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

Groups > sci.physics > #522738 > unrolled thread

9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio  "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-22 17:45 -0500
    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Rocky@Lying.Squirrel.com - 2015-09-22 20:24 -0500
    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio  BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-22 23:10 -0400
      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio  "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 07:47 -0500
        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:46 -0500
    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 00:54 -0400
      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 12:52 -0400
        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 14:13 -0400
        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 13:49 -0500
          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 15:18 -0400
            "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> Admits he posts lies and False Videos. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-23 18:11 -0400
          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 15:55 -0400
            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-23 17:09 -0500
              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:34 -0400
                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-23 21:31 -0400
                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-23 22:51 -0400
                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-24 09:38 -0400
                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 09:13 -0500
                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:19 -0500
                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 17:09 -0500
                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 04:40 -0500
                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 10:56 -0400
                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-24 18:16 +0000
                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 17:16 -0500
                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-24 20:07 -0400
                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-25 05:39 +0000
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 08:13 -0500
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-25 15:35 -0400
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 16:54 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:06 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-26 05:52 +0000
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 17:01 -0500
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:25 -0500
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 17:05 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-26 11:16 -0400
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:23 -0500
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 21:05 -0500
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 05:32 -0500
                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 06:03 -0500
                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:02 -0500
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 05:44 -0500
                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-25 14:44 +0000
                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-25 13:42 -0500
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-26 05:49 +0000
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-26 11:32 -0500
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:25 -0500
                                      things that **** y'go noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 16:24 -0700
                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-25 10:12 -0400
                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-26 11:23 -0400
                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-26 13:55 -0400
                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-26 18:55 -0400
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-26 23:22 +0000
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-26 20:52 -0400
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:26 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:50 -0400
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:57 -0500
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 01:38 +0000
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 05:57 -0500
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:01 -0500
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 17:53 +0000
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 10:36 -0500
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-27 17:15 +0100
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:56 -0500
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-27 23:57 +0000
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 19:27 -0500
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 01:55 +0000
                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 22:29 -0500
                                            why not ask wTf not noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 12:41 -0700
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 03:30 -0500
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 16:20 +0000
                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 12:13 -0500
                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-28 19:58 +0100
                                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 06:30 +0100
                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-28 17:56 -0400
                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 22:15 +0000
                                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 17:33 -0500
                                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-28 19:12 -0400
                                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-29 04:52 +0000
                                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:05 -0500
                                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:18 -0400
                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 15:51 -0500
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 15:26 +0000
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:56 -0500
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 17:48 +0000
                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 15:06 -0500
                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 20:00 +0000
                                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 17:05 -0500
                                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-04 23:02 +0000
                                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 04:07 +0000
                                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 03:40 -0500
                                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:51 -0500
                                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 16:19 +0000
                                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:56 -0500
                                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-05 18:08 +0100
                                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 12:16 -0500
                                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:20 -0400
                                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-07 09:57 -0500
                                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 17:25 -0500
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 07:43 -0400
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 08:58 -0400
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 10:02 -0400
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:31 -0400
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:55 -0500
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 18:42 -0400
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 03:30 -0500
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 18:03 -0500
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 21:21 -0400
                                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-28 13:32 -0400
                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 14:52 -0500
                                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-28 22:20 +0000
                                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 17:28 -0500
                                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-28 17:54 -0400
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 03:30 -0500
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:02 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:32 -0400
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:55 -0500
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 17:57 +0000
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-26 20:51 -0400
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 07:54 -0400
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 08:56 -0400
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:57 -0400
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:35 -0400
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 10:12 -0400
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:40 -0400
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 10:51 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:48 -0400
                                      Re: Rocky's latest obsession jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 18:03 +0000
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:57 -0500
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 17:56 -0700
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:26 -0500
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:49 -0400
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-27 14:13 +0000
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 10:26 -0500
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-27 17:17 +0100
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-28 19:58 +0100
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 06:30 +0100
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:56 -0500
                                    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-28 13:37 +0000
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-28 09:39 -0500
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-29 12:55 +0000
                                      Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-28 17:44 +0000
                                        Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-29 12:55 +0000
                                          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:01 +0000
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-29 15:25 -0400
                                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:22 -0500
                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 20:23 -0500
                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 08:05 -0400
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:02 -0500
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 13:49 -0400
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-27 18:17 +0000
                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:58 -0400
                                Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:55 -0500
                                  Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 21:07 -0400
                            Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-27 09:48 -0400
                              Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-27 12:03 -0400
          Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 03:46 -0500
    Re: 9/11 Fake Witness Exposed + Why Evan Fairbanks video has no audio  "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-27 11:38 -0500

Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#523438

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mu8v3u$li3$1@dont-email.me...
> On 27/09/2015 09:23, naazim palan wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+1, 
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <SIGH>
>>>>>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building
>>>>>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.    Watch the video again.   The reporter is asked by Judy
>>>>>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the 
>>>>>>> Pentagon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>>>>> Pentagon.  The only site is the actual side  of the building that 
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> crashed in.  As I said the only pieces left that you can see are 
>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail
>>>>>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere 
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
>>>>>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets see
>>>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>>>> Pentagon. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with
>>>>> most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Bast is not very bright is she?   Seriously.
>>>
>>> Neither Bast nor Rocky is very bright to say the least, and both are
>>> obviously delusional.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Non radiation nukes.
>> Nukes with no seismic signature
>> Nukes planted underground & nobody noticed the work
>> Nukes that need no maintenance
>> Nukes that affect structures hundreds of feet away, but not close to
>> People that do not exist
>> A cast of thousands (crisis actors)
>> CGI planes that leave wreckage
>> Phone calls that did not exist
>> Holes in buildings changing size
>> Full buildings that had no people in them
>> Magic thermate
>> Impossible flying
>> The worlds media controlled by the government
>> Giant 3D holograms
>> Strontium Barium Niobate
>> Planes that took of that didn't take off
>> Building that were hit by debris but weren't hit by debris
>> Buildings that were scheduled for demolition, but were not.
>>
>> Do please add to the above list of his delusions, I am sure I have left 
>> many out, oh I have just remembered another.
>>
>> Rocky thinks he can control a truck.
>>
>>
>
> Be prepared that he will ignore the above & answer mentioning something 
> not on the list.
> It's his way of attempting to divert attention away from his lack of 
> credible evidence.

Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

And CGIs at Ground Zero also pass the Duck Test:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Rocky 

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

#523445

On 27/09/2015 16:36, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mu8v3u$li3$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 27/09/2015 09:23, naazim palan wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+1,
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:22:06 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:23:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <SIGH>
>>>>>>>>> Have you not seen the video of a CNN news reporter on the scene at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Pentagon, literally minutes after the incident occured.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes I have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He even clearly states that he was there BEFORE the building
>>>>>>>>> collapsed, and there was no sign of a passenger jet airliner crash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.    Watch the video again.   The reporter is asked by Judy
>>>>>>>> Woodruff if there is any evidence of a plane crash near the
>>>>>>>> Pentagon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Reporter's response, a direct quote from the video:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>>>>>> Pentagon.  The only site is the actual side  of the building that
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> crashed in.  As I said the only pieces left that you can see are
>>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>>> enough that you can pick up in your hand and there are no large tail
>>>>>>>> sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere
>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>> which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
>>>>>>>> the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 9/11 CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lets see
>>>>>>> " there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
>>>>>>> Pentagon. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically correct as the airplane crashed INTO the Pentagon with
>>>>>> most of the pieces winding up INSIDE the Pentagon, drooling kook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bast is not very bright is she?   Seriously.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Bast nor Rocky is very bright to say the least, and both are
>>>> obviously delusional.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Non radiation nukes.
>>> Nukes with no seismic signature
>>> Nukes planted underground & nobody noticed the work
>>> Nukes that need no maintenance
>>> Nukes that affect structures hundreds of feet away, but not close to
>>> People that do not exist
>>> A cast of thousands (crisis actors)
>>> CGI planes that leave wreckage
>>> Phone calls that did not exist
>>> Holes in buildings changing size
>>> Full buildings that had no people in them
>>> Magic thermate
>>> Impossible flying
>>> The worlds media controlled by the government
>>> Giant 3D holograms
>>> Strontium Barium Niobate
>>> Planes that took of that didn't take off
>>> Building that were hit by debris but weren't hit by debris
>>> Buildings that were scheduled for demolition, but were not.
>>>
>>> Do please add to the above list of his delusions, I am sure I have left
>>> many out, oh I have just remembered another.
>>>
>>> Rocky thinks he can control a truck.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Be prepared that he will ignore the above & answer mentioning something
>> not on the list.
>> It's his way of attempting to divert attention away from his lack of
>> credible evidence.
>
> Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
> And CGIs at Ground Zero also pass the Duck Test:
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
> Rocky
>
>

Oh look, he has done exactly what I said.

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

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

#523494

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:36:43 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> Rocky thinks he can control a truck.
>>>
>>
>> Be prepared that he will ignore the above & answer mentioning something 
>> not on the list.
>> It's his way of attempting to divert attention away from his lack of 
>> credible evidence.
>
>Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>

     No they don't.

>And CGIs at Ground Zero also pass the Duck Test:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

     No they don't.
     I like how you did exactly as Tony said you would. It must really
suck to have to do as he says you will.


"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]

#523518

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

>Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Duck test? Let's see.

It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + a
tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)

It doesn't swim like a duck.  (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)

It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive nuclear
explosion signature)

It doesn't look like a duck.  (No EMP)

It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck.  (No 290' dome, no 1280' crater)

It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of the
WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)

Shall I go on?

It's either an elephant or a giant sequoia. :-)
Definitely not a duck.

Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!

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

#523520

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mu9vol$a0g$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
> Duck test? Let's see.
>
> It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + a
> tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)

STOP.  Where is your evidence and don't forget that the usual background 
radiation at Ground Zero shortly after 9/11 was 3 nukes worth.  DUH.

Plus there was more than just tritium and you would know that if  you 
watched:

04 - Phenomena
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU



> It doesn't swim like a duck.  (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)

You forgot that the first 12 seconds after the detonation took place entirly 
underground and then it there was nothing pointed to the site of the 
underground detonataton instead all the cameras were pointed elsewhere.


> It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive nuclear
> explosion signature)

You can not say that because the video with the North Tower shaking 
violently 12 seconds before it was vaporized could indicate a 5.5 took 
place.


> It doesn't look like a duck.  (No EMP)

And since when do underground nukes make horrendous EMPs?  Don't forget it 
took a AM receiver to record the EMP from the nuke planted under WTC3.


> It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck.  (No 290' dome, no 1280' crater)

Once again you failed to notice the difference between a nuke detonated in 
solid rock and a nuke detonated in dirt.

Now considering the nuke under WTC3 was in bedrock use the following to 
calculate how big the cavity should have been:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing



> It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
> Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of the
> WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)

ROTFLMAO because the media has so much planted evidence they had to throw 
some of it out.  See:

9/11 Hijacker Body Found In Cockpit FOX Sept 13 2001
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1wJiffgBFo

And if the media would plant evidence why not taint other evidence too?

>
> Shall I go on?

No, you have to restart because -all- and I mean all your bullshit above got 
flushed.

And the real question should be why isn't there more documentation about 
nukes detonated in rock than the following:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing

Rocky 

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

#523527

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mu9vol$a0g$1@pcls7.std.com...

>> Duck test? Let's see.
>>
>> It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + a
>> tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)

>STOP.  Where is your evidence and don't forget that the usual background 
>radiation at Ground Zero shortly after 9/11 was 3 nukes worth.  DUH.

Nope.  Background radiation is defined as the natural radiation seen
everywhere from natural uranium minerals, natural potassium-40, cosmic
rays, radon and so forth.  The radioactivity left by a nuclear device (or
three) is NOT considered background radiation.  Besides, that radiation
would make the site too "hot" to enter for 70 days.  Instead the President
himself visited on the third day!  (BTW, what happened to your claim that
nobody was allowed to enter the site for three days and then only iron 
workers in enclosed machines?  You haven't repeated that lie since it
was proven to be a lie!)

Anyway, the fire department and emergency responders had radiation 
detectors on site since before the buildings fell, and they were present
until they removed all 1.5 million tons months later.  They also had
radiation detectors at the Fresh Kills site.

>Plus there was more than just tritium and you would know that if  you 
>watched:

Not another kookvid.

Regardless, tritium is the "smoke" of the smoking gun pointing to a 
nuclear explosion.  Such explosions spew all kinds of tritium.  One way
the US kept track of Soviet nuclear tests was to monitor tritium in the
atmosphere, subtract what the US was responsible for and what was left
was what the Soviets (or anyone else) did.  I repeat there was a trivial
amount of tritium detected at the site, and we know where it came from.

So, it doesn't quack like a duck.  No radiation above natural background.

>> It doesn't swim like a duck.  (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)

>You forgot that the first 12 seconds after the detonation took place entirly 
>underground and then it there was nothing pointed to the site of the 
>underground detonataton instead all the cameras were pointed elsewhere.

12 seconds?  So we're back to the nuke being buried 32-96 *miles* 
underground?  With technology we don't even have today?

I think it's safe to say that's impossible.  It doesn't swim like a duck.  
No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud.

>> It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive nuclear
>> explosion signature)

>You can not say that because the video with the North Tower shaking 
>violently 12 seconds before it was vaporized could indicate a 5.5 took 
>place.

Nope.  Earthquake magnitudes measure total energy, not local shaking. Else
every heavy freight train would be an earthquake.  No 5.5 magnitude earth
quake on 9/11, and none with the nuclear explosion signature. It doesn't
fly like a duck.

>> It doesn't look like a duck.  (No EMP)

>And since when do underground nukes make horrendous EMPs?

Since the first underground nuke was set off, kooktard.  As I
mentioned, an underground nuke's EMP range is only 10 km, or most of NYC.

>  Don't forget it 
>took a AM receiver to record the EMP from the nuke planted under WTC3.

Not an AM receiver, and the EMP from a nuke would have permanently
disabled that VHF receiver, along with every other electronic device in a
10km radius.  Helicopters crashing and so forth.  So, it doesn't look like
a duck.  No EMP.

>> It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck.  (No 290' dome, no 1280' crater)

>Once again you failed to notice the difference between a nuke detonated in 
>solid rock and a nuke detonated in dirt.

