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

Groups > sci.physics > #519768 > unrolled thread

Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-08 11:56 -0500
    Re: Rocky has never had a rational thought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-08 18:29 +0000
      Re: Rocky has never had a rational thought "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 03:55 -0500
    Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 20:08 +0100
      Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 10:43 -0500
        Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-09 11:07 -0500
          Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-10 16:54 -0500
            Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 00:05 +0000
              Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC (Michael lies about the basements) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 14:50 -0500
        Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-09 13:19 -0400
        Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-09 20:18 +0100
          Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-10 16:45 -0500
            Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-10 23:03 +0100
              Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-11 22:45 +0100
            Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 22:35 +0000
              Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:35 -0500
                Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 01:02 -0500
                Re: More Rocky magic jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 15:44 +0000
                Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-14 18:09 +0200

#519768 — Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC

People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an EMP 
from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the 
Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above ground EMP 
would be disastrous.

As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes 
theory but those same items can not be used to debunk the Nuclear Controlled 
Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:

Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/ 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#519784 — Re: Rocky has never had a rational thought

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an EMP 
> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the 
> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above ground EMP 
> would be disastrous.

No one had used AM for many decades by 9/11 and even a "mini nuke" EMP,
let alone three of them, would have immediately killed every video
camera on 9/11 in the area, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519935 — Re: Rocky has never had a rational thought

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an EMP 
>> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the 
>> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above ground EMP 
>> would be disastrous.
>
>No one had used AM for many decades by 9/11 and even a "mini nuke" EMP,
>let alone three of them, would have immediately killed every video
>camera on 9/11 in the area, kook.

     The electrical grid for most, if not all, of Manhattan would have
fried as well.
     In Rocky's mind, the laws of physics were suspended for a short
time on September 11, 2001.

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

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

#519788

On 08/09/2015 17:56, Rocky wrote:
> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an EMP
> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the
> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above ground EMP
> would be disastrous.
>
> As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
> theory but those same items can not be used to debunk the Nuclear Controlled
> Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:
>
> Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>
>

About turn, Rocky now does not believe in mini-nukes.

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

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

#519970

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:msnbj7$rt8$4@dont-email.me...
> On 08/09/2015 17:56, Rocky wrote:
>> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an 
>> EMP
>> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the
>> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above ground 
>> EMP
>> would be disastrous.
>>
>> As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>> theory but those same items can not be used to debunk the Nuclear 
>> Controlled
>> Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:
>>
>> Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
>> 
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>>
>>
>
> About turn, Rocky now does not believe in mini-nukes.

No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same thing 
as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."

The "mini-nuke theory" only considers WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 where the "Nuclear 
Controlled Demolition" testimony considers WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC7 and 
Fiterman Hall.  So why wouldn't I want to support the idea that explains the 
remains of the World Trade Center the best.

Rocky 

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

#519973

"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message 
news:charlie-gordon1492-11E2F1.08545709092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> In article <zeOdnTlf5oWDzm3InZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same 
>> thing
>> as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."
>
> A little known fact among the retard population, but you need a minimum 
> mass of
> fissile metal, the critical mass, to get uncontrolled fission. That gives 
> a
> minimum yield, which I guess is around 10 kt. You cannot get much minier 
> than a
> Hiroshima yield with a fission bomb.
>
> You could design the weapon to be a dud and get a smaller yield, but that 
> is
> going to waste very expensive fissile metal to get an effect similar to 
> the same
> sized but much cheaper conventional bomb.

You said a lot of nothing.

The point being the nukes used in Nuke York City were setup so they both 
vaporized one of the Twin Towers up to the alleged impact area so people 
would put one and one together and think oh that is what did it.  Little did 
they know that was not what did it.

And if you watch the North Tower close the bottom part of the Twin Towers 
stands strong while the top part gets smaller and smaller so the bottom part 
might have been vaporized later than they wanted it to be vaporized.

