Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #566498 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-29 12:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-03-31 14:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 154 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why You Should Care About Nukes Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 12:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 12:37 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 05:08 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 12:33 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-02 15:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-02 20:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 06:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 16:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 21:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 05:45 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:30 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 20:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 06:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:23 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 17:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 19:59 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:14 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 18:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 14:46 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 15:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:46 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:35 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 00:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:57 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:51 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:09 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:42 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 10:51 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:56 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 21:23 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 21:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 21:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 11:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 10:12 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:09 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 15:00 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 21:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 15:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 19:32 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 07:52 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 11:00 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 01:20 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 01:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:58 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:53 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:59 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:31 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 12:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:53 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:09 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 16:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 16:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:11 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:20 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:15 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:18 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 21:28 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2016-04-02 23:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-29 18:07 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-29 14:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-30 14:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-30 15:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 03:02 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 04:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 14:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:59 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 15:36 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:41 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 20:11 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 04:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-31 12:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 19:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:44 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 21:33 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 06:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 12:54 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 14:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 12:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 19:31 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 19:13 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:32 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 23:39 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 04:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:25 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 04:01 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 04:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes vishnushelat@gmail.com - 2016-03-31 12:28 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-31 14:13 -0700
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 04:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4aednQuLFu0khZfKnZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569016 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:sg8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:9l4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on >>>>>>>>>> 9/11/01 >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the >>>>>>>>> utter >>>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>> kind, kook. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were >>>>>>>> nuked >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >>>>>> >>>>>> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. >>>>> >>>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >>>> >>>> THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way >>>> way >>>> smaller than they should have been >>> >>> No they weren't, kook. >> >> Your opinions suck and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you that. > > You opinions are insane and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you > that. If you have facts prove it. Show me how violently the ground shook when WTC7 hit the ground and then prove that a jackhammer could not make a .6 on the Richter scale. <G> The fact is nuked buildings do not hit the ground as hard a buildings that were destroyed by a controlled demolition or jet fuel. DUH Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <64bqtc-6hn.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569399 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:sg8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:9l4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on >>>>>>>>>>> 9/11/01 >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the >>>>>>>>>> utter >>>>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>> kind, kook. