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 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 15:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nej5b3$mia$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569889 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:neh3se$eq2$2@pcls7.std.com... >> Yup. The seismic records were so small that there was NO evidence of the >> distinctive nuclear signature always seen on seismometers after any >> nuclear detonation. None whatsoever!! None!!! No Nukes on 9/11, just >> like you proved! >ROTFLMAO because the small seismic readings when WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hit the >ground prove that no nukes could possibly have been used on 9/11, because the nuclear seismic signature left by the alleged exploding nukes was too small (as in ZERO) not once, not twice, but three times! And that 1.5 million tons of debris was hauled out proves that nothing was vaporized, other than a trivial amount of smoke. Roger, you are such a genius! Providing even more proof that no nukes were used that day!! >If you don't want to admit nukes were used then what was used because jet >fuel can't vaporize buildings Nobody, anywhere, ever believed jet fuel "vaporized" anything. Not even kooktards believe that, and kooktards are stupid enough to believe anything, as long as it's in a kookvid. Especially since we know the WTC weighed about 1.5 million tons before destruction and about 1.5 million tons of debris was hauled out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 12:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ce-dnSxZ3cLYqJDKnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569913 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nej5b3$mia$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:neh3se$eq2$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>> Yup. The seismic records were so small that there was NO evidence of the >>> distinctive nuclear signature always seen on seismometers after any >>> nuclear detonation. None whatsoever!! None!!! No Nukes on 9/11, just >>> like you proved! > >>ROTFLMAO because the small seismic readings when WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hit >>the >>ground prove > > that no nukes could possibly have been used on 9/11, because the nuclear > seismic signature left by the alleged exploding nukes was too small (as in > ZERO) not once, not twice, but three times! And your explanation for the very small seismic readings for when WTC7 appeared to crash to the ground is what? > And that 1.5 million tons of debris was hauled out proves that nothing > was vaporized, other than a trivial amount of smoke. Don't forget how much was hauled in to help cover up the radiation and that shit was hauled in before anything was ever hauled out too. And why don't you compare the seismic signature of an American made nuke with an MRR nuke. ROTFLMAO And again something you can't explain with your debris in the basement but not enough debris to crush the Surviving Corners bullshit. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nejifq$ir2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569942 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nej5b3$mia$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>ROTFLMAO because the small seismic readings when WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hit >>>the >>>ground prove >> >> that no nukes could possibly have been used on 9/11, because the nuclear >> seismic signature left by the alleged exploding nukes was too small (as in >> ZERO) not once, not twice, but three times! >And your explanation for the very small seismic readings for when WTC7 >appeared to crash to the ground is what? And your explanation for the very small (that is, ZERO) seismic readings for the distinctive nuclear explosive signatures when the buildings crashed to the ground is what? And your answer to why there was still 1.5 million tons of debris to be hauled out even after the buildings were supposedly "vaporized" is what? >> And that 1.5 million tons of debris was hauled out proves that nothing >> was vaporized, other than a trivial amount of smoke. >Don't forget how much was hauled in to help cover up the radiation and that >shit was hauled in before anything was ever hauled out too. You already told us that. 200 truckloads of DE to absorb leaking toxic liquids. Compared to 108,342 truckloads hauled out. So a difference of 108,142 truckloads of WTC debris. Those 200 truckloads reduce the 1.5 million tons by how much? Less than 40 tons max per truckload, or under 8,000 tons of DE was brought in. So, 1,500,000 tons minus 8,000 tons is how much? I know you flunked math so I'll do it for you. 1,492,000 tons of actual WTC debris. >And why don't you compare the seismic signature of an American made nuke >with an MRR nuke. ROTFLMAO Nukes don't care where they were made. So the answer is the same seismic signature! Obviously!! >And again something you can't explain with your debris in the basement but >not enough debris to crush the Surviving Corners bullshit. Asked and answered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Jqydne07sK70-5DKnZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569960 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nejifq$ir2$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nej5b3$mia$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>ROTFLMAO because the small seismic readings when WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hit >>>>the >>>>ground prove >>> >>> that no nukes could possibly have been used on 9/11, because the nuclear >>> seismic signature left by the alleged exploding nukes was too small (as >>> in >>> ZERO) not once, not twice, but three times! > >>And your explanation for the very small seismic readings for when WTC7 >>appeared to crash to the ground is what? > > And your explanation for the very small (that is, ZERO) seismic readings > for the distinctive nuclear explosive signatures when the buildings > crashed to the ground is what? BULLSHIT. Even the background seismic activity is higher than ZERO you idiot. And an the detonation of an MRR nuked could hide in the background seismic activity. DUH. > And your answer to why there was still 1.5 million tons of debris to be > hauled out even after the buildings were supposedly "vaporized" is what? And your explaination for why that much weight could not crush the "Surviving Corners" is what? Your failure to provide a valid explanation for that and from NIST proves you are full of shit just like NIST. Once again what you or NIST can't explain and what you can not deal with so you keep deleting it from your replies. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > >>> And that 1.5 million tons of debris was hauled out proves that nothing >>> was vaporized, other than a trivial amount of smoke. > >>Don't forget how much was hauled in to help cover up the radiation and >>that >>shit was hauled in before anything was ever hauled out too. > > You already told us that. 200 truckloads of DE to absorb leaking toxic > liquids. Compared to 108,342 truckloads hauled out. So a difference of > 108,142 truckloads of WTC debris. Those 200 truckloads reduce the 1.5 > million tons by how much? Less than 40 tons max per truckload, or under > 8,000 tons of DE was brought in. So, 1,500,000 tons minus 8,000 tons is > how much? I know you flunked math so I'll do it for you. 1,492,000 tons > of actual WTC debris. If your number were true then why couldn't that much weight crush the "Surviving Corners?" It is because someone is lying and I doubt if it is the photo of the "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>And why don't you compare the seismic signature of an American made nuke >>with an MRR nuke. ROTFLMAO > > Nukes don't care where they were made. So the answer is the same seismic > signature! Obviously!! America doesn't make MRR nukes so American nukes were not used to vaporize most of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. >>And again something you can't explain with your debris in the basement but >>not enough debris to crush the Surviving Corners bullshit. > > Asked and answered. But certainly not by NIST and you know damn well NIST is just a government agency covering up for other government agencies. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nejr3p$2hm$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569991 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nejifq$ir2$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>And your explanation for the very small seismic readings for when WTC7 >>>appeared to crash to the ground is what? >> >> And your explanation for the very small (that is, ZERO) seismic readings >> for the distinctive nuclear explosive signatures when the buildings >> crashed to the ground is what? >BULLSHIT. Even the background seismic activity is higher than ZERO you >idiot. And an the detonation of an MRR nuked could hide in the background >seismic activity. DUH. The distinctive nuclear explosion signature would be about 5 on the Richter Scale. WAY above the background noise, which you kookclaim was less than what a jackhammer produces, even though the difference between force and energy confuses you. >> And your answer to why there was still 1.5 million tons of debris to be >> hauled out even after the buildings were supposedly "vaporized" is what? >And your explaination for why that much weight could not crush the >"Surviving Corners" is what? Your failure to provide a valid explanation >for that and from NIST proves you are full of shit just like NIST. Quit avoiding the question. Why was there 1.5 million tons (or 1.492 million tons if you want to nitpick) of debris removed, when the WTC weighed about 1.5 million tons in the first place? >Once again what you or NIST can't explain and what you can not deal with so >you keep deleting it from your replies. ROTFLMAO Why should I embarrass you further by reposting a link that proves you wrong by showing all that debris? You should at least post the original without all the kookscribblings all over it. >> You already told us that. 200 truckloads of DE to absorb leaking toxic >> liquids. Compared to 108,342 truckloads hauled out. So a difference of >> 108,142 truckloads of WTC debris. Those 200 truckloads reduce the 1.5 >> million tons by how much? Less than 40 tons max per truckload, or under >> 8,000 tons of DE was brought in. So, 1,500,000 tons minus 8,000 tons is >> how much? I know you flunked math so I'll do it for you. 1,492,000 tons >> of actual WTC debris. >If your number were true then why couldn't that much weight crush the >"Surviving Corners?" Asked and answered. > It is because someone is lying and I doubt if it is >the photo of the "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO We already know who is lying, it is all those kookvids you keep watching. You already proved they are all lies, why believe them since you know they are lies!?!?! >>>And why don't you compare the seismic signature of an American made nuke >>>with an MRR nuke. ROTFLMAO >> >> Nukes don't care where they were made. So the answer is the same seismic >> signature! Obviously!! >America doesn't make MRR nukes so American nukes were not used to vaporize >most of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. I thought you claimed "MRR" stood for "minimal residual radiation", not "Magical R____ R____". "Minimal residual radiation" has nothing to do with a magically reduced nuclear signature. But perhaps the magic you apparently believe in does this? Could you explain this magic to us and how this magic makes the nuclear detonation signature less than what a jackhammer produces? Is it black magic? Is it created