Rocky 

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

#520170

"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message 
news:charlie-gordon1492-CAD7E0.10070109092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> In article <Veidnf-GX44dxG3InZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message
>> news:charlie-gordon1492-11E2F1.08545709092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>> > In article <zeOdnTlf5oWDzm3InZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same
>> >> thing
>> >> as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."
>> >
>> > A little known fact among the retard population, but you need a minimum
>> > mass of
>> > fissile metal, the critical mass, to get uncontrolled fission. That 
>> > gives
>> > a
>> > minimum yield, which I guess is around 10 kt. You cannot get much 
>> > minier
>> > than a
>> > Hiroshima yield with a fission bomb.
>> >
>> > You could design the weapon to be a dud and get a smaller yield, but 
>> > that
>> > is
>> > going to waste very expensive fissile metal to get an effect similar to
>> > the same
>> > sized but much cheaper conventional bomb.
>>
>> You said a lot of nothing.
>
> Exactly. Your minunukes are nothing.

Too bad they are the only explanation for the following:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Oh and if you need help with the above it shows something rising from 3 
spots where deep underground nukes were used to vaporize the Twin Towers and 
part of WTC7.

And the other thing is there is less debris from the Twin Towers than there 
would have been from a controlled demolition of a 10 story building so 
something is obviously amiss.

Hell, look at the debris pile from WTC7 it is small for a 47 story building 
but it is still a lot bigger than the pile left by the Twin Towers.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#520204

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>Hell, look at the debris pile from WTC7 it is small for a 47 story building 
>but it is still a lot bigger than the pile left by the Twin Towers.  <G>

That's because WTC7 didn't have a 70' deep basement, kooktard.

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

#520366 — Re: Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC (Michael lies about the basements)

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mst5sb$le0$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>Hell, look at the debris pile from WTC7 it is small for a 47 story 
>>building
>>but it is still a lot bigger than the pile left by the Twin Towers.  <G>
>
> That's because WTC7 didn't have a 70' deep basement, kooktard.

It would not have mattered if the Twin Towers had basements 200 meters deep 
because none of the debris from the top of the Twin Towers ended up in them.

Don't forget the free standing walls from the Twin Towers and the fact over 
a dozen people survived in Stairwell B of the North Tower.

the Miracle of stairwell B (full documentary)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTRNEVKMY4

Both the above items prove the debris did not go straight down and in fact 
after the Twin Towers were converted to ultra fine debris they could and did 
float away from Ground Zero.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#519980

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:43:33 -0500
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> 
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
> news:msnbj7$rt8$4@dont-email.me...
> > On 08/09/2015 17:56, Rocky wrote:
> >> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to
> >> receive an EMP
> >> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not
> >> the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an
> >> above ground EMP
> >> would be disastrous.
> >>
> >> As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the
> >> mini-nukes theory but those same items can not be used to debunk
> >> the Nuclear Controlled
> >> Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:
> >>
> >> Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
> >> 
> >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
> >>
> >>
> >
> > About turn, Rocky now does not believe in mini-nukes.
> 
> No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same
> thing as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."
> 
> The "mini-nuke theory" only considers WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 where the
> "Nuclear Controlled Demolition" testimony considers WTC1, WTC2, WTC3,
> WTC4, WTC7 and Fiterman Hall.  So why wouldn't I want to support the
> idea that explains the remains of the World Trade Center the best.
> 
> Rocky 
> 
> 

Why are you not at work??..............LOL!!!!

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

#520005

On 09/09/2015 16:43, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:msnbj7$rt8$4@dont-email.me...
>> On 08/09/2015 17:56, Rocky wrote:
>>> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an
>>> EMP
>>> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the
>>> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above ground
>>> EMP
>>> would be disastrous.
>>>
>>> As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>>> theory but those same items can not be used to debunk the Nuclear
>>> Controlled
>>> Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:
>>>
>>> Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
>>>
>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> About turn, Rocky now does not believe in mini-nukes.
>
> No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same thing
> as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."
>
> The "mini-nuke theory" only considers WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 where the "Nuclear
> Controlled Demolition" testimony considers WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC7 and
> Fiterman Hall.  So why wouldn't I want to support the idea that explains the
> remains of the World Trade Center the best.
>
> Rocky
>
>


Your post :-
"As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
theory "

Not mine.

