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

Groups > sci.physics > #532205 > unrolled thread

The great 9/11 mystery has been solved

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-11 16:40 -0600
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-11 23:21 +0000
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-12 10:00 -0600
        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-12 18:16 +0000
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-15 01:26 -0800
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:23 -0600
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 06:00 -0500
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 06:46 -0600
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 09:41 -0600
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 01:55 +0000
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 20:46 -0600
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 16:06 +0000
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-15 22:55 +0000
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 17:15 -0600
        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 19:17 +0000
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-16 13:37 -0600
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 21:36 +0000
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-16 15:56 -0600
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 16:57 +0000
                  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 06:50 -0800
                    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 08:05 -0800
                    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-11-30 11:21 -0500
                      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 09:31 -0800
                        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-01 16:20 -0500
                          bOO noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:54 -0800
                        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 04:34 -0600
                        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 18:12 -0800
                          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 04:12 -0600
                          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-03 10:30 -0500
                            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 18:36 -0800
                    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-30 16:46 +0000
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-17 05:03 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#532205 — The great 9/11 mystery has been solved

By considering the type of nukes used on 9/11 we now know why there was very 
little radiation and no very obvious systemic signature.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

 =======================================

Because the sub-basement infrastructure blueprints have all been scrubbed, 
we do not know the precise position of the wastewater main shafts, which is 
where they placed the nukes. All we know (from Eric Darton's 1994 book on 
the WTC, "Divided We Stand") is that those shafts did exist, one underneath 
each tower. The best conjecture I can offer is that the shafts were 
off-centre, thus introducing asymmetries. That would explain both the 
"stairwell B miracle" and the footage here ? and also, incidentally, why the 
top of the South Tower tilted like it did.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the nukes employed were of the 
MRR (minimum residual radiation) type, colloquially known as "neutron 
bombs". What this means that the fission primary is very small compared to 
the total yield, and there is no tertiary (fissionable tamper) at all. It's 
easy to show, as I have done elsewhere, that the total yield must have been 
about one kiloton. The primary could be as small as 1% of the total yield, 
with the other 99% coming from the fusion secondary, which puts the "thermo" 
into thermonuclear.

Several observations are in place regardeing MRR designs. One is that most 
of the energy will be thermal not mechanical/kinetic, so the pulverisation 
happened mainly through heat not crushing. Generally speaking, you need at 
least 20 psi overpressure to obliterate reinforced concrete structures, and 
that rule of thumb also applies here. You can then look up in tables the 
appropriate size (yield) of the nuke. The ballpark figure obtains after 
making appropriate adjustments for a directed underground shaft burst rather 
than open airburst, and also doubling or tripling the yield to account for 
the very "thermo" nature of MRRs.

Another important observation is that, as the name suggests, the residual 
footprint in terms of fission-product fallout will be very limited. So 
limited, in fact, that it isn't all that difficult to cover up. Thanks to 
William Tahil's report "The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre", 
we've known for nine years now that 9/11 was a nuclear event. The smoking 
gun is printed right up front on the cover of Tahil's report: it is the 
tight barium-strontium correlation in the USGS dust samples, which reveals 
that the two must have come from the same process. The only known process 
that will generate that is nuclear fission. Tahil's findings have since been 
reinforced by other research, notably the thyroid cancer epidemic amongst 
first responders. Thyroid cancer on this scale can only have one cause: 
iodine-131, a fission product with a half life of about eight days, and 
which accumulates in the thyroid gland, irradiates it and causes cancer. So 
we know 9/11 was nuclear, all right, and the limited footprint tells us they 
used MRR nukes. With ER or pure-fission nukes, the fallout would have been 
much greater and basically impossible to cover up.

Still another crucially important observation about MRR nukes is that none 
of the declared nuclear powers has any in their arsenals. Those arsenals are 
regulated by international treaties including in particular the NPT 
(non-proliferation treaty), so we know the nukes employed on 9/11 came from 
a clandestine arsenal. More specifically, they came from Israel, whose 
clandestine nuclear programme is known to be heavily geared towards this 
kind of "small, clean" nukes. Note also that Israel is not a signatory to 
the NPT. So because the murder weapon is unique to the killer, we also know 
whodunnit.

In other words, the great 9/11 mystery has been solved. What remains to be 
dealt with is the political part, which isn't really my business. I'm 
European not American, but happened to live in NYC at the time and ten years 
afterwards. Finding out what happened became a psychological necessity for 
me. Handling the political ramifications will require regime change in 
Washington, DC, and that's beyond my reach. I'm just glad I don't live there 
any longer. The next time they hit, America won't get away so cheaply. In my 
opinion, 9/11 was just a preview of what's to come.

