Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #570023 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-12 17:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 52 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 21:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nemeah$3no$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570255 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nelku8$gie$2@pcls7.std.com... >>>Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>>buildings that have collapsed because of jet fuel fires. ROTFLMAO >> >> K00ktard, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, You are the >> one coming here with an extraordinary (kooktarded!) claim, that "nukes" >> vaporized the towers. It is up to you to supply the extraordinary evidence >> to prove that extraordinary claim. If someone barges in here claiming the >> sky is yellow, it is not up to everyone else to prove the sky is blue. It >> is up to the yellow sky claimer with the extraordinary claim the sky is >> yellow to prove that. Similarly, you mention seismic readings. It is up >> to you to claim the seismic readings support your extraordinary kookclaim, >> not for Jim to prove nothing was unusual. >You are FCUKING FULL OF SHIT because you have it in your power to compare >the seismic activity at GZ with other destroyed buildings and jackhammers >and all you want to do is play ST00PID just like you have been doing for >years. Your k00kclaim, you provide the proof. Give us proof what the seismic data should have been. Show us how the distinctive nuclear explosion signature appears in the seismic data three times, as it must. I am not going to fetch your rocks for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 11:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JdudncXhaKnQXZLKnZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570280 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nemeah$3no$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nelku8$gie$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>>>Numbers dude, where are your numbers and then compare them to other >>>>buildings that have collapsed because of jet fuel fires. ROTFLMAO >>> >>> K00ktard, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, You are >>> the >>> one coming here with an extraordinary (kooktarded!) claim, that "nukes" >>> vaporized the towers. It is up to you to supply the extraordinary >>> evidence >>> to prove that extraordinary claim. If someone barges in here claiming >>> the >>> sky is yellow, it is not up to everyone else to prove the sky is blue. >>> It >>> is up to the yellow sky claimer with the extraordinary claim the sky is >>> yellow to prove that. Similarly, you mention seismic readings. It is up >>> to you to claim the seismic readings support your extraordinary >>> kookclaim, >>> not for Jim to prove nothing was unusual. > >>You are FCUKING FULL OF SHIT because you have it in your power to compare >>the seismic activity at GZ with other destroyed buildings and jackhammers >>and all you want to do is play ST00PID just like you have been doing for >>years. > > Your k00kclaim, you provide the proof. Give us proof what the seismic > data should have been. Show us how the distinctive nuclear explosion > signature appears in the seismic data three times, as it must. > I am not going to fetch your rocks for you. You can prove it for yourself and you can start with finding the seismic reading for when WTC7 was vaporized and then floated to the ground with the same force as a jackhammer. Then you can find seismic readings for when other buildings hit the ground to see that over 80 floors were missing from both the Twin Towers. There is something very strange in Seismographville and you have been warned over and over and over and you can prove it for yourself starting with your and NIST inability to explain the following with a "Global Collapse." 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 | 2016-04-14 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neokel$97g$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570432 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nemeah$3no$2@pcls7.std.com... >> Your k00kclaim, you provide the proof. Give us proof what the seismic >> data should have been. Show us how the distinctive nuclear explosion >> signature appears in the seismic data three times, as it must. >> I am not going to fetch your rocks for you. >You can prove it for yourself and you can start with finding the seismic >reading for when WTC7 was vaporized and then floated to the ground with the >same force as a jackhammer. Get busy, k00ktard. You have a lot of work to make your proof. You have to get the 9/11 seismic data, and your prediction what it should have been to confirm your k00kclaim the seismic effects should have been larger (show your work, don't forget the effects of different kinds of rock between Manhattan and the seismic stations). You have to show us the seismic data for other large buildings collapsing/being demolished. You also have to show the seismic data for a jackhammer. Then you have to show the distinctive nuclear signatures in the seismic data three times for the three alleged nuclear explosions. Get to work!