>Now considering the nuke under WTC3 was in bedrock use the following to 
>calculate how big the cavity should have been:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing

Yup. From that page: "Hard basement rock may reflect shock waves of the 
explosion, also possibly causing structural weakening and venting. The 
noncondensible gases may stay absorbed in the pores in the soil. Large 
amount of such gases can however maintain enough pressure to drive the 
fission products to the ground."

Looks like solid rock could be worse for containment than dirt!

Also, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence_crater:
"When the material above the explosion is solid rock, then a mound may be 
formed by broken rock that has a greater volume. This type of mound has 
been called "retarc", "crater" spelled backwards.[1]"

So, it doesn't have webbed feet like a duck.  (No 290' dome, no 1280' 
crater, and no "retarc", either)

>> It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
>> Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of the
>> WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)

>ROTFLMAO because the media has so much planted evidence they had to throw 
>some of it out.  See:

I'm not watching kookvids.  And you're changing the subject, this alleged
hijacker's body has nothing to do with nothing being vaporized by a nuke.
So I must conclude you have no answer.  So it's still true that it doesn't 
dive like a duck. Nothing vaporized.

>And if the media would plant evidence why not taint other evidence too?

Since you kooktards tainted that one video, why not taint other videos
too?  Therefore, by your own logic, I should conclude all your kookvids
are all lies with faked evidence.

>> Shall I go on?

Well, I proved for a second time there is no resemblence to a duck here.
Is it an earthworm?  Or a giraffe?  Maybe a kooktard?

Rocky has proven that by applying the "duck test", that there definitely
were no nukes at the World Trade Center.

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

#523537

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mua6mn$ids$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mu9vol$a0g$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> Duck test? Let's see.
>>>
>>> It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + 
>>> a
>>> tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)
>
>>STOP.  Where is your evidence and don't forget that the usual background
>>radiation at Ground Zero shortly after 9/11 was 3 nukes worth.  DUH.
>
> Nope.  Background radiation is defined as the natural radiation seen
> everywhere from natural uranium minerals, natural potassium-40, cosmic
> rays, radon and so forth.  The radioactivity left by a nuclear device (or
> three) is NOT considered background radiation.  Besides, that radiation
> would make the site too "hot" to enter for 70 days.  Instead the President
> himself visited on the third day!  (BTW, what happened to your claim that
> nobody was allowed to enter the site for three days and then only iron
> workers in enclosed machines?  You haven't repeated that lie since it
> was proven to be a lie!)
>
> Anyway, the fire department and emergency responders had radiation
> detectors on site since before the buildings fell, and they were present
> until they removed all 1.5 million tons months later.  They also had
> radiation detectors at the Fresh Kills site.

And???  Keep going because you forgot to mention the readings.


>>Plus there was more than just tritium and you would know that if  you
>>watched:
>
> Not another kookvid.

You can't handle the facts and you can't find anything wrong with the video 
either.  I can handle that.  And for those that want to see the video I've 
put the link back in below.

04 - Phenomena
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU


> Regardless, tritium is the "smoke" of the smoking gun pointing to a
> nuclear explosion.  Such explosions spew all kinds of tritium.  One way
> the US kept track of Soviet nuclear tests was to monitor tritium in the
> atmosphere, subtract what the US was responsible for and what was left
> was what the Soviets (or anyone else) did.  I repeat there was a trivial
> amount of tritium detected at the site, and we know where it came from.
>
> So, it doesn't quack like a duck.  No radiation above natural background.

And yet you have no proof of that because the only test I was aware of 
shipped the samples elsewhere and those samples might have even come from an 
area of GZ furthest from where 3 nukes were detonated.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

>>> It doesn't swim like a duck.  (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)
>
>>You forgot that the first 12 seconds after the detonation took place 
>>entirly
>>underground and then it there was nothing pointed to the site of the
>>underground detonataton instead all the cameras were pointed elsewhere.
>
> 12 seconds?  So we're back to the nuke being buried 32-96 *miles*
> underground?  With technology we don't even have today?

No it takes about 11 seconds to build a cavity.  It even tells us that in 
one of the videos you have missed.

And once again you are pulling numbers right out of your head instead of 
using what other people have learned.

> I think it's safe to say that's impossible.  It doesn't swim like a duck.
> No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud.

Wow, pulling numbers right out of your head again.  Why don't you have a 
link?

>>> It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive 
>>> nuclear
>>> explosion signature)
>
>>You can not say that because the video with the North Tower shaking
>>violently 12 seconds before it was vaporized could indicate a 5.5 took
>>place.
>
> Nope.  Earthquake magnitudes measure total energy, not local shaking. Else
> every heavy freight train would be an earthquake.  No 5.5 magnitude earth
> quake on 9/11, and none with the nuclear explosion signature. It doesn't
> fly like a duck.

Don't forget  you also think there were jets in Nuke York City so you are 
wrong about two things.