=======================================

So now the question is how much AM radio interference do you get from MRRs? 
You obviously get enough to pinpoint when the MRR nuke under the South Tower 
was detonated.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

So again nukes pass the duck test especially when you consider that you 
can't relay on seismic signatures or massive radiation to spot an MRR nuke. 
<G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#532217

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

>Subject: Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved

<snip crap>

Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! First,
you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was totally
impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.  Then you applied the
Sherlock Holmes test, which states that once you eliminate the impossible,
the improbable, no matter how unlikely, must be the answer.  So, Rocky's
genius eliminated the impossible (nukes), so the very improbable event of
three steel-frame buildings collapsing on the same day due to structural
damage and raging fires, must be the reason why the entire World Trade 
Center was destroyed.

Great job, Rocky!!

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

#532321

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n20ih1$c3q$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>Subject: Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved
> 2
> <snip crap>
>
> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! First,
> you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was totally
> impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.

You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the Twin 
Towers should have left a seismic signature and a lot of radiation when it 
turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning 
after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra

And if you had read what someone else posted in the OP then you would know 
they only needed about 1kt instead of 150kt meaning the seismic signature 
could have been hidden in the background noise.  See, I told you there was a 
way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature. 
<G>

Too bad you that you are a total idiot when it comes to the NRR nukes that 
were used to vaporize the Twin Towers..
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And you might want to look closer at the OP because MRR nukes are something 
you still know nothing about.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#532367

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n20ih1$c3q$1@pcls7.std.com...

>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! First,
>> you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was totally
>> impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.

>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the Twin 
>Towers should have left a seismic signature

All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!

> and a lot of radiation when it 
>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning 
>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra

Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
(Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.  
Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is still
radioactive, and that was in 1945.  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.

>And if you had read what someone else posted in the OP then you would know 
>they only needed about 1kt instead of 150kt meaning the seismic signature 
>could have been hidden in the background noise.

They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide 
even a 1kT nuke.

>  See, I told you there was a 
>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature. 

How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.

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

#533251

In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

> 
> >> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!

Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.
It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'
I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.
That is impossible. And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to 
be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened 
destroyed. 
start here;
www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.
-- 
Karma ; what a concept!

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

#533255

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 01:26:10 -0800, Shoe-Chucker 2
<georgewk10@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>> 
>> >> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!
>
>Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.

     There may be some minor details we'll never know.

>It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'

     No, it's not.

>I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.

     Yes.

>That is impossible. 

     Clearly it's not.

>And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to 
>be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened 
>destroyed. 

     I await your evidence that the reason for claiming the air was
safe to breath when it was not was for the purpose of destroying
evidence. If your claim is true, you'll provide valid, verifiable
evidence.

>start here;
>www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.

     Got anything that hasn't been proved to lack any credibility?
Anything at all?
     If you do, please present it.

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

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

#533256

On 11/15/2015 04:26 AM, Shoe-Chucker 2 wrote:
> In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
>   moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!
>
> Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.
> It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'
> I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.
> That is impossible. And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to
> be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened
> destroyed.
> start here;
> www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.
>

Who needs science and evidence when we've got people like HVAC here on 
the internet who assure us that all you truthers are a bunch of insane 
kooks! If you can't trust your government, who can you trust? I mean 
government would never expose innocent citizens to dangerous radiation, 
spread bacteria around cities, sell drugs to children, pretend to cure 
disease to watch the patients die or kill innocent people by giving them 
psychoactive drugs without their knowledge, would they?

You are insane. The moderator of this newsgroups says so.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#533266

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 06:00:49 -0500, benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/15/2015 04:26 AM, Shoe-Chucker 2 wrote:
>> In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
>>   moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!
>>
>> Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.
>> It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'
>> I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.
>> That is impossible. And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to
>> be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened
>> destroyed.
>> start here;
>> www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.
>
>Who needs science and evidence when we've got people like HVAC here on 
>the internet who assure us that all you truthers are a bunch of insane 
>kooks! 

     HVAC isn't required for that. You k00ks put a lot of effort into
proving it without the assistance of anyone else. 
     That you've become HVAC's bitch doesn't mean he's actually
necessary to expose you for the k00k you are.

>If you can't trust your government, who can you trust? I mean 
>government would never expose innocent citizens to dangerous radiation, 
>spread bacteria around cities, sell drugs to children, pretend to cure 
>disease to watch the patients die or kill innocent people by giving them 
>psychoactive drugs without their knowledge, would they?
>
>You are insane. The moderator of this newsgroups says so.

     Neither group you posted to has a moderator. Because of this,
your claim cannot be true.
     Do you get anything right? Ever? Serious question.

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

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

#533282

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n20ih1$c3q$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! 
>>> First,
>>> you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was 
>>> totally
>>> impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.
>
>>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the 
>>Twin
>>Towers should have left a seismic signature
>
> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!

Not mine.  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning 
fork as an earthquake.


>> and a lot of radiation when it
>>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning
>>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra
>
> Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
> radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
> others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
> (Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.
> Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is still
> radioactive, and that was in 1945.

But was that nuke manufactured by us or by Israel?  <G>


>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.