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

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

#520167

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:msq0ih$cgo$1@dont-email.me...
> On 09/09/2015 16:43, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:msnbj7$rt8$4@dont-email.me...
>>> On 08/09/2015 17:56, Rocky wrote:
>>>> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an
>>>> EMP
>>>> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the
>>>> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above 
>>>> ground
>>>> EMP
>>>> would be disastrous.
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>>>> theory but those same items can not be used to debunk the Nuclear
>>>> Controlled
>>>> Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:
>>>>
>>>> Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
>>>>
>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> About turn, Rocky now does not believe in mini-nukes.
>>
>> No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same 
>> thing
>> as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."
>>
>> The "mini-nuke theory" only considers WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 where the 
>> "Nuclear
>> Controlled Demolition" testimony considers WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC7 
>> and
>> Fiterman Hall.  So why wouldn't I want to support the idea that explains 
>> the
>> remains of the World Trade Center the best.
>>
>> Rocky
>>
>>
>
>
> Your post :-
> "As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
> theory "
>
> Not mine.

Yes, "theory" because the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers 
uses testimony from someone that knows and not theory.  DUH.

Rocky 

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

#520173

On 10/09/2015 22:45, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:msq0ih$cgo$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 09/09/2015 16:43, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:msnbj7$rt8$4@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 08/09/2015 17:56, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to receive an
>>>>> EMP
>>>>> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not the
>>>>> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above
>>>>> ground
>>>>> EMP
>>>>> would be disastrous.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>>>>> theory but those same items can not be used to debunk the Nuclear
>>>>> Controlled
>>>>> Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:
>>>>>
>>>>> Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> About turn, Rocky now does not believe in mini-nukes.
>>>
>>> No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same
>>> thing
>>> as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."
>>>
>>> The "mini-nuke theory" only considers WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 where the
>>> "Nuclear
>>> Controlled Demolition" testimony considers WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC7
>>> and
>>> Fiterman Hall.  So why wouldn't I want to support the idea that explains
>>> the
>>> remains of the World Trade Center the best.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your post :-
>> "As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>> theory "
>>
>> Not mine.
>
> Yes, "theory" because the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
> uses testimony from someone that knows and not theory.  DUH.
>
> Rocky
>
>

Who would this person be?
How does he know?

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

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

#520391

On 10/09/2015 23:03, Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 22:45, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:msq0ih$cgo$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 09/09/2015 16:43, Rocky wrote:
>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:msnbj7$rt8$4@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 08/09/2015 17:56, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>> People keep in mind that items like using an AM receiver to
>>>>>> receive an
>>>>>> EMP
>>>>>> from an underground nuke only debunks the Mini Nuke theory and not
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers because an above
>>>>>> ground
>>>>>> EMP
>>>>>> would be disastrous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the
>>>>>> mini-nukes
>>>>>> theory but those same items can not be used to debunk the Nuclear
>>>>>> Controlled
>>>>>> Demolition of the Twin Towers.  See:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> About turn, Rocky now does not believe in mini-nukes.
>>>>
>>>> No clown.  Let me restate it.  The "mini-nuke theory" is not the same
>>>> thing
>>>> as a "Nuclear Controlled Demolition."
>>>>
>>>> The "mini-nuke theory" only considers WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 where the
>>>> "Nuclear
>>>> Controlled Demolition" testimony considers WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC7
>>>> and
>>>> Fiterman Hall.  So why wouldn't I want to support the idea that
>>>> explains
>>>> the
>>>> remains of the World Trade Center the best.
>>>>
>>>> Rocky
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your post :-
>>> "As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>>> theory "
>>>
>>> Not mine.
>>
>> Yes, "theory" because the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin
>> Towers
>> uses testimony from someone that knows and not theory.  DUH.
>>
>> Rocky
>>
>>
>
> Who would this person be?
> How does he know?
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>

So no answer, could your statement be a lie?

