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


Groups > sci.physics > #519762 > unrolled thread

Re: Plane truth

Started by"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
First post2015-09-08 11:30 -0500
Last post2015-09-13 05:41 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 202 — 20 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 11:30 -0500
    Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 12:44 -0400
    Re: Rocky has no clue about airplanes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 18:26 +0000
    Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 20:08 +0100
      Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 19:46 +0000
        Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 16:11 -0500
          Re: Rocky is shooken jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 21:19 +0000
            Re: Rocky is shooken Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 16:38 -0500
              Re: Rocky is shooken jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 21:48 +0000
                Re: Rocky is shooken Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:32 -0500
                  Re: Rocky is shooken benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 22:39 -0400
                    Re: Rocky is shooken HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 06:06 -0400
                      Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 07:17 -0700
                        Re: Rocky is shooken HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:53 -0400
                          Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 08:08 -0700
                            Re: Rocky is shooken "Chad Fistpumper" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-09-09 17:50 -0700
                              Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:21 -0700
                        Re: Rocky is shooken benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 19:30 -0400
                          Re: Rocky is shooken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:10 -0700
                  Re: die ass hat spammer, die jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-09 03:34 +0000
          Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:17 +0100
            Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 17:29 -0500
              Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-09 00:00 +0100
              Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 02:13 +0000
                Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-09 02:03 -0400
                Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 10:27 -0500
                  Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-09 17:22 +0000
                  Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 18:16 +0000
                    Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 17:16 -0500
                      Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 03:54 +0000
                        Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-10 07:05 +0200
                  Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:43 -0500
          Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 23:36 +0000
            Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 10:12 -0500
              Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-09 17:23 +0000
      Re: Plane truth "Andrew W" <spam_ajwerner@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-09-10 18:06 +1000
        Re: Plane truth HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 07:39 -0400
        Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-10 20:58 +0100
          Re: Plane truth george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> - 2015-09-11 08:14 +1200
            Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-10 16:57 -0500
              Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-10 23:03 +0100
                Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 19:51 +0100
    Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 15:45 -0400
      Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 16:20 -0400
        Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 16:54 -0400
          Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 17:21 -0400
            Re: Plane truth Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 16:48 -0700
          Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 16:53 -0500
            Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:17 +0100
            Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-08 23:09 +0000
              Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 09:27 -0500
                Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 16:15 +0000
                Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-09 13:35 -0400
                  Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-09 18:31 +0000
                    Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 17:28 -0500
                      Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:42 -0500
                      Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 04:21 +0000
                  Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:41 -0500
                    Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-10 08:59 -0400
                      Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 13:52 +0000
                        Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 12:31 -0500
                          Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-19 18:37 +0000
                            Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 20:03 -0500
                            Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-19 20:10 -0500
                              Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-20 05:21 +0000
                                Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 10:56 -0500
                                  Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-20 19:52 +0000
                                    Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 15:22 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:29 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-21 01:42 +0000
                                        Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 22:11 -0500
                                          Re: Plane truth moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-21 05:06 +0000
                                            Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 06:14 -0500
                                              Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 14:06 -0500
                                              Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 04:53 -0500
                                          Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-21 20:19 +0100
                                            Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 15:38 -0500
                                        Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 09:21 -0500
                                          Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-21 20:19 +0100
                                    Re: Plane truth  (Wow Michael found an interesting link ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 15:51 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth  (Wow Michael found an interesting link ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:30 -0500
                                    Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-20 16:56 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:30 -0500
                                  Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 21:05 +0100
                                Re: Plane truth  ( WTC Core Columns Turn To Dust? ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 09:40 -0500
                              Re: Plane truth Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 09:52 +0100
                              Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 05:10 -0500
                      Re: Plane truth BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-10 10:26 -0400
                        Re: Plane truth 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-11 09:34 -0400
                      Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:34 -0500
            Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 19:54 -0400
              Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-09 12:09 -0400
                Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:41 -0500
                  Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 07:29 -0400
                    Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:05 -0500
                      Re: Plane truth ( Kid is caught lying again ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:32 -0500
                        Re: Plane truth (More proof, if any were needed, that Roger is mentally ill) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:47 -0500
        edtiem subjectum noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:37 -0700
      Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 15:55 -0500
        Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 17:03 -0400
          Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-08 17:36 -0400
            Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 19:56 -0400
              Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-09 12:29 -0400
                Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 09:05 -0500
                  Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-11 12:32 -0400
                    Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 15:09 -0500
                      Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-11 18:53 -0400
                        Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 13:09 -0400
                          Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 17:57 -0400
                            Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 17:57 -0500