>>> It doesn't look like a duck.  (No EMP)
>
>>And since when do underground nukes make horrendous EMPs?
>
> Since the first underground nuke was set off, kooktard.  As I
> mentioned, an underground nuke's EMP range is only 10 km, or most of NYC.

And your supporting link is what?  It certainly isn't the link I gave you.


>>  Don't forget it
>>took a AM receiver to record the EMP from the nuke planted under WTC3.
>
> Not an AM receiver, and the EMP from a nuke would have permanently
> disabled that VHF receiver, along with every other electronic device in a
> 10km radius.  Helicopters crashing and so forth.  So, it doesn't look like
> a duck.  No EMP.

We have been over this before.  You haven't proven there is an EMP from an 
underground nuke and I've proven it took an AM receiver to record the 
static.

>>> It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck.  (No 290' dome, no 1280' 
>>> crater)
>
>>Once again you failed to notice the difference between a nuke detonated in
>>solid rock and a nuke detonated in dirt.
>
>>Now considering the nuke under WTC3 was in bedrock use the following to
>>calculate how big the cavity should have been:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing
>
> Yup. From that page: "Hard basement rock may reflect shock waves of the
> explosion, also possibly causing structural weakening and venting. The
> noncondensible gases may stay absorbed in the pores in the soil. Large
> amount of such gases can however maintain enough pressure to drive the
> fission products to the ground."
>
> Looks like solid rock could be worse for containment than dirt!

since when is rock described as "soil?"

Besides we were talking about your 290' dome and 1280' crater since you 
obviously forgot your above lie.

> Also, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence_crater:
> "When the material above the explosion is solid rock, then a mound may be
> formed by broken rock that has a greater volume. This type of mound has
> been called "retarc", "crater" spelled backwards.[1]"
>
> So, it doesn't have webbed feet like a duck.  (No 290' dome, no 1280'
> crater, and no "retarc", either)

And.  What are you trying to say there.  You mean you were wrong about the 
underground cavity?


>>> It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
>>> Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of 
>>> the
>>> WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)
>
>>ROTFLMAO because the media has so much planted evidence they had to throw
>>some of it out.  See:
>
> I'm not watching kookvids.  And you're changing the subject, this alleged
> hijacker's body has nothing to do with nothing being vaporized by a nuke.
> So I must conclude you have no answer.  So it's still true that it doesn't
> dive like a duck. Nothing vaporized.

It was a news broadcast from FOX and if you had looked at the comments you 
would have seen a link to the entire length show.

And FOX bullshits a lot like you where they say a lot of shit with no 
supporting photos or links whatsoever.


>>And if the media would plant evidence why not taint other evidence too?
>
> Since you kooktards tainted that one video, why not taint other videos
> too?

Maybe just maybe the video was altered after it was explosed to the world. 
Either way you still have not explained why the wing disappeared right 
before it morphed into the South Tower with no speed lost.  And the fact no 
speed was lost makes it consistant with all the other fake videos of jets 
flying into the Twin Towers.  <G>

> Therefore, by your own logic, I should conclude all your kookvids
> are all lies with faked evidence.

You are the one making assumptions about who or when a video was modified 
without realizing that the jets that flew into the Twin Towers are 
consistent with CGIs flying into buildings.  And most of those falsified 
videos even have the synchronization flash still in them.  <G>

>>> Shall I go on?
>
> Well, I proved for a second time there is no resemblence to a duck here.
> Is it an earthworm?  Or a giraffe?  Maybe a kooktard?

No, you denied the fact you lied about a crater or a dome.  You once again 
failed to prove that underground nukes make horendous EMPs and you basically 
continued to bullshit just like the media did about 9/11.

> Rocky has proven that by applying the "duck test", that there definitely
> were no nukes at the World Trade Center.

And yet if you look at the evidence trail that points to the alleged 
hijackers all you will see is evidence that basically fell from the sky 
after buildings collapsed or were left at a tarmac for all the world to 
find.

In other words your evidence trail is very suspicious and why don't you ever 
mention where you got your evidence against the alleged hijackers from?  <G>

Don't forget, the one video of the hijackers was from the wrong airport and 
the other video didn't have any date/time stamp information so it could have 
been taken years earlier or even days later since they probably weren't even 
on the CGIs that rammed the Twin Towers.

