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 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572214 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a building >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>> >>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>> >>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>> makes >>>>> MRR >>>>> nukes different? >>>> >>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >>>> explosive energy? >> >> No answer, as expected. Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint of explosive energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Vr6dnez79_g-9YfKnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572222 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>> makes >>>>>> MRR >>>>>> nukes different? >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >>>>> explosive energy? >>> >>> No answer, as expected. > > Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint > of > explosive energy. ROTFLMAO because you and NIST still have no explanation for why a gazillion pounds of debris could not crush the Surviving Corners of both the Twin Towers but deep underground MRR nukes explain it just fine. 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ikfquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572458 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when they >>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>>> makes >>>>>>> MRR >>>>>>> nukes different? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint of >>>>>> explosive energy? >>>> >>>> No answer, as expected. >> >> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >> of >> explosive energy. > Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint of explosive energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IsydnRZXn_FT_b_KnZ2dnUU7-e3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572503 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:ikfquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> MRR >>>>>>>> nukes different? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> explosive energy? >>>>> >>>>> No answer, as expected. >>> >>> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >>> of >>> explosive energy. >> > > Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint > of explosive energy. And yet you are the one that can not explain why there were "Surviving Corners" to both the Twin Towers. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Never forget those "Surviving Corners" can be explained by deep underground MRR nukes that were unable to vaporize the lower floors of the far wall. DUH http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <136avc-kd8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #574006 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:ikfquc-phf.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:i4tnuc-ou6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Moroney" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nejp0q$li$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unusual" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seismic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other collapsing buildings or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackhammers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a few blocks away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your proof of that is what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The energy of a jackhammer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why didn't the destruction of WTC7 have an S-wave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-wave? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have been told many, many, many times, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you are telling me none of the buildings should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S-waves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P-waves just because WTC7 didn't leave any? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am telling you yet again that the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing than an earthquake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm telling you that the seismic records for three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you have to stoop to truncating my post. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first sentence is usually a steaming pile of delusional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there is no need to go any further. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty funny that you want to swear by seismic readings when >>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>> way too small >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they were way too small to be an explosion of any kind, and >>>>>>>>>>>> especially >>>>>>>>>>>> a nuclear explosion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YOU ASSHOLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MRR NUKES >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what >>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>> MRR >>>>>>>>> nukes different? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why don't you tell us what makes them different from the standpoint >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> explosive energy? >>>>>> >>>>>> No answer, as expected. >>>> >>>> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >>>> of >>>> explosive energy. >>> >> >> Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint >> of explosive energy. > > And yet you are the one that can not explain why there were "Surviving > Corners" to both the Twin Towers. No one cares. Still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from the standpoint of explosive energy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfbcmj$hs0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572169 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. > 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes MRR > nukes different? You won't even tell us WTF a so-called "MRR nuke" is! We know it can't be a "minimal residual radiation" nuke, since the amount of residual radiation has nothing to do with the distinctive nuclear seismic signature that all nukes produce when detonated. My best guess is "Magical R_______ R______ Nuke". Although I have asked you many times, you never told us what either R______ stands for, or anything about the magic necessary to give the nukes you claim must have been there the magical powers necessary, such as no nuclear seismic signature, no fireball, no radiation, no crater, etc. etc. All you told us about them is that they have magic powers and they are not made in the US.