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

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

#520184

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>> "As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>> theory "
>>
>> Not mine.

>Yes, "theory" because the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers 
>uses testimony from someone that knows and not theory.  DUH.

Who would that be?  Not that Russian kook, right?

"What happens when it [the nuclear blast wave] hits the air?"  "Nothing!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

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

#520955

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mst0k5$7ui$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>> "As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>>> theory "
>>>
>>> Not mine.
>
>>Yes, "theory" because the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
>>uses testimony from someone that knows and not theory.  DUH.
>
> Who would that be?  Not that Russian kook, right?
>
> "What happens when it [the nuclear blast wave] hits the air?"  "Nothing!"
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Why would it hit the air first when it was buried in rock under tons of 
liquid freon too?

And given that there were so many media fcuk ups on 9/11 why should we 
believe anything the media told us about 9/11?

9/11 and Media Fakery
 http://fakemedia911.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-plane-speed.html

Or this one:
 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9%2F11+the+ball

Or this one:
9/11 PLANE WING DISAPPEARS AS IT HITS TRADE CENTER TOWER! CGI HOLOGRAM?
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_x9NsxJlg

Or this one:
07 - The Key
 https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?list=PLEA05F393EC843D80

Or this one:
9/11 no planes compilation - interesting!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw

Or this one:
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U

"9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film."

Rocky 

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

#520957

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message 
news:sLydnahAq5FxwWvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:mst0k5$7ui$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>> "As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the 
>>>> mini-nukes
>>>> theory "
>>>>
>>>> Not mine.
>>
>>>Yes, "theory" because the Nuclear Controlled Demolition of the Twin 
>>>Towers
>>>uses testimony from someone that knows and not theory.  DUH.
>>
>> Who would that be?  Not that Russian kook, right?
>>
>> "What happens when it [the nuclear blast wave] hits the air?"  "Nothing!"
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
> Why would it hit the air first when it was buried in rock under tons of 
> liquid freon too?
>
> And given that there were so many media fcuk ups on 9/11 why should we 
> believe anything the media told us about 9/11?
>
> 9/11 and Media Fakery
> http://fakemedia911.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-plane-speed.html
>
> Or this one:
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9%2F11+the+ball
>
> Or this one:
> 9/11 PLANE WING DISAPPEARS AS IT HITS TRADE CENTER TOWER! CGI HOLOGRAM?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_x9NsxJlg
>
> Or this one:
> 07 - The Key
> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?list=PLEA05F393EC843D80
>
> Or this one:
> 9/11 no planes compilation - interesting!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BswpAgwBNEw
>
> Or this one:
> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
>
> "9/11 was a big lie, and the media showed us a poorly made film."
>
> Rocky

And I found another media fcuk up but this one has to be time indexed:

Believe Your Own Eyes - 9/11 - No "Planes" Were Ever Used.mp4
 https://youtu.be/IL8cJWyOxWQ?t=25m58s

Oh, and I can't forget this media fcukup
9/11 Pentagon Reality Check 16: CNN's JAMIE MCINTYRE
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHeYFTPG4KQ

and oddly enough I think I heard Jamie Mcintyre say that on TV and that 
changed my mind from thinking we were lied to about the Pentagon to knowing 
we were lied to about the Pentagon.

Or this media fcuk up:
9/11 BBC World News Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it 
Happens
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx4p9pUREZ8

Keep in mind Jane Stanley is claiming that WTC7 collapsed but you can see it 
standing behind her.

Rocky

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

#521054 — Re: More Rocky magic

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> Why would it hit the air first when it was buried in rock under tons of 
> liquid freon too?