Rocky 

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

#524109 — why not ask wTf not

probably,. it was because of w.t.c7

> You can not say that because the video with the North Tower shaking 
> violently 12 seconds before it was vaporized could indicate a 5.5 took 
> place.
> 
> 
> > It doesn't look like a duck.  (No EMP)
> 
> And since when do underground nukes make horrendous EMPs?  Don't forget it 
> took a AM receiver to record the EMP from the nuke planted under WTC3.

ah, well, um, surely

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

#523552

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:57:09 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>Too bad that nukes at Ground Zero pass the Duck Test:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
>
>Duck test? Let's see.
>
>It doesn't quack like a duck (no radioactivity beyond usual background + a
>tiny bit of tritium from airliner exit signs)
>
>It doesn't swim like a duck.  (No fireball or 12,000' mushroom cloud)
>
>It doesn't fly like a duck. (No 5.5 earthquake with a distinctive nuclear
>explosion signature)
>
>It doesn't look like a duck.  (No EMP)
>
>It doesn't have webbed feet like a duck.  (No 290' dome, no 1280' crater)
>
>It doesn't dive like a duck. (Nothing vaporized, in particular those in
>Stairwell B weren't vaporized, plus total mass of 1.5 million tons of the
>WTC recovered except a relatively trivial amount of smoke/dust)
>
>Shall I go on?
>
>It's either an elephant or a giant sequoia. :-)
>Definitely not a duck.
>
>Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!

     What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
used, yet is compelled to claim they were. 

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

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

#523572

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:

>>Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!

>     What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>used, yet is compelled to claim they were. 

Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no nukes,
by using the "duck test".  He has also proven that all kookvids contain lies,
because if one witness lies about the Pentagon plane, all NYC witnesses must
be lying about what they saw.  Applying Rocky's logic, if one kookvid contains
a lie, all kookvids must be lies.  And since I proved the video clip with the 
crane has been falsified, we now know all kookvids are lies.

Since Rocky has proven with the "duck test" that there were no nukes at the
World Trade Center, and he has also proven that all kookvids are lies, we
don't even need to continue this discusion at all any more.

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

#523582

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mubpco$9f2$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!
>
>>     What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>
> Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no 
> nukes,
> by using the "duck test".

But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.

And you have no proof that the ground shaking violently 12 seconds before 
the North Tower was vaporized was not really a 5.5.


>  He has also proven that all kookvids contain lies,
> because if one witness lies about the Pentagon plane, all NYC witnesses 
> must
> be lying about what they saw.

Funny that you can't name just one witness of a jet in Nuke York City and 
yet there are videos that show of the people that claimed to see a jet in 
Nuke York City they all claimed to see something different.  <G>


>  Applying Rocky's logic, if one kookvid contains
> a lie, all kookvids must be lies.  And since I proved the video clip with 
> the
> crane has been falsified, we now know all kookvids are lies.

But you failed to prove who falified it because maybe it was altered after 
it was released to the public.  And you still failed to address why the wing 
diappeared like it did in so many other videos.

> Since Rocky has proven with the "duck test" that there were no nukes at 
> the
> World Trade Center, and he has also proven that all kookvids are lies, we
> don't even need to continue this discusion at all any more.

Keep in mind that to this date there is no legitimate reason for what was 
left of the Twin Towers to be left standing.

Even you tried to say because the very top of the Twin Towers didn't fall 
straight down no other part of the Twin Towers should have fallen close to 
straight down either and that was a crock of shit.

The fact remains, nothing but an NCD explains what was left of the Twin 
Towers and why the people below the vaporization range were not crushed or 
vaporized.  DUH.

PLUS YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RADIATION READINGS AT GZ YET.

Rocky 

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

#523610

On 28/09/2015 18:13, Rocky wrote:
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:mubpco$9f2$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!
>>
>>>      What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>> used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>>
>> Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no
>> nukes,
>> by using the "duck test".
>
> But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.
>
> And you have no proof that the ground shaking violently 12 seconds before
> the North Tower was vaporized was not really a 5.5.
>

Again, I do not expect you to answer, but can you provide us with, say 
three, seismic signatures of 5.5 during 911.

>
>>   He has also proven that all kookvids contain lies,
>> because if one witness lies about the Pentagon plane, all NYC witnesses
>> must
>> be lying about what they saw.
>
> Funny that you can't name just one witness of a jet in Nuke York City and
> yet there are videos that show of the people that claimed to see a jet in
> Nuke York City they all claimed to see something different.  <G>
>
>
>>   Applying Rocky's logic, if one kookvid contains
>> a lie, all kookvids must be lies.  And since I proved the video clip with
>> the
>> crane has been falsified, we now know all kookvids are lies.
>
> But you failed to prove who falified it because maybe it was altered after
> it was released to the public.  And you still failed to address why the wing
> diappeared like it did in so many other videos.
>
>> Since Rocky has proven with the "duck test" that there were no nukes at
>> the
>> World Trade Center, and he has also proven that all kookvids are lies, we
>> don't even need to continue this discusion at all any more.
>
> Keep in mind that to this date there is no legitimate reason for what was
> left of the Twin Towers to be left standing.
>
> Even you tried to say because the very top of the Twin Towers didn't fall
> straight down no other part of the Twin Towers should have fallen close to
> straight down either and that was a crock of shit.
>
> The fact remains, nothing but an NCD explains what was left of the Twin
> Towers and why the people below the vaporization range were not crushed or
> vaporized.  DUH.
>
> PLUS YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RADIATION READINGS AT GZ YET.
>
> Rocky
>
>


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

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

#523702

On 28/09/2015 19:58, Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 28/09/2015 18:13, Rocky wrote:
>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:mubpco$9f2$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!
>>>
>>>>      What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>>> used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>>>
>>> Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no
>>> nukes,
>>> by using the "duck test".
>>
>> But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.
>>
>> And you have no proof that the ground shaking violently 12 seconds before
>> the North Tower was vaporized was not really a 5.5.
>>
>
> Again, I do not expect you to answer, but can you provide us with, say
> three, seismic signatures of 5.5 during 911.
>

No answer, as expected, Rocky running away again.