                              Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 00:11 +0000
                                Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 20:47 -0400
                                  Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:12 -0500
                                    Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-12 23:16 -0400
                                      Re: Ignorance of aircraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:30 +0000
                                        Re: Ignorance of aircraft BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-13 10:10 -0400
                                          Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:16 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:01 -0500
                                        Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-13 10:11 -0400
                                        Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon 2 Kid ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:27 -0500
                                          Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon 2 Kid ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:46 -0500
                                            Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon 2 Kid ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:10 -0500
                                              Re: Plane truth ( Roger is not mentally able to answer questions) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:20 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 01:55 -0500
                                        Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
                                        Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 09:14 -0400
                                        Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 16:56 -0500
                                    Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-13 07:31 +0200
                                  Re: delusions about airplanes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:26 +0000
                              Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 19:27 -0500
                                Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
                                  Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 20:35 -0500
                                    Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 07:55 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 11:14 -0500
                                        Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:48 -0500
                                          Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) ( Kid can not quote NIST ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:33 -0500
                                            Re: Rocky's ignorance jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:52 +0000
                                            Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Kid 9/12/15 ) ( Kid can not quote NIST ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:21 -0500
                                    Re: Rocky babbles on jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:32 +0000
                                Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 22:26 -0400
                                Re: Plane truth ( rep to the Ediot ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 09:35 +0100
                                  Re: Plane truth ( rep to the T-Annoy ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 18:22 -0500
                                    Re: Plane truth ( rep to the T-Annoy ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 02:17 +0000
                                      Re: Plane truth ( Michael stilll thinks he is super smart but he is a nobody ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:31 -0500
                                    Re: Plane truth ( rep to the T-Annoy ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 06:40 +0100
                              Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:12 -0500
                              Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon ) Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 22:16 -0400
                                Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:20 -0500
                                  Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:33 -0400
                                    Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 05:57 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:01 -0500
                                      Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 15:56 -0400
                                        Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:02 -0500
                                          Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 21:35 +0100
                                            Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 17:35 -0400
                                          Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 17:32 -0400
                                            Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:23 -0500
                                              Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-14 10:31 -0400
                                                Re: Plane truth ( missle used on the Pentagon + Sarah's new last name) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:39 -0500
                                          Re: Rocky runs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 22:51 +0000
                                            Re: Rocky runs Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 19:09 -0400
                                              Re: Rocky runs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:48 +0000
                                      Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 18:54 -0500
                                        Re: Imaginary missiles jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 00:29 +0000
                                        Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 09:06 -0500
                                          Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-14 17:07 +0000
                                            Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 12:25 -0500
                                              Re: Rocky still delusional jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 17:58 +0000
                                              Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-14 22:05 +0000
                                                Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 17:40 -0500
                                                  Re: Rocky is really stupid jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 23:11 +0000
                                                  Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:45 -0500
                                                Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 18:09 -0500
                                                  Re: Rocky still stupid jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 23:40 +0000
                                                  Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:46 -0500
                                                  Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 01:45 +0000
                                                    Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:24 -0500
                                                      Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 06:40 +0100
                                                      Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 04:12 -0500
                                                  Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-15 04:46 +0200
                                                  Re: Plane truth ( Michael proves he is a BIG LIAR ) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-15 06:40 +0100
                                              Re: Plane truth ( To the Ediot there were no hijacked jets on 9/11) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-15 05:49 +0200
                                    Re: Phantom missiles jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:35 +0000
                                      Re: Phantom missiles "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-13 10:56 -0700
                            Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 20:38 -0400
                              Re: Plane truth Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:01 -0400
                  Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:06 -0500
          Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 16:41 -0500
            Re: Plane truth Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-08 20:02 -0400
        Re: More Rocky fantasy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 21:13 +0000
          Re: More Rocky fantasy Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:17 +0100
            Re: More Rocky fantasy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 22:59 +0000
      Re: Plane truth "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 18:36 -0500
        Re: Plane truth jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 00:12 +0000
          Re: Plane truth "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-12 20:56 -0400
            Re: Plane truth Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:03 -0400
            Re: Plane delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:39 +0000
          Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
        Re: Plane truth "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:13 -0500
          Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:13 -0500
            Re: Plane truth ( Kid Wills proves he has never flown remote controlled airplanes + napalm ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:00 -0500
            Re: more delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 05:41 +0000

Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11  Next page →


#519855 — Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit )

FromTony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com>
Date2015-09-08 23:17 +0100
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit )
Message-ID<msnmmr$c1i$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#519826
On 08/09/2015 22:11, Rocky wrote:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:msndtq$frs$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>>> I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know)
>>> did not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>>
>> That's because that Russian doesn't seem to have a clue what nuclear
>> devices actually do!
>
> You are both idiots because there is a long part in the following video that
> shows people described the ground shaking the way people would feel the
> ground shaking if there were a 5.5 under their feet.
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
> And Michael if you really think a nuke detonated deep underground in solid
> rock really has a air blast wave or an EMP why don't you prove it since the
> US obviously did a lot of nuclear testing before their big show in Nuke York
> City.
>

So are you now saying that there was no emp, because you have said that 
the nukes were deep in solid rock.


> Yep, we both noticed that your radiation argument fizzled because they
> shipped the samples elsewhere for testing and we have no idea where the
> piece of steel came from that was part of a test.
>

But you have told us that you have evidence that Geiger counters went of 
at the TT's site, or have you lost that evidence as well?

> And don't forget I'm still waiting to see how :a "global collapse" as NIST
> called it could leave so little at the bottom of the Twin Towers and then to
> have what was left standing up.  <G>
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Oh, and you can't use NIST because they dropped the ball on that part.  See:
>
> NIST's Evasion
>   http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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


#519856 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2015-09-08 17:29 -0500
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )
Message-ID<w66dnVB4A4wB_HLInZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#519855
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:msnmmr$c1i$3@dont-email.me...
> On 08/09/2015 22:11, Rocky wrote:
>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:msndtq$frs$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know)
>>>> did not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>>>
>>> That's because that Russian doesn't seem to have a clue what nuclear
>>> devices actually do!
>>
>> You are both idiots because there is a long part in the following video 
>> that
>> shows people described the ground shaking the way people would feel the
>> ground shaking if there were a 5.5 under their feet.
>>
>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>> And Michael if you really think a nuke detonated deep underground in 
>> solid
>> rock really has a air blast wave or an EMP why don't you prove it since 
>> the
>> US obviously did a lot of nuclear testing before their big show in Nuke 
>> York
>> City.
>>
>
> So are you now saying that there was no emp, because you have said that 
> the nukes were deep in solid rock.

If I use the term EMP I get all sorts of assholes saying stuff like it 
should have burned out every light bulb in the area.  That is not how big it 
was since only an AM recover caught it.

And you, if you really wanted to know answers you could get them from the 
same place I do but you are obviously just a heckler.

Now if you really want answers google is a great place to start.

And if you want to bitch about evasion NIST is a great example of someone 
that was paid 10 million dollars to be evasive.  See:
 http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

And after seeing how evasive NIST was you shouldn't be bitching about 
anybody else.  DUH.

Rocky 

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


#519863 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )

FromTony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com>
Date2015-09-09 00:00 +0100
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )
Message-ID<msnp67$lld$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#519856
On 08/09/2015 23:29, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:msnmmr$c1i$3@dont-email.me...
>> On 08/09/2015 22:11, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>> news:msndtq$frs$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know)
>>>>> did not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>>>>
>>>> That's because that Russian doesn't seem to have a clue what nuclear
>>>> devices actually do!
>>>
>>> You are both idiots because there is a long part in the following video
>>> that
>>> shows people described the ground shaking the way people would feel the
>>> ground shaking if there were a 5.5 under their feet.
>>>
>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>>    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>>
>>> And Michael if you really think a nuke detonated deep underground in
>>> solid
>>> rock really has a air blast wave or an EMP why don't you prove it since
>>> the
>>> US obviously did a lot of nuclear testing before their big show in Nuke
>>> York
>>> City.
>>>
>>
>> So are you now saying that there was no emp, because you have said that
>> the nukes were deep in solid rock.
>
> If I use the term EMP I get all sorts of assholes saying stuff like it
> should have burned out every light bulb in the area.  That is not how big it
> was since only an AM recover caught it.
>

So you are saying that the 'emp' was only detected by an AM particular 
receiver (I presume you meant receiver), which receiver would that be?

> And you, if you really wanted to know answers you could get them from the
> same place I do but you are obviously just a heckler.
>
> Now if you really want answers google is a great place to start.
>
> And if you want to bitch about evasion NIST is a great example of someone
> that was paid 10 million dollars to be evasive.  See:
>   http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
>
> And after seeing how evasive NIST was you shouldn't be bitching about
> anybody else.  DUH.
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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


#519887 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2015-09-09 02:13 +0000
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )
Message-ID<mso4jo$396$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#519856
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>If I use the term EMP I get all sorts of assholes saying stuff like it 
>should have burned out every light bulb in the area.  That is not how big it 
>was since only an AM recover caught it.

So it was just a little EMP.  So you admit that there couldn't have been a
nuke there after all, if all there was was just a little EMP.

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


#519916 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )

FromBDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com>
Date2015-09-09 02:03 -0400
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Tony the heckler )
Message-ID<MPG.305995c33e52c1e198c284@news.giganews.com>
In reply to#519887
In article <mso4jo$396$1@pcls7.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com 
says...
> 
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
> 
> >If I use the term EMP I get all sorts of assholes saying stuff like it 
> >should have burned out every light bulb in the area.  That is not how big it 
> >was since only an AM recover caught it.
> 
> So it was just a little EMP.  So you admit that there couldn't have been a
> nuke there after all, if all there was was just a little EMP.

Rocky has said some stupid shit before, but this stuff is just over the 
top. Again, he pretty much proves he's just a troll, snd you're feeding 
him.

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

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


#519968 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2015-09-09 10:27 -0500
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )
Message-ID<UIedna5jBtbD0m3InZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#519887
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mso4jo$396$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>If I use the term EMP I get all sorts of assholes saying stuff like it
>>should have burned out every light bulb in the area.  That is not how big 
>>it
>>was since only an AM recover caught it.
>
> So it was just a little EMP.  So you admit that there couldn't have been a
> nuke there after all, if all there was was just a little EMP.

And where is your evidence that EMPs can be created with very little 
atmosphere?  <G>

Gaud you have been obviously taken your physics lessons from watching 
cartoons.

