Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #516417 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-24 08:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-24 16:42 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 148 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 08:38 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 15:54 +0200
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:15 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 16:23 +0200
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:37 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 09:43 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:57 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:51 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:12 +0100
re, nah noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:39 -0700
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 09:34 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:53 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:55 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 09:52 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 15:30 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 09:59 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 10:36 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 15:41 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:50 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 15:50 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 20:21 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:46 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 23:46 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:24 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 03:55 +0200
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:22 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:11 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:35 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 17:10 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 22:13 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 17:31 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 23:02 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:32 -0500
say dUh; thankyoiu noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 21:09 -0700
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-26 18:30 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 17:27 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 22:55 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:33 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:19 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:28 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:25 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:24 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 09:00 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:28 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:34 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:27 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 20:23 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 15:29 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 21:50 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 16:02 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:25 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 11:39 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 12:06 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 18:05 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (iimp is a complete idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-03 16:49 -0500
Re: Rocky is still batshit crazy and jobless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-03 22:39 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a complete idiot) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 16:31 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a joke) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 22:45 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a joke) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-07 08:29 +0200
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dmaster is a joke) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:12 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (K proves she is an asshole) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 09:12 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (K proves she is an asshole) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 17:44 -0500
Re: Rocky's latest delusion jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-07 05:53 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-28 02:35 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 10:09 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-28 15:51 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 18:09 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 21:06 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (More for Moroneyn) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 15:11 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 21:05 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 15:41 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying again) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 22:01 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 16:13 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:32 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (T-annoy is lying now) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:12 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 20:51 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:35 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 21:58 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 23:12 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 17:25 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 23:52 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 distroys links gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 22:33 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-26 03:28 +0200
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:19 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-25 11:08 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:53 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:34 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 08:50 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:31 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-26 22:35 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:25 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:30 +0000
hah, may be not noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:13 -0700
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:24 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 12:39 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:42 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 10:19 -0500
two noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:29 -0700
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 20:51 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 06:49 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-26 22:03 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-29 17:41 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 22:03 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-29 22:25 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 22:35 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 20:25 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:24 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:31 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dumptrucks full of M291 resin) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 18:30 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (dumptrucks full of M291 resin) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:26 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-29 23:20 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 18:42 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:27 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:26 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-25 14:20 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 09:40 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:55 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 10:17 -0700
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-26 11:01 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:39 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 20:50 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 22:38 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 16:48 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 13:58 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 13:07 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-25 16:59 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 22:40 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 00:27 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:50 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:31 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 11:31 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 11:35 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 12:49 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:07 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-26 10:00 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 13:11 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-26 17:39 +0000
