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

Groups > sci.physics > #522719 > unrolled thread

Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started )

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: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-22 15:39 -0500
    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-23 03:56 +0000
      Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 13:39 -0500
        Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-24 18:37 +0000
          Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 17:24 -0500
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-24 22:46 +0000
            Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-25 15:28 +0000
              Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 14:12 -0500
                Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-25 21:45 +0000
                  Re: Rocky's delusions "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:05 -0500
                    Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-25 22:28 +0000
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:05 -0500
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-26 06:09 +0000
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 16:57 -0500
                    noun (Latin noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 18:02 -0700
                Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-26 10:54 +0200
                  Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:22 -0500
    Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 03:39 -0500

#522719 — Re: NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence (Waiting for Kidd the LIAR to finish what he started )

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:l56kta54cjqaefutis65mmnduboahqutie@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:38:34 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:mrcu9v$squ$3@dont-email.me...
>>> On 23/08/2015 15:29, Rocky wrote:
>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains 
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>>>
>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>>>
>>>> BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from
>>>> broadcast to broadcast so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos
>>>> could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make
>>>> very
>>>> little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by
>>>> the
>>>> low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.
>>>
>>> But you have said in another thread that the seismic readings were
>>> suspect.
>>
>>For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for 
>>the
>>alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only a
>>very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading
>>could be too high instead of way too low.
>>
>
>     2.3 is a reasonable reading.

And your proof is what?

>>The fact remains the playlist above can be used to prove that NIST lied
>>about every part of their study because no part of their bullshit was
>>supported by real life.
>
>     But it doesn't prove anything of the sort.

Kevin Ryan goes through all sorts of things NIST stated that were either 
tainted or very misleading and you would know that if you watched any of the 
videos.  DUH.


>>BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>
>     I've not watched all of the videos, but what I have watched
> proves your claim wrong.

Keep going don't stop there because you haven't proved anything at all yet? 
As a matter of fact you look exactly like a big time liar at this point just 
like you always do. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#522782

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

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:l56kta54cjqaefutis65mmnduboahqutie@4ax.com...

>>>For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for 
>>>the
>>>alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only a
>>>very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading
>>>could be too high instead of way too low.
>>>
>>
>>     2.3 is a reasonable reading.

>And your proof is what?

Let's do some math and science. (something that kooktards can't understand)

The North Tower was 1368' tall and produced a 2.3 magnitude signal.

The center of mass of a uniform rectangular block would be half that,
however the towers were much stronger (and heavier) near their bottoms, to
support the upper floors.  Let's call the center of mass to be at just
1/3 height, or 456 feet instead.  After the collapse, the mass was in its
basement levels, from 70 feet below street level up to street level.  The
center of mass of that would be half that, or 35 feet below street level.  
Total collapse distance of center of mass=456'+35'=491', 149.657 meters,
almost 150 meters.

Mass of each tower = 500,000 tons, or 453,592,370 kg.  

Potential gravitational energy released E = mgh.
E = 453592370 * 9.81 * 149.657 = 665,934,911,240 joules or 666 billion 
joules.

http://www.convertalot.com/earthquake_power__calculator.html calculates a
2.3 magnitude quake as 178 million joules.  This means 0.027% of the
collapse energy became seismic energy of 2.3 magnitude.  That seems rather
too low to me, but this was not a simple drop. Much of that energy went
into smashing floors and columns apart, smashing concrete to dust, lots of
noise and so forth.  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on 
bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?

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

#522880

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mtt7t4$hp5$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:l56kta54cjqaefutis65mmnduboahqutie@4ax.com...
>
>>>>For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for
>>>>the
>>>>alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only 
>>>>a
>>>>very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that 
>>>>reading
>>>>could be too high instead of way too low.
>>>>
>>>
>>>     2.3 is a reasonable reading.
>
>>And your proof is what?
>
> Let's do some math and science. (something that kooktards can't 
> understand)
>
> The North Tower was 1368' tall and produced a 2.3 magnitude signal.

But left very little on the ground afterwards with the exception of about a 
dozen Survivors and free standing walls that were not crushed by an alleged 
"global collapse."
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

> The center of mass of a uniform rectangular block would be half that,
> however the towers were much stronger (and heavier) near their bottoms, to
> support the upper floors.  Let's call the center of mass to be at just
> 1/3 height, or 456 feet instead.  After the collapse, the mass was in its
> basement levels, from 70 feet below street level up to street level.  The
> center of mass of that would be half that, or 35 feet below street level.
> Total collapse distance of center of mass=456'+35'=491', 149.657 meters,
> almost 150 meters.
>
> Mass of each tower = 500,000 tons, or 453,592,370 kg.
>
> Potential gravitational energy released E = mgh.
> E = 453592370 * 9.81 * 149.657 = 665,934,911,240 joules or 666 billion
> joules.
>
> http://www.convertalot.com/earthquake_power__calculator.html calculates a
> 2.3 magnitude quake as 178 million joules.  This means 0.027% of the
> collapse energy became seismic energy of 2.3 magnitude.  That seems rather
> too low to me, but this was not a simple drop. Much of that energy went
> into smashing floors and columns apart, smashing concrete to dust

ROTFLMAO because that wasn't just dust that was ultra fine dust that could 
float up up and away and do you have any idea how much energy is needed to 
turn a car into ultra fine dust?

For the sake of the argument.  Lets say there are two cars going 30 mph and 
they hit head on.  There ends up being a horrendous smoke cloud in the air 
and two undamaged wheels on the ground with very little wreckage or dust. 
Now would you consider that strange?  Of course you would think that was 
strange if other people thought it was strange but if the news claimed it 
was a collapse you would buy the cover story instead of think for yourself 
because you have done just that already.

>, lots of
> noise and so forth.

And don't forget noise is easily added to videos.  What you will find 
missing is any evidence from people about feeling the ground shake when the 
Twin Towers should have hit the ground.

>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?

Too bad your evidence of a large mass dropped on the ground is missing.  You 
claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 and 
crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg 

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

#522982

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mtt7t4$hp5$1@pcls7.std.com...