And if you want a laugh look for "1.5 million tons" (your words) of debris 
from the Twin Towers in the following photo.  <G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And oddly enough all that steam could be coming from what was left of 3 
nukes because you can even see steam coming from WTC7 and if true that means 
you wouldn't want to breath that stuff.

Rocky 

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


#519984 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-09-09 17:22 +0000
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )
Message-ID<5f66cc-8ka.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#519968
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And where is your evidence that EMPs can be created with very little 
> atmosphere?  <G>

The basic physics of how a nuclear device works and the empirical
confirmation of nuclear explosions in space, babbling kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#519993 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2015-09-09 18:16 +0000
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )
Message-ID<mspt1q$sjq$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#519968
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mso4jo$396$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>> So it was just a little EMP.  So you admit that there couldn't have been a
>> nuke there after all, if all there was was just a little EMP.

>And where is your evidence that EMPs can be created with very little 
>atmosphere?  <G>

K00ktard, EMPs are generated when the high energy prompt gamma radiation
released by the fission and fusion of nuclei interacts with surrounding
matter (whether atmosphere or stone) via the Compton effect.  This expels
electrons with an energy of about 1 MeV which travel at nearly the speed
of light.  The electrons contribute to a Compton current which generates
enormous electric and magnetic fields in the E1 pulse.  This produces a
near instantaneous electric field of 50,000 volts/meter, destroying
non-hardened electronics by exceeding the breakdown voltage of electronic
components.

Since rock is much denser than the atmosphere, the Compton effect takes
place much nearer the point of detonation rather than spread out over a
large area in the atmosphere.  Therefore an underground nuclear explosion
has a much smaller EMP range of about 10 km, as opposed to 1000 miles or
more for a high altitude atmospheric detonation.

Atmospheric tests also produce slower E2 and E3 pulses through interaction
with Earth's magnetic field that doesn't apply to underground tests.  It
is the E1 pulse that is most damaging and hardest to protect against.

>And if you want a laugh look for "1.5 million tons" (your words) of debris 
>from the Twin Towers in the following photo.  <G>

Yup. 70 feet of debris from the bathtub floor up to street level would
be about right for 1.5 million tons. Thanks for the picture of all that
debris.

>And oddly enough all that steam could be coming from what was left of 3 
>nukes because you can even see steam coming from WTC7 and if true that means 
>you wouldn't want to breath that stuff.

And that radioactive steam would contaminate all of Lower Manhattan with
lethal radiation.  You're right, you wouldn't want to breathe that stuff.
If it existed.  (Well, the actual steam from water on fires or whatnot did
exist and would be nasty and I wouldn't want to breathe it, either, even
though it wouldn't be radioactive)

So we're back to Magic Nukes that don't release any radiation, don't
produce an EMP, don't produce a 5.5 earthquake with the distinctive
nuclear signature, don't produce a fireball, don't produce a 12,000' high
mushroom cloud, don't produce a 1200' crater (that little glacial pothole?
GMAFB!), has Hushaboom(tm) technology, don't spew tritium, produces a 
blast wave that does "nothing" upon reaching the atmosphere, shall I go 
on?

How did they cram that much magic into a single nuke? (Or was it 34 
nukes?)

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


#520015 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2015-09-09 17:16 -0500
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )
Message-ID<ivGdnVPxCcWILW3InZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#519993
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mspt1q$sjq$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mso4jo$396$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>
>>> So it was just a little EMP.  So you admit that there couldn't have been 
>>> a
>>> nuke there after all, if all there was was just a little EMP.
>
>>And where is your evidence that EMPs can be created with very little
>>atmosphere?  <G>
>
> K00ktard, EMPs are generated when the high energy prompt gamma radiation
> released by the fission and fusion of nuclei interacts with surrounding
> matter (whether atmosphere or stone) via the Compton effect.  This expels
> electrons with an energy of about 1 MeV which travel at nearly the speed
> of light.  The electrons contribute to a Compton current which generates
> enormous electric and magnetic fields in the E1 pulse.  This produces a
> near instantaneous electric field of 50,000 volts/meter, destroying
> non-hardened electronics by exceeding the breakdown voltage of electronic
> components.

link?


> Since rock is much denser than the atmosphere, the Compton effect takes
> place much nearer the point of detonation rather than spread out over a
> large area in the atmosphere.  Therefore an underground nuclear explosion
> has a much smaller EMP range of about 10 km, as opposed to 1000 miles or
> more for a high altitude atmospheric detonation.
>
> Atmospheric tests also produce slower E2 and E3 pulses through interaction
> with Earth's magnetic field that doesn't apply to underground tests.  It
> is the E1 pulse that is most damaging and hardest to protect against.

link and what size nuke are you talking about?


>>And if you want a laugh look for "1.5 million tons" (your words) of debris
>>from the Twin Towers in the following photo.  <G>
>
> Yup. 70 feet of debris from the bathtub floor up to street level would
> be about right for 1.5 million tons. Thanks for the picture of all that
> debris.