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Rc2dnVB6IKSrp4TKnZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572192 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nfbcmj$hs0$2@pcls7.std.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>> A nuke is a nuke when discussing seismic signatures. > >> 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes >> MRR >> nukes different? > > You won't even tell us WTF a so-called "MRR nuke" is! Well, it is clear from the following that an MRR nuke is something that can vaporize buildings with the exception of the walls furthest from them. DUH http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And your BS about a Gazillion pounds of debris doesn't consider how much of that was hauled away by the updraft from the hotspots left by multiple MRR nukes. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfbiad$f9p$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572196 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nfbcmj$hs0$2@pcls7.std.com... >> You won't even tell us WTF a so-called "MRR nuke" is! >Well, it is clear from the following that an MRR nuke is something that can >vaporize buildings with the exception of the walls furthest from them. DUH So you have no answer. Either you simply made it up, or someone in a k00kvid you watched made it up. So, you admit "MRR nukes" are complete fantasy. No physics, no theory, just magic. You apparently didn't even complete the fantasy to the point of providing a definition of "MRR". I am going to guess that you (or the kooktard in the kookvid you watched) stumbled across a description of a "minimal residual radiation" nuke, perhaps thought the "minimal residual radiation" part could explain the lack of radiation at the site and then attributed several other magical powers to it that actual "minimal residual radiation" nukes just don't have. And regarding your favorite picture: First, the kookscribbles on it can be easily explained. Some kooktard got a hold of the original photo of the site (from NOAA 9/17/2001) and some photo editing software, and added a lot of stupid crap to it. Now regarding that NOAA photo. It is a photo of debris all over the place, nothing looks "vaporized" or melted, just lots of beams and columns. The amount is consistent with the towers when you know there is 70' of basement levels below street level that were later known to be filled with debris. So there isn't anything unexpected or unusual in that photo. Certainly nothing that invokes the need for magic, which you seem to need! >And your BS about a Gazillion pounds of debris doesn't consider how much of >that was hauled away by the updraft from the hotspots left by multiple MRR >nukes. But they recovered all 1.5 million tons of it, as mentioned a zillion times. The amount of smoke was obviously minimal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1sudna5CnLZ19ofKnZ2dnUU7-aHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572227 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nfbiad$f9p$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nfbcmj$hs0$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>> You won't even tell us WTF a so-called "MRR nuke" is! > >>Well, it is clear from the following that an MRR nuke is something that >>can >>vaporize buildings with the exception of the walls furthest from them. >>DUH > > So you have no answer. Either you simply made it up, or someone in a > k00kvid you watched made it up. So, you admit "MRR nukes" are complete > fantasy. No physics, no theory, just magic. > > You apparently didn't even complete the fantasy to the point of providing > a definition of "MRR". I am going to guess that you (or the kooktard in > the kookvid you watched) stumbled across a description of a "minimal > residual radiation" nuke, perhaps thought the "minimal residual radiation" > part could explain the lack of radiation at the site and then attributed > several other magical powers to it that actual "minimal residual > radiation" nukes just don't have. > > And regarding your favorite picture: First, the kookscribbles on it can > be easily explained. Some kooktard got a hold of the original photo of > the site (from NOAA 9/17/2001) and some photo editing software, and added > a lot of stupid crap to it. > > Now regarding that NOAA photo. It is a photo of debris all over the > place, nothing looks "vaporized" or melted, just lots of beams and > columns. The amount is consistent with the towers when you know there is > 70' of basement levels below street level that were later known to be > filled with debris. So there isn't anything unexpected or unusual in that > photo. Certainly nothing that invokes the need for magic, which you seem > to need! > >>And your BS about a Gazillion pounds of debris doesn't consider how much >>of >>that was hauled away by the updraft from the hotspots left by multiple MRR >>nukes. > > But they recovered all 1.5 million tons of it, as mentioned a zillion > times. The amount of smoke was obviously minimal. ROTFLMAO because after all the crap you said above you still didn't explain how so much at the very bottom of the Twin Towers remained standing despite the fact most of it didn't remain standing. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg You have to address what was left standing and you failed again and again and again and you and NIST just can't explain what was left standing of the Twin Towers but MRR nukes can. 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 | 2016-04-22 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfdt7b$ol$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572461 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >You have to address what was left standing and you failed again and again >and again and you and NIST just can't explain what was left standing of the >Twin Towers but MRR nukes can. ROTFLMAO How can "MRR nukes" explain *anything* if you can't even explain wtf MRR nukes even are?!?!? As I explained, the best explanation of what "MRR nukes" are is they are pure fantasy, something that never existed anywhere other than Rocktard's mind. It is absurd to use pure fantasy to explain *anything*, much less the remains of the Twin Towers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 14:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k-WdnQBF87zZH4fKnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572491 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nfdt7b$ol$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>You have to address what was left standing and you failed again and again >>and again and you and NIST just can't explain what was left standing of >>the >>Twin Towers but MRR nukes can. ROTFLMAO > > How can "MRR nukes" explain *anything* if you can't even explain wtf > MRR nukes even are?!?!? > > As I explained, the best explanation of what "MRR nukes" are is they are > pure fantasy, something that never existed anywhere other than Rocktard's > mind. It is absurd to use pure fantasy to explain *anything*, much less > the remains of the Twin Towers. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg ROTFLMAO because the fact remains something had to vaporize the Twin Towers to prevent a gazillion pounds of debris from crushing every part of the Twin Towers. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And if not American made nukes then MRR nukes and if you want to believe it was a directed energy weapon instead then there is a problem of where did the directed energy originate from? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg It is your problem and not mine that you and NIST can not explain the following crime scene photo but a deep underground MRR nuke explains it just fine. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfe74k$bo5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #572493 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nfdt7b$ol$1@pcls7.std.com... >> How can "MRR nukes" explain *anything* if you can't even explain wtf >> MRR nukes even are?!?!? >> >> As I explained, the best explanation of what "MRR nukes" are is they are >> pure fantasy, something that never existed anywhere other than Rocktard's >> mind. It is absurd to use pure fantasy to explain *anything*, much less >> the remains of the Twin Towers. > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg >ROTFLMAO because the fact remains something had to vaporize the Twin Towers >to prevent a gazillion pounds of debris from crushing every part of the Twin >Towers. > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg >And if not American made nukes then MRR nukes and if you want to believe it >was a directed energy weapon instead then there is a problem of where did >the directed energy originate from? > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg >It is your problem and not mine that you and NIST can not explain the >following crime scene photo but a deep underground MRR nuke explains it just >fine. <G> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg As expected, still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from other nukes as to how they manage to get magical properties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 14:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0pWdnf_jeNAr_L_KnZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572527 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nfe74k$bo5$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nfdt7b$ol$1@pcls7.std.com... > >>> How can "MRR nukes" explain *anything* if you can't even explain wtf >>> MRR nukes even are?!?!? >>> >>> As I explained, the best explanation of what "MRR nukes" are is they are >>> pure fantasy, something that never existed anywhere other than >>> Rocktard's >>> mind. It is absurd to use pure fantasy to explain *anything*, much less >>> the remains of the Twin Towers. > >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > >>ROTFLMAO because the fact remains something had to vaporize the Twin >>Towers >>to prevent a gazillion pounds of debris from crushing every part of the >>Twin >>Towers. >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > >>And if not American made nukes then MRR nukes and if you want to believe >>it >>was a directed energy weapon instead then there is a problem of where did >>the directed energy originate from? >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > >>It is your problem and not mine that you and NIST can not explain the >>following crime scene photo but a deep underground MRR nuke explains it >>just >>fine. <G> >> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg > > As expected, still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from > other nukes as to how they manage to get magical properties. You failed first and a long long time ago because you have no explanation for the "Surviving Corners" http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg You claim there was a gazillion pounds of debris but you keep failing to explain how it made it into the basement without crushing the "Surviving Corners." http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg You are obviously lying about the gazillion pounds of debris just like the media lied about the jets that could not have left the following: 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 | 2016-04-28 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nftsn2$7pm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #574008 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nfe74k$bo5$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:nfdt7b$ol$1@pcls7.std.com... >> >>>> How can "MRR nukes" explain *anything* if you can't even explain wtf >>>> MRR nukes even are?!?!? >>>> >>>> As I explained, the best explanation of what "MRR nukes" are is they are >>>> pure fantasy, something that never existed anywhere other than >>>> Rocktard's >>>> mind. It is absurd to use pure fantasy to explain *anything*, much less >>>> the remains of the Twin Towers. >> >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg >> >>>ROTFLMAO because the fact remains something had to vaporize the Twin >>>Towers >>>to prevent a gazillion pounds of debris from crushing every part of the >>>Twin >>>Towers. >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg >> >>>And if not American made nukes then MRR nukes and if you want to believe >>>it >>>was a directed energy weapon instead then there is a problem of where did >>>the directed energy originate from? >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg >> >>>It is your problem and not mine that you and NIST can not explain the >>>following crime scene photo but a deep underground MRR nuke explains it >>>just >>>fine. <G> >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2-PATH-bathtub-damage-New-York-Times_IMPROVED.jpg >> >> As expected, still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from >> other nukes as to how they manage to get magical properties. >You failed first and a long long time ago because you have no explanation As expected, still no answer as to what makes MRR nukes different from other nukes, such as to how they manage to get magical properties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nelk4m$gie$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570027 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: ><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>> >>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>> >>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" is..... >>> >>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence with his post. >> >> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by many people. >You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the seismic >records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have never been >compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they should have >been. The WTC1 and WTC2 collapses have been ranked on the Richter scale to compare them to earthquake equivalents. >If the Twin Towers collapsed down why did so much remain at the very bottom? You mean that HUGE pile of debris in that photo with the added kookscribbles? All that debris! But to answer your (ridiculous) question, when stuff collapses down, stuff remains at the very bottom! Just like those HUGE piles of debris in that photo with the added kookscribbles!