You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were detonated 
have been buried in concrete.  You have even seen a photo of that on that 
page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent 
with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that 
was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.

Nope, MRR Nukes manufactured by Israel and the fact those areas were buried 
in concrete explain how the radiation at GZ could appear to be normal after 
all these years.


>>And if you had read what someone else posted in the OP then you would know
>>they only needed about 1kt instead of 150kt meaning the seismic signature
>>could have been hidden in the background noise.
>
> They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide
> even a 1kT nuke.

And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any 
noticeable seismic signature so those quarry blast obviously do not have a 
pre existing cavity.  That information was on the same page I get this link 
from:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

> And notice how you still can not explain the multi floor surviving corners 
> but nukes can.  <G>
>
>>  See, I told you there was a
>>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature.
>
> How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.

You are wrong on both accounts and there is one thing underground nukes 
leave behind that make it very obvious that underground nukes were used. 
See the multiple floor surviving corners at:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#533442

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the 
>>>Twin
>>>Towers should have left a seismic signature
>>
>> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
>> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!

>Not mine.

Don't be so modest, Roger! It was you who came up with the excellent Duck
Test that disproves conclusively that nukes could not have been used on
9/11.  You came up with the other excellent Duck Test disproving CGIs as
well!!

>  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning 
>fork as an earthquake.

Perhaps it did shake like a tuning fork as it started collapsing.  But it
did not leave a 5.5 magnitude earthquake (2.3, yes), and it did not 
produce a distinctive nuclear detonation signature, either.  Just like you
showed in your Duck Test!!

>>> and a lot of radiation when it
>>>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning
>>>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra
>>
>> Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
>> radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
>> others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
>> (Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.
>> Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is still
>> radioactive, and that was in 1945.

>But was that nuke manufactured by us or by Israel?  <G>

Diversion noted.  As I pointed out, if Ground Zero had been nuked, it 
would still be radioactive.  Just like you noted in your Duck Test!!

>>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
>> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
>> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
>> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
>> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.

>You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were detonated 
>have been buried in concrete.

Doesn't matter.  The whole site would still be radioactive.  It's not.

>  You have even seen a photo of that on that 
>page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent 
>with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that 
>was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.

Nope, a nuke would have left a crater hundreds of feet in diameter, not 40
feet. Just like you pointed out in your Duck Test!

>> They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide
>> even a 1kT nuke.

>And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any 
>noticeable seismic signature

Nope.  You're just making crap up again.  What do you think happens when
the blast wave hits the wall of the "pre existing cavity"?  It gets 
transferred to the rock!

>>>  See, I told you there was a
>>>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature.
>>
>> How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.

>You are wrong on both accounts and there is one thing underground nukes 
>leave behind that make it very obvious that underground nukes were used. 

Nope.  So far no evidence whatsoever of nukes, plenty of evidence against.
Which you used in your Duck Test Proof!

And you still haven't shown me another example of a "Nuclear Detonation"!
When are you going to show me so I have something to compare to your photo
with all the kookscribbles?  Don't you have a kooksite or kookvid that
shows another "Nuclear Detonation"?

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

#533450

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n2bd21$o4a$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the
>>>>Twin
>>>>Towers should have left a seismic signature
>>>
>>> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
>>> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!
>
>>Not mine.
>
> Don't be so modest, Roger! It was you who came up with the excellent Duck
> Test that disproves conclusively that nukes could not have been used on
> 9/11.  You came up with the other excellent Duck Test disproving CGIs as
> well!!

But it was you who changed the rules and tried to make MRR nukes follow the 
same rules as American made nukes.


>>  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning
>>fork as an earthquake.
>
> Perhaps it did shake like a tuning fork as it started collapsing.  But it
> did not leave a 5.5 magnitude earthquake (2.3, yes), and it did not
> produce a distinctive nuclear detonation signature, either.  Just like you
> showed in your Duck Test!!

And I've asked you before and you failed to answer if it started to collapse 
then why did it do nothing for about 12 seconds?

And since when have you seen a collapsing building shake and then do nothing 
and then collapse from near the top down when no other buildings in the 
world have ever collapsed from near the top down?

And they didn't just collapse in a weird way but what they left on the 
ground was even weirder with one wall very high and the staircase closest to 
that wall 6 floors high and the wall furthest from the surviving wall all 
the way down to the ground.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

To date only an off-center deep underground MRR nuke explains the remains of 
both the Twin Towers:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And given that you think over 90% of Flight 93 was recovered despite the 
fact the photographic evidence of that event proves otherwise proves you are 
a sucker for bullshit stories.


>>>> and a lot of radiation when it
>>>>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days 
>>>>meaning
>>>>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra
>>>
>>> Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
>>> radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
>>> others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
>>> (Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.
>>> Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is 
>>> still
>>> radioactive, and that was in 1945.
>
>>But was that nuke manufactured by us or by Israel?  <G>
>
> Diversion noted.  As I pointed out, if Ground Zero had been nuked, it
> would still be radioactive.  Just like you noted in your Duck Test!!