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pNadnWQf_4Dvno3KnZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570457 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:neokel$97g$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nemeah$3no$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>> Your k00kclaim, you provide the proof. Give us proof what the seismic >>> data should have been. Show us how the distinctive nuclear explosion >>> signature appears in the seismic data three times, as it must. >>> I am not going to fetch your rocks for you. > >>You can prove it for yourself and you can start with finding the seismic >>reading for when WTC7 was vaporized and then floated to the ground with >>the >>same force as a jackhammer. > > Get busy, k00ktard. You have a lot of work to make your proof. You have > to get the 9/11 seismic data, and your prediction what it should have been > to confirm your k00kclaim the seismic effects should have been larger > (show your work, don't forget the effects of different kinds of rock > between Manhattan and the seismic stations). You have to show us the > seismic data for other large buildings collapsing/being demolished. > You also have to show the seismic data for a jackhammer. > Then you have to show the distinctive nuclear signatures in the seismic > data three times for the three alleged nuclear explosions. Get to work! You who can't explain the following just like NIST can explain the following have your own problems. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Why should I give you more proof that Nukes were used at GZ when you can't handle the proof you have? And don't forget if there is more evidence that nukes were used at GZ than you can handle you have to suspect that all your other evidence is suspect. ROTFLMAO And again: You can prove it for yourself and you can start with finding the seismic reading for when WTC7 was vaporized and then floated to the ground with the same force as a jackhammer. Then you can find seismic readings for when other buildings hit the ground to see that over 80 floors were missing from both the Twin Towers. There is something very strange in Seismographville and you have been warned over and over and over and you can prove it for yourself starting with your and NIST inability to explain the following with a "Global Collapse." 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 | 2016-04-15 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neqsrn$d1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570522 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:neokel$97g$2@pcls7.std.com... >> Get busy, k00ktard. You have a lot of work to make your proof. You have >> to get the 9/11 seismic data, and your prediction what it should have been >> to confirm your k00kclaim the seismic effects should have been larger >> (show your work, don't forget the effects of different kinds of rock >> between Manhattan and the seismic stations). You have to show us the >> seismic data for other large buildings collapsing/being demolished. >> You also have to show the seismic data for a jackhammer. >> Then you have to show the distinctive nuclear signatures in the seismic >> data three times for the three alleged nuclear explosions. Get to work! >Why should I give you more proof that Nukes were used at GZ when you can't >handle the proof you have? You have even more proof that nukes weren't used on 9/11? Cool! I remember that a few months ago you had about 8 proofs no nukes were used on 9/11! Things like no zillion degree fireball observed vaporizing the towers, no giant crater, no radiation, no mushroom cloud, and, of course, no seismic evidence. That was really great! You're such a genius, Rocky! Any one of them was sufficient by itself to disprove nukes being used, but like eight of them? Sheer genius!! >And again: >You can prove it for yourself and you can start with finding the seismic >reading for when WTC7 was vaporized and then floated to the ground with the >same force as a jackhammer. I don't need more proof nukes weren't used on 9/11! You did such a great job already!!! Eight proofs!! You're such a genius for proving no nukes were used on 9/11! And of course, there are your other proofs, that no CGIs were used either, and that all k00kvids are full of lies! Pure genius!! Roger E. Wittekind, Super Genius! