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 | 2016-04-14 12:18 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 16 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 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 22:16 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:48 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:30 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:02 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-20 03:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-20 17:17 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 17:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 12:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:28 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 15:37 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 19:14 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 14:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 22:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:12 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:45 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:12 -0500
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 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 07:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 17:55 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 08:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-16 22:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 02:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-19 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 18:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 19:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 15:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-21 21:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-22 20:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-28 14:08 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 18:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:26 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 11:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 17:36 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-14 15:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:00 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 07:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-19 16:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500
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) - 2016-04-12 21:59 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 21:35 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-17 09:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:17 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-20 03:47 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 14:32 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 11:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 18:58 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:19 -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 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:06 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 19:03 +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 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 13:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 19:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 14:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 20:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 16:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-21 14:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes tesla sTinker <staff@truecarpentry.net> - 2016-04-23 10:05 -0700
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 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-09 06:48 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 14:32 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-09 09:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 15:15 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 17:18 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 15:11 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 22:52 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 17:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 23:28 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-11 20:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 16:18 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:54 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-05-09 09:01 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 04:01 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 17:19 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-10 16:47 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 22:56 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-05-11 06:40 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-11 22:38 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 03:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 08:47 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-11 19:31 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:56 -0500
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 tesla sTinker <staff@truecarpentry.net> - 2016-04-23 09:44 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 12:19 -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
Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:48 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:18 -0400
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9l4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568724 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 03:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f_Odnfeytbyu85rKnZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568742 |
<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. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sg8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568882 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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$5@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >> >>>THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way >>>way >>>smaller than they should have been so something had to vaporize those 3 >>>buildings before they could crash to the ground. DUH. >> >> And the fact that there was no nuclear explosion signature any one of >> those 3 times proves once and for all that nukes could not be responsible >> for any of that alleged "vaporization". >We are not talking about before anymore we are talking about what happened >when they finally hit the ground. We are talking about whether there is any seismic evidence for any nuclear detonations on 9/11 at the time of the collapses. The fact that there were NO distinctive nuclear detonation signatures recorded by ANY seismometer ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD at the time of any of the collapses (or any other time that day) COMPLETELY RULES OUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF NUCLEAR DETONATION. Period. Are you really too kooktarded to understand that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qOmdnXF6cPwmi4TKnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569704 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:negcvv$hu8$3@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:neb0mr$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. ROTFLMAO because the super small seismic activity when WTC7 was supposed to have crashed to the ground proves something is very strange about all the seismic readings like they were tampered with. DUH Oh, and don't forget that this is not the remains of a "Global Collaspe" idiot. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg 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 | 2016-04-21 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfb85t$92t$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572154 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:negcvv$hu8$3@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:neb0mr$bg8$5@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>> No seismograph readings means no exlosions of any kind. >>>> >>>>>THE ISSUE IS THE SEISMIC READINGS FOR WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were way >>>>>way >>>>>smaller than they should have been so something had to vaporize those 3 >>>>>buildings before they could crash to the ground. DUH. >>>> >>>> And the fact that there was no nuclear explosion signature any one of >>>> those 3 times proves once and for all that nukes could not be >>>> responsible >>>> for any of that alleged "vaporization". >> >>>We are not talking about before anymore we are talking about what happened >>>when they finally hit the ground. >> >> We are talking about whether there is any seismic evidence for any >> nuclear detonations on 9/11 at the time of the collapses. >ROTFLMAO because the super small seismic activity when WTC7 was supposed to >have crashed to the ground proves that there were no nukes because there simply wasn't *ANYTHING* that day strong enough to be the distinctive nuclear explosion signature that all nuclear explosions produce! Nothing at all!!! Thanks for proving there were no nukes used on 9/11!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 13:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neavl6$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$2@pcls7.std.com... >> >>>YOU FCUKING ASSHOLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. >> >> Yes it is the issue, kooktard. It proves once and for all that no nukes >> could have been used on 9/11, and all your claims that they were are all >> lies. >AND YOU AVOIDED THE VERY SMALL SEISMIC RECORDS WHEN WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hit >the ground why? ROTFLMAO And you avoided the issue that there were ZERO signatures of nuclear detonations that day. According to your kooktarded "logic" there were three (or more?) nukes that brought down three buildings. So we should have seen three instances of nuclear explosions on seismometers. We didn't see three of them. We didn't see two of them. We didn't see even one of them. We saw exactly ZERO instances of seismic signatures of nuclear detonations that day. Why? Simply because there were exactly ZERO instances of nuclear detonations that day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <EJ-dnRcS9OwgioTKnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569706 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:negd8s$hu8$4@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:neavl6$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. YOU FCUKHEAD.because the photos prove something brought down the Twin Towers besides a "Global Collapse" and all you can do is add more bullshit to all the other bullshit. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And don't forget the super small seismic activity of WTC7 meeting the ground can be used to prove all the seismic readings were tampered with or can not be trusted for some other reason. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg 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 | 2016-04-21 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfb94l$92t$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572157 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:negd8s$hu8$4@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>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. >YOU FCUKHEAD.because the photos prove something brought down the Twin Towers >besides a "Global Collapse" and all you can do is add more bullshit to all >the other bullshit. >And don't forget the super small seismic activity of WTC7 meeting the ground >can be used to prove that there were no nuclear devices exploded that day because the seismic activity in that area was so quiet that it was impossible for any nuke to have exploded without its distinctive nuclear explosion signature being recorded on seismometers throughout the world!!! > all the seismic readings were tampered with or can not >be trusted for some other reason. ROTFLMAO All "seismic readings were tampered with"?????? Including seismometers in places like North Korea, Russia, Iran, Iraq, China and other places unfriendly to the US, all of whom would have *loved* to point the WTC had been nuked, if they actually had evidence of that? And don't forget all the private and university seismometers worldwide also not under US government control. The absurdity of that kookclaim has been pointed out to you many, many times before! > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfba3s$1ag$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #572175 |
On 4/21/2016 2:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >> all the seismic readings were tampered with or can not >> be trusted for some other reason. ROTFLMAO > > All "seismic readings were tampered with"?????? Including seismometers in > places like North Korea, Russia, Iran, Iraq, China and other places > unfriendly to the US, all of whom would have *loved* to point the WTC had > been nuked, if they actually had evidence of that? And don't forget all > the private and university seismometers worldwide also not under US > government control. >- Michael, you're dealing with a lunatic. Lunatics do not have to make sense. This is what makes them lunatics. A lunatic will happily tell you that they know the truth, but that the truth has been obscured by a massive conspiracy that has studiously removed all the evidence of the truth, and that the absence of evidence of the truth is in fact the proof of the conspiracy. A lunatic will tell you that Mrs. Opal Showalter upstairs in Apt. 4B is secretly in charge of a massive underworld organization with agents in the NSA, Interpol, MI6, and the KGB. The fact that Mrs. Opal Showalter is a shut-in confined to a wheelchair is a careful cover story designed to obscure her real operations. And there is literally nothing you can tell the lunatic that will dissuade him from that conviction. Why are you wasting your time trying to reason with a lunatic? Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfbdgf$hs0$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572178 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >Michael, you're dealing with a lunatic. Lunatics do not have to make >sense. This is what makes them lunatics. ... >Why are you wasting your time trying to reason with a lunatic? You don't understand my logic. I enjoy taunting the kooks and lunatics here. It's a form of entertainment for me. I get to look in the asylum without ever leaving my chair. I know I will never introduce common sense to the likes of Roger, Sefton etc. They are most likely incurable. One thing that I find interesting is how just about all lunatics have this one thing they obsess over. Roger with that picture (not any old picture of 9/11 destruction or even the original NOAA 9/17/2001 photo his picture is based on, but that particular one with all the kookery added), Sefton with precessing spinny things, the tornado guy with the nonexistence of water vapor, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web