Where would tons of liquid freon come from, kook, certainly not the
A/C system?

You do know that uncontrained freon almost instantly becomes gaseous,
kook?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#521063

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:sLydnahAq5FxwWvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:mst0k5$7ui$2@pcls7.std.com...

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

>>>> "As a matter of fact there are numerous items that debunk the mini-nukes
>>>> theory "
>>>>
>>>> Not mine.

>>> Ye<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>> Who would that be?  Not that Russian kook, right?
>>
>> "What happens when it [the nuclear blast wave] hits the air?"  "Nothing!"
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

> Why would it hit the air first when it was buried in rock under tons of 
> liquid freon too?

Bwahahahaaa! My gawd but you're fucking stupid, Roger. Your broken
brain accepts any kooky conspiracy theory, no matter how laughably
implausible or impossible, because you're simply too stupid to discern
fantasy from reality.

The WTC towers used a 60,000 refrigerant ton plant with 200,000 pounds
of R-22 Freon (chlorodifluoromethane). The refrigeration plant was
outside WTC1 to the south. The Freon storage tanks were in
sub-basement 4. Chill water fed the towers to cool them.

{Aside:
The "explosions" people were hearing and feeling in the basement
levels were caused by several things... first, the viscoelastic
dampers in the region of the fire were melting and releasing their
pre-tension between the floor spars and truss frame... that's a lot of
energy being released that shook the building. Second, several
elevators had their cables cut by the planes crashing into the
building and by the resultant fires, and fell into the basements.
Third, the jet fuel had dumped down the elevator shafts. The fumes
built up until the snapped elevator car electrical cables sparked,
triggering the jet fuel fumes to explode.}

When Freon comes into contact with room temperature, it doesn't burn
or explode, it evaporates (boiling point -41.3 F). When it comes into
contact with high temperatures (as in a fire), it doesn't burn or
explode, it converts into phosgene gas... the same gas that used to be
used as a chemical agent during war. It's only combustible when mixed
with air under pressure and exposed to strong ignition sources. At
extremely high temperatures (much higher than that found in the WTC
fires) it can react with alkalies and alkaline earth metals such as
aluminum, sodium, potassium or zinc to cause thermal decomposition.

You'll note that temperature in the sub-basement 4 level didn't get
hot enough to cause thermal decomposition of the R22, and didn't rise
until *after* the WTC towers had collapsed. By that time, all the R22
had evaporated from the broken storage tanks.

Now your broken brain, being utterly unable to explain how "liquid
freon in the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo
[sic] nuclear bomb" (your words), given that there was no nuke and
given that your kooky scenario is utterly impossible, will be forced
to come to the equally kooky conclusion that the Freon somehow
converted to fluorine gas (or even kookier than that... was swapped
out for fluorine gas to achieve an explosive effect)... but then,
you'll have to explain how that fluorine gas (it boils at -306.6 F)
would have any effect upon anything before it evaporated, and how the
refrigerant tanks could hold the high pressure fluorine (its Critical
Point is -200 F at 750 PSI, whereas the R22 tanks are designed to hold
R22 at 70 F at 121.25 PSI... if fluorine had been put in those tanks,
they would have exploded from the pressure long before the planes hit
the towers).

You'll note that fluorine can be store in passivated steel containers
safely... only in the presence of moisture or greases and
non-passivated steel does fluorine have an effect... said effect being
descaling of the metal (surface pickling). Non-passivated steel will
only react vigorously with fluorine if it's powdered.

You moron. LOL

> A<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

-- 

Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394

Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.

Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.

B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".

C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).

D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.

E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL

F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL

G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

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.

K) Your broken brain has now stated (MID:
<YtWdnQvC1PTFNWjInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>) that "liquid freon in
the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo [sic]
nuclear bomb" (your words). Complete and utter nonsense from your
thoroughly broken schizophrenic brain, Roger.

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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web