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:47 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-24 22:11 +0100
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-24 10:23 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:12 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-24 13:41 -0400
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 09:17 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-24 09:44 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 10:56 -0500
Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-24 16:42 +0000
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 15:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mrigqc$toc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #516805 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> The EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero and everybody knows >> that > > Even if they did, it is irrelevant to the issue of nukes. > > When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic > signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. Nope you are wrong. No seismic info will show a nuke as opposed to any other explosion. Particularly if the nuke was small and fired above ground. Only a gamma ray burst,...and I'm betting the feds didn't have their antennas watching for that. Or simply wiped any records if they did. Of course while I believe nukes are a possibilty, and I'm sure the feds have more conventional explosives that would be just as effective. How many people in the US even knew that thermite/ate existed, before 9/11,....and that's not their only dirty little secret.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rbvuac-q9i.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #516842 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>> The EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero and everybody knows >>> that >> >> Even if they did, it is irrelevant to the issue of nukes. >> >> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic >> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. > > > > > Nope you are wrong. > No seismic info will show a nuke as opposed to any other explosion. Your really are an ignorant kook if you actually believe that, and it is trivial to verify your ignorance. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 16:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4ZudnUltwoUff0HInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #516852 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:rbvuac-q9i.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero and everybody knows >>>> that >>> >>> Even if they did, it is irrelevant to the issue of nukes. >>> >>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic >>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. >> >> >> >> >> Nope you are wrong. >> No seismic info will show a nuke as opposed to any other explosion. > > Your really are an ignorant kook if you actually believe that, and it > is trivial to verify your ignorance. There are so many other things about 9/11 that scream the word "NUKE" and so many other lies given to us by government agencies about 9/11 why should we believe the USGS? The USGS was only playing their part in a cover-up when they failed to show any data from when the North Tower visibly shook about 12 seconds before it was vaporized? And I recently I noticed that the 9/11 nukes got their timing wrong on the North Tower because the top part was collapsing on itself before the bottom part of the North Tower was vaporized by the nuke. Nuclear destruction of the WTC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 23:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vabvac-f4c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #516871 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: <snip batshit crazy ranting> Nothing left. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 06:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mrk427$mep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #516901 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <snip batshit crazy ranting> > > Nothing left. Now, if only the rest of you would go away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 03:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <83314aff0386cda089ef90c3b141387a@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #516871 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Rocky (aka Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC),
in <news:4ZudnUltwoUff0HInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly
jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> Th<SMACKAKOOK!>
You're retarded and gullible, Mike. Take your meds.
Kook. LOL
> Nuclear destruction of the WTC
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y
Point 1: There was no EMP. You've proven this multiple times with each
video you post of the aftermath, as does that very video... if there'd
been an EMP, there would be no cameras to record the collapse. Retard.
Point 2: The "dust" was small because 1.5 million tons of steel and
concrete collapsed due to fire weakening the steel structure.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA>
Look familiar? A steel structure collapsing due to fire weakening the
structure, and extremely small chunks was all that was left... because
the concrete was hot.
What does hot concrete do? Well, if it's got water in it (as the
concrete at the WTC certainly would have, given that sprinklers went
off), it explodes:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjmwFGET3SI>
Have you ever heard of fire-induced spalling and cracking?
<http://www.structuraldesigns.com.au/FAQs/Concrete/Fire%20damaged%20concrete.htm>
<http://theconstructor.org/concrete/behaviour-of-concrete-in-extreme-fire/6769/>
"Rapid heat rise in concrete causes evaporation of free and physically
bound water and, at higher temperatures, moisture loss by dehydration
of cement hydrates. If the permeability of the concrete is
insufficient to allow an adequate rate of dissipation then the vapour
pressure in the pores of the concrete will rise. A contribution to the
low apparent permeability-resisting vapour dissipation, is the vapour
condensation further inside the concrete away from the fire. Once the
vapour pressure rises to a critical level cracking and explosive
spalling will occur."
Retard.
Point 3: According to the video "Extremely powerful explosives such as
nuclear bombs are required to produce such small particles"...
<http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf>
=====================================================
Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone
suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center
(WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent
allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The
present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available
for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the
motion history calculated from the differential equation of
progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters,
it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these
allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01
mm—0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent
with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than
10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy,
sufficed to produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per
tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into
concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the
building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the
ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the
average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This
explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and
other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud
could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward
forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid
fragments, neglected in previous studies, are found to be indeed
negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not
insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down
duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record,
while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.
=====================================================
Point 4: According to the video: "Several WTC survivors had "melted"
or "hanging" skin - a phenomenon widely reported for survivors of the
Hiroshima blast".
And yet, there are no videos of these supposed "several WTC survivors
who had 'melted' or 'hanging' skin", and no radiation burns, no
radiation sickness, no nuclear-related radiation anywhere in NYC, no
nuclear-signature seismic records, no satellite records of nuclear
EMP, no nuclear EMP picked up by any cameras, no electronic equipment
destroyed by nuclear EMP.