by casting spells? Do witches cast this spell? Does Hogwarts teach this spell? Could you also explain what the two R's mean in the phrase "Magical R____ R____ Nuke"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bNSdnWamcd_AM5PKnZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570006 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nejr3p$2hm$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nejifq$ir2$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>And your explanation for the very small seismic readings for when WTC7 >>>>appeared to crash to the ground is what? >>> >>> And your explanation for the very small (that is, ZERO) seismic readings >>> for the distinctive nuclear explosive signatures when the buildings >>> crashed to the ground is what? > >>BULLSHIT. Even the background seismic activity is higher than ZERO you >>idiot. And an the detonation of an MRR nuked could hide in the background >>seismic activity. DUH. > > The distinctive nuclear explosion signature would be about 5 on the > Richter Scale. Funny that you are not considering the fact that MRR nukes were used you asshole. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And how does NIST "Global Collapse" theory explain why one side of the Twin Towers stood strong and the other side is completely gone? 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 | 2016-04-13 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neme3s$3no$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570265 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nejr3p$2hm$2@pcls7.std.com... >>>BULLSHIT. Even the background seismic activity is higher than ZERO you >>>idiot. And an the detonation of an MRR nuked could hide in the background >>>seismic activity. DUH. >> >> The distinctive nuclear explosion signature would be about 5 on the >> Richter Scale. >Funny that you are not considering the fact that MRR nukes were used you >asshole. You still haven't explained what "MRR Nukes" are, and what the MRR stands for. Obviously not the "minimal residual radiation" nukes since that has nothing to do with the nuclear seismic signature. Fill in the blanks for me? "Magical R______ R______ Nukes"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 09:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IPqdnW7e94D4AI7KnZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570279 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:neme3s$3no$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nejr3p$2hm$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>>>BULLSHIT. Even the background seismic activity is higher than ZERO you >>>>idiot. And an the detonation of an MRR nuked could hide in the >>>>background >>>>seismic activity. DUH. >>> >>> The distinctive nuclear explosion signature would be about 5 on the >>> Richter Scale. > >>Funny that you are not considering the fact that MRR nukes were used you >>asshole. > > You still haven't explained what "MRR Nukes" are, and what the MRR stands > for. Obviously not the "minimal residual radiation" nukes since that > has nothing to do with the nuclear seismic signature. Fill in the blanks > for me? "Magical R______ R______ Nukes" ROTFLMAO because you and NIST have not explained why only one side of both the twin towers ended up at ground level while the other side went higher and higher depending on how far it was from a deep underground MRR nuke. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg BTW the far side of WTC2 was much much higher before WTC1 was MRR nuked as proven by a photo of WTC3 before it was MRR nuked and after WTC2 was MRR nuked by a MRR nuke under WTC4. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 03:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf1jkk$dug$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #571172 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> You still haven't explained what "MRR Nukes" are, and what the MRR stands >> for. Obviously not the "minimal residual radiation" nukes since that >> has nothing to do with the nuclear seismic signature. Fill in the blanks >> for me? "Magical R______ R______ Nukes" >ROTFLMAO because Here comes a doozy of a lie!!! <snip doozy of a lie> So, you haven't explained what a "MRR Nuke" is, even if we already figured out the M stands for Magical. Or what Magical Powers these nukes have. All we know is that they weren't made in the USA. But what does that matter, since everything, including American Flags, is made in China. But I didn't know China could access magic. You haven't provided any seismic evidence that the WTC tower collapses are too small, much less the distinctive nuclear explosion signature they would have to have. You haven't provided WTC 7 seismic readings or that of a jackhammer for us to compare it to. And of course, you *still* haven't provided the mass spectrometry data with the two substances in approximately equal amounts that can only be produced by nuclear detonations. All you can do is...RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Over and over and over again!