Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #520360 > unrolled thread

Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit )

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-11 14:16 -0500
    Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-11 16:00 -0400
    Re: Rocky still babbling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-11 20:21 +0000
    Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 21:51 +0000
      Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-12 13:52 +0000
        Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 07:20 -0700
        Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:11 -0500
        Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( Michael pokes fun at the dolly that was used to cart an engine into place ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 00:26 -0500
    Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:14 -0500
      Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit ) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-12 06:14 +0200
        de panes weren't bombs (unless they were bombs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 11:52 -0700

#520360 — Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( plane missing in Chopper 5 wide shot ) (Kid is a lying sack of shit )

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ld84va9ohq8t3s9fk9329euh0e4ogp7shk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:00:31 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:tqg1va1o8ebmaui7g2uhgrq3uqspl36tom@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 04:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Nichols
>>> <alukenichols24740@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ON that fateful day, September 11, 2001, your eyes deceived you.
>>>>Only those in the "know" knew the real evil that went on that day.
>>>
>>>     Planes were hijacked. two crashed into the WTC twin towers. One
>>> crashed into the Pentagon and one cashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
>>> At this point, I'm confident everyone knows this is what went on that
>>> day.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO because if that were true there would have been a jet in the wide
>>shot but there wasn't.  See:
>>
>>07 - The Key
>>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
>> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s
>>
>>No jets, no jet fuel and you have fallen for a world of shit as proven by
>>the wide shot above.  <G>
>>
>
>     Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling between 300
> and 500 MPH covers?

Oh shit another one of those complete idiots that thinks that CGIs flew too 
fast for marker lights or in this place to be caught on camera.  Too fcuking 
funny.

BTW your explanation does not hold water because test were made and jets 
from a long distance away at a good speed are still visible in a video 
making you a GREAT BIG LIAR as usual.  <G>


>>>>Truth is, there were no planes.
>>>
>>>     The debris is in direct opposition to that claim.
>>
>>Planted debris that didn't match the jet it was supposed to eome from.
>
>     But, as you KNOW, it did match.

ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
 https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street

or

WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767
 http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

> You are, of course, free to
> provide valid, verifiable evidence for your claim that other parts
> were used. If you're lying, you'll offer avoidance, if you offer
> anything at all.

You never provided any supporting evidence so that proves you are a lying 
sack of shit as usual.



>>>>Truth is, there were shape shifting fallen angels.
>>>
>>>     No, they weren't.
>>
>>He is a lot closer to the truth than you have ever been.
>
>     No, he's not. Andrew has been PROVED a false prophet, according
> to the standards set in the Bible.

He is still a lot closer to the truth about 9/11 then you have ever been and 
you even go out of your way to lie without any supporing links whatsoever. 
What's that tell you about your arguments?  <G>


>>>>The Bene Ha Elohim took down those three towers, 4 planes and punched a
>>>>hole in the Pentagon.
>>>
>>>     The Sons of God didn't take down any towers. Nor did they do
>>> anything to the Pentagon. It's foolish to claim the crash sight in
>>> Pennsylvania, where airplane debris was found, was one of the Old
>>> Testament's Sons of God.
>>
>>About the only debris found at Pranksville was from one of the framed and
>
>     You keep presenting this lie AFTER I, and other, proved the claim
> a lie. Why do you do this?

ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Don't forget your post are filled with so much bullshit 
you had better keep your links around so you can find them if you really 
have them.  <G>


>>quite possibly living suicide bombers.  That is why you will never have 
>>any
>>photos to support your bullshit about Pranksville, PA.
>
>     And yet I, and others, linked to them. As is so often the case,
> you ran away from the evidence.

FYI I know how to pull up MIDs on all my laptops so you don't have to repost 
anything other than a MID.  <G>

Hell, I even started a new thread just for you asking for evidence and oddly 
enough you never even posted to it.  What's that tell you and me and 
everybody else that sees a world of your bullshit?


>>>>Video PROOF!
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bheSZJEm-YY
>>>
>>>     A k00k ranting about the attacks is not proof. It is, at best, an
>>> expression of the k00k's opinion.
>>
>>Too bad he has supporting evidence in the lack of a jet in the wide shot.
>>
>
>     See above. If you'd like, I will C&P the far more detailed
> explanation that proves your claim to be the lie it was and is.

ROTFLMAO because that excuse was used before and it was proven to be a great 
big lie!

>>07 - The Key
>>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
>> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s
>
>     No one operating the cameras knew in advance that another plane
> was going to hit the second tower. There would have been no reason to
> tilt, plan or zoom.

Oh bullshit.  Not only did they know a second plane was on the way they even 
knew what floors were targeted by the so called "fireproofing" more like 
fire spoofing.


>     I really like how the narrator has to play semantics about the
> helicopter arriving on the scene. Yes, it was arriving on the scene.
> It was about five miles south at the time the second plane hit, but it
> was heading to the WTC Complex. It was close enough for any educated
> person to claim it was arriving on the scene.
>     I can go on, if you'd like. Of course, I'll just do a C&P of my
> previous post where I proved your claim to be the lie it is.