But all you have proven so far is you were wrong about deep underground 
nukes making a flash or an EMP as proven by a video from dmaster on 
alt.conspiracy.

And I've asked you over and over and over to try and find some information 
about deep underground nukes because you seem to think they are no different 
then nukes detonated way above ground.

But now not only do I want you to post info about deep underground nukes but 
on top of that they have to be MRR nukes and not American made nukes.

>>>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
>>> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
>>> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
>>> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
>>> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.
>
>>You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were 
>>detonated
>>have been buried in concrete.
>
> Doesn't matter.  The whole site would still be radioactive.  It's not.

You have already forgotten about MRR nukes and that America does not make 
them so where are you getting your information from?

>>  You have even seen a photo of that on that
>>page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent
>>with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that
>>was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.
>
> Nope, a nuke would have left a crater hundreds of feet in diameter, not 40
> feet. Just like you pointed out in your Duck Test!

ROTFLMAO and that is more of your Flight 93 bullshit where none of the 
photos taken in Pranksville, PA show anywhere near 93% of Flight 93 being 
found.  <G>

>>> They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide
>>> even a 1kT nuke.
>
>>And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any
>>noticeable seismic signature
>
> Nope.  You're just making crap up again.  What do you think happens when
> the blast wave hits the wall of the "pre existing cavity"?  It gets
> transferred to the rock!

But that isn't normal rock since it has already been compressed by a lot of 
heat and pressure so what is going to move then?  Don't forget that rock 
next to a nuclear demoltion is called Trinitite and they found that at GZ 
also.

>>>>  See, I told you there was a
>>>>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic 
>>>>signature.
>>>
>>> How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.
>
>>You are wrong on both accounts and there is one thing underground nukes
>>leave behind that make it very obvious that underground nukes were used.
>
> Nope.  So far no evidence whatsoever of nukes, plenty of evidence against.
> Which you used in your Duck Test Proof!

But you used the wrong test for MRR nukes and you keep thinking of American 
made nukes and they don't make MRR nukes.  DUH

> And you still haven't shown me another example of a "Nuclear Detonation"!
> When are you going to show me so I have something to compare to your photo
> with all the kookscribbles?  Don't you have a kooksite or kookvid that
> shows another "Nuclear Detonation"?

You are clearly brainwashed calling people names when you are the one that 
changes rules on MRR nukes where all you have done is proven all you know 
about is American made nukes detonated above ground and America does not 
make MRR nukes and they don't document their underground nukes.

Rocky 

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

#533477

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n2bd21$o4a$2@pcls7.std.com...

>>>> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
>>>> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!
>>
>>>Not mine.
>>
>> Don't be so modest, Roger! It was you who came up with the excellent Duck
>> Test that disproves conclusively that nukes could not have been used on
>> 9/11.  You came up with the other excellent Duck Test disproving CGIs as
>> well!!

>But it was you who changed the rules and tried to make MRR nukes follow the 
>same rules as American made nukes.

MRR nukes?  I don't have a kooktionary so I don't know what your made-up
kookwords mean.  I assume that the M stands for "magic"?  Since you proved
that the only ways nukes could have been used must involve magic or 
something.

>>>  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning
>>>fork as an earthquake.
>>
>> Perhaps it did shake like a tuning fork as it started collapsing.  But it
>> did not leave a 5.5 magnitude earthquake (2.3, yes), and it did not
>> produce a distinctive nuclear detonation signature, either.  Just like you
>> showed in your Duck Test!!

>And I've asked you before and you failed to answer if it started to collapse 
>then why did it do nothing for about 12 seconds?

>And since when have you seen a collapsing building shake and then do nothing 
>and then collapse from near the top down when no other buildings in the 
>world have ever collapsed from near the top down?

But did it "shake and do nothing for 12 seconds" before collapsing?  You
never proved anything like that.  But it doesn't really matter.  We will
never know the fine details of the sequence of internal failures before
the full collapse started, as any witnesses were killed, but it is easy to
see how some major structural component could have failed causing internal
collapses and lots of vibration/noise, then nothing for several seconds,
then another major failure that led to global collapse.

>And they didn't just collapse in a weird way but what they left on the 
>ground was even weirder with one wall very high and the staircase closest to
>that wall 6 floors high and the wall furthest from the surviving wall all 
>the way down to the ground.  

Nothing weird about the collapse.  Just a huge pile of debris and remains
of a broken building, just like you show us over and over again in that
NOAA photo with the kookscribbles added.

>To date only an off-center deep underground MRR nuke explains the remains of 
>both the Twin Towers:

You heve never explained how "only" a nuke could do that, much less 
explained how a nuke could have even happened, with all the disproofs of
nukes being used you gave us in your excellent Duck Test.