You had better look again because those free standing walls were not 
supported by a debris pile.  And in some photos of the north wall of the 
North Tower it is up against what was left of WTC6 and that can not be 
called a debris pile either since it is not crushed either.

And if you think that part that stands about 6 floors up is a debris pile 
you are wrong because it was what was left of Stairwell B in the North Tower 
where over a dozen people survived.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

So now where is your debris pile?  ROTFLMAO.


>>And oddly enough all that steam could be coming from what was left of 3
>>nukes because you can even see steam coming from WTC7 and if true that 
>>means
>>you wouldn't want to breath that stuff.
>
> And that radioactive steam would contaminate all of Lower Manhattan with
> lethal radiation.  You're right, you wouldn't want to breathe that stuff.
> If it existed.  (Well, the actual steam from water on fires or whatnot did
> exist and would be nasty and I wouldn't want to breathe it, either, even
> though it wouldn't be radioactive)

You still have no links to support your bs about small underground nukes and 
I love the way you thought a free standing wall or a place where over a 
dozen people survived were piles of debris.  <G>


> So we're back to Magic Nukes that don't release any radiation, don't
> produce an EMP, don't produce a 5.5 earthquake with the distinctive
> nuclear signature, don't produce a fireball, don't produce a 12,000' high
> mushroom cloud, don't produce a 1200' crater (that little glacial pothole?
> GMAFB!), has Hushaboom(tm) technology, don't spew tritium, produces a
> blast wave that does "nothing" upon reaching the atmosphere, shall I go
> on?

NOBODY and you proved it yourself ever gave us readings from geiger counters 
at GZ.  All the testing was done away from GZ after carefully selecting what 
they wanted to send in and chances are the steel they sent in might have 
been shipped from Virginia.


> How did they cram that much magic into a single nuke? (Or was it 34
> nukes?)

And yet it is you with no supporting evidence to say what is needed for an 
EMP weapon.

Rocky 

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


#520077 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2015-09-10 03:54 +0000
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )
Message-ID<msqut8$gh9$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#520015
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mspt1q$sjq$2@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>> K00ktard, EMPs are generated when the high energy prompt gamma radiation
>> released by the fission and fusion of nuclei interacts with surrounding
>> matter (whether atmosphere or stone) via the Compton effect.  This expels
>> electrons with an energy of about 1 MeV which travel at nearly the speed
>> of light.  The electrons contribute to a Compton current which generates
>> enormous electric and magnetic fields in the E1 pulse.  This produces a
>> near instantaneous electric field of 50,000 volts/meter, destroying
>> non-hardened electronics by exceeding the breakdown voltage of electronic
>> components.

>link?

What, you want me to find a coloring book version of the generation of
EMPs so that you can understand it?  Of course, you never provided
any support for such claims as an atmosphere is needed for an EMP, just
some 4 hour videos of some Russian kooktard.

>link and what size nuke are you talking about?

Any size nuke.  Of course the bigger the nuke the bigger the EMP.

>>>And if you want a laugh look for "1.5 million tons" (your words) of debris
>>>from the Twin Towers in the following photo.  <G>
>>
>> Yup. 70 feet of debris from the bathtub floor up to street level would
>> be about right for 1.5 million tons. Thanks for the picture of all that
>> debris.

>You had better look again because those free standing walls were not 
>supported by a debris pile.  And in some photos of the north wall of the 
>North Tower it is up against what was left of WTC6 and that can not be 
>called a debris pile either since it is not crushed either.

I saw a pretty interesting post a while ago that suggested the north wall
of the North Tower was momentarily a ~60 story section of unsupported
wall.  It started falling over like a tree being chopped down, pivoting at
plaza level. It did so until it struck WTC6, and that caused the falling
wall to break off into a few pieces, including about at where it hit the
top of WTC6. The uppermost section of this wall fell over and struck WTC7
causing the big gash barely visible in some photos/videos.  A lower
section smashed huge holes in the top of WTC6.  The bottommost section of
the falling wall is the section left standing, splayed at an odd angle
leaning toward WTC6, frozen at the point when the top broke off.

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


#520081 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2015-09-10 07:05 +0200
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )
Message-ID<8c88845b59f8d1e5ee28b5f8070170c4@dizum.com>
In reply to#520077
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Michael Moroney, in <news:msqut8$gh9$3@pcls7.std.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking schizophrenic
> paranoid-delusional truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>> li<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

> Any size nuke.  Of course the bigger the nuke the bigger the EMP.

Not exactly. The bigger the nuke, the wider the geographic region the
EMP will cover, yes, but a larger nuke takes longer to complete its
chain reaction, so the EMP is of slightly longer duration, with
concomitant smaller power spike.

Conversely, a small nuke has a devastating EMP spike. Because it can
detonate all its nuclear load in a very short amount of time, the EMP
spike is extremely short with an extremely high power spike. That's
what blows out electronics. That's why the small 1.7 kT Hardtack-Yucca
EMP was so brutal. It was literally off the scale.