You might as well keep your evidence around because your bullshit is so high 
it is easily taller than the debris pile from WTC7.  And why wasn't the 
debris pile from the Twin Towers anywhere near what was left of WTC7?  <G>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#520367

9/11 Anatomy Of A Great Deception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc


15 Disturbing facts about 9/11 yoe;ll wish were not true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbsZjW-m0x8


Watch, and do your own further research and verification..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520376 — Re: Rocky still babbling

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> Oh shit another one of those complete idiots that thinks that CGIs flew too 
> fast for marker lights or in this place to be caught on camera.  Too fcuking 
> funny.

As you have been told many times now, kook, airplanes don't have "marker"
lights, they have position lights which are nearly impossible to see
in bright daylight, you raving lunatic.

> BTW your explanation does not hold water because test were made and jets 
> from a long distance away at a good speed are still visible in a video 
> making you a GREAT BIG LIAR as usual.  <G>

Airplanes are, postion lights aren't, raving, retarded, lunatic.

> Hell, I even started a new thread just for you asking for evidence and oddly 
> enough you never even posted to it.  What's that tell you and me and 
> everybody else that sees a world of your bullshit?

People are tiring of your insane, contradictory, raving posts, kook.

<snip remaining kook drivel>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520392

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ld84va9ohq8t3s9fk9329euh0e4ogp7shk@4ax.com...

>>>Planted debris that didn't match the jet it was supposed to eome from.
>>
>>     But, as you KNOW, it did match.

>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street

That's the problem with the kooktards being so busy.  They clog up Google
Search (which I'm sure was their intent).  Using that URL, the first
several pages of results are all kooksites or conspiracy sites of some
sort, and it's hard to find any with actual hard data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520480

moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:

>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>news:ld84va9ohq8t3s9fk9329euh0e4ogp7shk@4ax.com...

>>>>Planted debris that didn't match the jet it was supposed to eome from.
>>>
>>>     But, as you KNOW, it did match.

>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street

>That's the problem with the kooktards being so busy.  They clog up Google
>Search (which I'm sure was their intent).  Using that URL, the first
>several pages of results are all kooksites or conspiracy sites of some
>sort, and it's hard to find any with actual hard data.


Shill #3 wrote:

>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street

>     Do you mean Murray street?
>     Spelling errors aside, links to k00k sites are not evidence to
> the rational and educated mind. As always, you'll not understand.

Ahh, so that's it.  Someone must have planted a fake engine on Murry St.
and the kooks are kooking about that, so a search of "jet engine on murry
street" just finds kooksites.  Meanwhile, the real engine fell on Murray
St.!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520482

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 9:52:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> 
> >"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
> 
> >>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> >>news:ld84va9ohq8t3s9fk9329euh0e4ogp7shk@4ax.com...
> 
> >>>>Planted debris that didn't match the jet it was supposed to eome from.
> >>>
> >>>     But, as you KNOW, it did match.
> 
> >>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street
> 
> >That's the problem with the kooktards being so busy.  They clog up Google
> >Search (which I'm sure was their intent).  Using that URL, the first
> >several pages of results are all kooksites or conspiracy sites of some
> >sort, and it's hard to find any with actual hard data.
> 
> Shill #3 wrote:
> 
> >>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street
> 
> >     Do you mean Murray street?
> >     Spelling errors aside, links to k00k sites are not evidence to
> > the rational and educated mind. As always, you'll not understand.

You sound just like my X (y) Z: You just won't get it It IT, ever!

So, all of Troofers Deception can be cast aside on faulty Miss Spellings? 

> Ahh, so that's it.  Someone must have planted a fake engine on Murry St.
> and the kooks are kooking about that, so a search of "jet engine on murry
> street" just finds kooksites.  Meanwhile, the real engine fell on Murray
> St.!

The real kooks are those that project no one is lying to you, to your face.

I've been to Murray Street, often. Right next to the Amish Market is
the heavenly NY Dolls Gentleman's Club. Say hello from me to c the 72
young virgin girls dancing on poles there! Yes, lunchtime, nighttime,
all the f*cking time. There's a reason love means nothing in tennis.

-- Mahipal 'Is that why the(y)TheThem call me Cunning Linguist?!'

Wishing all the best to American Hero James Blake, despite the NYPD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520570

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:52:18 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>
>>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:ld84va9ohq8t3s9fk9329euh0e4ogp7shk@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>Planted debris that didn't match the jet it was supposed to eome from.
>>>>
>>>>     But, as you KNOW, it did match.
>
>>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street
>
>>That's the problem with the kooktards being so busy.  They clog up Google
>>Search (which I'm sure was their intent).  Using that URL, the first
>>several pages of results are all kooksites or conspiracy sites of some
>>sort, and it's hard to find any with actual hard data.
>
>
>Shill #3 wrote:
>
>>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street
>
>>     Do you mean Murray street?
>>     Spelling errors aside, links to k00k sites are not evidence to
>> the rational and educated mind. As always, you'll not understand.
>
>Ahh, so that's it.  Someone must have planted a fake engine on Murry St.
>and the kooks are kooking about that, so a search of "jet engine on murry
>street" just finds kooksites.  Meanwhile, the real engine fell on Murray
>St.!