>> http://www.convertalot.com/earthquake_power__calculator.html calculates a
>> 2.3 magnitude quake as 178 million joules.  This means 0.027% of the
>> collapse energy became seismic energy of 2.3 magnitude.  That seems rather
>> too low to me, but this was not a simple drop. Much of that energy went
>> into smashing floors and columns apart, smashing concrete to dust

>ROTFLMAO because that wasn't just dust that was ultra fine dust that could 
>float up up and away and do you have any idea how much energy is needed to 
>turn a car into ultra fine dust?

Do you realize how much energy 666 billion joules is?  But no matter.
There really wasn't that much dust compared to the total mass of the 
towers.

<snip weird but irrelevant car crash comparison>

>>, lots of
>> noise and so forth.

>And don't forget noise is easily added to videos.

To all of thousands of videos?  How?

Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the delay
of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)

>>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
>> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?

>Too bad your evidence of a large mass dropped on the ground is missing.

1.5 million tons of debris (108,342 truckloads!) hauled out of the
"bathtub" is an awful lot of evidence that you're simply wrong.

>  You 
>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 and 
>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.

Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some kookvid!)
The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
up the weight of 110 stories.

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

#523036

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mu1fsj$30k$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mtt7t4$hp5$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> http://www.convertalot.com/earthquake_power__calculator.html calculates 
>>> a
>>> 2.3 magnitude quake as 178 million joules.  This means 0.027% of the
>>> collapse energy became seismic energy of 2.3 magnitude.  That seems 
>>> rather
>>> too low to me, but this was not a simple drop. Much of that energy went
>>> into smashing floors and columns apart, smashing concrete to dust
>
>>ROTFLMAO because that wasn't just dust that was ultra fine dust that could
>>float up up and away and do you have any idea how much energy is needed to
>>turn a car into ultra fine dust?
>
> Do you realize how much energy 666 billion joules is?  But no matter.
> There really wasn't that much dust compared to the total mass of the
> towers.
>
> <snip weird but irrelevant car crash comparison>
>
>>>, lots of
>>> noise and so forth.
>
>>And don't forget noise is easily added to videos.
>
> To all of thousands of videos?  How?

They had everything they needed to do that.  And all they really needed was 
a 3D layout of Nuke York City, a flight path for the CGI and a 
synchronization flash and many of the tainted videos still show the 
synchronization flash.

> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the delay
> of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)

ROTFLMAO because there is a very good video that point out why the Evan 
Fairbanks video had the sound removed.  See:

9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo


>>>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
>>> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?
>
>>Too bad your evidence of a large mass dropped on the ground is missing.
>
> 1.5 million tons of debris (108,342 truckloads!) hauled out of the
> "bathtub" is an awful lot of evidence that you're simply wrong.

You keep forgetting a large part of the clean up at Ground Zero was 
radioactive clean up where they brought in dirt, spread it around and then 
hauled it back out just like they did with Chernobyl.


>>  You
>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 and
>>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
>
> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some 
> kookvid!)
> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
> up the weight of 110 stories.

They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during the 
fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed when 
they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the North 
Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to smash 
itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#523039

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:mu1fsj$30k$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mtt7t4$hp5$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>>>> http://www.convertalot.com/earthquake_power__calculator.html calculates 
>>>> a
>>>> 2.3 magnitude quake as 178 million joules.  This means 0.027% of the
>>>> collapse energy became seismic energy of 2.3 magnitude.  That seems 
>>>> rather
>>>> too low to me, but this was not a simple drop. Much of that energy went
>>>> into smashing floors and columns apart, smashing concrete to dust
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because that wasn't just dust that was ultra fine dust that could
>>>float up up and away and do you have any idea how much energy is needed to
>>>turn a car into ultra fine dust?
>>
>> Do you realize how much energy 666 billion joules is?  But no matter.
>> There really wasn't that much dust compared to the total mass of the
>> towers.
>>
>> <snip weird but irrelevant car crash comparison>
>>
>>>>, lots of
>>>> noise and so forth.
>>
>>>And don't forget noise is easily added to videos.
>>
>> To all of thousands of videos?  How?
> 
> They had everything they needed to do that.  And all they really needed was 
> a 3D layout of Nuke York City, a flight path for the CGI and a 
> synchronization flash and many of the tainted videos still show the 
> synchronization flash.

Plus a crew of thousands, a budget of millions, and many months of
production time, just like any other movie.

>> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
>> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
>> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
>> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the delay
>> of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)
> 
> ROTFLMAO because there is a very good video that point out why the Evan 
> Fairbanks video had the sound removed.  See:
> 
> 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIEuGWMFDo
> 
> 
>>>>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
>>>> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?
>>
>>>Too bad your evidence of a large mass dropped on the ground is missing.
>>
>> 1.5 million tons of debris (108,342 truckloads!) hauled out of the
>> "bathtub" is an awful lot of evidence that you're simply wrong.
> 
> You keep forgetting a large part of the clean up at Ground Zero was 
> radioactive clean up where they brought in dirt, spread it around and then 
> hauled it back out just like they did with Chernobyl.

You keep forgetting there was no radiation other than normal background
radiation and the clean up was nothing like Chernobyl.

> 
>>>  You
>>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 and
>>>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
>>
>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some 
>> kookvid!)
>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
>> up the weight of 110 stories.
> 
> They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during the 
> fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed when 
> they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the North 
> Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to smash 
> itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>

Nothing was vaporized and there where no nukes.

You are still a raving lunatic in desparate need of psychiatric help.

There is nothing to be done, howver, for you being dumb as a stump.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#523115

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mu1fsj$30k$1@pcls7.std.com...

>>>And don't forget noise is easily added to videos.
>>
>> To all of thousands of videos?  How?

>They had everything they needed to do that.  And all they really needed was 
>a 3D layout of Nuke York City, a flight path for the CGI and a 
>synchronization flash and many of the tainted videos still show the 
>synchronization flash.

How did they get those elleged "CGIs" into all those thousands of cameras
and eyeballs?  Did they project it into the air somehow?  How?  Remember,
the answer has to be consistent with 2001 technology.  Hollywood can't do
that even now.

>> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
>> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
>> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
>> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the delay
>> of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)

>ROTFLMAO because there is a very good video that point out why the Evan 
>Fairbanks video had the sound removed.  See:

The point is, the man jumped when he heard the crash, even if the video
had no audio to record the crash itself.  I'm not interested in yet 
another kookvid.