-- 

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]


#520034 — Re: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )

From"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date2015-09-09 18:43 -0500
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( More for Mike the brainless )
Message-ID<kvg1va5ufb6ppqb0flol4vp6eab35t1gko@4ax.com>
In reply to#519968
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:27:33 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mso4jo$396$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>If I use the term EMP I get all sorts of assholes saying stuff like it
>>>should have burned out every light bulb in the area.  That is not how big 
>>>it
>>>was since only an AM recover caught it.
>>
>> So it was just a little EMP.  So you admit that there couldn't have been a
>> nuke there after all, if all there was was just a little EMP.
>
>And where is your evidence that EMPs can be created with very little 
>atmosphere?  <G>
>

     Did you snip out something Michael wrote? I don't see anything
about atmosphere in his comment.

>Gaud you have been obviously taken your physics lessons from watching 
>cartoons.

     Says the mental defect who thinks the laws of physics were
suspended for a brief time on 9/11/01.

>
>And if you want a laugh look for "1.5 million tons" (your words) of debris 
>from the Twin Towers in the following photo.  <G>
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

     As you already know, but are psychologically UNABLE to admit,
most of the debris was in the sublevels and bathtub.

>And oddly enough all that steam could be coming from what was left of 3 
>nukes because you can even see steam coming from WTC7 and if true that means 
>you wouldn't want to breath that stuff.

     I doubt anyone would want to breathe (how does one breath stuff?)
that stuff. Especially with it being known there would be asbestos
particles present.

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

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


#519867 — Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit )

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2015-09-08 23:36 +0000
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit )
Message-ID<msnren$4s4$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#519826
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:msndtq$frs$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>>>I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know)
>>>did not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>>
>> That's because that Russian doesn't seem to have a clue what nuclear
>> devices actually do!

>You are both idiots because there is a long part in the following video that 
>shows people described the ground shaking the way people would feel the 
>ground shaking if there were a 5.5 under their feet.

K00ktard, it has been explained several times, if people next to it say
it felt like a 5.5, that doesn't make it 5.5.  They aren't seismographs.  
Seismographs are seismographs.  I could be standing next to a train track
while a high speed freight train goes by and it may feel like a 5.5 to me,
but it certainly wasn't.  It was just a freight train.  I'll remind you
yet again, the collapse *was* measured -- as a 2.3.

And yet again, you fail to have a reason why the nuclear detonation
signature wasn't seen anywhere.  It would be seen all over the world,
including places like North Korea, Russia and China, where the USGS would
be laughed at if they tried to censor anything.

>And Michael if you really think a nuke detonated deep underground in solid 
>rock really has a air blast wave or an EMP why don't you prove it since the 
>US obviously did a lot of nuclear testing before their big show in Nuke York 
>City.

So now we're back to "deep underground" nukes?  How deep?  32 miles? 96 
miles?  They'd have to be that deep to stop the EMP from frying every
video camera around, the NYC power grid etc.  The diagram your Russian 
kook had showed the nuke as just a short distance below the surface.

>Yep, we both noticed that your radiation argument fizzled because they 
>shipped the samples elsewhere for testing and we have no idea where the 
>piece of steel came from that was part of a test.

The whole freaking site would be dirty, k00ktard, if a nuke was set off
there.  The Sedan crater was too dirty to enter for 70 days after its 104
kT detonation, plus a good chunk of the US downwind from it suffered from
radioactive fallout.  You wouldn't need to test a sample of steel, just
bringing a geiger counter to the site would be enough to detect it.  (you
know, like in that Youtube video your dog ate)

>And don't forget I'm still waiting to see how :a "global collapse" as NIST 
>called it could leave so little at the bottom of the Twin Towers and then to 
>have what was left standing up.  <G>

I already told you.  Top sections of an unstable freestanding wall would
break off until the remaining wall was short enough to stand on its own.
And 108,222 truckloads of debris (1.5 million tons) is a LOT of debris at
the base of the Twin Towers.

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


#519964 — Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 )

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2015-09-09 10:12 -0500
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 )
Message-ID<VoudncHBg-dd1m3InZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#519867
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:msnren$4s4$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:msndtq$frs$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know)
>>>>did not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>>>
>>> That's because that Russian doesn't seem to have a clue what nuclear
>>> devices actually do!
>
>>You are both idiots because there is a long part in the following video 
>>that
>>shows people described the ground shaking the way people would feel the
>>ground shaking if there were a 5.5 under their feet.
>
> K00ktard, it has been explained several times, if people next to it say
> it felt like a 5.5, that doesn't make it 5.5.

Once again you prove you are an idiot.

People said it felt like a freight train was under their feet and on in an 
order of magnitude that can come in at a 5.5.  Here check out the  "average 
earthquake effects" not too far below the following link:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale#Richter_magnitudes

But that is not the exact same graph Dimitri used and if you want to use 
that one it is in the video with Dimitri..

And don't forget it takes a 150kt nuke about 11 seconds to build a cavity in 
rock and that happens to be about the length of time from when the nuke by 
WTC3 was detonated and shook the North Tower to when it started vaporizing 
everything it could.