     I think it was a typo on Roger's part. Nothing more.
     But the first page of results were nothing but k00k sites. Some
more entertaining than others. None offered anything that could be
traced to an authoritative source.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520952 — Re: 9/11/01 - There were no planes ( Michael pokes fun at the dolly that was used to cart an engine into place )

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mt1ami$mat$1@pcls7.std.com...
> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>
>>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ld84va9ohq8t3s9fk9329euh0e4ogp7shk@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>Planted debris that didn't match the jet it was supposed to eome from.
>>>>
>>>>     But, as you KNOW, it did match.
>
>>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street
>
>>That's the problem with the kooktards being so busy.  They clog up Google
>>Search (which I'm sure was their intent).  Using that URL, the first
>>several pages of results are all kooksites or conspiracy sites of some
>>sort, and it's hard to find any with actual hard data.
>
>
> Shill #3 wrote:
>
>>>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street
>
>>     Do you mean Murray street?
>>     Spelling errors aside, links to k00k sites are not evidence to
>> the rational and educated mind. As always, you'll not understand.
>
> Ahh, so that's it.  Someone must have planted a fake engine on Murry St.
> and the kooks are kooking about that, so a search of "jet engine on murry
> street" just finds kooksites.  Meanwhile, the real engine fell on Murray
> St.!

No this is it and I'll even quote the photo:

Manhattan trick: At Church Street and Murray a large engine part appeared 
underneath a construction scaffold.  An abandoned dolly was nearby (left). 
Video caught FBI men using a dolly to unload a large object.  Some trick!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IGtfcYoHLGI/UHmHpeKqwbI/AAAAAAAAA7Q/mO62hgqy6M0/s1600/fetznewpages6x9sizework8xX.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520412

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:16:20 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ld84va9ohq8t3s9fk9329euh0e4ogp7shk@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:00:31 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:tqg1va1o8ebmaui7g2uhgrq3uqspl36tom@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 04:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Nichols
>>>> <alukenichols24740@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>ON that fateful day, September 11, 2001, your eyes deceived you.
>>>>>Only those in the "know" knew the real evil that went on that day.
>>>>
>>>>     Planes were hijacked. two crashed into the WTC twin towers. One
>>>> crashed into the Pentagon and one cashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
>>>> At this point, I'm confident everyone knows this is what went on that
>>>> day.
>>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because if that were true there would have been a jet in the wide
>>>shot but there wasn't.  See:
>>>
>>>07 - The Key
>>>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
>>> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s
>>>
>>>No jets, no jet fuel and you have fallen for a world of shit as proven by
>>>the wide shot above.  <G>
>>
>>     Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling between 300
>> and 500 MPH covers?
>
>Oh shit another one of those complete idiots that thinks that CGIs flew too 
>fast for marker lights 

     What, in reality please, are marker lights?

>or in this place to be caught on camera.  Too fcuking 
>funny.
>

     CGIs can fly at whatever speed they are programmed to fly. But
since none were used on 9/11, it doesn't matter.

>BTW your explanation does not hold water because test were made and jets 
>from a long distance away at a good speed are still visible in a video 
>making you a GREAT BIG LIAR as usual.  <G>

     I await your evidence for this claim of yours. If, as you will
soon prove, it's nothing more than further evidence of your mental
defect(s), you'll only offer avoidance. If you are able to offer
anything at all.

>
>>>>>Truth is, there were no planes.
>>>>
>>>>     The debris is in direct opposition to that claim.
>>>
>>>Planted debris that didn't match the jet it was supposed to eome from.
>>
>>     But, as you KNOW, it did match.
>
>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Check out tthe following:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=jet+engine+on+murry+street
>

     Do you mean Murray street?
     Spelling errors aside, links to k00k sites are not evidence to
the rational and educated mind. As always, you'll not understand.

>or
>
>WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767
> http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm
>

     Got anything CREDIBLE?
     Jeff Rense is an entertaining radio host, but only a fool would
consider anything associated with him as credible. 
     Dr. Judy "DEW" Wood is scheduled to be the guest on 9/11/15. You
should give a listen. And laugh. He airs at 9:00pm central time.

>> You are, of course, free to
>> provide valid, verifiable evidence for your claim that other parts
>> were used. If you're lying, you'll offer avoidance, if you offer
>> anything at all.
>
>You never provided any supporting evidence so that proves you are a lying 
>sack of shit as usual.
>

     I'm not the one making the claim. You are. It befalls you to
provide the evidence, not me.
     If you're simply offering more evidence of your mental defect(s),
you'll continue to try and shift the burden of proof, play avoidance
games, or run away from the matter.