>>
>>>   He has also proven that all kookvids contain lies,
>>> because if one witness lies about the Pentagon plane, all NYC witnesses
>>> must
>>> be lying about what they saw.
>>
>> Funny that you can't name just one witness of a jet in Nuke York City and
>> yet there are videos that show of the people that claimed to see a jet in
>> Nuke York City they all claimed to see something different.  <G>
>>
>>
>>>   Applying Rocky's logic, if one kookvid contains
>>> a lie, all kookvids must be lies.  And since I proved the video clip
>>> with
>>> the
>>> crane has been falsified, we now know all kookvids are lies.
>>
>> But you failed to prove who falified it because maybe it was altered
>> after
>> it was released to the public.  And you still failed to address why
>> the wing
>> diappeared like it did in so many other videos.
>>
>>> Since Rocky has proven with the "duck test" that there were no nukes at
>>> the
>>> World Trade Center, and he has also proven that all kookvids are
>>> lies, we
>>> don't even need to continue this discusion at all any more.
>>
>> Keep in mind that to this date there is no legitimate reason for what was
>> left of the Twin Towers to be left standing.
>>
>> Even you tried to say because the very top of the Twin Towers didn't fall
>> straight down no other part of the Twin Towers should have fallen
>> close to
>> straight down either and that was a crock of shit.
>>
>> The fact remains, nothing but an NCD explains what was left of the Twin
>> Towers and why the people below the vaporization range were not
>> crushed or
>> vaporized.  DUH.
>>
>> PLUS YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RADIATION READINGS AT GZ YET.
>>
>> Rocky
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>


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

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

#523655

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:13:56 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mubpco$9f2$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>Thanks for proving there weren't any nukes there, Rocky!
>>
>>>     What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>>used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>>
>> Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no 
>> nukes, by using the "duck test".
>
>But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.

The underground nuke claims are yours.   YOU are responsible for
proving your claims, not Michael or anyone else.  

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

#523659

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:mubpco$9f2$1@pcls7.std.com...

>>>     What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>>used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>>
>> Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no 
>> nukes,
>> by using the "duck test".

>But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.

You have never given any proof that underground nukes don't.

I have already described how EMPs work, kook.  Of course your "brain"
(obQuirk) can't understand actual science like that, or anything else
unless it's four hours of lies in a kookvid. (p.s. thanks for proving for
us that all kookvids are lies)

>And you have no proof that the ground shaking violently 12 seconds before 
>the North Tower was vaporized was not really a 5.5.

The lack of a 5.5 earthquake coming from anywhere near New York City
recorded by any seismograph, anywhere in the world, is all the proof
anyone needs.  A 5.5 magnitude earthquake can be measured anywhere in the
world, including in countries unfriendly to the US.

And no earthquakes *anywhere* in the world with the distinctive nuclear
explosion signature on that day.  None!

>>  He has also proven that all kookvids contain lies,
>> because if one witness lies about the Pentagon plane, all NYC witnesses 
>> must
>> be lying about what they saw.

>Funny that you can't name just one witness of a jet in Nuke York City and 
>yet there are videos that show of the people that claimed to see a jet in 
>Nuke York City they all claimed to see something different.  <G>

And you can't name just one person who created those alleged "CGIs".  So
according to your logic, there were no CGIs!

Does that mean that in addition to your proving that there were no nukes
in NYC, and your proving that every single kookvid is full of lies, you
have now proved that there never were any CGIs?  So we really can quit
this discussion as it has now been established that 19 hijackers crashed
four airliners that day!

>>  Applying Rocky's logic, if one kookvid contains
>> a lie, all kookvids must be lies.  And since I proved the video clip with 
>> the
>> crane has been falsified, we now know all kookvids are lies.

>But you failed to prove who falified it because maybe it was altered after 
>it was released to the public.

No, kooktard, it was some other kooktard that created and uploaded that
video.  The only person who could have falsified it was that kooktard.
Nobody else could have altered that video. Since that kooktard lied by
faking that video, you have proven that all kookvids are nothing but lies.  
Thanks again for proving that!

>> Since Rocky has proven with the "duck test" that there were no nukes at 
>> the
>> World Trade Center, and he has also proven that all kookvids are lies, we
>> don't even need to continue this discusion at all any more.

