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 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570027 |
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$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:vdrvtc-9of.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> So don't forget even the seismic records that you have prove there >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> something very unusual about the destruction of three buildings at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> World Trade Center because they are much smaller than they should >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> been for the size buildings that went down or were supposed to have >>>>>>> gone down and ended up floating away instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, nothing unusual about the readings at all. >>>> >>>>>Funny how you do not have any supporting evidence. ROTFLMAO >>>> >>>> And your evidence the readings were too low or "unusual" is..... >>> >>> missing because Jim failed to post any supporting evidence with his post. >> >> The seismic records on 9/11 have been posted many times by many people. > > You are dead wrong about WTC7 but what they didn't do with the seismic > records from WTC1 and WTC2 is what is important. They have never been > compared to other collapsing buildings or jackhammers and they should have > been. Jackhammers don't generate seismic signatures that can be detected more than a few blocks away. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 15:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tu2dnRqbotAIMZPKnZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570035 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:prb0uc-ndh.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:km80uc-n3h.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>> news:nejp0q$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???? ROTFLMAO Oh and you or anybody else for that matter has been able to reproduce the following "Surviving Corners" with jet fuel. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vto2uc-5dp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570258 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 08:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VvCdnZQfc6MCcY3KnZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570276 |
<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? Sort of what a jackhammer would do. ROTFLMAO http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/waves.html http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 21:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <if18uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570693 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 22:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4KudncANjtO1lI7KnZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570775 |
<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? Yes the destruction of WTC7 registered much like a jackhammer and you would know that if you ever posted the seismic readings for WTC7. DUH Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 05:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <23jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #571104 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 02:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fqCdnXoV6M1r3I7KnZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571136 |
<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 comparable to much smaller buildings and the seismic record for WTC7 is comparable to a jackhammer. And I've dealt with LIARS like you that will lie and lie and lie even after proven to be liars. Fact remains the Seismic records for when WTC1 and WTC2 hit the ground are comparable to much much smaller buildings and the seismic record for when WTC7 hit the ground is comparable to a jackhammer. Those three buildings were obviously vaporized before they could crash to the ground and the following photo shows they were vaporized before they could crush the "Surviving Corners." http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg The only person you are really lying to is yourself. And don't forget MRR nukes don't make as much seismic activity as American made nukes do. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ctcuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #571155 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 03:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3fadnWTyt64p3IrKnZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571195 |
<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. Wow, is that lame. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <96qkuc-rvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #571776 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 11:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <L5CdnfMoj7kEnITKnZ2dnUU7-bPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571882 |
<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 especially the one for when WTC7 was supposed to crash to the ground. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hhfnuc-4h5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572136 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 12:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cMCdnVYZbfQDiYTKnZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572148 |
<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 AND YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN WHY A GAZILLION POUNDS OF DEBRIS COULD NOT CRUSH THE SURVIVING CORNERS. ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1oinuc-mr5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572151 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XbqdnVfrQdXbv4TKnZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572161 |
<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. Two things wrong with your BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. 1. How can you claim they are the same when you have no idea what makes MRR nukes different? 2. How can you talk about "Seismic Signatures" when the Seismic Signature of WTC7 proves it was way way way smaller than it should have been for a 47 story building that fell at free fall speed for over 100 feet. Meaning none of the "Seismic Signatures" taken on 9/11/01 can be trusted. ROTFLMAO Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r1nnuc-i96.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572169 |
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? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RMSdnaNmbKXlsoTKnZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572182 |
<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? ROTFLMAO because the fact that the seismic readings of WTC7 crashing to the ground were so fcuking small indicates other readings were messed up too. ROTFLMAO Oh and what can only be explained by deep underground MRR nukes: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3eonuc-pd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #572185 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u8udneY7lMRl3ITKnZ2dnUU7-InNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #572190 |
<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. You are the asshole that can't explain why an alleged "Global Collapse" can not crush everything in sight and why the "Surviving Corners" were the ones furthest from where deep underground MRR nukes were detonated. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And if they were not MRR nukes then explain what else could vaporize the Twin Towers before they could crush the "Surviving Corners." ROTFLMAO http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web