook is also a sign that nukes were used in Nuke York City and we were lied to about that too, just like we were lied to about the jets. DUH. ***** OP Below ***** Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of this post until now. And keep in mind if there was absolutely no radiation recorded at Ground Zero then that is a smoking gun too because there is radiation everywhere. <G> And don't give me any seismic readings bullshit because buildings don't just shake and shake and shake at a consistent rate if a tripod was bumped. Plus a bumped tripod does not explain why WCBS recorded a simultaneous EMP and why people started running at the exact same event. <G> And to this very date NIST has never used their Cartoon Physics to explain why so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers were left standing and not just standing but standing with survivors. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And then why are their so many inconsistencies between real jets and the Phantom Flight 175? http://911planeshoax.com Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U Rocky Now for the link that shows Post Nuke Photos of Ground Zero http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 16:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky thinks cameas are seismographs |
| Message-ID | <sp7ubc-lh2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #519231 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > None of that matters because people can clearly see the North Tower shake > and shake and shake roughly 12 seconds before the North Tower was vaporized, > another camera caught an explosion at that same time and an AM receiver > operated by WCBS caught an EMP at that exact same time too. How do you explain the fact that seismographs all over the East Coast recorded the tiny (about 2) signatures of the two towers collapsing and the miniscule (about 1.5) signatures of the airplanes crashing in the Pentagon and the woods, but no seismograph anyhwere on the planet recorded the huge (about 6) signatures that EACH nuclear device would have created? Either every government, academic instutution, seismic research organization, seismologist and amateur seismologist on the planet is part of a world wide conspiracy or there were no nuclear bombs involved on 9/11. <snip remaining kook ravings> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 11:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues crazy raving |
| Message-ID | <mshmqr$5ti$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #519118 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated >>>> away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of >>>> this post until now. >>> >>> No one cares about your crackpot links or crackpot theoriies, lunatic. >>> >>> Have you found a job yet, you batshit crazy, demented stalker? >>> >>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic >>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the >>> planet. >>> >>> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any >>> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers >>> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were >>> detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than >>> 2 on the Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such >>> events. >>> >>> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a >>> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. >>> >>> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it >>> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. >>> >>> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available >>> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. >>> >>> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any >>> governmental agency. >>> >>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on >>> 9/11. >>> >>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html >>> >>> Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. >>> >>> <snip remaining kook babble >> >> >> >> >> >> Yup,...your links sure are credble sources.....NOT > > You didn't read the links within the provided links, did you? > > There are LOTS of places, many of them outside the USA, where seismic > data is archived and publically available, so anyone can do the > research and find there were no nuclear events recorded anywhere > on the planet on 9/11 and multiple nuclear events would have been > recorded everywhere. > > <snip remaining nonsense> It's already widely noted that none of the towers that fell created anywhere near the expected ground vibrations that would have been expected for their mass. And WTC 7 barely made the ground shake when it "came down" Of course I've noticed that you conveniently skipped right over that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 10:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues crazy raving |
| Message-ID | <_s2dnfivjOqv_3HInZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #519267 |
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message news:mshmqr$5ti$1@dont-email.me... > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: < jim's nonsense flushed > > >> There are LOTS of places, many of them outside the USA, where seismic >> data is archived and publically available, so anyone can do the >> research and find there were no nuclear events recorded anywhere >> on the planet on 9/11 and multiple nuclear events would have been >> recorded everywhere. >> >> <snip remaining nonsense> > > > > > It's already widely noted that none of the towers that fell created > anywhere near the expected ground vibrations that would have been expected > for their mass. > And WTC 7 barely made the ground shake when it "came down" > > Of course I've noticed that you conveniently skipped right over that fact. Jim also likes to avoid the fact that the hijackers managed to fly a jet with just one wing and they never even made the Guinness book of World Records for that. I guess flying CGI jets with one wing didn't count. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 16:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's one wing delusion |
| Message-ID | <908ubc-lh2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #519268 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Jim also likes to avoid the fact that the hijackers managed to fly a jet > with just one wing and they never even made the Guinness book of World > Records for that. So now Rocky is seeing airplanes with one wing that don't exist along with nuclear bombs that don't exist and radiation that doesn't exist and CGI's that don't exist and missles that don't exist? Is there no limit to his delusions? What a delusional nutjob. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 14:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky's one wing delusion |
| Message-ID | <vl6pua1kd1c1deqj3fvlt1bbf41e66v020@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519288 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 16:59:21 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim also likes to avoid the fact that the hijackers managed to fly a jet
>> with just one wing and they never even made the Guinness book of World
>> Records for that.
>
>So now Rocky is seeing airplanes with one wing that don't exist along
>with nuclear bombs that don't exist and radiation that doesn't exist
>and CGI's that don't exist and missles that don't exist?
>
>Is there no limit to his delusions?
>
>What a delusional nutjob.
Using a video he used to link to, I was able to prove the wing he
claimed disappeared did not disappear. For a short while he abandoned
the claim.
He's never posted a link to the video he used to use since.
Rocky is a very slow learner, but eventually he is able to learn
a bit. It's sad that his very real mental defect(s) prevents him from
truly accepting what he's learned.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 11:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Rocky continues crazy raving |
| Message-ID | <dopouatub7ibv98lcohesb67orte1ae6k2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519267 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:43:02 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> Ok, I've recently been saying that buildings at Ground Zero floated
>>>>> away after being nuked but I didn't use the link at the very end of
>>>>> this post until now.
>>>>
>>>> No one cares about your crackpot links or crackpot theoriies, lunatic.
>>>>
>>>> Have you found a job yet, you batshit crazy, demented stalker?
>>>>
>>>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>>>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the
>>>> planet.
>>>>
>>>> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
>>>> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
>>>> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were
>>>> detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than
>>>> 2 on the Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such
>>>> events.
>>>>
>>>> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
>>>> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
>>>>
>>>> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
>>>> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
>>>>
>>>> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
>>>> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
>>>>
>>>> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
>>>> governmental agency.
>>>>
>>>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on
>>>> 9/11.
>>>>
>>>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea
>>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
>>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
>>>>
>>>> Be sure to follow all the links in the above links.
>>>>
>>>> <snip remaining kook babble
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup,...your links sure are credble sources.....NOT
>>
>> You didn't read the links within the provided links, did you?
>>
>> There are LOTS of places, many of them outside the USA, where seismic
>> data is archived and publically available, so anyone can do the
>> research and find there were no nuclear events recorded anywhere
>> on the planet on 9/11 and multiple nuclear events would have been
>> recorded everywhere.
>>
>> <snip remaining nonsense>
>
>
>
>
>It's already widely noted that none of the towers that fell created anywhere
>near the expected ground vibrations that would have been expected for their
>mass.
>And WTC 7 barely made the ground shake when it "came down"
>
>Of course I've noticed that you conveniently skipped right over that fact.
>
You just destroyed Rocky's claim of nukes.
Good job. There is hope for you yet.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web