Point 5: According to the video: "Steel structures, as well as people
and other building contents inside the towers were vaporized"... an
outright lie. Some people were burned in the fire, some were
pulverized in the collapse. There is a difference between
pulverization and vaporization. No steel was "vaporized". Some of the
lower-grade A36 steel had its carbon burned out of it in the upper
floors, turning back into iron, which melted. Some of the aluminum
facade melted. The other steel was heated to incandescence but did not
melt, a sure sign that the steel had been weakened enough to cause a
collapse.
Point 6: According to the video: "There was extreme heat in the rubble
of the WTC for up to 6 months after 9/11, as evidenced by molten metal
in the rubble"... yeah, because the buildings has thousands of gallons
of jet fuel dumped on them then ignited, the combustibles in the
buildings burned, then ~10% of the potential energy of 1.5 million
tons of steel and concrete was converted to heat as the building
collapsed. The "melted metal" in the rubble was primarily aluminum,
with small amounts of that lower-grade A36 steel, which had its carbon
burned out of it, turning it back into iron, lowering its melting
temperature.
Point 7: According to the video: "This heat is explained by a 'China
syndrome' reaction, where residual nuclear material continues to
undergo low level fission, thus generating intense heat". Had there
been "residual nuclear material", there would have been nuclear weapon
associated radiation. There was none. The video *you* *provided*
purporting to show radiological decontamination showed nothing of the
sort, as you've admitted. The NNSA issued dosimeters as a matter of
SOP, as they do at *all* terrorist attack sites. The only radiation
measured was slightly elevated beta radiation from trace amounts of
tritium from the aircraft exit signs and LEO weapons sights... had a
nuke detonated, tritium would have been much higher.
Message-ID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>
<http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm>
=====================================================
The absurdity of the "WTC was nuked" hoax
An excellent refutation of the "WTC was nuked" claims was provided by
Dr. Steven E. Jones, entitled "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis
that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers". He summarized a few key
points as:
<http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf>
===============
The data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due
to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus,
tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the "smoking gun." Can
proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases
of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?
Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade
Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top
3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of
copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a
geochemist. "Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments
contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made
radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine
concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers,
which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the
attacks."
Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an
EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma
counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed
approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting /
lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium
series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses
were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using
a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT).
The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a
NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD).
Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide
activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three
samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice
the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g
except for naturally occurring potassium-40. These very low levels of
radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves
sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at
the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts
the empirical facts.
===============
{NOTE: The elevated beta radiation was likely just as I stated, the
tritium from the airplane exit signs and law enforcement weapon
sights. Beta particles are nothing more than high-energy electrons.}
- Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb
fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong
evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
- The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower
in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
- Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which
is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not
rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the
mini-nuke hypothesis.
- Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium,
actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background
level for WTC dust.
- Nuclear activation or residual "fall-out" radioactivity (above
background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on
actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131
measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low
radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling
evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.
- No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground
zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. No observed
melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
- One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where
vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse,
and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten
metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)
=====================================================
IOW, people far smarter than you have analyzed this from every
possible angle, and found that you're insane. Get back on your meds,
Mike.
Kook. LOL
> Rocky
Now, get to addressing the 18 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:
======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below
the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to
today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that
depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's
*why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al
Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human
history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep
Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.
2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a
nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of
the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused
the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would
have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the
immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized
your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for
dozens of miles radius.
3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's
no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been
from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of
radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the
tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights
that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a
nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how
delusional you are.
4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or
anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>).
They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear
weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation.
5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people
in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed,
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2
MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were
buried.
6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay
byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it
decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any
sort of nuclear chain reaction.
7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it*
*was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical
support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount
of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================
8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to
survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be
approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature
would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?
9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a
hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding
rock.
10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were
detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects
were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft.
11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent
down to service those nukes (because now that you know the
neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a
periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire
facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the
technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with
"4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area
the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to
admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33
years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960
to 1840 degree heat?
12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all
1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the
Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your
kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized"
(your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)?
13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC
site on 11 Sep 2001?