>>>>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
>>>> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?
>>
>>>Too bad your evidence of a large mass dropped on the ground is missing.
>>
>> 1.5 million tons of debris (108,342 truckloads!) hauled out of the
>> "bathtub" is an awful lot of evidence that you're simply wrong.

>You keep forgetting a large part of the clean up at Ground Zero was 
>radioactive clean up where they brought in dirt, spread it around and then 
>hauled it back out just like they did with Chernobyl.

There was no radioactivity more than normal background level!  If there 
was a nuke there, the site would be too hot to enter for about 70 days.
They couldn't even bring in this magic dirt, which would have zero effect
on the radioactivity in the smoke and air anyway.  Plus a thin layer of 
dirt will be only marginal in blocking radioactivity anyway.

The point remains that 108,342 truckloads of debris is a lot of evidence
that a large mass from the towers fell into the bathtub.

>>>  You
>>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 and
>>>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
>>
>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some 
>> kookvid!)
>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
>> up the weight of 110 stories.

>They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during the 
>fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed when 
>they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the North 
>Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to smash 
>itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>

You didn't answer the question, kook.  Why would the mass of the towers
crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?  Remember 
the lower columns were very stout and strong, being thick enough to 
support the weight of the towers.  Also the lower levels used traditional
column/beam construction, non-compromised beams would still support the
standing walls from below.

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

#523140

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mu3p74$7ki$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mu1fsj$30k$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>>>And don't forget noise is easily added to videos.
>>>
>>> To all of thousands of videos?  How?
>
>>They had everything they needed to do that.  And all they really needed 
>>was
>>a 3D layout of Nuke York City, a flight path for the CGI and a
>>synchronization flash and many of the tainted videos still show the
>>synchronization flash.
>
> How did they get those elleged "CGIs" into all those thousands of cameras
> and eyeballs?

You had better recheck just who your alleged eye-witnesses were.  All but 
one of them were clearly related to someone working for the networks.  And 
we don't know for sure about the last one because they might have used a 
bogus name just like the "Harley Guy" used a bogus name.


>  Did they project it into the air somehow?  How?  Remember,
> the answer has to be consistent with 2001 technology.  Hollywood can't do
> that even now.

Don't forget, if one person says they saw a jet unsuspecting idiots will 
also say they saw a jet.  That test has been done a proven.  And there was 
at least one video where a woman refused to claim she saw a jet a second 
time because she knew something was up and obviously didn't like to lie. 
<G>


>>> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
>>> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
>>> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
>>> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the 
>>> delay
>>> of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)
>
>>ROTFLMAO because there is a very good video that point out why the Evan
>>Fairbanks video had the sound removed.  See:
>
> The point is, the man jumped when he heard the crash, even if the video
> had no audio to record the crash itself.  I'm not interested in yet
> another kookvid.

You mean he jumped when he saw a light from an explosion or heard an 
explosion.  He certainly didn't jump from the sound of a jet or he would 
have jumped sooner.  Plus if he were the guy controlling the sound of a jet 
then that explains why the sound wasn't turned off at the exact same time of 
the alleged impact.  BTW that was another screw up they had to try and clean 
up just like the CGIs with the missing wing.


>>>>>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
>>>>> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?
>>>
>>>>Too bad your evidence of a large mass dropped on the ground is missing.
>>>
>>> 1.5 million tons of debris (108,342 truckloads!) hauled out of the
>>> "bathtub" is an awful lot of evidence that you're simply wrong.
>
>>You keep forgetting a large part of the clean up at Ground Zero was
>>radioactive clean up where they brought in dirt, spread it around and then
>>hauled it back out just like they did with Chernobyl.
>
> There was no radioactivity more than normal background level!  If there
> was a nuke there, the site would be too hot to enter for about 70 days.
> They couldn't even bring in this magic dirt, which would have zero effect
> on the radioactivity in the smoke and air anyway.  Plus a thin layer of
> dirt will be only marginal in blocking radioactivity anyway.
>
> The point remains that 108,342 truckloads of debris is a lot of evidence
> that a large mass from the towers fell into the bathtub.

Again, don't forget how many truckloads were hauled in because Nuke York 
City was treated exactly like they had to treat Chernobyl.


>>>>  You
>>>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 
>>>>and
>>>>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
>>>
>>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some
>>> kookvid!)
>>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
>>> up the weight of 110 stories.
>
>>They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during the
>>fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed 
>>when
>>they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the 
>>North
>>Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to smash
>>itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>
>
> You didn't answer the question, kook.  Why would the mass of the towers
> crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?  Remember
> the lower columns were very stout and strong, being thick enough to
> support the weight of the towers.  Also the lower levels used traditional
> column/beam construction, non-compromised beams would still support the
> standing walls from below.

There were more parts from the "exoskeleton" thrown free from the 
vaporization area of a nuke than there were at the bottom of the Twin Towers 
with the exception of the parts of the exoskeleton that never moved from 
it's original location.  How do you explain that inconsistency?

There were way too many inconsistencies with the stories from the media just 
like there are inconsistencies with your version of what happened at the 
Pentagon or Nuke York City.

You obviously never tried looking for the facts behind 9/11/01 for yourself 
or you would have caught a lot of inconsistencies.  You have let yourself be 
taken by stories without photos and you never even asked why there were no 
photos.

Take for instance the one part that might have come from a 757 at the 
Pentagon.  Why just one part and why did it have vegetation on it that is 
consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil?  And why was the largest part 
recovered at the Pentagon hauled away under a tarp by a group of people?

Rocky 

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

#523177 — Re: Rocky's delusions

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> You had better recheck just who your alleged eye-witnesses were.  All but 
> one of them were clearly related to someone working for the networks.  And 
> we don't know for sure about the last one because they might have used a 
> bogus name just like the "Harley Guy" used a bogus name.

Yeah, sure, thousands of people on the street were all replaced by
people with some connection to "the networks".

You are still a delusional lunatic in dire need of psychiatric help.