>>>>>Truth is, there were shape shifting fallen angels.
>>>>
>>>>     No, they weren't.
>>>
>>>He is a lot closer to the truth than you have ever been.
>>
>>     No, he's not. Andrew has been PROVED a false prophet, according
>> to the standards set in the Bible.
>
>He is still a lot closer to the truth about 9/11 then you have ever been and 
>you even go out of your way to lie without any supporing links whatsoever. 
>What's that tell you about your arguments?  <G>
>

     Would you like chapter and verse from the Bible? No problem.

Deuteronomy 18:22

     Your move.

>>>>>The Bene Ha Elohim took down those three towers, 4 planes and punched a
>>>>>hole in the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>>     The Sons of God didn't take down any towers. Nor did they do
>>>> anything to the Pentagon. It's foolish to claim the crash sight in
>>>> Pennsylvania, where airplane debris was found, was one of the Old
>>>> Testament's Sons of God.
>>>
>>>About the only debris found at Pranksville was from one of the framed and
>>
>>     You keep presenting this lie AFTER I, and other, proved the claim
>> a lie. Why do you do this?
>
>ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  Don't forget your post are filled with so much bullshit 
>you had better keep your links around so you can find them if you really 
>have them.  <G>
>

     You've still been caught in another lie.

>>>quite possibly living suicide bombers.  That is why you will never have 
>>>any photos to support your bullshit about Pranksville, PA.
>>
>>     And yet I, and others, linked to them. As is so often the case,
>> you ran away from the evidence.
>
>FYI I know how to pull up MIDs on all my laptops so you don't have to repost 
>anything other than a MID.  <G>
>
>Hell, I even started a new thread just for you asking for evidence and oddly 
>enough you never even posted to it.  What's that tell you and me and 
>everybody else that sees a world of your bullshit?

     You mean the one you posted eight minutes AFTER the post to which
I am replying? The one with Message-ID:
<TqadnYPULp0Bt27InZ2dnUU7-dudnZ2d@giganews.com>?
     You're really smart to whine about my not posting to a thread
eight minutes *before* you start the thread.
     If you're very, very lucky, I will be the only one to notice the
deception you've offered. But you're not even a little bit lucky.

>
>>>>>Video PROOF!
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bheSZJEm-YY
>>>>
>>>>     A k00k ranting about the attacks is not proof. It is, at best, an
>>>> expression of the k00k's opinion.
>>>
>>>Too bad he has supporting evidence in the lack of a jet in the wide shot.
>>
>>     See above. If you'd like, I will C&P the far more detailed
>> explanation that proves your claim to be the lie it was and is.
>
>ROTFLMAO because that excuse was used before and it was proven to be a great 
>big lie!
>

     So do you want me to post it again, or do you honestly think your
avoidance game is working?

>>>07 - The Key
>>>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
>>> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s
>>
>>     No one operating the cameras knew in advance that another plane
>> was going to hit the second tower. There would have been no reason to
>> tilt, plan or zoom.
>
>Oh bullshit.  

     You use the oddest terminology for the truth.

>Not only did they know a second plane was on the way they even 
>knew what floors were targeted by the so called "fireproofing" more like 
>fire spoofing.

     Fireproofing was on all floors. How would that tell anyone
another plane was going to hit and where?

>
>>     I really like how the narrator has to play semantics about the
>> helicopter arriving on the scene. Yes, it was arriving on the scene.
>> It was about five miles south at the time the second plane hit, but it
>> was heading to the WTC Complex. It was close enough for any educated
>> person to claim it was arriving on the scene.
>>     I can go on, if you'd like. Of course, I'll just do a C&P of my
>> previous post where I proved your claim to be the lie it is.
>
>You might as well keep your evidence around because your bullshit is so high 
>it is easily taller than the debris pile from WTC7.  And why wasn't the 
>debris pile from the Twin Towers anywhere near what was left of WTC7?  <G>
>

     There was much more debris from the towers, as you know. FNVW has
detailed it far better than I did. You did read his posts and verify
the evidence he presented, right?
     Or did he use those big words that make your head hurt?
     I've added AUK to the groups. This will allow FNVW to repost the
evidence he's already made available, if he wishes, to this thread.
I'd hate to think you didn't have every possible opportunity to review
and confirm the evidence he's provided.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520446

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

K Wills (Shill #3), in
<news:t0o6vadcra4hoc8k4l3vl9b5psejd98o90@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:16:20 -0500, Rocky (aka
> Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
> woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>> <SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron. LOL

> There was much more debris from the towers, as you know. FNVW has
> detailed it far better than I did. You did read his posts and verify
> the evidence he presented, right?
> Or did he use those big words that make your head hurt?
> I've added AUK to the groups. This will allow FNVW to repost the
> evidence he's already made available, if he wishes, to this thread.
> I'd hate to think you didn't have every possible opportunity to review
> and confirm the evidence he's provided.

Oh, absolutely. After all, Roger Wittekind *admitted* that I'd
accounted for nearly everything used to construct the WTC towers.