>And given that you think over 90% of Flight 93 was recovered despite the 
>fact the photographic evidence of that event proves otherwise proves you are 
>a sucker for bullshit stories.

What photographic evidence "proves" 95% of Flight 93 was not recovered?
There isn't any such thing, as you cannot prove a negative like that.

>> Diversion noted.  As I pointed out, if Ground Zero had been nuked, it
>> would still be radioactive.  Just like you noted in your Duck Test!!

>But all you have proven so far is you were wrong about deep underground 
>nukes making a flash or an EMP as proven by a video from dmaster on 
>alt.conspiracy.

Nope, no such proof has been provided.  (And remember, if you saw that
"proof" in a kookvid, remember that you were the one who proved that all
kookvids lie!)

>And I've asked you over and over and over to try and find some information 
>about deep underground nukes because you seem to think they are no different 
>then nukes detonated way above ground.

I already gave you information about deep underground nukes, none of which
applies anyway, since you kookclaim your magic nukes were only 27 meters 
underground.

>But now not only do I want you to post info about deep underground nukes but 
>on top of that they have to be MRR nukes and not American made nukes.

As I said, I don't have a kooktionary so I don't know what your made up
kookwords mean.  But I guess that "MRR nukes", whatever they are, must be
made in China since everything else is.

>>>>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
>>>> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
>>>> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
>>>> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
>>>> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.
>>
>>>You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were 
>>>detonated
>>>have been buried in concrete.
>>
>> Doesn't matter.  The whole site would still be radioactive.  It's not.

>You have already forgotten about MRR nukes and that America does not make 
>them so where are you getting your information from?

Nukes make things radioactive.  Period.  Fission produces fission products
which are as hot as hell at first.  Fusion irradiates everything with
neutrons which are really effective at killing people and they activate 
nearby matter making it really, really radioactive.

>>>  You have even seen a photo of that on that
>>>page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent
>>>with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that
>>>was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.
>>
>> Nope, a nuke would have left a crater hundreds of feet in diameter, not 40
>> feet. Just like you pointed out in your Duck Test!

>ROTFLMAO and that is more of your Flight 93 bullshit where none of the 
>photos taken in Pranksville, PA show anywhere near 93% of Flight 93 being 
>found.  <G>

But you can't deny that a real nuke would have left a crater hundreds or
even thousands of feet wide, not an itty bitty glacial pothole.

>>>And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any
>>>noticeable seismic signature
>>
>> Nope.  You're just making crap up again.  What do you think happens when
>> the blast wave hits the wall of the "pre existing cavity"?  It gets
>> transferred to the rock!

>But that isn't normal rock since it has already been compressed by a lot of 
>heat and pressure so what is going to move then?

What?  Are you now kookclaiming that there were two nuclear blasts, one
which made the "pre existing cavity" with its walls "compressed by a lot 
of heat and pressure" (and itself was magically not detected), then the
other nuke detonated inside it?  Your lunacy gets just crazier and 
crazier!


>  Don't forget that rock 
>next to a nuclear demoltion is called Trinitite and they found that at GZ 
>also.

Nope, trinitite specifically refers to what is found at the "Trinity"  
site, which has a different starting soil composition than Manhattan 
bedrock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite
And of course, you have no evidence any sort of molten/fused rock similar 
to trinitite was found at Ground Zero  (Hey! You can add that fact to your
"Duck Test" proof!)

>But you used the wrong test for MRR nukes and you keep thinking of American 
>made nukes and they don't make MRR nukes.  DUH

OK, so even without a kooktionary I have figured out that "MRR nukes" must
be made in China (since everything else is) and the M stands for "magic"
or "magical" since that's the only way they could be possible.  I did not
know the Chinese possessed magic, however.

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

#533392

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

>On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 05:31:16 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
>wrote:

>>Am 15.11.2015 04:41, schrieb edrhodes@hotmail.com:

>>>> >  So: where did the towers go???
>>> They broke apart and were scattered across the plaza.
>>
>>This is not true.
>>

>     Most of the buildings did end up in the "bath tub." But in
>essence, Ed is correct.

>>A building consists of about 10% of its volume from hard materials and 
>>90% air.

About 95% air, but this is not important.


>>So a rough calculation would reveal, there was MUCH too little debris 
>>left behind.
>>

>     Huh? 

>>One tower was 400m (roughly) high and had about 100 floors.
>>
>>Ten percent makes a pile of ten floors or 40 m.
>>
>>But found were less than the hight of the main lobby.
>>

>     Because most of the debris was found in the "bath tub." This is
>very old news.

The "bath tub" was about 70' (22m) deep. The whole "bath tub" didn't fill,
of course, mostly just below the towers.  The WTC site is about 16 acres.  
(The towers were almost exactly 1 acre each)

>>The main lobby is easy to identify by the characteristic form of the 
>>perimeter columns.
>>
>>It had a hight of about four usual floors.
>>
>>So: two thirds of the debris went missing.

Only if you ignore the debris below the plaza level.