<snip remaining delusional babble>

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#523186 — Re: Rocky's delusions

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:45:40 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
>> You had better recheck just who your alleged eye-witnesses were.  All but 
>> one of them were clearly related to someone working for the networks.  And 
>> we don't know for sure about the last one because they might have used a 
>> bogus name just like the "Harley Guy" used a bogus name.
>
>Yeah, sure, thousands of people on the street were all replaced by
>people with some connection to "the networks".
>
>You are still a delusional lunatic in dire need of psychiatric help.
>

     I think he's one meltdown short of a "What's the frequency,
Kenneth?" moment.

><snip remaining delusional babble>

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

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

#523195 — Re: Rocky's delusions

In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:45:40 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> You had better recheck just who your alleged eye-witnesses were.  All but 
>>> one of them were clearly related to someone working for the networks.  And 
>>> we don't know for sure about the last one because they might have used a 
>>> bogus name just like the "Harley Guy" used a bogus name.
>>
>>Yeah, sure, thousands of people on the street were all replaced by
>>people with some connection to "the networks".
>>
>>You are still a delusional lunatic in dire need of psychiatric help.
>>
> 
>      I think he's one meltdown short of a "What's the frequency,
> Kenneth?" moment.

He likely doesn't go out very much and spends all his time ranting
on USENET.

One would expect that as soon as he did go out, posting would cease
while he was undergoing mandatory evaluation.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#523184

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:12:37 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mu3p74$7ki$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mu1fsj$30k$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>>>>>And don't forget noise is easily added to videos.
>>>>
>>>> To all of thousands of videos?  How?
>>
>>>They had everything they needed to do that.  And all they really needed 
>>>was
>>>a 3D layout of Nuke York City, a flight path for the CGI and a
>>>synchronization flash and many of the tainted videos still show the
>>>synchronization flash.
>>
>> How did they get those elleged "CGIs" into all those thousands of cameras
>> and eyeballs?
>
>You had better recheck just who your alleged eye-witnesses were.  All but 
>one of them were clearly related to someone working for the networks.  And 
>we don't know for sure about the last one because they might have used a 
>bogus name just like the "Harley Guy" used a bogus name.
>

     Where's your link? <G>
     Your position is that any claim made without a link is a lie. If
you're mentally able to hold yourself to your own standards, this
means you've lied. Again.

>
>>  Did they project it into the air somehow?  How?  Remember,
>> the answer has to be consistent with 2001 technology.  Hollywood can't do
>> that even now.
>
>Don't forget, if one person says they saw a jet unsuspecting idiots will 
>also say they saw a jet.  That test has been done a proven.  

     Where is the link to this phantom study?

>And there was 
>at least one video where a woman refused to claim she saw a jet a second 
>time because she knew something was up and obviously didn't like to lie. 
><G>

     Or, she didn't actually see the jet. Depending on where she was,
it's possible she didn't actually see it.
     But where is your link? Or was this claim of yours another lie?

>
>>>> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
>>>> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
>>>> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
>>>> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the 
>>>> delay
>>>> of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because there is a very good video that point out why the Evan
>>>Fairbanks video had the sound removed.  See:
>>
>> The point is, the man jumped when he heard the crash, even if the video
>> had no audio to record the crash itself.  I'm not interested in yet
>> another kookvid.
>
>You mean he jumped when he saw a light from an explosion or heard an 
>explosion.  

     He most probably jumped when the sound of the impact of the jet
reached him.

>He certainly didn't jump from the sound of a jet or he would 
>have jumped sooner.  

     Not of the jet's engines as it flew at the building, no. 

>Plus if he were the guy controlling the sound of a jet 
>then that explains why the sound wasn't turned off at the exact same time of 
>the alleged impact.  BTW that was another screw up they had to try and clean 
>up just like the CGIs with the missing wing.

     Where's your link? <G>
     Your position is that any claim made without a link is a lie. If
you're mentally able to hold yourself to your own standards, this
means you've lied. Again.

>
>>>>>>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
>>>>>> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?
>>>>
>>>>>Too bad your evidence of a large mass dropped on the ground is missing.
>>>>
>>>> 1.5 million tons of debris (108,342 truckloads!) hauled out of the
>>>> "bathtub" is an awful lot of evidence that you're simply wrong.
>>
>>>You keep forgetting a large part of the clean up at Ground Zero was
>>>radioactive clean up where they brought in dirt, spread it around and then
>>>hauled it back out just like they did with Chernobyl.
>>
>> There was no radioactivity more than normal background level!  If there
>> was a nuke there, the site would be too hot to enter for about 70 days.
>> They couldn't even bring in this magic dirt, which would have zero effect
>> on the radioactivity in the smoke and air anyway.  Plus a thin layer of
>> dirt will be only marginal in blocking radioactivity anyway.
>>
>> The point remains that 108,342 truckloads of debris is a lot of evidence
>> that a large mass from the towers fell into the bathtub.
>
>Again, don't forget how many truckloads were hauled in because Nuke York 
>City was treated exactly like they had to treat Chernobyl.
>

     It wasn't treated exactly like they had to treat Chernobyl. What
do you think this LIE of yours gains you?

>>>>>  You
>>>>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 
>>>>>and crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some
>>>> kookvid!)
>>>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
>>>> up the weight of 110 stories.
>>
>>>They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during the
>>>fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed 
>>>when
>>>they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the 
>>>North
>>>Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to smash
>>>itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>
>>
>> You didn't answer the question, kook.  Why would the mass of the towers
>> crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?  Remember
>> the lower columns were very stout and strong, being thick enough to
>> support the weight of the towers.  Also the lower levels used traditional
>> column/beam construction, non-compromised beams would still support the
>> standing walls from below.
>
>There were more parts from the "exoskeleton" thrown free from the 
>vaporization area of a nuke than there were at the bottom of the Twin Towers 

     Whereas there were no nukes, a truth you've helped to prove,
there was no vaporization area.

>with the exception of the parts of the exoskeleton that never moved from 
>it's original location.  How do you explain that inconsistency?
>
 
     There is none to explain.