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were >>>>>>>>> nuked >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >>>>> >>>>> THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way >>>>> way >>>>> smaller than they should have been >>>> >>>> No they weren't, kook. >>> >>> Your opinions suck and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you that. >> >> You opinions are insane and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you >> that. > > If you have facts prove it. Show me how violently the ground shook when > WTC7 hit the ground and then prove that a jackhammer could not make a .6 on > the Richter scale. Poor Rocky doesn't know the difference between force and energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 12:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jO2dnZEI7MmDEZfKnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569463 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:64bqtc-6hn.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:sg8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:9l4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on >>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11/01 >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the >>>>>>>>>>> utter >>>>>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>> kind, kook. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were >>>>>>>>>> nuked >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >>>>>> >>>>>> THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were >>>>>> way >>>>>> way >>>>>> smaller than they should have been >>>>> >>>>> No they weren't, kook. >>>> >>>> Your opinions suck and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you that. >>> >>> You opinions are insane and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you >>> that. >> >> If you have facts prove it. Show me how violently the ground shook when >> WTC7 hit the ground and then prove that a jackhammer could not make a .6 >> on >> the Richter scale. > > Poor Rocky doesn't know the difference between force and energy. ROTFLMAO because you might want to tell me why there were only surface waves when WTC7 hit the ground and it was missing other type of waves that earthquakes normally have. Fact remains something vaporized three buildings before they could crash to the ground as proven by how small the seismograph readings were when they hit the ground. ROTFLMAO Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9jgqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569481 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:64bqtc-6hn.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:sg8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:9l4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on >>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11/01 >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the >>>>>>>>>>>> utter >>>>>>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>> kind, kook. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were >>>>>>>>>>> nuked >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> smaller than they should have been >>>>>> >>>>>> No they weren't, kook. >>>>> >>>>> Your opinions suck and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you that. >>>> >>>> You opinions are insane and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you >>>> that. >>> >>> If you have facts prove it. Show me how violently the ground shook when >>> WTC7 hit the ground and then prove that a jackhammer could not make a .6 >>> on >>> the Richter scale. >> >> Poor Rocky doesn't know the difference between force and energy. > > ROTFLMAO because you might want to tell me why there were only surface waves > when WTC7 hit the ground and it was missing other type of waves that > earthquakes normally have. Because a collapsing building is not an earthquake. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1YSdnUgU3tIsZJbKnZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569486 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:9jgqtc-t2o.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:64bqtc-6hn.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:sg8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:9l4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:c3fd5d79-3fdb-4dbe-ab13-f7cc6fb0f655@googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11/01 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> utter >>>>>>>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>>>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>> kind, kook. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fact is not even the movies of the Twin Towers after they were >>>>>>>>>>>> nuked >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an >>>>>>>>>>> exposion >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were >>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>> smaller than they should have been >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No they weren't, kook. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your opinions suck and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you >>>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> You opinions are insane and I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you >>>>> that. >>>> >>>> If you have facts prove it. Show me how violently the ground shook >>>> when >>>> WTC7 hit the ground and then prove that a jackhammer could not make a >>>> .6 >>>> on >>>> the Richter scale. >>> >>> Poor Rocky doesn't know the difference between force and energy. >> >> ROTFLMAO because you might want to tell me why there were only surface >> waves >> when WTC7 hit the ground and it was missing other type of waves that >> earthquakes normally have. > > Because a collapsing building is not an earthquake. Duh, because WTC7 compared to a jackhammer hitting the ground and not a 47 story building. Something is very strange about how little seismic activity there was for all three buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 but mostly WTC7. Go ahead and try to find how much vibration there was when WTC7 floated to the ground after being partially vaporized like WTC1 and WTC2. And never forget that only vaporized buildings can fail to crush what was on the lower levels as proven by: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neb0mr$bg8$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568724 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: ><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of >>>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >>> >>> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >> >> Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. >> >> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way way >smaller than they should have been so something had to vaporize those 3 >buildings before they could crash to the ground. DUH. And the fact that there was no nuclear explosion signature any one of those 3 times proves once and for all that nukes could not be responsible for any of that alleged "vaporization". Besides, anything that "vaporized" anything then did a pretty poor job, leaving behind just about all of 1.5 million tons of debris that was once the World Trade Center.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 04:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QP-dndSyD6UjhJfKnZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569207 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:neb0mr$bg8$5@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>news:jn0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >>>>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of >>>>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >>>> >>>> YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >>> >>> Yes, kook, that is EXACTLY the issue. >>> >>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. > >>THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way >>way >>smaller than they should have been so something had to vaporize those 3 >>buildings before they could crash to the ground. DUH. > > And the fact that there was no nuclear explosion signature any one of > those 3 times proves once and for all that nukes could not be responsible > for any of that alleged "vaporization". We are not talking about before anymore we are talking about what happened when they finally hit the ground. The three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 left seismic records comparable to buildings that were vaporized before they could hit the ground. Heck, with WTC7 a jackhammer could create the same seismic record that WTC7 made when it floated to the ground. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <negcvv$hu8$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569400 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:neb0mr$bg8$5@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >> >>>THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way >>>way >>>smaller than they should have been so something had to vaporize those 3 >>>buildings before they could crash to the ground. DUH. >> >> And the fact that there was no nuclear explosion signature any one of >> those 3 times proves once and for all that nukes could not be responsible >> for any of that alleged "vaporization". >We are not talking about before anymore we are talking about what happened >when they finally hit the ground. We are talking about whether there is any seismic evidence for any nuclear detonations on 9/11 at the time of the collapses. The fact that there were NO distinctive nuclear detonation signatures recorded by ANY seismometer ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD at the time of any of the collapses (or any other time that day) COMPLETELY RULES OUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF NUCLEAR DETONATION. Period. Are you really too kooktarded to understand that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 13:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neavl6$bg8$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568699 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: ><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of >> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. >YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. Yes it is the issue, kooktard. It proves once and for all that no nukes could have been used on 9/11, and all your claims that they were are all lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 04:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Iq2dnZnk6cjsh5fKnZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569202 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:neavl6$bg8$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>news:0vdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >>> The fact is that no seismograph on the planet recorded an exposion of >>> any kind, nuclear or otherwise, kook. > >>YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. > > Yes it is the issue, kooktard. It proves once and for all that no nukes > could have been used on 9/11, and all your claims that they were are all > lies. AND YOU AVOIDED THE VERY SMALL SEISMIC RECORDS WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hit the ground why? ROTFLMAO The only why those three buildings could leave such small crashes when they hit the ground is if they were vaporized before they could crash to the ground. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 14:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <negd8s$hu8$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569401 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:neavl6$bg8$2@pcls7.std.com... >> >>>YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >> >> Yes it is the issue, kooktard. It proves once and for all that no nukes >> could have been used on 9/11, and all your claims that they were are all >> lies. >AND YOU AVOIDED THE VERY SMALL SEISMIC RECORDS WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hit >the ground why? ROTFLMAO And you avoided the issue that there were ZERO signatures of nuclear detonations that day. According to your kooktarded "logic" there were three (or more?) nukes that brought down three buildings. So we should have seen three instances of nuclear explosions on seismometers. We didn't see three of them. We didn't see two of them. We didn't see even one of them. We saw exactly ZERO instances of seismic signatures of nuclear detonations that day. Why? Simply because there were exactly ZERO instances of nuclear detonations that day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15712a52-c1ea-4cb4-8b05-ddf76d737e6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567905 |
Rocko says > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:epnatc-pc1.ln1@mail.specsol.com... - show quoted text - Too things idiot,. 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings so what happened to over 80 floors of debris? <G> 2. There was a movie taken of the South Tower shaking like a tunning fork when it was nuked and yet there was no seismec reading for that? Something is strange there. And don't ever forget, if the debris really went down why didn't it crush the "Surviving Corners" in the following photo ------------ Looks like Rocko is walking it back a bit. Gawdy I love to watch kooks squirm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 21:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5xEMy.5$kQ1.3@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #567934 |
On 04/04/2016 04:43 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Rocko says
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:epnatc-pc1.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> - show quoted text -
> Too things idiot,.
>
> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings so what
> happened to over 80 floors of debris? <G>
>
> 2. There was a movie taken of the South Tower shaking like a tunning fork
> when it was nuked and yet there was no seismec reading for that? Something
> is strange there.
>
> And don't ever forget, if the debris really went down why didn't it crush
> the "Surviving Corners" in the following photo
> ------------
>
> Looks like Rocko is walking it back a bit. Gawdy I love to watch kooks squirm
Dance Kooker Dance!
Tell us again how building 7 just felt so bad it fell down without being
hit by a plane.
Dance Kooker Dance!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 23:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5DEC5D7538F3stillnolawsuitedmo@208.90.168.18> |
| In reply to | #567543 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote in news:lJGdnWxJapzuu53KnZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com: > > "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:eaee1452-cccc-4884-aa90-e7a6ddbbefe8@googlegroups.com... >> Sam Wormley >> On 3/29/16 12:34 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>> Why You Should Care About Nukes >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0 >>> >>> >> >> BTW--This video is about the continued dangers of nuclear weapons >> and the nuclear arms race in the post-cold war world, particularly >> nuclear winter but also modernizations by the US and Russian >> governments, EMPs (electromagnetic pulses), fallout, explosions, >> terrorism, other accidents, etc. >> ------------- >> >> Nuclear weapons have ushered in a very long period with no worldwide >> wars. >> >> Rethink your position > > No "worldwide wars" but certainly wars and a hell of a lot of TSA for > nothing. > > Just don't ever forget that 9/11 was a nuclear event and that only > nukes can vaporize 110 story buildings the way two 110 story buildings > in Nuke York City were vaporized. > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > BTW name one thing that our government has ever been honest about? > <G> They turn you down for welfare again, Rocky? -- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895. "PhDs in psychology (and other fields as well) see me as insightful, intellectual, sharp, clear, profound, pragmatic and very useful and constructive. Spinics see me as a "kook. Who shall we believe?" - Ed on a post-Xmas meltdown.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gssqsc-6k7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #566498 |