14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris
kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep
underground, Ko0K?
15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have
tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles
deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC
complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to
detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up
your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which
you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference
was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The
Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).
16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes
(MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your
previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3
nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming
under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in
agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is?
While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps
(radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was
primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any
contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in
place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this
*still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed
"EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where
your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly
head again. LOL
17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your
"34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes
(MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d6f5a7b3f56eeeb6f@dizum.com>))... eventually,
your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the
real city was blown up by
1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes
which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground
MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet
and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC
and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the
fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn
out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every
piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's
*proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL
18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation
byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words
"with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID:
<43acc7488b179f3bfea83ef7076f92b9@dizum.com>).
Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back
on your meds, you delusional loon.
======================================================
There are now 18 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of
physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by
point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp
simple physics.
Kook. LOL
--
------------------------------------
Michael Scott Guthrie (aka Rocky)
336-643-6611
6913 Maynard Road
Summerfield, NC 27358-9206
Now that everyone knows who you are, they can get you the psychiatric
help you so desperately need. Perhaps they could call your mother
Paula S. Guthrie, given that you're in your 30's and you still live at
home with mommy... and Grandma Martha. LOL
Your brother Scott certainly won't be happy to know you're
embarrassing the Guthrie family name, how's he gonna find real estate
clients if everyone knows the Guthries are a pack of schizo kooks? LOL
Just how many backwoods redneck hillbillies can fit in one small 1200
sf 3bd/1.5 ba house?! Does RockyRetard share a bedroom with his
brother? Or do they make Grandma Martha sleep on the porch? LOL
------------------------------------
Michael Guthrie (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.
For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.
B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower falling being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".
C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).
D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.
E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL
F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL
G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole
seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL
H) Your brain becoming more and more broken, in just one short day it
moved from G) above to now telling you there are *more* than 34 nukes.
Where does your broken brain stop, Ko0k? Billions of intelligent
nano-nukes covering every metal surface of the twin towers? Robot
"crisis actors" able to withstand the extreme radiation? All of NYC
being blow up, replaced by a CGI that we all are fooled by today? LOL
IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================
Kook. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 06:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mrk3tq$m1g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #516852 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero and everybody knows >>>> that >>> >>> Even if they did, it is irrelevant to the issue of nukes. >>> >>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic >>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the >>> planet. >> >> >> >> >> Nope you are wrong. >> No seismic info will show a nuke as opposed to any other explosion. > > Your really are an ignorant kook if you actually believe that, and it > is trivial to verify your ignorance. > > <snip remaining kook babble> Citations are welcome,.....or are you so unwilling to prove how wrong you are. The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is because the explosions look so similar. Only the gamma radiation burst and residual radiation, differentiate the two. And those don't show up as any ground waves. Do some research on Trinity and Los Alamos, and see the towers of dynamite they used, to be able to do that actual comparison. BTW astronomy fans,....did you know that quasars and pulsars were discovered as a result of the gamma radiation detectors that the US and Russian Military set up to check for any Nuke tests the other side might be carrying out. And they suddenly saw gamma rays,....but coming from out in space, not from the planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sj81bc-7ci.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #516973 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is because > the explosions look so similar. Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. And that is where the similarities end. A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical explosion is a much longer event. The temperature of a nuclear explosion is several million degrees while the temperature of a chemical explosion is much lower. The pressure of a nuclear explosion is several million atmospheres while the pressure of a chemical explosion is much lower. And so on. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mrlbci$hqm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #517041 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is >> because the explosions look so similar. > > Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton > nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. > > And that is where the similarities end. > > A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical > explosion is a much longer event. A microsecond ? So if you blink you might miss the whole thing ? > > The temperature of a nuclear explosion is several million degrees while > the temperature of a chemical explosion is much lower. Sorry I blinked before I read my thermometer > > The pressure of a nuclear explosion is several million atmospheres while > the pressure of a chemical explosion is much lower. Uh Riggghht. <sigh> > > And so on. Oh please tell us more,....this is just getting interesting. And I'm sure the guys at Los Alamos are all waiting to hear more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mrldh8$pnj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #517117 |
On 8/26/2015 4:35 PM, Bast wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is >>> because the explosions look so similar. >> >> Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton >> nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. >> >> And that is where the similarities end. >> >> A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical >> explosion is a much longer event. > > > A microsecond ? > So if you blink you might miss the whole thing ? > > > > >> >> The temperature of a nuclear explosion is several million degrees while >> the temperature of a chemical explosion is much lower. > > > > Sorry I blinked before I read my thermometer > > >> >> The pressure of a nuclear explosion is several million atmospheres while >> the pressure of a chemical explosion is much lower. > > > Uh Riggghht. <sigh> > > > > >> >> And so on. > > > > Oh please tell us more,....this is just getting interesting. > And I'm sure the guys at Los Alamos are all waiting to hear more. > > He's right. What he's referring to is not what you see or hear from some distance away but what is happening in the explosive material. It's called a detonation profile and basically is the time profile over the period when the explosive material is detonating. Once the detonation profile is over, there are lots of things that follow, like a fireball rising, shock waves spreading. But all of those are AFTER the detonation profile. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q8q1bc-0ck.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #517117 |
In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is >>> because the explosions look so similar. >> >> Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton >> nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. >> >> And that is where the similarities end. >> >> A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical >> explosion is a much longer event. > > > A microsecond ? > So if you blink you might miss the whole thing ? No, moron, it means the exploding stuff is fully exploded in that time. <snip remaining moronic idiocy> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 17:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) |
| Message-ID | <qeKdnTTnIvUfo0PInZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #517122 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:q8q1bc-0ck.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is >>>> because the explosions look so similar. >>> >>> Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton >>> nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. >>> >>> And that is where the similarities end. >>> >>> A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical >>> explosion is a much longer event. >> >> >> A microsecond ? >> So if you blink you might miss the whole thing ? > > No, moron, it means the exploding stuff is fully exploded in that time. And you are a moron if you think nukes explode the same way as other explosives because they don't even have an air blast wave right off the bat. As a matter of fact nukes in close range vaporized the lower part of the Twin Towers about as fast as you claim they were vaporized. Rocky The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 23:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) |
| Message-ID | <q5t1bc-nlk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #517127 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:q8q1bc-0ck.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is >>>>> because the explosions look so similar. >>>> >>>> Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton >>>> nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. >>>> >>>> And that is where the similarities end. >>>> >>>> A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical >>>> explosion is a much longer event. >>> >>> >>> A microsecond ? >>> So if you blink you might miss the whole thing ? >> >> No, moron, it means the exploding stuff is fully exploded in that time. > > And you are a moron if you think nukes explode the same way as other > explosives because they don't even have an air blast wave right off the bat. Learn to read, you babbling kook. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events. A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any governmental agency. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 22:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The US has been caught lying about radiation before too (Jim need more help) |
| Message-ID | <mrm0d7$rko$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #517127 |
> And you are a moron if you think nukes explode the same way as other > explosives because they don't even have an air blast wave right off the bat. > > As a matter of fact nukes in close range vaporized the lower part of the > Twin Towers about as fast as you claim they were vaporized. wrong, no radiation. > Rocky >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 21:09 -0700 |
| Subject | say dUh; thankyoiu |
| Message-ID | <ec5e07f5-55d2-409a-84cd-5495c5b54fab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #517127 |