>There were way too many inconsistencies with the stories from the media just 
>like there are inconsistencies with your version of what happened at the 
>Pentagon or Nuke York City.
>
>You obviously never tried looking for the facts behind 9/11/01 for yourself 
>or you would have caught a lot of inconsistencies.  You have let yourself be 
>taken by stories without photos and you never even asked why there were no 
>photos.
>
>Take for instance the one part that might have come from a 757 at the 
>Pentagon.  Why just one part and why did it have vegetation on it that is 
>consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil?  

    Once again I'll ask, and once again you'll play an avoidance game
(if you even acknowledge my post), where can I, or anyone else with an
interest, find the valid, verifiable evidence for your claim of
Brazilian vegetation?

>And why was the largest part 
>recovered at the Pentagon hauled away under a tarp by a group of people?

     Everything was covered. Nothing unusual about that.
     One person wouldn't have realistically been able to move it, so a
group did so. DUH.


"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."

Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

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

#523240

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mu3p74$7ki$2@pcls7.std.com...

>> How did they get those elleged "CGIs" into all those thousands of cameras
>> and eyeballs?

>You had better recheck just who your alleged eye-witnesses were.  All but 
>one of them were clearly related to someone working for the networks.

All but one of the thousands of New Yorkers on the streets that day were
clearly related to someone working for the networks?  Is the entire city
related to someone working for the networks (except one)?

And you know this just how?  Don't tell me, you saw it in a four hour
kookvid made by another kooktard who just made that up.


>>  Did they project it into the air somehow?  How?  Remember,
>> the answer has to be consistent with 2001 technology.  Hollywood can't do
>> that even now.

>Don't forget, if one person says they saw a jet unsuspecting idiots will 
>also say they saw a jet.

You didn't answer the question.  How did they get that "CGI" into 
thousands of cameras and eyeballs?

>  That test has been done a proven.

Evidence?

>  And there was 
>at least one video where a woman refused to claim she saw a jet a second 
>time because she knew something was up and obviously didn't like to lie. 

So someone didn't see the jet.  Many people didn't.

>>>> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
>>>> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
>>>> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
>>>> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the 
>>>> delay
>>>> of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because there is a very good video that point out why the Evan
>>>Fairbanks video had the sound removed.  See:
>>
>> The point is, the man jumped when he heard the crash, even if the video
>> had no audio to record the crash itself.  I'm not interested in yet
>> another kookvid.

>You mean he jumped when he saw a light from an explosion or heard an 
>explosion.

He jumped from the sound of the explosion, just like I said.  He was 
facing away from the crash.

>  He certainly didn't jump from the sound of a jet

I never claimed he did.

>have jumped sooner.  Plus if he were the guy controlling the sound of a jet 
>then that explains why the sound wasn't turned off at the exact same time of 
>the alleged impact.

How or why would a random guy on the ground control a jet engine flying
hundreds of feet overhead?  That is so kooktarded!

>> The point remains that 108,342 truckloads of debris is a lot of evidence
>> that a large mass from the towers fell into the bathtub.

>Again, don't forget how many truckloads were hauled in because Nuke York 
>City was treated exactly like they had to treat Chernobyl.

Yes, you already said. 120 truckloads.  108,342 - 120 = 108,222 truckloads
of actual debris hauled out of the bathtub.  Satisfied?

>>>>>  You
>>>>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1 
>>>>>and
>>>>>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some
>>>> kookvid!)
>>>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
>>>> up the weight of 110 stories.
>>
>>>They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during the
>>>fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed 
>>>when
>>>they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the 
>>>North
>>>Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to smash
>>>itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>
>>
>> You didn't answer the question, kook.  Why would the mass of the towers
>> crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?  Remember
>> the lower columns were very stout and strong, being thick enough to
>> support the weight of the towers.  Also the lower levels used traditional
>> column/beam construction, non-compromised beams would still support the
>> standing walls from below.

>There were more parts from the "exoskeleton" thrown free from the 
>vaporization area of a nuke than there were at the bottom of the Twin Towers 
>with the exception of the parts of the exoskeleton that never moved from 
>it's original location.  How do you explain that inconsistency?

Once again you didn't answer the question.  Why would the mass of the
towers crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?

>You obviously never tried looking for the facts behind 9/11/01 for yourself 
>or you would have caught a lot of inconsistencies.  You have let yourself be 
>taken by stories without photos and you never even asked why there were no 
>photos.

Actually, I did.  Long ago a bunch of "Truthers" came in here and started
the same crap, mostly about WTC 7.  I was curious about that and 
investigated myself, reading both kooksites and regular references.
I concluded that the "Truthers" were either kooktarded or outright lying.
They all had bad science and misleading evidence.

>Take for instance the one part that might have come from a 757 at the 
>Pentagon.  Why just one part and why did it have vegetation on it that is 
>consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil?

Evidence?  (Real evidence, not a kookvid)  And they recovered 95% of
Flight 77 anyway.

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

#523311

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mu5crf$8rk$3@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mu3p74$7ki$2@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> How did they get those elleged "CGIs" into all those thousands of 
>>> cameras
>>> and eyeballs?
>
>>You had better recheck just who your alleged eye-witnesses were.  All but
>>one of them were clearly related to someone working for the networks.
>
> All but one of the thousands of New Yorkers on the streets that day were
> clearly related to someone working for the networks?  Is the entire city
> related to someone working for the networks (except one)?
>
> And you know this just how?  Don't tell me, you saw it in a four hour
> kookvid made by another kooktard who just made that up.

ROTFLMAO because it didnt take long at all to find one bogus Pentagon 
lie-witness who changed his story 3 fcuking times.  Do you honestly think 
the lie-witnesses to the alleged jets in Nuke York City are any better than 
Mike Walter?  <G>


>>>  Did they project it into the air somehow?  How?  Remember,
>>> the answer has to be consistent with 2001 technology.  Hollywood can't 
>>> do
>>> that even now.
>
>>Don't forget, if one person says they saw a jet unsuspecting idiots will
>>also say they saw a jet.
>
> You didn't answer the question.  How did they get that "CGI" into
> thousands of cameras and eyeballs?

They used the fcuking TV with CGIs.  DUH.


>>  That test has been done a proven.
>
> Evidence?

You.

>>  And there was
>>at least one video where a woman refused to claim she saw a jet a second
>>time because she knew something was up and obviously didn't like to lie.
>
> So someone didn't see the jet.  Many people didn't.