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 13:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2POdnZtac_L9qIzKnZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570700 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:neqsrn$d1$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:neokel$97g$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>> Get busy, k00ktard. You have a lot of work to make your proof. You >>> have >>> to get the 9/11 seismic data, and your prediction what it should have >>> been >>> to confirm your k00kclaim the seismic effects should have been larger >>> (show your work, don't forget the effects of different kinds of rock >>> between Manhattan and the seismic stations). You have to show us the >>> seismic data for other large buildings collapsing/being demolished. >>> You also have to show the seismic data for a jackhammer. >>> Then you have to show the distinctive nuclear signatures in the seismic >>> data three times for the three alleged nuclear explosions. Get to work! > >>Why should I give you more proof that Nukes were used at GZ when you can't >>handle the proof you have? > > You have even more proof that nukes weren't used on 9/11? Cool! I > remember that a few months ago you had about 8 proofs no nukes were used > on 9/11! Things like no zillion degree fireball observed vaporizing the > towers, no giant crater, no radiation, no mushroom cloud, and, of course, > no seismic evidence. That was really great! You're such a genius, Rocky! > Any one of them was sufficient by itself to disprove nukes being used, but > like eight of them? Sheer genius!! Too bad a least one person saw the fireball from when WTC7 was nuked and MRR nukes don't leave all the signs you think they do. DUH. And look at the angles they used to film the Twin Towers. None of they would have spotted the flash even if the nuke had been closer to ground level. >>And again: > >>You can prove it for yourself and you can start with finding the seismic >>reading for when WTC7 was vaporized and then floated to the ground with >>the >>same force as a jackhammer. > > I don't need more proof nukes weren't used on 9/11! You did such a great > job already!!! Eight proofs!! You're such a genius for proving no nukes > were used on 9/11! ROTFLMAO because you keep moving the goalpost. You should be dealing with MRR nukes dude and they don't leave a trace like American made nukes would. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 03:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf1ika$dug$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #570755 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >Too bad a least one person saw the fireball from when WTC7 was nuked and MRR >nukes don't leave all the signs you think they do. DUH. Kooktard! You did it again!! You just proved that nukes couldn't have been used because there was no blinding nuclear flash!!! We all know that the detonation of a nuke produces a blinding flash that is so bright that anyone that happens to be looking at them is instantly blinded without eye protection. Yet all you could come up with is one person who saw "a fireball" when WTC 7 collapsed. Where was the blinding flash? Why wasn't this person (and thousands of New Yorkers staring at the WTC site) blinded? Why of course! There was no nuke, so no blinding flash!! Kooktard, you are a genius!!! >And look at the angles they used to film the Twin Towers. None of they >would have spotted the flash even if the nuke had been closer to ground >level. And the angles filming the Twin Towers: The blinding flash would have been so bright it wouldn't matter about camera angles. The blinding flash would have been so bright that reflections of reflections of reflections of it would have been brighter than the sun!! But since there were none, just one miserable witness who saw "a fireball" (probably one of the fires in WTC 7) and you didn't mention that person being blinded, we know for sure it was not a nuke fireball!!! Kooktard, you are such a genius!!! Even if you do put the Tard in KookTard!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 07:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Gcydnd_b1ZwrT4nKnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571256 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf1ika$dug$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>Too bad a least one person saw the fireball from when WTC7 was nuked and >>MRR >>nukes don't leave all the signs you think they do. DUH. > > Kooktard! You did it again!! You just proved that nukes couldn't have been > used because there was no blinding nuclear flash!!! Who says there wasn't? How long does that flash last and you know as well as I do it took a good 17 seconds or so before the damage itself ever became visible. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Now it is up to you to prove the flash your talking about last longer than 17 seconds because it could have taken place entirely underground and we really can't be sure on what MRR nukes do because they have never been publicized. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf2r1r$b1i$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #571288 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nf1ika$dug$1@pcls7.std.com... >> Kooktard! You did it again!! You just proved that nukes couldn't have been >> used because there was no blinding nuclear flash!!! >Who says there wasn't? How long does that flash last and you know as well >as I do it took a good 17 seconds or so before the damage itself ever became >visible. Kooktard! That's great, even more proof that nukes weren't used! The inital flash which lasts for a fraction of a second, should have blinded the thousands of New Yorkers staring at the WTC site if an alleged nuke went off. No reports of blindness on 9/11! Even kooksites all mention how WTC7 collapsed with zero visible