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > Why You Should Care About Nukes You mean other than the huge blast and the fallout, spammer? What does this have to do with physics, spammer? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 14:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtadnX2A5sAhTWfLnZ2dnUU7-RfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #566498 |
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vY6dnQCAQOwlIWfLnZ2dnUU7-f0AAAAA@giganews.com... > Why You Should Care About Nukes >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0 ROTFLMAO because we don't have to worry about nukes because it was very easy for the media to convince us that the Twin Towers were brought down by 19 terrorist instead of 2 deep underground MRR nukes. Again, this is not the remains of 19 terrorist but a couple deep underground MRR nukes: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndgnia$vea$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #566520 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >ROTFLMAO because Hi Roger, how ya doing? How goes your search for the mass spectrometry analysis of the WTC dust samples? You know, the ones that show "two items in equal parts that only exist after nuclear detonations"? Roger? Where are you going? Are you running away *again*?????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 15:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BLWdnRKgk534qGHLnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #566645 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:ndgnia$vea$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>ROTFLMAO because > > Hi Roger, how ya doing? > > How goes your search for the mass spectrometry analysis of the WTC dust > samples? You know, the ones that show "two items in equal parts that only > exist after nuclear detonations"? > > Roger? > > Where are you going? > > Are you running away *again*????? ROTFLMAO because you can see plain as day that there was nothing left of 2 110 story buildings and what can do that much damage and leave tremendous smoke clouds in the air? <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg I guess you were never on the lookout area on the South Tower because that might help you see that those buildings were huge and how did they get converted into little piles where what survived was at the very bottom instead of the top? And again, why care about nukes since it was so easy for the government/media to tell us the Twin Towers were leveled by 19 hijackers who were never proved to have died on 9/11. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 03:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndi3ve$c5p$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #566726 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:ndgnia$vea$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>ROTFLMAO because >> >> Hi Roger, how ya doing? >> >> How goes your search for the mass spectrometry analysis of the WTC dust >> samples? You know, the ones that show "two items in equal parts that only >> exist after nuclear detonations"? >> >> Roger? >> >> Where are you going? >> >> Are you running away *again*????? >ROTFLMAO because Uh-oh, here come some doozies of lies! At least you warn us the lies are coming by writing "ROTFLMAO because..." > you can see plain as day that there was nothing left of 2 >110 story buildings and what can do that much damage and leave tremendous >smoke clouds in the air? <G> So where is that mass spectrometry analysis of the WTC dust? You know, the ones that prove there were nuclear detonations because they have two items in equal parts that only exist after nuclear detonations? What, it doesn't exist? You mean that someone lied to you that it did? And it wasn't the government that was lying to you? Was it some kooktard who made a kookvid that lied to you about the alleged mass spectrometry analysis? Well, duh-h-h! You proved to us a long time ago that all kookvids are lies! Every last one!! (Great job, BTW!!) > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg You're still obsessed with that photo of that enormous pile of debris with the kookscribbles all over it? The one that proves that no nukes were ever used?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 04:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <85qpfb52sifjlrosa5ctd7sbc8vka69iij@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #566814 |
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 03:02:06 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:ndgnia$vea$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>ROTFLMAO because
>>>
>>> Hi Roger, how ya doing?
>>>
>>> How goes your search for the mass spectrometry analysis of the WTC dust
>>> samples? You know, the ones that show "two items in equal parts that only
>>> exist after nuclear detonations"?
>>>
>>> Roger?
>>>
>>> Where are you going?
>>>
>>> Are you running away *again*?????
>
>>ROTFLMAO because
>
>Uh-oh, here come some doozies of lies! At least you warn us the lies are
>coming by writing "ROTFLMAO because..."
>
>> you can see plain as day that there was nothing left of 2
>>110 story buildings and what can do that much damage and leave tremendous
>>smoke clouds in the air? <G>
>
>So where is that mass spectrometry analysis of the WTC dust? You know, the
>ones that prove there were nuclear detonations because they have two items
>in equal parts that only exist after nuclear detonations?
>
>What, it doesn't exist?
>
>You mean that someone lied to you that it did? And it wasn't the
>government that was lying to you? Was it some kooktard who made a
>kookvid that lied to you about the alleged mass spectrometry analysis?
>Well, duh-h-h! You proved to us a long time ago that all kookvids are
>lies! Every last one!! (Great job, BTW!!)
>
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
>You're still obsessed with that photo of that enormous pile of debris
>with the kookscribbles all over it? The one that proves that no nukes
>were ever used?
Run Away Roger has made it very clear he's always known the
information at veteranstoday contains little more than lies. He's also
made it very clear he's always known the picture he obsessively links
to proves all of his claims wrong.
Something interesting. Run Away Roger would whine and cry about
not including all the groups a specific post was sent to when
replying. Yet he removed alt.conspiracy when he replied to you.
I guess he didn't realize you would bring up his claim about the
analysis in a different group. He absolutely knows I'll bring it up
each and every time he posts his deceptions regarding 9/11.
Brave Sir [Roger] ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When [the TRUTH] reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir [Roger] turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir [Roger]!
"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]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web