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 15:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <D9Cdnf_tCt9TMJPKnZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570141 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nelk4m$gie$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >>>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>>> >>>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>>> >>>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" is..... >>>> >>>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence with his >>>> post. >>> >>> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by many people. > >>You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the seismic >>records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have never been >>compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they should have >>been. > > The WTC1 and WTC2 collapses have been ranked on the Richter scale to > compare them to earthquake equivalents. > >>If the Twin Towers collapsed down why did so much remain at the very >>bottom? > > You mean that HUGE pile of debris in that photo with the added > kookscribbles? Dude, you want to talk about "HUGE" you should have seen the Twin Towers when they were 110 stories tall and you have still failed to prove that 100+ floors of debris would not fall straight down to crush the outside walls on the side of the Tower furthest from the deep underground MRR nukes. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg ROTFLMAO because the fact is NIST never even tried to explain the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers and you or anybody else for that matter can not reproduce what was left of the Twin Towers with just jet fuel. 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 | 2016-04-13 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nemeln$3no$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570261 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>If the Twin Towers collapsed down why did so much remain at the very >>>bottom? >> >> You mean that HUGE pile of debris in that photo with the added >> kookscribbles? >Dude, you want to talk about "HUGE" you should have seen the Twin Towers >when they were 110 stories tall Yup, they were HUGE. They were the tallest buildings in the world for a short time! That's why they left those HUGE piles of rubble, as you can see in that photo you love (look between the kookscribbles)! 1.5 million tons of debris!!! 108,342 truckloads!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 11:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_LGdncBoEObkXJLKnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570281 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nemeln$3no$3@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>>>If the Twin Towers collapsed down why did so much remain at the very >>>>bottom? >>> >>> You mean that HUGE pile of debris in that photo with the added >>> kookscribbles? > >>Dude, you want to talk about "HUGE" you should have seen the Twin Towers >>when they were 110 stories tall > > Yup, they were HUGE. They were the tallest buildings in the world for a > short time! That's why they left those HUGE piles of rubble, as you can > see in that photo you love (look between the kookscribbles)! 1.5 million > tons of debris!!! 108,342 truckloads!!! And yet there wasn't enough debris to crush all four sides of both the twin towers and isn't is strange that the sides that stood tallest were the sides furthest from the location of deep underground MRR nukes? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg The "Global Collapse" bullshit from NIST does not explain how a collapsing building can not crush walls at the very bottom of two 110 story buildings but a Nuclear Demolition does. ROTFLMAO ROCKY 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 21:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569986 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> >>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a few >>>> hundred feet away. >>> >>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there was >>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at the >>> World >>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have been for >>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone down and >>> ended up floating away instead. >> >> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. > > Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing unusual? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <aMOdnTQPAPKf5JDKnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569996 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:7b50uc-ipg.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>> Sure you can; no seismic readings from a hackjammer more than a few >>>>> hundred feet away. >>>> >>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there was >>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at the >>>> World >>>> Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should have been >>>> for >>>> the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have gone down >>>> and >>>> ended up floating away instead. >>> >>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >> >> Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. > > You mean other than the seismograph readings that showed nothing unusual? Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other buildings that have collapsed because of jet fuel fires. ROTFLMAO As a matter of fact try to find one building that has ever been vaporized by jet fuel before or after 9/11. ROTFLMAO Jet fuel doesn't leave this behind but nuclear demolitions do: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web