cause! And of course, for things to be vaporized, there has to be a zillion degree fireball, brighter than the sun, vaporizing everything and then rising as a mushroom cloud. No zillion degree fireball seen, no mushroom cloud, and of course no reduction in debris (1.5 million tons removed) So how is that search for the nuclear detonation signature in the seismic data going? How is the description of the Magic in those Magical R______ R____ nukes going? Did you ever figure out what the R's stand for? How about the search for the Mass Spectrometry analysis results, proving nukes were used? <Cue Monty Python>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PK-dnTgJEfi2PovKnZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571300 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf2r1r$b1i$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf1ika$dug$1@pcls7.std.com... > >>> Kooktard! You did it again!! You just proved that nukes couldn't have >>> been >>> used because there was no blinding nuclear flash!!! > >>Who says there wasn't? How long does that flash last and you know as well >>as I do it took a good 17 seconds or so before the damage itself ever >>became >>visible. > > Kooktard! That's great, even more proof that nukes weren't used! The > inital flash which lasts for a fraction of a second, should have blinded > the thousands of New Yorkers staring at the WTC site if an alleged nuke > went off. No reports of blindness on 9/11! Even kooksites all mention > how WTC7 collapsed with zero visible cause! ROTFLMAO because there are a lot of videos of the collapse of WTC7 where there is missing time on a running clock or the clouds of smoke rolling from WTC7 jumps exactly like the videos were edited to remove a flash. And where WTC1 and WTC2 are concerned how are people going to see a flash that happens entirely underground? And don't forget that you and NIST can not explain the "Survivng Corners" being on the side furthest from the hypocenters but MRR nukes can. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf8352$sbo$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #571680 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:nf2r1r$b1i$1@pcls7.std.com... >> >> Kooktard! That's great, even more proof that nukes weren't used! The >> inital flash which lasts for a fraction of a second, should have blinded >> the thousands of New Yorkers staring at the WTC site if an alleged nuke >> went off. No reports of blindness on 9/11! Even kooksites all mention >> how WTC7 collapsed with zero visible cause! >ROTFLMAO because there are a lot of videos of the collapse of WTC7 where >there is missing time on a running clock or the clouds of smoke rolling from >WTC7 jumps exactly like the videos were edited to remove a flash. And what about all the videos without a jump? Their mere existence proves you wrong, of course. And what about the (lack of) thousands of New Yorkers blinded by the flash? They were watching it directly, no videos to edit... >And where WTC1 and WTC2 are concerned how are people going to see a flash >that happens entirely underground? Kooktard!!! Once again you proved that it is impossible for nukes to have vaporized the towers!!! If the flash was completely underground, that means there was no zillion degree fireball to vaporize the towers!! You do know, of course, that it's the zillion degree fireball that makes nukes vaporize things...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 11:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hbCdnZd5uqCsnITKnZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571816 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:nf8352$sbo$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:nf2r1r$b1i$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> >>> Kooktard! That's great, even more proof that nukes weren't used! The >>> inital flash which lasts for a fraction of a second, should have blinded >>> the thousands of New Yorkers staring at the WTC site if an alleged nuke >>> went off. No reports of blindness on 9/11! Even kooksites all mention >>> how WTC7 collapsed with zero visible cause! > >>ROTFLMAO because there are a lot of videos of the collapse of WTC7 where >>there is missing time on a running clock or the clouds of smoke rolling >>from >>WTC7 jumps exactly like the videos were edited to remove a flash. > > And what about all the videos without a jump? Their mere existence proves > you wrong, of course. ROTFLMAO because you have to take into account where the MRR nuke under WTC7 was detonated. You have to look at the videos taken from the North and forget about trying to prove anything with the videos taken from other directions. ROTFLMAO And as for your seismic readings. Since the reading were all a lot smaller than they should have been, especially the one for when WTC7 appeared to crash to the ground you can't use any of your seismic readings for proof of anything. ROTFLMAO But you can use the following crime scene photo for proof that something took place where you and gazillions of pounds of debris can not explain but it can be explained by a nuke or two or more. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web