And talking about the North Tower it didn't start collapsing down from the 
bogus impact zone immediately because it actually started collapsing up from 
the bogus impact zone just like a standard controlled Demoltion  so maybe 
the nuke took a little bit longer than they had planed.


> And yet again, you fail to have a reason why the nuclear detonation
> signature wasn't seen anywhere.  It would be seen all over the world,
> including places like North Korea, Russia and China, where the USGS would
> be laughed at if they tried to censor anything.

Well, it has been pointed out that if there was a pre existing cavity it 
might not register so maybe there was a pre existing cavity.


>>And Michael if you really think a nuke detonated deep underground in solid
>>rock really has a air blast wave or an EMP why don't you prove it since 
>>the
>>US obviously did a lot of nuclear testing before their big show in Nuke 
>>York
>>City.
>
> So now we're back to "deep underground" nukes?  How deep?  32 miles? 96
> miles?  They'd have to be that deep to stop the EMP from frying every
> video camera around, the NYC power grid etc.  The diagram your Russian
> kook had showed the nuke as just a short distance below the surface.

You really need to do some research on EMPs because they require the 
atmosphere and there isn't very much atmosphere in sold rock.  duh.

>>Yep, we both noticed that your radiation argument fizzled because they
>>shipped the samples elsewhere for testing and we have no idea where the
>>piece of steel came from that was part of a test.
>
> The whole freaking site would be dirty,

I've told you before and I'll tell you again you are thinking of above 
ground nukes and not underground nukes and it is clear that you have no 
working knowledge of underground nukes at all.

It is people like you who have no experience with underground nukes that are 
easily fooled by them.  Hell, you can't even find a video of one going off 
in rock because what happens when a nuke is detonated in solid rock could be 
a trade secret used by those that nuked the Twin Towers.


>>And don't forget I'm still waiting to see how :a "global collapse" as NIST
>>called it could leave so little at the bottom of the Twin Towers and then 
>>to
>>have what was left standing up.  <G>
>
> I already told you.  Top sections of an unstable freestanding wall would
> break off until the remaining wall was short enough to stand on its own.
> And 108,222 truckloads of debris (1.5 million tons) is a LOT of debris at
> the base of the Twin Towers.

ROTFLMAO because there is just one thing wrong with your theory and that is 
it is not supported by real life because in real life very little remained 
of the bottom 8 floors and walls that remained were still standing because 
nothing above them crushed them.

There are numerous photos of the remains of the Twin Towers and you can find 
them yourself because the only way so much could remain standing is if the 
Twin Towers really collapsed up or floated away instead of collapsed down 
and the only why they could float away is if they were converted to ultra 
fine debris by a nuke.

And don't give me any shit about the debris ended up in the basement because 
it didn't and the debris couldn't even kill the people that survived in 
floors 2 through 6 of Stairwell B of the North Tower.

Again, the following is not consistent with a collapse but a Nuclear 
Controlled Demolition.  <G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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


#519985 — Re: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 )

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-09-09 17:23 +0000
SubjectRe: Plane truth ( Michael is lacking proof to go with his mikeshit 3 )
Message-ID<3i66cc-8ka.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#519964
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And don't forget it takes a 150kt nuke about 11 seconds to build a cavity in 
> rock and that happens to be about the length of time from when the nuke by 
> WTC3 was detonated and shook the North Tower to when it started vaporizing 
> everything it could.

More like a few microseconds, babbling kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#520088

From"Andrew W" <spam_ajwerner@optusnet.com.au>
Date2015-09-10 18:06 +1000
Message-ID<msrdiu$n0q$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#519787
>"Tony Dragon"  wrote in message news:msnbj3$rt8$3@dont-email.me...
>On 08/09/2015 17:30, Rocky wrote:
>> "Zor-El of love bunny avenue" <Tromboneboy74@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:5661-4D7A551D-2046@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>>> One of the fairy tales spread by the 9/11 "truthers" is that one of the
>>> engineers who helped design the Twin Towers did a study that "proved" an
>>> aircraft strike wouldn't bring down the Towers.
>>>
>>> Put aside the fact that this "study" has never surfaced; that his
>>> colleuges don' t remember it, and that he himself didn't keep a copy for
>>> his files; it doesn't apply here.
>>>
>>> The study (if it ever was) examined the effects of the largest
>>> commercial aircraft of that time- a Boeing 707- hitting the Towers.
>>>
>>> The scenario was that a 707, lost in the fog., might blunder into the
>>> Towers. Since it would be searching for a airport, it would be flying
>>> slow and be low on fuel.
>>>
>>> On the morning of 9/11, both Towers were impacted by Boeing 767-222ER
>>> airliners. Although only having 2 jet engies (the 707 has 4), they were
>>> longer, had a greater wingspan and were much heavier than a 707. IOW,
>>> they were bigger. The jet engines that powered them are about the
>>> largest and most powerful ones mounted on civillian aircraft.
>>>
>>> They were fully fueled (both were nonstop transcontinental flights) and
>>> flying a high speed at impact.
>>>
>>> The devestation was far beyond the study paramaters. The fires, fed
>>> first by jet fuel, then the tremendous amount of combustible material in
>>> the buildings, led to weakend steel supports that triggered the
>>> collapse.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because you forgot to notice that neither of the bogus jets in 
>> Nuke
>> York City had their marker lights on and that Flight 175 didn't even have 
>> a
>> shadow from the South Tower when it disappeared exactly like a CGI would.
>>
>> But that isn't the worst part.  The worst part is after all these year, 
>> why
>> is it that only a Russian can explain why what was left of the Twin Tower
>> resembles a Nuclear Controlled Demolition instead of a collapse?   See:
>>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>
>
>I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know) did 
>not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>