hey, true, no oxygen immediately involved in combustion, or its driven away, or ... lots of variables, although how they realte to what happened, with two 757s filled with fuel fro a transcontinental flight ... > And you are a moron if you think nukes explode the same way as other > explosives because they don't even have an air blast wave right off the bat. > > As a matter of fact nukes in close range vaporized the lower part of the > Twin Towers about as fast as you claim they were vaporized. > > Rocky > > The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 18:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3048082dcc184ed498c24c@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #517117 |
In article <mrlbci$hqm$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says... > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > > >> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is > >> because the explosions look so similar. > > > > Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton > > nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. > > > > And that is where the similarities end. > > > > A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical > > explosion is a much longer event. > > > A microsecond ? > So if you blink you might miss the whole thing ? > > > > > > > > The temperature of a nuclear explosion is several million degrees while > > the temperature of a chemical explosion is much lower. > > > > Sorry I blinked before I read my thermometer > > > > > > The pressure of a nuclear explosion is several million atmospheres while > > the pressure of a chemical explosion is much lower. > > > Uh Riggghht. <sigh> > > > > > > > > And so on. > > > > Oh please tell us more,....this is just getting interesting. > And I'm sure the guys at Los Alamos are all waiting to hear more. If you had a clue you would be embarrassed as hell for being so stupid. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, and future Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 5 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 17:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i7SdnWyKRZAPoEPInZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #517041 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:sj81bc-7ci.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is >> because >> the explosions look so similar. > > Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton > nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. > > And that is where the similarities end. > > A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical > explosion > is a much longer event. > > The temperature of a nuclear explosion is several million degrees while > the temperature of a chemical explosion is much lower. > > The pressure of a nuclear explosion is several million atmospheres while > the pressure of a chemical explosion is much lower. > > And so on. Wow, you are on the right track now all you have to is see that NIST fed us a bunch of bullshit about their "Hypothetical Collapse Initiation" of the Twin Towers (link at bottom of this post) and that the following resembles a nuke much more than it resembles a jet fuel fire: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Nuclear destruction of the WTC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y Rocky BTW how people know NIST lied to us about what really caused the near instantaneous demolition of the Twin Towers The Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCuMULutHs&list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pns1bc-nlk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #517124 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:sj81bc-7ci.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> The reason Nuclear explosions are described as "kilotons of TNT" is >>> because >>> the explosions look so similar. >> >> Perhaps that is because by DEFINITION the destructive power of 1 kiloton >> nuclear explosion is equal to the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT. >> >> And that is where the similarities end. >> >> A nuclear explosion is all over in a microsecond while a chemical >> explosion >> is a much longer event. >> >> The temperature of a nuclear explosion is several million degrees while >> the temperature of a chemical explosion is much lower. >> >> The pressure of a nuclear explosion is several million atmospheres while >> the pressure of a chemical explosion is much lower. >> >> And so on. > > Wow, you are on the right track now all you have to is see that NIST fed us > a bunch of bullshit about their "Hypothetical Collapse Initiation" of the > Twin Towers (link at bottom of this post) and that the following resembles a > nuke much more than it resembles a jet fuel fire: You are a babbling idiot. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events. A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any governmental agency. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 22:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mrm0e9$rko$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #517124 |
<snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 21:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dh8qta10g4gl898o46olq7qjs8hreqlncu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #516842 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:50:11 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero and everybody knows
>>> that
>>
>> Even if they did, it is irrelevant to the issue of nukes.
>>
>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>
>
>Nope you are wrong.
Jim is 100% correct. But do point out just where he is wrong.
>No seismic info will show a nuke as opposed to any other explosion.
You clearly know nothing of seismographs.
>Particularly if the nuke was small and fired above ground.
This will still produce a unique signature.
>Only a gamma ray burst,...and I'm betting the feds didn't have their
>antennas watching for that. Or simply wiped any records if they did.
How much do you want to bet?
>
>Of course while I believe nukes are a possibilty, and I'm sure the feds have
>more conventional explosives that would be just as effective.
While no explosives were used, the idea of nukes has been
thoroughly disproved. And by Rocky himself.
>
>How many people in the US even knew that thermite/ate existed, before
>9/11,....and that's not their only dirty little secret.
As if the number of people who knew about thermite before 9/11
has any bearing on the matter.
Those of you who follow the Troofer religion are unintentionally
funny.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web