Anyway, 108,342 truckloads of debris, or 1.5 million tons, were removed
from the site.  The weight is the right amount for the whole World Trade
Center site.  Nothing significant was "missing".

We went to New York City Christmas, 2001.  We went to see "Ground Zero".
The site was fenced off but there was an overlook for gawking tourists.

At the time (late December) parts of the "bathtub" was empty but there
were huge piles of debris.  The tops of the piles had been dug down so the
tops were about 2 stories below street level but there was still plenty of
debris to be removed.  I couldn't place the piles but I figure the largest
were were the towers were.

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

#533405

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n2b2h6$fho$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 05:31:16 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Am 15.11.2015 04:41, schrieb edrhodes@hotmail.com:
>
>>>>> >  So: where did the towers go???
>>>> They broke apart and were scattered across the plaza.
>>>
>>>This is not true.
>>>
>
>>     Most of the buildings did end up in the "bath tub." But in
>>essence, Ed is correct.
>
>>>A building consists of about 10% of its volume from hard materials and
>>>90% air.
>
> About 95% air, but this is not important.

ROTFLMAO because if that were true there should have been at least 5 floors 
of debris from a 110 story building and that is assuming that there would be 
no air in that debris but the 6 floors of the Surviving Staircase B were way 
above the pile of debris.

So what happend to the "hard materials?"  And we already know it didn't go 
under ground level or it would have crushed the Surviving Staircase and the 
multil floor surviving wall on the way down.  <G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg


>>>So a rough calculation would reveal, there was MUCH too little debris
>>>left behind.
>>>
>
>>     Huh?
>
>>>One tower was 400m (roughly) high and had about 100 floors.
>>>
>>>Ten percent makes a pile of ten floors or 40 m.
>>>
>>>But found were less than the hight of the main lobby.
>>>
>
>>     Because most of the debris was found in the "bath tub." This is
>>very old news.
>
> The "bath tub" was about 70' (22m) deep. The whole "bath tub" didn't fill,
> of course, mostly just below the towers.  The WTC site is about 16 acres.
> (The towers were almost exactly 1 acre each)

Wait a second.  There is no evidence anywhere that any of the debris went 
below ground level.  But there is evidence that the "hard material" above 
the Surviving Staircase B and the multi-floor Surviving Corners was 
vaporized before it had a chance to fall.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg


>>>The main lobby is easy to identify by the characteristic form of the
>>>perimeter columns.
>>>
>>>It had a hight of about four usual floors.
>>>
>>>So: two thirds of the debris went missing.
>
> Only if you ignore the debris below the plaza level.

But you are incorrect to assume anything ended up below plaza level and you 
have yet to explain how that debris missed the 6 floors of the Surviving 
Staircase and the 8 or more floors of the outside Surviving Corner.  <G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

> Anyway, 108,342 truckloads of debris, or 1.5 million tons, were removed
> from the site.  The weight is the right amount for the whole World Trade
> Center site.  Nothing significant was "missing".

And you are forgetting about all the dirt and resin that was hauled into the 
World Trade Center to cover up the radiation from those MRR nukes.

And the near complete lack of photos, just like the lack of photos with your 
Flight 93 bullshit says you are feeding us more bullshit.  <G>


> We went to New York City Christmas, 2001.  We went to see "Ground Zero".
> The site was fenced off but there was an overlook for gawking tourists.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.  That was done so people could not get a good 
photo of the great big holes left by the deep underground MRR nukes you 
clown.


> At the time (late December) parts of the "bathtub" was empty but there
> were huge piles of debris.  The tops of the piles had been dug down so the
> tops were about 2 stories below street level but there was still plenty of
> debris to be removed.  I couldn't place the piles but I figure the largest
> were were the towers were.

Oh boy, more of your bullshit.  Don't forget, the outside walls of the Twin 
Towers can not be used to set the height of the debris because they were 
really "Surviving Corners" and should have been listed as what remained of 
the Twin Towers after what was above them was vaporized by a off-center deep 
underground MRR nuke or two.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#533560

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n2b2h6$fho$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>A building consists of about 10% of its volume from hard materials and
>>>>90% air.
>>
>> About 95% air, but this is not important.

>ROTFLMAO because if that were true there should have been at least 5 floors 
>of debris from a 110 story building

There was.  The "bathtub" was 6-7 floors deep and add 3-4 floors to that 
and that's a total of 9-11 floors of debris.  Considering it wouldn't
have packed nice and neatly, that matches what we'd expect.

>>>     Because most of the debris was found in the "bath tub." This is
>>>very old news.
>>
>> The "bath tub" was about 70' (22m) deep. The whole "bath tub" didn't fill,
>> of course, mostly just below the towers.  The WTC site is about 16 acres.
>> (The towers were almost exactly 1 acre each)

>Wait a second.  There is no evidence anywhere that any of the debris went 
>below ground level.

Except, of course, for all of the debris below the towers.