Message-ID: <72605ecfd37587e55fb49fc14f62eca6@dizum.com>
=============================================================
<http://www.cct-seecity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/030-NYC14204.jpg>
See those tiny people in relation to that huge fucking pile of rubble
towering 15 to 20 stories above them? LOL

<http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_article_l/public/article_images/20023073.jpg>
See that huge fucking pile of rubble? LOL

<https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRylmcjT9PDFHZOocG-5rREsMlQEoze1Q9SkVSFmsGNoUZlj6s>
See how large that pile looks in relation to that tiny... *fire*
*truck*? LOL

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NY_Firefighter_Deputy_chief_at_wtc.jpg>
See how large that pile looks in relation to that tiny...
*Caterpillar* *excavator*? LOL

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NY_Firefighter_Deputy_chief_at_wtc.jpg>
See the fire truck with the boom fully extended, spraying a fire hose
into the side of the rubble pile because there's no way it could spray
all the way to the top? LOL

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZYGqwhQ-Pk>
See the pile of rubble extending halfway up the still-standing
buildings? LOL

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T4hWCRvUSM>
See the bulldozers which were so small in relation to the size of the
rubble pile that they were able to *drive* *onto* *it* to start
excavating, just 4 days after the collapse?

Now keep in mind, not only was the rubble pile approximately 15
stories *above* street level, the WTC towers had 5 stories of
underground parking which was completely filled with rubble.

They accounted for all the 200,000 tons of structural steel used to
build the towers... now, let's look at how much other material there
was in the towers:

The WTC complex used 425,000 cubic yards of concrete during
construction. One cubic yard will weigh about 4,000 pounds according
to cemexusa.com.

Now, utilizing my ability to do simple math, which you obviously lack,
we arrive at 1,700,000,000 pounds or 850,000 tons of concrete.

So, 850,000 + 200,000 = 1,050,000 tons accounted for out of the total
1,462,000 tons of rubble, leaving just 412,000 tons to account for...

There was 600,000 square feet of glass in the two towers... that 3/8"
thick glass would have weighed a total of 1,434 tons... leaving
410,566 tons to account for...

400 tons of asbestos and an approximately equal amount of spray-on
fluffy fireproofing were used in the construction of the WTC towers...
leaving 409,766 tons to account for...

There was 12,000 miles of wiring in the WTC towers... at an average
weight of 106 pounds per 1000 feet (it was fed from 13.8 kV feeders to
the distribution center, dropped to 480/277 and 208/120 volts and
distributed from there), that would come to 3,358 tons, leaving
406,408 tons to account for...

The two 767s each weighed 396,000 pounds for a total of 396 tons,
leaving 406,012 tons to account for...

The 2977 people who died, at an average weight of 200 pounds each,
would have weighed 298 tons, leaving 405,714 tons to account for...

The 97 elevators and shaft guides each weighed 110,000 pounds,
totaling 5335 tons, leaving 400,379 tons to account for...

40,000 fire doors were used, each weighing approximately 110 pounds,
totaling 2200 tons, leaving 398,179 tons to account for...

6 acres of 3cm thick marble was used in the construction, weighing 19
pounds per square foot, totaling 2,483 tons, leaving 395,696 tons to
account for...

The 10,000 viscoelastic dampers each weighed half a ton, totaling 5000
tons, leaving 390,696 tons to account for...

The masts and antennas on 1 WTC weighed 400 tons, leaving 390,296 tons
to account for...

The air handling equipment and associated ducting weighed
approximately 115,000 pounds per floor, totaling 12,650 tons, leaving
377,646 tons to account for...

There was The Sphere art structure by Fritz Koenig which weighed 23
tons, leaving 377,623 tons to account for...

The approximately 4 million square feet of frieze carpet and
undercarpet cushion weighed a total of approximately 2 pounds per
square foot for a total of 4000 tons, leaving 373,623 tons to account
for...

The pipes in the building accounted for over 6000 tons, leaving
367,623 tons to account for...

That's a measly 1671 tons per floor for the two towers, easily
accounted for by office equipment, interior finish materials, etc.

Considering that there was an average of 30,000 square feet of office
space per floor, that leaves a per-square-foot floor load of only
111.4 pounds... and with all the office equipment and other stuff the
WTC towers had in them, that can easily be accounted for. The WTC
towers had a 100 pound per square foot load limit. With all the
modernities of modern offices, the floor spars were likely slightly
overloaded.

The construction was such that viscoelastic dampers (for wind shift
dampening) was used between the floor spars and truss frame. It was
literally glued between the floor spars and truss frame mounts. The
floor spars provided horizontal support to the truss frame (to prevent
it bowing inward or outward), and the truss frame provided vertical
support to the floor spars (to prevent them drooping downward). They
literally constructed a house of cards, each part relying upon other
parts for its support, while also providing support to the part
supporting it, in another plane. Remove that support by introducing
Degrees of Freedom of movement that isn't accounted for in the
calculations of building strength, and the whole thing comes crashing
down.