>Keep in mind that to this date there is no legitimate reason for what was 
>left of the Twin Towers to be left standing.

Sure there is!  We know from the videos that the outside walls fell away
from the tower (often far away), and that the core collapsed last (seen
in many videos), the core protected the stairwell and when it fell itself,
it did not fall on the stairwell.

>PLUS YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RADIATION READINGS AT GZ YET.

This has been given to you many, many times.  No radiation readings at the
World Trade Center site read anything more than natural background
radiation, except sensitive tritium tests measured a slight elevation,
which was totally expected from a plane crash.  And the Hudson River
measurement of the dust sediment layer was _below_ normal!  Another "not a
duck" feature firmly established.

So, Rocky, your "duck test" proof that there were never any nukes at the
Twin Towers stands unchallenged.  Thanks for such a great proof!

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

#523666

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:muce6j$5q0$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mubpco$9f2$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>>>     What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>>>used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>>>
>>> Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no
>>> nukes,
>>> by using the "duck test".
>
>>But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.
>
> You have never given any proof that underground nukes don't.

BULLSHIT.  And if you had really watched that 4 hour TV show with Dimitri 
you would have known that underground nukes do not make horendous EMPs.

I even read that the EMP is a function of the atmosphere so why do you think 
they have to set off EMP weapons off way in the air instead of below ground? 
DUH


...


>>PLUS YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US THE RADIATION READINGS AT GZ YET.
>
> This has been given to you many, many times.

riiight.  All you keep doing is repeating your own words instead of posting 
anything reliable.

Rocky

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

#523668

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:33:50 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:muce6j$5q0$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mubpco$9f2$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>
>>>>>     What is most sad is how many times he's proved nukes weren't
>>>>>used, yet is compelled to claim they were.
>>>>
>>>> Yup.  This time, Rocky has proved once and for all that there were no
>>>> nukes, by using the "duck test".
>>
>>>But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.
>>
>> You have never given any proof that underground nukes don't.
>
>BULLSHIT.  And if you had really watched that 4 hour TV show with Dimitri 
>you would have known that underground nukes do not make horendous EMPs.
>
>I even read that the EMP is a function of the atmosphere so why do you think 
>they have to set off EMP weapons off way in the air instead of below ground? 
>DUH

An underground nuke detonation would be picked up by seismographs all
over the world.    That's how we always knew when the Soviets were
doing underground testing of their nukes.  

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

#523699

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:muce6j$5q0$1@pcls7.std.com...

>>>But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.
>>
>> You have never given any proof that underground nukes don't.

>BULLSHIT.  And if you had really watched that 4 hour TV show with Dimitri 
>you would have known that underground nukes do not make horendous EMPs.

Why would I want to watch 4 hours of kooktardery?  Especially now, since
you proved to me that kookvids are all lies!

Since we know it's all lies, we know Dimitri was lying when he said that 
underground nukes do not make horendous EMPs.  So there you go, even more 
proof that underground nukes produce horrendous EMPs.

Here's more proof Dimitri was lying, from the part I did watch.

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

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Rocky, are you sure he was actually lying, or simply kooktarded? That has
to be the stupidest lie ever! Ever!! But once again, I wish to thank you 
for proving to us that all kookvids are full of lies!

>I even read that the EMP is a function of the atmosphere so why

Where did you read that, some coloring book?

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

#524663

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mud5dh$si$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:muce6j$5q0$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>>>But you have no proof that underground nukes make horendous EMPs.
>>>
>>> You have never given any proof that underground nukes don't.
>
>>BULLSHIT.  And if you had really watched that 4 hour TV show with Dimitri
>>you would have known that underground nukes do not make horendous EMPs.
>
> Why would I want to watch 4 hours of kooktardery?  Especially now, since
> you proved to me that kookvids are all lies!
>
> Since we know it's all lies, we know Dimitri was lying when he said that
> underground nukes do not make horendous EMPs.  So there you go, even more
> proof that underground nukes produce horrendous EMPs.
>
> Here's more proof Dimitri was lying, from the part I did watch.
>
> "What happens when it [the nuclear blast wave] hits the air?" "Nothing!"
>
> AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Rocky, are you sure he was actually lying, or simply kooktarded? That has
> to be the stupidest lie ever! Ever!! But once again, I wish to thank you
> for proving to us that all kookvids are full of lies!
>
>>I even read that the EMP is a function of the atmosphere so why
>
> Where did you read that, some coloring book?

ONCE AGAIN you prove you have no working knowledge of underground nukes 
because you keep thinking they perform exactly like above ground nukes.

Well, if our government had wanted to tell us about all their testing of 
underground nukes they would have but they did not.

If our government wanted to use what they learned from all their testing of 
underground nukes against us they would have and did.  DUH
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#524726

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:05:09 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>ONCE AGAIN you prove you have no working knowledge of underground nukes 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

Oh dear .......   LOLOL

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

Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web