>But you are incorrect to assume anything ended up below plaza level

No assumption necessary.  It was there.  They had to dig and dig and dig,
hauling out 108,342 truckloads of debris, 1.5 million tons of former
buildings and contents.  Do you think the plaza level floor was
superstrong compared to all the other floors so that it withstood 110
floors of building falling on it?  No, the collapse continued down until
it reached bedrock.

>> Anyway, 108,342 truckloads of debris, or 1.5 million tons, were removed
>> from the site.  The weight is the right amount for the whole World Trade
>> Center site.  Nothing significant was "missing".

>And you are forgetting about all the dirt and resin that was hauled into the 
>World Trade Center to cover up the radiation from those MRR nukes.

No, kooktard, what the voices in your head tell you isn't real.

Anyway, you earlier claimed that 120 truckloads of DE were brought in, 
which is why I earlier wrote that 108,222 truckloads of collapse debris
were brought out.

>And the near complete lack of photos, just like the lack of photos with your 
>Flight 93 bullshit says you are feeding us more bullshit.  <G>

You want photos?  Look, here's a photo for you!  And it's from a kooksite,
so maybe you'll actually believe it!  Not just any kooksite, but the very
same kooksite that hosts that NOAA photo with the kookscribbles added that
you always post here!!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg

It shows how the area below the towers was collapsed, while much of the
rest of the bathtub was mostly intact, including much of the PATH tracks.
This proves the tower collapse continued until it reached bedrock.

>> We went to New York City Christmas, 2001.  We went to see "Ground Zero".
>> The site was fenced off but there was an overlook for gawking tourists.

>BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

Say BULLSHIT all you want, but you can't tell me what I saw with my own
eyes.  Most of the ironwork for the below ground portions of the complex
had been removed, but there were still huge piles of debris being actively
worked on, whose tops were about two stories below street level.

>Oh boy, more of your bullshit.  Don't forget, the outside walls of the Twin 
>Towers can not be used to set the height of the debris

I judged the height of the debris by comparing it to street level/the top
of the bathtub walls.  The standing walls of the towers were long gone.

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

#533573

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n2da4s$qvk$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n2b2h6$fho$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>A building consists of about 10% of its volume from hard materials and
>>>>>90% air.
>>>
>>> About 95% air, but this is not important.
>
>>ROTFLMAO because if that were true there should have been at least 5 
>>floors
>>of debris from a 110 story building
>
> There was.  The "bathtub" was 6-7 floors deep and add 3-4 floors to that
> and that's a total of 9-11 floors of debris.  Considering it wouldn't
> have packed nice and neatly, that matches what we'd expect.

YOU ARE SUCH A TOTAL IDIOT TO THINK PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AS YOU BECAUSE YOU 
FORGOT THE EVIDENCE BELOW:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

There is no way in hell that debris could selectively not fall on both the 6 
floors of Stairwell B and the 8 or 9 floors of the Surviving Corner at the 
same time.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

What was left of the North Tower clearly shows whatever vaporized it 
vaporized it from the side that is closest to the ground, took care of the 
stuff above the survivors which means floors 7 - 110 and then failed to 
vaporize 8 or 9 floors of the Surviving Corner of WTC1 because that was 
furthest from the MRR nuke.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And as with the parts of the top of the South Tower they had to fall outside 
of the vaporization range to make it to the ground in one piece as proven by 
the parts of the South Tower that fell on the far side of WTC3.  <G>

And do not forget you have absolutely no photographic evidence that they 
found Flight 93 in pieces instead of a complete jet.

And you have plenty of photographic evidence that the two jets in Nuke York 
City were just CGIs.

People tried to say that Flight 93 crashed inverted but then that wouldn't 
explain the marks in the ground that were in reality there long before the 
9/11 bullshit.

Rocky 

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

#533623

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

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n2da4s$qvk$1@pcls7.std.com...

>>>ROTFLMAO because if that were true there should have been at least 5 
>>>floors
>>>of debris from a 110 story building
>>
>> There was.  The "bathtub" was 6-7 floors deep and add 3-4 floors to that
>> and that's a total of 9-11 floors of debris.  Considering it wouldn't
>> have packed nice and neatly, that matches what we'd expect.

>YOU ARE SUCH A TOTAL IDIOT TO THINK PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AS YOU BECAUSE YOU 
>FORGOT THE EVIDENCE BELOW:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Calm down, kooktard.  You're foaming at the mouth.

No comment about this image from that VERY SAME KOOKSITE?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg
It shows the area directly below the towers as being collapsed, with very
little of the rest of the "bathtub" being collapsed.  That directly shows
that the collapses continued into the basement levels, all the way to
bedrock, and therefore there is nothing unusual about the height of the
debris pile, because there is so much debris in the basement levels.