That's because it was several small devices that focussed on the main 
structural supports.

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


#520093

FromHVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com>
Date2015-09-10 07:39 -0400
Message-ID<msrq2p$26s$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#520088
On 9/10/2015 4:06 AM, Andrew W wrote:
>>
>> I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know)
>> did not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>>
>
> That's because it was several small devices that focussed on the main
> structural supports.


Andy is sort of an ass clown.


-- 
Woodland Critters Christmas
https://goo.gl/DysCAl

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


#520135

FromTony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com>
Date2015-09-10 20:58 +0100
Message-ID<mssn9f$sjc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#520088
On 10/09/2015 09:06, Andrew W wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon"  wrote in message news:msnbj3$rt8$3@dont-email.me...
>> On 08/09/2015 17:30, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Zor-El of love bunny avenue" <Tromboneboy74@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5661-4D7A551D-2046@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>>>> One of the fairy tales spread by the 9/11 "truthers" is that one of the
>>>> engineers who helped design the Twin Towers did a study that
>>>> "proved" an
>>>> aircraft strike wouldn't bring down the Towers.
>>>>
>>>> Put aside the fact that this "study" has never surfaced; that his
>>>> colleuges don' t remember it, and that he himself didn't keep a copy
>>>> for
>>>> his files; it doesn't apply here.
>>>>
>>>> The study (if it ever was) examined the effects of the largest
>>>> commercial aircraft of that time- a Boeing 707- hitting the Towers.
>>>>
>>>> The scenario was that a 707, lost in the fog., might blunder into the
>>>> Towers. Since it would be searching for a airport, it would be flying
>>>> slow and be low on fuel.
>>>>
>>>> On the morning of 9/11, both Towers were impacted by Boeing 767-222ER
>>>> airliners. Although only having 2 jet engies (the 707 has 4), they were
>>>> longer, had a greater wingspan and were much heavier than a 707. IOW,
>>>> they were bigger. The jet engines that powered them are about the
>>>> largest and most powerful ones mounted on civillian aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> They were fully fueled (both were nonstop transcontinental flights) and
>>>> flying a high speed at impact.
>>>>
>>>> The devestation was far beyond the study paramaters. The fires, fed
>>>> first by jet fuel, then the tremendous amount of combustible
>>>> material in
>>>> the buildings, led to weakend steel supports that triggered the
>>>> collapse.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because you forgot to notice that neither of the bogus jets
>>> in Nuke
>>> York City had their marker lights on and that Flight 175 didn't even
>>> have a
>>> shadow from the South Tower when it disappeared exactly like a CGI
>>> would.
>>>
>>> But that isn't the worst part.  The worst part is after all these
>>> year, why
>>> is it that only a Russian can explain why what was left of the Twin
>>> Tower
>>> resembles a Nuclear Controlled Demolition instead of a collapse?   See:
>>>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>
>>
>> I wonder why this Russian (whose qualifications we still do not know)
>> did not notice the lack of nuclear signatures on seismographs.
>>
>
> That's because it was several small devices that focussed on the main
> structural supports.
>

So there should be several nuclear signatures than, can you point out 
the recordings?

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

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


#520137

Fromgeorge152 <gblack@hnpl.net>
Date2015-09-11 08:14 +1200
Message-ID<2bidnS2BO_gCeWzInZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#520135
On 9/11/2015 7:58 AM, Tony Dragon wrote:

> So there should be several nuclear signatures than, can you point out
> the recordings?
  14 years and they're still trying to claim nukes...
Getting into hollow earth length kookdom


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

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


#520171

From"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date2015-09-10 16:57 -0500
Message-ID<HcydneDEw5vIYWzInZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#520137
"george152" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in message 
news:2bidnS2BO_gCeWzInZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 9/11/2015 7:58 AM, Tony Dragon wrote:
>
>> So there should be several nuclear signatures than, can you point out
>> the recordings?
>  14 years and they're still trying to claim nukes...
> Getting into hollow earth length kookdom

And to this date almost 14 years later a Nuclear Controlled Demolition is 
still the only explanation for what survived of the Twin Towers.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And do not forget that what is used to debunk the mini-nukes theory does not 
debunk the Nuclear Controlled Demolition testimony.

Rocky 

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


Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web