The uneven loading on the outer truss frame due to the impact site was
transferred to the weakest area in the truss frame, which was at the
top-most mechanical room floor below the fire. At mechanical room
floors the building designers had inexplicably joined all truss frame
members together at the same level, whereas on other floors the joins
were staggered to increase strength. Thus that one-floor-join was
greatly stressed by the uneven forces, and that caused the two small
5/8" bolts holding each truss frame section together to break.

This means the entire top of the building above the top-most
mechanical room floor below the fire had broken free of the confines
of the floor spars and was wrenching on the central column, not just
that area around the hole the aircraft had created. The entire top
section of the truss frame of the building was ripped loose at that
mechanical room floor. The top-hat truss (which provided horizontal
support to the truss frame at the top of the building where there were
no more floors) transmitted the uneven force from the truss frame to
the central column, magnifying the buckling force the central column
was subjected to.

Thus, when the viscoelastic dampers between the floor spars and the
lightweight truss frame melted in the area of the fire, the truss
frame lost its horizontal means of support. It bowed and buckled
(because it was weakened by the plane crashing through it and from the
fire), meaning the floor spars lost their perimeter means of vertical
support. The compromised floor spars and central column (weakened by
the fire because that inferior spray-on insulation had been knocked
off the central column by the force of the crash) then drooped and
dragged the whole building down.

Since the federal regulations changed mid-construction, the
construction crews weren't allowed to finish the upper floors with
asbestos fireproofing. They used the inferior spray-on fluffy shit
that flakes off all on its own in a fire... and can easily be knocked
off if you just hit it with your hand. I'm sure you can imagine how
much of that shit got knocked off when the planes hit. Thus the
central column, soaked in burning jet fuel, was no longer fireproofed.
The central column metal didn't melt, but it got incandescently hot,
easily hot enough to lose most of its strength. This happened because
the WTC towers were specifically designed to minimize the amount of
concrete used in their construction... so their heat capacity (and
thus ability to absorb heat) was small. So the temperature of the
structural components rose rapidly to the point they lost strength.

The uneven forces being transmitted from the now-disconnected upper
truss frame through the top-hat truss and into the central column,
combined with the heat weakening the central column, made the central
column buckle, transferring some of the weight of the building back
onto the now broken (at the top-most mechanical room floor below the
fire) truss frame.

You can see in the videos the outer truss frame along one floor seems
to collapse all at once immediately prior to the building
collapsing... that was the mechanical room floor where the truss frame
sections were all joined at one floor, creating a weak point in the
outer truss frame. The 2 small 5/8" bolts holding each truss frame
section together had already been broken by the uneven forces, ripping
the upper portion of the truss frame free of the lower portion. The
viscoelastic dampers had already been wrenched apart, the floor spars
no longer had vertical support and drooped as much as 36" in the fire,
the truss frame no longer had horizontal support and when the load got
to be too much, the truss frame at the mechanical room floor simply
collapsed.

That collapse ripped apart even more viscoelastic dampers, and the
whole-building collapse rapidly escalated from there, like a zipper
unzipping or, as one eyewitness said, like a banana unpeeling.

The "explosions" you kooks keep bleating about were from the central
column buckling, and the floor spar / truss frame junctions through
those melting / ripping viscoelastic dampers ripping loose. They were
pre-tensioned to keep the outer truss frame horizontally loaded to
counteract the bowing effect on the outer truss frame from the weight
of the building, after all. When those viscoelastic dampers ripped
loose, a lot of force was released.

You'll note the top-most part of the building tilted a bit before it
fell, just as a tree falls in the direction it's been cut. That slight
angle dragged the rest of the building off-center as it collapsed,
leaving behind your "surviving stairs" at the rear of the 'fall
shadow' and providing proof that it was not a controlled collapse.

It's simple engineering. That you take the route of believing in
fanciful and impossible conspiracy scenarios, rather than examining
the underlying engineering fundamentals as to why the buildings were,
quite literally, designed (unintentionally) to fail in such a scenario
(for which they'd received warnings to the same effect since 1971, and
ignored), means your broken brain is too fragile to handle reality.

And that's a SPNAK! on the conspiracy-theory kook.

<snicker>
=============================================================

Poor stupid Roger Wittekind... his broken little brain can't
comprehend reality, so he has to glom onto these utterly impossible
kooky conspiracy theories. That his insane mind can accept things
which violate the laws of physics, yet steadfastly refuses to accept
reality, proves Roger Wittekind is a schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
kook off his meds.

<snicker>

-- 

Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394

Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.

Roger Wittekind (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 shaking 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 building shook, 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 of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.