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

#533635

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n2di9o$aun$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n2da4s$qvk$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>>>ROTFLMAO because if that were true there should have been at least 5
>>>>floors
>>>>of debris from a 110 story building
>>>
>>> There was.  The "bathtub" was 6-7 floors deep and add 3-4 floors to that
>>> and that's a total of 9-11 floors of debris.  Considering it wouldn't
>>> have packed nice and neatly, that matches what we'd expect.
>
>>YOU ARE SUCH A TOTAL IDIOT TO THINK PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AS YOU BECAUSE 
>>YOU
>>FORGOT THE EVIDENCE BELOW:
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Calm down, kooktard.  You're foaming at the mouth.
>
> No comment about this image from that VERY SAME KOOKSITE?
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg
> It shows the area directly below the towers as being collapsed, with very
> little of the rest of the "bathtub" being collapsed.  That directly shows
> that the collapses continued into the basement levels, all the way to
> bedrock, and therefore there is nothing unusual about the height of the
> debris pile, because there is so much debris in the basement levels.

AND AGAIN YOU FAIL TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DEBRIS COMPLETELY MISSED 6 FLOORS OF 
STAIRCASE B and COMPLETELY MISSED 8-10 FLOORS OF THE SURVIVING CORNERS of 
the North Tower.  See:
  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

A more likely scenario is that in the enormous cloud of dust the debris 
didn't fall down but floated away and that would be possible with MRR nukes 
and you still haven't addressed what reading a 1kt nuke would make and how 
high the noise level was for seismographs in Nuke York City on 9/11/01.

AND it is possible that the floors under the Twin Towers were damaged even 
before the alleged collapse because the perpetraitors needed some way to get 
the water out of the storage tanks that would have been used for putting out 
fires above ground level and get it to fill the basement instead.  DUH

--------------------------------

And you failed to address why the two jets in Nuke York City resembled CGIs. 
<G>

And I can go one step further and point out that the jet that rammed the 
North Tower isn't even consistent with a blurred 767.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#533791

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

>A more likely scenario is that in the enormous cloud of dust the debris 
>didn't fall down but floated away and that would be possible with MRR nukes 
>and you still haven't addressed what reading a 1kt nuke would make and how 
>high the noise level was for seismographs in Nuke York City on 9/11/01.

No reason for such kooktardery.  We now know, from your very own kooksite,
that the space below each tower was fully collapsed.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg

>AND it is possible that the floors under the Twin Towers were damaged even 
>before the alleged collapse because the perpetraitors needed some way to get 
>the water out of the storage tanks that would have been used for putting out 
>fires above ground level and get it to fill the basement instead.  DUH

No, it's not possible.  Doing so would mean the lower levels had to be
destroyed even before the first plane hit.  Definitely not true, it was a
perfectly normal day up until 8:45 AM.

Why come up with such kookery when a simple collapse all the way down to
bedrock explains everything in your "blast3.jpeg" picture?  Everything
except for the added kookscribbles, that is.

>And you failed to address why the two jets in Nuke York City resembled CGIs. 

Because, of course, they didn't.

>And I can go one step further and point out that the jet that rammed the 
>North Tower isn't even consistent with a blurred 767.  <G>

Of course you would.  You kooktarded little mind simply can't accept the
fact that 19 crazed terrorists hijacked 4 planes and deliberately crashed
them.  You have to come up with kooktarded explanations like nukes that
require magic to make them work.

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

#536484

In article <n2fma8$d5g$3@pcls7.std.com>,
 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
> 
> >A more likely scenario is that in the enormous cloud of dust the debris 
> >didn't fall down but floated away and that would be possible with MRR nukes 
> >and you still haven't addressed what reading a 1kt nuke would make and how 
> >high the noise level was for seismographs in Nuke York City on 9/11/01.
> 
> No reason for such kooktardery.  We now know, from your very own kooksite,
> that the space below each tower was fully collapsed.
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-
> New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg
> 
> >AND it is possible that the floors under the Twin Towers were damaged even 
> >before the alleged collapse because the perpetraitors needed some way to get 
> >the water out of the storage tanks that would have been used for putting out 
> >fires above ground level and get it to fill the basement instead.  DUH
> 
> No, it's not possible.  Doing so would mean the lower levels had to be
> destroyed even before the first plane hit.  Definitely not true, it was a
> perfectly normal day up until 8:45 AM.
> 
> Why come up with such kookery when a simple collapse all the way down to
> bedrock explains everything in your "blast3.jpeg" picture?  Everything
> except for the added kookscribbles, that is.
> 
> >And you failed to address why the two jets in Nuke York City resembled CGIs. 
> 
> Because, of course, they didn't.
> 
> >And I can go one step further and point out that the jet that rammed the 
> >North Tower isn't even consistent with a blurred 767.  <G>
> 
> Of course you would.  You kooktarded little mind simply can't accept the
> fact that 19 crazed terrorists hijacked 4 planes and deliberately crashed
> them.  You have to come up with kooktarded explanations like nukes that
> require magic to make them work.

or;
http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/
-- 
Karma ; what a concept!

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web