More people didn't than you think and I'm still waiting for you to give me 
one name.  Look at me, I gave you the name of a Pentagon Lie-Witness who can 
not be trusted because he changed his story three times and his name is Mike 
Walter.

>>>>> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
>>>>> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
>>>>> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away 
>>>>> from
>>>>> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the
>>>>> delay
>>>>> of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)
>>>
>>>>ROTFLMAO because there is a very good video that point out why the Evan
>>>>Fairbanks video had the sound removed.  See:
>>>
>>> The point is, the man jumped when he heard the crash, even if the video
>>> had no audio to record the crash itself.  I'm not interested in yet
>>> another kookvid.
>
>>You mean he jumped when he saw a light from an explosion or heard an
>>explosion.
>
> He jumped from the sound of the explosion, just like I said.  He was
> facing away from the crash.

The fact the alleged jet didn't slow down at all proves it didn't require 
any energy to do what it did so it probably didnt make much noise on impact 
either.  If it had crashed into the outside of the building and fell down 
that would have made a lot of noise and proven it was a real jet in the 
process.

>>  He certainly didn't jump from the sound of a jet
>
> I never claimed he did.
>
>>have jumped sooner.  Plus if he were the guy controlling the sound of a 
>>jet
>>then that explains why the sound wasn't turned off at the exact same time 
>>of
>>the alleged impact.
>
> How or why would a random guy on the ground control a jet engine flying
> hundreds of feet overhead?  That is so kooktarded!

He didn't control the jet, if anything he just controlled the buzz machine 
making a noise to make people think they heard a jet.  DUH.


>>> The point remains that 108,342 truckloads of debris is a lot of evidence
>>> that a large mass from the towers fell into the bathtub.
>
>>Again, don't forget how many truckloads were hauled in because Nuke York
>>City was treated exactly like they had to treat Chernobyl.
>
> Yes, you already said. 120 truckloads.  108,342 - 120 = 108,222 truckloads
> of actual debris hauled out of the bathtub.  Satisfied?

For years they hauled in and out truckloads of dirt just like they did at 
Chernobyl so you might want to add a few zeros to your 120.


>>>>>>  You
>>>>>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some
>>>>> kookvid!)
>>>>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to 
>>>>> hold
>>>>> up the weight of 110 stories.
>>>
>>>>They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during 
>>>>the
>>>>fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed
>>>>when
>>>>they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the
>>>>North
>>>>Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to 
>>>>smash
>>>>itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question, kook.  Why would the mass of the towers
>>> crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?  Remember
>>> the lower columns were very stout and strong, being thick enough to
>>> support the weight of the towers.  Also the lower levels used 
>>> traditional
>>> column/beam construction, non-compromised beams would still support the
>>> standing walls from below.
>
>>There were more parts from the "exoskeleton" thrown free from the
>>vaporization area of a nuke than there were at the bottom of the Twin 
>>Towers
>>with the exception of the parts of the exoskeleton that never moved from
>>it's original location.  How do you explain that inconsistency?
>
> Once again you didn't answer the question.  Why would the mass of the
> towers crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?

Given that the walls below the alleged impact area appeared to fall straight 
down why didn't they fall onto of the walls right below them.  Or why didn't 
they fall anywhere near those walls.  All we see is evidence that the Twin 
Towers turned to ultra fine dust before they could make it to the ground 
just like they had been nuked where they stood.  <G>

>>You obviously never tried looking for the facts behind 9/11/01 for 
>>yourself
>>or you would have caught a lot of inconsistencies.  You have let yourself 
>>be
>>taken by stories without photos and you never even asked why there were no
>>photos.
>
> Actually, I did.  Long ago a bunch of "Truthers" came in here and started
> the same crap, mostly about WTC 7.  I was curious about that and
> investigated myself, reading both kooksites and regular references.
> I concluded that the "Truthers" were either kooktarded or outright lying.
> They all had bad science and misleading evidence.

ROTFLMAO because I've also looked at some of the goofball sites where people 
believe the 9/11 Hijacker Hoax and they love to make straw man arguments.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>Take for instance the one part that might have come from a 757 at the
>>Pentagon.  Why just one part and why did it have vegetation on it that is
>>consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil?
>
> Evidence?  (Real evidence, not a kookvid)  And they recovered 95% of
> Flight 77 anyway.

Too bad it was all smoke and mirrors.  When they recovered Flight 800 they 
proved what they had recovered but with the crap about the 4 jets on 9/11/01 
it was all bullshit or just stories without photographic support.

Rocky 

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

#523353 — noun (Latin

almost all of the former residents wich to return,
probably because they know about "hormesis