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]

#520513 — de panes weren't bombs (unless they were bombs

hey, I had to scroll your output, but
you make nice pointage, thereinat

> See how large that pile looks in relation to that tiny...
> *Caterpillar* *excavator*? LOL
> 
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NY_Firefighter_Deputy_chief_at_wtc.jpg>
> See the fire truck with the boom fully extended, spraying a fire hose
> into the side of the rubble pile because there's no way it could spray
> all the way to the top? LOL
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZYGqwhQ-Pk>
> See the pile of rubble extending halfway up the still-standing
> buildings? LOL
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T4hWCRvUSM>
> See the bulldozers which were so small in relation to the size of the
> rubble pile that they were able to *drive* *onto* *it* to start
> excavating, just 4 days after the collapse?
> 
> Now keep in mind, not only was the rubble pile approximately 15
> stories *above* street level, the WTC towers had 5 stories of
> underground parking which was completely filled with rubble.
> 
> They accounted for all the 200,000 tons of structural steel used to
> build the towers... now, let's look at how much other material there
> was in the towers:
> 
> The WTC complex used 425,000 cubic yards of concrete during
> construction. One cubic yard will weigh about 4,000 pounds according
> to cemexusa.com.
> 
> Now, utilizing my ability to do simple math, which you obviously lack,
> we arrive at 1,700,000,000 pounds or 850,000 tons of concrete.
> 
> So, 850,000 + 200,000 = 1,050,000 tons accounted for out of the total
> 1,462,000 tons of rubble, leaving just 412,000 tons to account for...
> 
> There was 600,000 square feet of glass in the two towers... that 3/8"
> thick glass would have weighed a total of 1,434 tons... leaving
> 410,566 tons to account for...
> 
> 400 tons of asbestos and an approximately equal amount of spray-on
> fluffy fireproofing were used in the construction of the WTC towers...
> leaving 409,766 tons to account for...
> 
> There was 12,000 miles of wiring in the WTC towers... at an average
> weight of 106 pounds per 1000 feet (it was fed from 13.8 kV feeders to
> the distribution center, dropped to 480/277 and 208/120 volts and
> distributed from there), that would come to 3,358 tons, leaving
> 406,408 tons to account for...
> 
> The two 767s each weighed 396,000 pounds for a total of 396 tons,
> leaving 406,012 tons to account for...
> 
> The 2977 people who died, at an average weight of 200 pounds each,
> would have weighed 298 tons, leaving 405,714 tons to account for...
> 
> The 97 elevators and shaft guides each weighed 110,000 pounds,
> totaling 5335 tons, leaving 400,379 tons to account for...
> 
> 40,000 fire doors were used, each weighing approximately 110 pounds,
> totaling 2200 tons, leaving 398,179 tons to account for...
> 
> 6 acres of 3cm thick marble was used in the construction, weighing 19
> pounds per square foot, totaling 2,483 tons, leaving 395,696 tons to
> account for...
> 
> The 10,000 viscoelastic dampers each weighed half a ton, totaling 5000
> tons, leaving 390,696 tons to account for...
> 
> The masts and antennas on 1 WTC weighed 400 tons, leaving 390,296 tons
> to account for...
> 
> The air handling equipment and associated ducting weighed
> approximately 115,000 pounds per floor, totaling 12,650 tons, leaving
> 377,646 tons to account for...
> 
> There was The Sphere art structure by Fritz Koenig which weighed 23
> tons, leaving 377,623 tons to account for...
> 
> The approximately 4 million square feet of frieze carpet and
> undercarpet cushion weighed a total of approximately 2 pounds per
> square foot for a total of 4000 tons, leaving 373,623 tons to account
> for...
> 
> The pipes in the building accounted for over 6000 tons, leaving
> 367,623 tons to account for...
> 
> That's a measly 1671 tons per floor for the two towers, easily
> accounted for by office equipment, interior finish materials, etc.
> 
> Considering that there was an average of 30,000 square feet of office
> space per floor, that leaves a per-square-foot floor load of only
> 111.4 pounds... and with all the office equipment and other stuff the
> WTC towers had in them, that can easily be accounted for. The WTC
> towers had a 100 pound per square foot load limit. With all the
> modernities of modern offices, the floor spars were likely slightly
> overloaded.
> 
> The construction was such that viscoelastic dampers (for wind shift
> dampening) was used between the floor spars and truss frame. It was
> literally glued between the floor spars and truss frame mounts. The
> floor spars provided horizontal support to the truss frame (to prevent
> it bowing inward or outward), and the truss frame provided vertical
> support to the floor spars (to prevent them drooping downward). They
> literally constructed a house of cards, each part relying upon other
> parts for its support, while also providing support to the part
> supporting it, in another plane. Remove that support by introducing
> Degrees of Freedom of movement that isn't accounted for in the
> calculations of building strength, and the whole thing comes crashing
> down.
> 
> The uneven loading on the outer truss frame due to the impact site was
> transferred to the weakest area in the truss frame, which was at the
> top-most mechanical room floor below the fire. At mechanical room
> floors the building designers had inexplicably joined all truss frame
> members together at the same level, whereas on other floors the joins
> were staggered to increase strength. Thus that one-floor-join was
> greatly stressed by the uneven forces, and that caused the two small
> 5/8" bolts holding each truss frame section together to break.
> 
> This means the entire top of the building above the top-most
> mechanical room floor below the fire had broken free of the confines
> of the floor spars and was wrenching on the central column, not just
> that area around the hole the aircraft had created. The entire top
> section of the truss frame of the building was ripped loose at that
> mechanical room floor. The top-hat truss (which provided horizontal