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 03:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mridnaNCGdPc34rKnZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571259 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf1jkk$dug$4@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>> You still haven't explained what "MRR Nukes" are, and what the MRR >>> stands >>> for. Obviously not the "minimal residual radiation" nukes since that >>> has nothing to do with the nuclear seismic signature. Fill in the >>> blanks >>> for me? "Magical R______ R______ Nukes" > >>ROTFLMAO because > > Here comes a doozy of a lie!!! > > <snip doozy of a lie> > > So, you haven't explained what a "MRR Nuke" is, even if we already figured > out the M stands for Magical. Or what Magical Powers these nukes have. > All we know is that they weren't made in the USA. But what does that > matter, since everything, including American Flags, is made in China. But > I didn't know China could access magic. > > You haven't provided any seismic evidence that the WTC tower collapses > are too small, much less the distinctive nuclear explosion signature they > would have to have. You haven't provided WTC 7 seismic readings or that > of a jackhammer for us to compare it to. > > And of course, you *still* haven't provided the mass spectrometry data > with the two substances in approximately equal amounts that can only be > produced by nuclear detonations. > > All you can do is...RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Over and over and over again! ROTFLMAO because you and NIST can not explain why only certain walls stood strong when the alleged "Global Collapse" shouldn't have left any of them standing. DUH 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 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 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 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 | 2016-04-20 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf83td$sbo$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #571777 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> You haven't provided any seismic evidence that the WTC tower collapses >> are too small, much less the distinctive nuclear explosion signature they >> would have to have. You haven't provided WTC 7 seismic readings or that >> of a jackhammer for us to compare it to. >> >> And of course, you *still* haven't provided the mass spectrometry data >> with the two substances in approximately equal amounts that can only be >> produced by nuclear detonations. >> >> All you can do is...RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> Over and over and over again! >ROTFLMAO because <snip Roger running away, faster than ever> Run away!!!! Run away!!!!!! Run away!!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 11:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_ZWdnen_Aqzbn4TKnZ2dnUU7-N_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571821 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf83td$sbo$5@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>> You haven't provided any seismic evidence that the WTC tower collapses >>> are too small, much less the distinctive nuclear explosion signature >>> they >>> would have to have. You haven't provided WTC 7 seismic readings or that >>> of a jackhammer for us to compare it to. >>> >>> And of course, you *still* haven't provided the mass spectrometry data >>> with the two substances in approximately equal amounts that can only be >>> produced by nuclear detonations. >>> >>> All you can do is...RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> Over and over and over again! > >>ROTFLMAO because On and you are SNIP AWAY. 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 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 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 You know damn well that your gazillion pounds of debris do not explain the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers but nukes do. ROTFLMAO And don't forget since the seismic reading for when WTC7 crashed to the ground is so fcuking small other seismic readings could be flat out wrong too. ROTFLMAO. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfb7sh$92t$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572138 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nf83td$sbo$5@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>> You haven't provided any seismic evidence that the WTC tower collapses >>>> are too small, much less the distinctive nuclear explosion signature >>>> they >>>> would have to have. You haven't provided WTC 7 seismic readings or that >>>> of a jackhammer for us to compare it to. >>>> >>>> And of course, you *still* haven't provided the mass spectrometry data >>>> with the two substances in approximately equal amounts that can only be >>>> produced by nuclear detonations. >>>> >>>> All you can do is...RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>>> Over and over and over again! >> >>>ROTFLMAO because >On and you are SNIP AWAY. ROTFLMAO As Roger runs away further and faster than ever! So, Roger, why do you refuse to answer the questions? Where is the seismic evidence of the three nuclear explosions and their distinctive seismic signatures? Where is the seismic evidence that the collapses are all too small for buildings of their size? WHERE IS THE MASS SPECTROMETER RESULTS OF THE DUST SAMPLES????????????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Auudnb3BAoBOuoTKnZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572170 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nfb7sh$92t$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf83td$sbo$5@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>> You haven't provided any seismic evidence that the WTC tower collapses >>>>> are too small, much less the distinctive nuclear explosion signature >>>>> they >>>>> would have to have. You haven't provided WTC 7 seismic readings or >>>>> that >>>>> of a jackhammer for us to compare it to. >>>>> >>>>> And of course, you *still* haven't provided the mass spectrometry data >>>>> with the two substances in approximately equal amounts that can only >>>>> be >>>>> produced by nuclear detonations. >>>>> >>>>> All you can do is...RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>>>> Over and over and over again! >>> >>>>ROTFLMAO because > >>On and you are SNIP AWAY. ROTFLMAO > > As Roger runs away further and faster than ever! And you are Mr. SNIP AWAY because you can't deal with the fact CGIs were used on 9/11: http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGI/CGI_aprilfools.html And you can not deal with the fact that "Global Collapses" do not leave Surviving Corners the exact same way a deep underground MRR nuke do. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg You have to go back to the drawing board because you and NIST have failed to prove how a gazillion pounds of debris could not crush the side of the Twin Towers furthest from where deep underground MRR nukes were planted. And you can't deal with the fact the "Seismic readings" could have been tainted or flat out wrong because the force or energy that a 47 story building hit the ground should have been much much much stronger than a jackhammer. ROTFLMAO Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neavg3$bg8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568410 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: ><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >news:ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away >> >> Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. >ROTFLMAO because the seismic records do not prove 110 floors of the Twin >Towers hit the ground but only 20-26 floors so why didn't the other 80+ >floors hit the ground? <G> Those seismic records prove once and for all that no nukes of any sort were used, because if there were, the distinctive nuclear explosion signature would have been seen on seismic records all over the world! However seismic records did record the actual collapses, and even the plane impacts. Of course you have no seismic records of any nuclear detonations, because none exist. And you have no support for your kookclaim that the seismic records of the collapses were too small somehow. Not even a kookvid reference. That's because you don't have any evidence for it, either. This has been explained to you many many times. All you did was to live up to your well-earned nickname of "Run Away Roger" and Run Away!!! Cue Monty Python!!!! >You or NIST can not explain the crime scene photos but MRR nukes can. <G> Nope. If nukes were used, we'd see it in seismic records from all over the world, just like we see when North Korea sets off tests. Just like how the US and USSR kept track of each other's nuclear tests.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 04:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-pKdnUfREIFUgZfKnZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569201 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:neavg3$bg8$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>news:ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >>>> But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away >>> >>> Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. > >>ROTFLMAO because the seismic records do not prove 110 floors of the Twin >>Towers hit the ground but only 20-26 floors so why didn't the other 80+ >>floors hit the ground? <G> > > Those seismic records prove once and for all that no nukes of any > sort were used, FOCUS ON THE SEISMIC RECORDS WHEN THEY CRASHED TO THE GROUND INSTEAD AND TRY TO TELL ME THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH TWO 100 STORY BUILDINGS AND A 47 STORY BUILDING. <G> Fact is those seismic record prove they were vaporized before they could crash to the ground or crush the "Surviving Corners". ROTFLMAO See the "Surviving Corners" here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569402 |
Rocko. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just be a one trick pony. Come up with some new material.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 12:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gIWdnWSiJeH5FpfKnZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569446 |
"HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ec96f189-036e-4d2f-bc77-7f9c751c7144@googlegroups.com... > > Rocky. How long are you going to ride the 9/11 nuke scooter? > > I mean, it was a successful troll... Congratulations. But don't just be a > one trick pony. Come up with some new material. You are not very smart are you? We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings floated to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading that prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the ground. <G> And do not forget to notice that Michael claims the Twin Towers ended up in the basements without crushing the "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbe9d9e9-6895-4d57-bfc9-f992e92b02f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569480 |
Rock O says We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings floated to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading that prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the ground. <G> ----------------- But so far only you and BJ are kooky enough to believe a nuke took down the WTC's. Why do you suppose it's just you two? Any ideas, Rocko?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 01:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <BuGOy.15118$iS2.12399@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #569483 |
On 04/10/2016 02:00 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Rock O says
> We are not talking about seismograph reading before three buildings floated
> to the ground we are talking about the very small seismograph reading that
> prove something vaporized 3 buildings before they could crash to the ground.
> <G>
> -----------------
>
> But so far only you and BJ are kooky enough to believe a nuke took down the WTC's.
>
> Why do you suppose it's just you two? Any ideas, Rocko?
>
HVAC is still lying. Is there anyone stupid enough to believe his insane
fantasies? His "ESP" is failing when he says I "believe in Nukes and
WTC. He knows I believe it was "building depression" where Building 7
got so sad at losing it's two pals that it just had to collapse from
grief even when not hit by planes!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web