> For years they hauled in and out truckloads of dirt just like they did at 
> Chernobyl so you might want to add a few zeros to your 120.
> 
> 
> >>>>>>  You
> >>>>>>claim it went underground but then it would kill the Survivors in WTC1
> >>>>>>and
> >>>>>>crush the free standing walls of both the Twin Towers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some
> >>>>> kookvid!)
> >>>>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to 
> >>>>> hold
> >>>>> up the weight of 110 stories.
> >>>
> >>>>They held the Twin Towers up for years and they were undamaged during 
> >>>>the
> >>>>fire and should have keep holding the Twin Towers up.  They only failed
> >>>>when
> >>>>they were vaporized by a nuke and if you look close the bottom of the
> >>>>North
> >>>>Tower was even vaporized a bit too late because the top part had to 
> >>>>smash
> >>>>itself to bits before the bottom started to fail.  <G>
> >>>
> >>> You didn't answer the question, kook.  Why would the mass of the towers
> >>> crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?  Remember
> >>> the lower columns were very stout and strong, being thick enough to
> >>> support the weight of the towers.  Also the lower levels used 
> >>> traditional
> >>> column/beam construction, non-compromised beams would still support the
> >>> standing walls from below.
> >
> >>There were more parts from the "exoskeleton" thrown free from the
> >>vaporization area of a nuke than there were at the bottom of the Twin 
> >>Towers
> >>with the exception of the parts of the exoskeleton that never moved from
> >>it's original location.  How do you explain that inconsistency?
> >
> > Once again you didn't answer the question.  Why would the mass of the
> > towers crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?
> 
> Given that the walls below the alleged impact area appeared to fall straight 
> down why didn't they fall onto of the walls right below them.  Or why didn't 
> they fall anywhere near those walls.  All we see is evidence that the Twin 
> Towers turned to ultra fine dust before they could make it to the ground 
> just like they had been nuked where they stood.  <G>
> 
> >>You obviously never tried looking for the facts behind 9/11/01 for 
> >>yourself
> >>or you would have caught a lot of inconsistencies.  You have let yourself 
> >>be
> >>taken by stories without photos and you never even asked why there were no
> >>photos.
> >
> > Actually, I did.  Long ago a bunch of "Truthers" came in here and started
> > the same crap, mostly about WTC 7.  I was curious about that and
> > investigated myself, reading both kooksites and regular references.
> > I concluded that the "Truthers" were either kooktarded or outright lying.
> > They all had bad science and misleading evidence.
> 
> ROTFLMAO because I've also looked at some of the goofball sites where people 
> believe the 9/11 Hijacker Hoax and they love to make straw man arguments.
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> 
> >>Take for instance the one part that might have come from a 757 at the
> >>Pentagon.  Why just one part and why did it have vegetation on it that is
> >>consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil?
> >
> > Evidence?  (Real evidence, not a kookvid)  And they recovered 95% of
> > Flight 77 anyway.
> 
> Too bad it was all smoke and mirrors.  When they recovered Flight 800 they 
> proved what they had recovered but with the crap about the 4 jets on 9/11/01 
> it was all bullshit or just stories without photographic support.
> 
> Rocky

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

#523250

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:w5ydnaisXbVGAZjLnZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:mu3p74$7ki$2@pcls7.std.com...

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

>>> Th<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>> How did they get those elleged "CGIs" into all those thousands of cameras
>> and eyeballs?

> Yo<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>>  Did they project it into the air somehow?  How?  Remember,
>> the answer has to be consistent with 2001 technology.  Hollywood can't do
>> that even now.

> Do<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>>>> Ironically, one of the best proofs how loud the impacts were was that
>>>> silent film, with no audio.  They are filming the south tower when the
>>>> second plane hit.  A fraction of a second later a man, facing away from
>>>> the tower, jumps suddenly as though startled by a loud noise.  (the 
>>>> delay of course was due to the speed of sound from the tower to him)

>>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>> The point is, the man jumped when he heard the crash, even if the video
>> had no audio to record the crash itself.  I'm not interested in yet
>> another kookvid.

> Yo<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>>>>>>  How "efficient" should a large mass dropped on
>>>>>> bedrock be at converting its kinetic energy to an earthquake signal?

>>>>>Too<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>>>> 1.5 million tons of debris (108,342 truckloads!) hauled out of the
>>>> "bathtub" is an awful lot of evidence that you're simply wrong.

>>> Y<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>> There was no radioactivity more than normal background level!  If there
>> was a nuke there, the site would be too hot to enter for about 70 days.
>> They couldn't even bring in this magic dirt, which would have zero effect
>> on the radioactivity in the smoke and air anyway.  Plus a thin layer of
>> dirt will be only marginal in blocking radioactivity anyway.
>>
>> The point remains that 108,342 truckloads of debris is a lot of evidence
>> that a large mass from the towers fell into the bathtub.

> Again, don't forget how many truckloads were hauled in because Nuke York 
> City was treated exactly like they had to treat Chernobyl.

Only a couple hundred truckloads were hauled in, to adsorb the fluids
and bind the friable asbestos, you retard. That leaves 108,142 net
truckloads hauled out, accounting for all the materials used to
construct the towers and then some.

Remember, you've conceded the fact that I've accounted for every bit
of construction material used to build the twin towers, and the fact
that those materials were hauled out to Fresh Kills landfill.

You're just a retard who's taken the typical retard's path of
believing in laughably implausible and utterly impossible conspiracy
theories rather than examining the evidence, applying Occam's Razor
and educating yourself about building engineering, flight dynamics and
physics.

In short, you're a third-grade education idiot trying to argue with
PhDs. You should have learned long ago to shut the fuck up and stop
embarrassing yourself, but you're a fucking retard, so you didn't.

Moron. LOL

>>>>> Yo<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>>>> Why do you say this?  Give proof (and don't tell me to watch some
>>>> kookvid!)
>>>> The lower columns and "tridents" of the towers were very strong, to hold
>>>> up the weight of 110 stories.

>>> Th<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

>> You didn't answer the question, kook.  Why would the mass of the towers
>> crashing into the sublevels cause the standing walls to fall?  Remember
>> the lower columns were very stout and strong, being thick enough to
>> support the weight of the towers.  Also the lower levels used traditional
>> column/beam construction, non-compromised beams would still support the
>> standing walls from below.

> There were more parts from the "exoskeleton" thrown free from the 
> vaporization area of a nuk<SMACKAKOOK!>

If there had been a nuclear detonation, there would have been a
massive EMP that blew out electronics for miles around. There was no
EMP, therefore, no nukes.

If there had been a nuclear detonation, there would have been
radiation consistent with said detonation. No radiation consistent
with a detonation was found, not only at the WTC site, but anywhere in
NYC, therefore, no nukes.

In fact, no radiation above background radiation levels were found
except for slightly elevated beta radiation due to trace amounts of
tritium found in aircraft exit signs and LEO weapon sights; and very
slightly elevated alpha radiation due to radioactive material from a
pharmacologic lab at the WTC site. And this despite radiation
monitoring starting *before* either of the towers had fallen, and
continuing non-stop until *after* the cleanup had ended. Therefore, no
nukes.

If there had been a nuclear detonation, the force of it would have
lifted the relatively light 1.5 million tons of each WTC tower to a
height of ~250 to ~300 feet, yet the WTC towers didn't rise even a
fraction of an inch, therefore, no nukes.

If there had been a nuclear detonation, a mushroom cloud would have
risen ~15,000 feet above the WTC site, yet no mushroom cloud was
evident, therefore, no nukes.