> support to the truss frame at the top of the building where there were
> no more floors) transmitted the uneven force from the truss frame to
> the central column, magnifying the buckling force the central column
> was subjected to.
> 
> Thus, when the viscoelastic dampers between the floor spars and the
> lightweight truss frame melted in the area of the fire, the truss
> frame lost its horizontal means of support. It bowed and buckled
> (because it was weakened by the plane crashing through it and from the
> fire), meaning the floor spars lost their perimeter means of vertical
> support. The compromised floor spars and central column (weakened by
> the fire because that inferior spray-on insulation had been knocked
> off the central column by the force of the crash) then drooped and
> dragged the whole building down.
> 
> Since the federal regulations changed mid-construction, the
> construction crews weren't allowed to finish the upper floors with
> asbestos fireproofing. They used the inferior spray-on fluffy shit
> that flakes off all on its own in a fire... and can easily be knocked
> off if you just hit it with your hand. I'm sure you can imagine how
> much of that shit got knocked off when the planes hit. Thus the
> central column, soaked in burning jet fuel, was no longer fireproofed.
> The central column metal didn't melt, but it got incandescently hot,
> easily hot enough to lose most of its strength. This happened because
> the WTC towers were specifically designed to minimize the amount of
> concrete used in their construction... so their heat capacity (and
> thus ability to absorb heat) was small. So the temperature of the
> structural components rose rapidly to the point they lost strength.
> 
> The uneven forces being transmitted from the now-disconnected upper
> truss frame through the top-hat truss and into the central column,
> combined with the heat weakening the central column, made the central
> column buckle, transferring some of the weight of the building back
> onto the now broken (at the top-most mechanical room floor below the
> fire) truss frame.
> 
> You can see in the videos the outer truss frame along one floor seems
> to collapse all at once immediately prior to the building
> collapsing... that was the mechanical room floor where the truss frame
> sections were all joined at one floor, creating a weak point in the
> outer truss frame. The 2 small 5/8" bolts holding each truss frame
> section together had already been broken by the uneven forces, ripping
> the upper portion of the truss frame free of the lower portion. The
> viscoelastic dampers had already been wrenched apart, the floor spars
> no longer had vertical support and drooped as much as 36" in the fire,
> the truss frame no longer had horizontal support and when the load got
> to be too much, the truss frame at the mechanical room floor simply
> collapsed.
> 
> That collapse ripped apart even more viscoelastic dampers, and the
> whole-building collapse rapidly escalated from there, like a zipper
> unzipping or, as one eyewitness said, like a banana unpeeling.
> 
> The "explosions" you kooks keep bleating about were from the central
> column buckling, and the floor spar / truss frame junctions through
> those melting / ripping viscoelastic dampers ripping loose. They were
> pre-tensioned to keep the outer truss frame horizontally loaded to
> counteract the bowing effect on the outer truss frame from the weight
> of the building, after all. When those viscoelastic dampers ripped
> loose, a lot of force was released.
> 
> You'll note the top-most part of the building tilted a bit before it
> fell, just as a tree falls in the direction it's been cut. That slight
> angle dragged the rest of the building off-center as it collapsed,
> leaving behind your "surviving stairs" at the rear of the 'fall
> shadow' and providing proof that it was not a controlled collapse.
> 
> It's simple engineering. That you take the route of believing in
> fanciful and impossible conspiracy scenarios, rather than examining
> the underlying engineering fundamentals as to why the buildings were,
> quite literally, designed (unintentionally) to fail in such a scenario
> (for which they'd received warnings to the same effect since 1971, and
> ignored), means your broken brain is too fragile to handle reality.
> 
> And that's a SPNAK! on the conspiracy-theory kook.
> 
> <snicker>
> =============================================================
> 
> Poor stupid Roger Wittekind... his broken little brain can't
> comprehend reality, so he has to glom onto these utterly impossible
> kooky conspiracy theories. That his insane mind can accept things
> which violate the laws of physics, yet steadfastly refuses to accept
> reality, proves Roger Wittekind is a schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
> kook off his meds.
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> -- 
> 
> Roger T.E. Wittekind
> PO Box 471
> 167 40th Avenue
> East Moline, IL 61244
> 309-755-6374
> 309-755-6394
> 
> Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
> Moline, IL.
> 
> Roger Wittekind (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 shaking 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 building shook, 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 of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
> as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL
> 
> H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
> <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
> widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
> off your meds, Roget Wittekind.
> 
> I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
> now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
> that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
> EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
> proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.
> 
> J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
> "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
> magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
> silence them.
> 
> 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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web