If there had been the number of nuclear detonations your broken brain
is telling you, it would have blasted ~400 million tons of dirt and
debris into the air and scattered it around NYC, irradiating it in the
process, leaving much of NYC an uninhabitable wasteland for many
decades to come. Yet, no irradiated dirt and debris was blasted
anywhere, and 100% of NYC remains habitable, therefore, no nukes.

You're just a schizophrenic paranoid-delusional retard, Roger T.E.
Wittekind. Take your meds. LOL
 
> Th<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

> Yo<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL
 
> Take for instance the one part that might have come from a 757 at the 
> Pentagon.  Why just one part and why did it have vegetation on it that is 
> consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil?

There was far more than "just one part". And none of the parts had any
Brazilian vegetation on them. You're just making shit up so your
broken schizo brain doesn't have to admit *you* *are* *wrong*, Roger.

You moron. LOL

> And why was the largest part recovered at the Pentagon hauled away
> under a tarp by a group of people?

Why would you say "the largest part recovered" (and thereby tacitly
admit there were smaller parts recovered) if you'd k'lamed above there
was "just one part", Roger?

Retards often get caught in their retarded lies, RogerRetard. LOL

BTW, do you like the addition to my .sig?
=========================================
L) In further expanding your delusion, your broken brain has k'lamed
that the reason for the WTC Memorial Lights is to cover up Cherenkov
radiation at the WTC site as a result of a nuclear detonation, kook
blather which I utterly destroy here: MID:
<1f304ece6ae3cd30c1bee10ad300b720@dizum.com> by proving that Cherenkov
radiation in air can only happen with highly energetic beta radiation;
that beta particles due to nuclear fission aren't energetic enough to
cause Cherenkov radiation in air; and that even with beta particles of
maximum possible energy, the Cherenkov radiation in air would only
extend ~2 meters above the ground. That's not taking into account that
the WTC Memorial Lights are currently at the *top* of the 7-story
Battery Parking Garage on Morris Street and are lit only once a year
on 11 Sep. Before the new Goldman Sachs building was built, the lights
were in vacant lot 26 on West Side Highway near the WTC site (on which
the new Goldman Sachs building now sits). They were *never* at the WTC
site. Moron. LOL
=========================================

<snicker>

-- 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.

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.

L) In further expanding your delusion, your broken brain has k'lamed
that the reason for the WTC Memorial Lights is to cover up Cherenkov
radiation at the WTC site as a result of a nuclear detonation, kook
blather which I utterly destroy here: MID:
<1f304ece6ae3cd30c1bee10ad300b720@dizum.com> by proving that Cherenkov
radiation in air can only happen with highly energetic beta radiation;
that beta particles due to nuclear fission aren't energetic enough to
cause Cherenkov radiation in air; and that even with beta particles of
maximum possible energy, the Cherenkov radiation in air would only
extend ~2 meters above the ground. That's not taking into account that
the WTC Memorial Lights are currently at the *top* of the 7-story
Battery Parking Garage on Morris Street and are lit only once a year
on 11 Sep. Before the new Goldman Sachs building was built, the lights
were in vacant lot 26 on West Side Highway near the WTC site (on which
the new Goldman Sachs building now sits). They were *never* at the WTC
site. Moron. LOL

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.
=============================

Moron. LOL

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

#523356

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:54:54 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:


[snip to focus on this one part]

>> Take for instance the one part that might have come from a 757 at the 
>> Pentagon.  Why just one part and why did it have vegetation on it that is 
>> consistent with a crash of a 757 in Brazil?
>
>There was far more than "just one part". And none of the parts had any
>Brazilian vegetation on them. You're just making shit up so your
>broken schizo brain doesn't have to admit *you* *are* *wrong*, Roger.

     I've requested a cite from Roger regarding the Brazilian
vegetation a few times. As of the time I write this, he's never
offered one. It is, most probably, something his mental defects
invented.


"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."

Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

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

#522812

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:39:53 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:08:54 -0500 


     It took you a month to address this? Wow. You really are slow.


>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:l56kta54cjqaefutis65mmnduboahqutie@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:38:34 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mrcu9v$squ$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 23/08/2015 15:29, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:yOadnbjXsNMOSkTInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically NIST gave us a total joke instead of looking at the remains 
>>>>>> of the Twin Towers and seeing the tell tale signs of NCDs.
>>>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rocky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW it has already been proven that the media changed the audio from
>>>>> broadcast to broadcast so what you are hearing in the "collapse" videos
>>>>> could be a bogus soundtrack because I believe vaporized buildings make
>>>>> very
>>>>> little noise and they certainly don't crash to the ground as proven by
>>>>> the low seismic readings of the great 9/11 hoax.
>>>>
>>>> But you have said in another thread that the seismic readings were
>>>> suspect.
>>>
>>>For the initial ground shaking the seismic readings are suspect but for 
>>>the
>>>alleged collapse of a 110 story building the seismic readings prove only a
>>>very small part of them crashed to the ground and in reality that reading
>>>could be too high instead of way too low.
>>
>>     2.3 is a reasonable reading.
>
>And your proof is what?
>

     The claims of seismologists the world over. I suppose it's
*possible* they lied, but to what end?
     BTW, I'm still waiting for your evidence of a 5+ reading. When
will you be offering it? Or shall everyone just accept that it was,
and is, another of your delusions?
     Serious questions.

>>>The fact remains the playlist above can be used to prove that NIST lied
>>>about every part of their study because no part of their bullshit was
>>>supported by real life.
>>
>>     But it doesn't prove anything of the sort.
>
>Kevin Ryan goes through all sorts of things NIST stated that were either 
>tainted or very misleading and you would know that if you watched any of the 
>videos.  DUH.

     Kevin Ryan was caught lying about most everything. You would do
well to ignore any claim he has made, is making, or may make in the
future.

>
>>>BTW the playlist for the Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence is:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
>>
>>     I've not watched all of the videos, but what I have watched
>> proves your claim wrong.
>
>Keep going don't stop there because you haven't proved anything at all yet? 

     You don't know? 
     Fortunately, I do know I've proved my claims.

>As a matter of fact you look exactly like a big time liar at this point just 
>like you always do. 

     Once again you are reduced to lying to make the claim that I've
lied. If you're very, very lucky, I will be the only on to notice.
     But you're not even a little bit lucky.



"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."

Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web